No. of Recommendations: 19
Dictating from the grave that your spouse should not invest in an index is more immoral. You have no right to make your spouse's financial life more difficult than it needs to be. If you want to fight immorality, do it when you are alive and in a way that is effective and actually makes a difference. Don't impose a symbolic gesture on your spouse with zero real world impact.
I am guessing the “rule” was added to encourage Socratic debate, not as a “control from the grave” mechanism, It would be all too easy to get 47 answers of “index fund” but then that wouldn’t really be interesting to other readers of the board - who are generally aligned with Charlie’s model of investing: “solid companies at a good price” rather than Graham’s model of “cheap but maybe have some remnant value”. We have a list here of “solid companies” likely to last, which was the point of the exercise.
I have found the list(s) interesting, particularly for the appearance of Google in so many of them. I have owned it and sold it at an excellent profit (still a mistake), but given the turmoil in the digital business(es) I am skeptical of anything in that sector lasting 30 years, tremendous moat or not.
For instance, their business just changed dramatically with the introduction of the AI summaries. Or rather, not their business, but their “linkages” business, many of whose websites traffic have dropped by half or more, as people no longer need to click to find information but get what they need with the little summary at the top of the page. (I realize this argues 180° from my objection. Oh well.) Such a small change can make a huge difference, and it could (again). I remember the charge was “survive 30 years” which could happen in an unforseen way to Google itself. I’m being extra-cautious here, i am skeptical of longevity in any digital-forward business, but then I included Facebook too, so call me a hypocrite, it’s OK.
I also knock out any pharma relying on brand names or pipeline, as that is a crapshoot, and the blockbusters are replaced ever more quickly with copycats jumping all over them faster and faster. Likewise “fashion” and “restaurants”, although I note I made an exception for McDonald’s, which has an unrivaled footprint around the world.
For example, what if someone came up with vehicles that drives around and make burgers and assembles them nicely and also makes fries. The customers place their orders and some sort of AI optimizes the vehicle routes to deliver a "fresh" (made within 3-5 minutes let's say) to your location. If the density of burger orders is high enough, the vehicles could do this very efficiently when intelligently routed. The people seem to really like food delivery!
Funny! And that they do. I was amazed to find out a few years ago that almost 50% of restaurant meals are now consumed - not in the restaurant. Well, the latest statistic is that number is up to 75%. Yes, a mere 25% of restaurant revenue comes from people sitting down and eating in a restaurant. This include Starbucks and McDonald’s of course, but even finer restaurants now seem to have a parking slot or two dedicated to “food pickup” services.
That’s why the 30-year challenge is so interesting. Making predictions is hard, a wise yogi said.
