This is an older piece and an older theme, but it remains relevant. Thank you, David Epstein and Angela Duckworth, and a U Penn lecture series for re-bringing it up. Among phrases people are tired of me repeating, “there are definitive inflection points where a good idea starts to become less valuable and eventually counterproductive.” While I was referring to chocolate consumption, this piece actually points to life-threatening consequences. But the relevancy here is investment process, the talent and people one looks to hire, and what the heck should we be doing day-to-day.

There is “no one way” to do things and I am deeply embarrassed to associate our process with that of say, ARK Investment, but there is a declining utility curve to “being an expert.”(Uhh..and thank you Dr. Fauci for living and supporting this statement.) We are organized by “generalized knowledge and desire” because it helps eliminate bias in truly trying to look at things objectively and freshly. I have had an “oil and gas” analyst and guess what? All things lead to oil and gas. Portfolio management is not necessarily about choosing the less awful investment in a sector because sometimes a middling pick in a better sector is better than the best investment in a crap sector. So neither “pick sectors” or force people to stay in sectors.

I also think people work better if they are working on things that “seem interesting.” And might your great oil and gas analyst have insight into something else relevant? Might 4 “mini experts” have a better dialogue than “one expert” talking to one portfolio manager, while the other 9 people in the room nod off or check their phones?

I think so.

You can read the article below.

Jeffrey Bronchick