Solid interview. Watched it the other day. The idea of looking at valuation only after evaluating the business I found cool. One exercise I find fun is to take a company who’s share price you dont know already, read the 10k, and try to value it. Decide what you would pay before looking at the price at all.
I agree it was a great interview. Your idea sounds great, never heard of it before. It would take away some biases you might have attached to the share price
Great summary — clear and to the point. The only caveat: a 30-year horizon assumes a level of certainty that’s hard to justify. Chris Hohn succeeded by focusing solely on true competitive moats, ignoring valuation multiples — but how many alternate timelines would have validated that strategy? And when we look back at the winners, are we just falling into survivorship bias? Can we really say with confidence that any company today will still be around — let alone dominant — three decades from now?
Fair points, survivorship bias definitely plays a role. And while I would say you can't say with confidence whether a company will still be around three decades from now, it's better to focus on those that have a good shot, rather than businesses that surely won't be around, or at least not as dominant.
For sure, I think Hohn uses the 30-year question more as a mental model. He does state in the interview that he uses multiples and DCF models, so Hohn would surely agree with you that price matters. I think what he's trying to say is that price is at the bottom of the list of priorities.
Solid interview. Watched it the other day. The idea of looking at valuation only after evaluating the business I found cool. One exercise I find fun is to take a company who’s share price you dont know already, read the 10k, and try to value it. Decide what you would pay before looking at the price at all.
I agree it was a great interview. Your idea sounds great, never heard of it before. It would take away some biases you might have attached to the share price
I thought that was the only way :)
In short,
Moats = ROIC & ROA
Great summary — clear and to the point. The only caveat: a 30-year horizon assumes a level of certainty that’s hard to justify. Chris Hohn succeeded by focusing solely on true competitive moats, ignoring valuation multiples — but how many alternate timelines would have validated that strategy? And when we look back at the winners, are we just falling into survivorship bias? Can we really say with confidence that any company today will still be around — let alone dominant — three decades from now?
Fair points, survivorship bias definitely plays a role. And while I would say you can't say with confidence whether a company will still be around three decades from now, it's better to focus on those that have a good shot, rather than businesses that surely won't be around, or at least not as dominant.
I fully agree on prioritizing quality businesses — my concern is with ignoring valuation. No matter how great the company, price always matters!
For sure, I think Hohn uses the 30-year question more as a mental model. He does state in the interview that he uses multiples and DCF models, so Hohn would surely agree with you that price matters. I think what he's trying to say is that price is at the bottom of the list of priorities.
Nice to see Hohn profiled! Indeed, when you are a quality investor, qualitative > quantitative.