(Published: March 30, 2017 at 11.30 A.M. EDT)
Welcome, my fellow Value Investors, to yet another absorbing, interesting, and educative interview in our Interviews with the Investing Elite Series! Our guest today is Christopher Mayer, an accomplished investment professional, who possesses sizeable experience in both debt and equity segments. Based in Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA, currently he is Investment Director with Bonner Family Office. Chris is also a noted author, who wrote the bestseller “100 Baggers: Stocks That Return 100-to-1 and How to Find Them”, and a couple of other books.
As usual, the interview is in podcast and transcript formats.
Podcast of Interview with Christopher Mayer
Transcript of Interview with Christopher Mayer
Hi Chris, great to have you with us today! Could you please tell us a bit about your professional journey?
Chris Mayer: Sure. After college, I went to work at Riggs National Bank in Washington DC. They had a great training program there where they put you to work as a credit analyst for a year or two and then you’d “graduate” to be a lending officer.
It was a great place to learn about a lot of different companies. I mean really learn about them – how they worked at a very practical level. And you learned how to take apart financial statements, how to value different assets, how to assess risks of all kinds. After all, when you are a lender, you have to protect your downside because you have limited upside. Basically, the best outcome is you get your money back plus interest.
I did that for two years, but Riggs was not growing much as I remember it and a lending position was hard to come by. So, I went to the suburbs to work for a savings and loan in the town where I grew up, Gaithersburg, MD. One year later, that bank was bought out by Provident, which was very good to me. The turmoil of the buyout caused some people to leave. As a young lender, I zoomed right up. I was VP before I was 30 and responsible for a sizable portfolio of loans, about $250 million. I had customers in all different kinds of industries. Again, it was a great experience. I had to find the deals, underwrite them, negotiate them, monitor them and when they went bad I had to work out of them. This is unusual now, where banks have specialized departments that do each of these tasks, but back then I worked for a mid-size bank whose lenders were still generalists.
I stayed until I started my own newsletter in 2014… So, I was always passionate about investing through all this. I became interested in Warren Buffett and this thing called the stock market since I was a teenager. I remember reading – or rather trying to read – Graham’s Security Analysis. I couldn’t understand it, of course. It was a magic book for me then, like a book of spells. I wanted to understand it.
So, I studied finance at college. And I was reading investing books all along the way – Seth Klarman, Marty Whitman, Peter Lynch, John Neff, Ralph Wanger… I was building a library, one that I still have today.
And I started reading Grant’s Interest Rate Observer. I distinctly remember sitting in my townhouse at the kitchen table back in 1997, reading an issue and thinking to myself “this is what I want to do. I want to write this…”
Of course, I didn’t know much of anything back then. But I started freelancing on the side. I wrote for Individual Investor Magazine (which is now defunct) and other places. And in 2004, I finally started my own letter called “Capital & Crisis”, which someone once described as “the poor man’s Grant’s”. I charged $49 a year and would write about all kinds of things – but the core philosophy of the letter was basically one that you would call Value Investing.
I did that through 2015. And I really had a blast, traveling all around the world and meeting all kinds of people. I wrote a couple of books, did the speaking circuit and did some radio and TV work on the side too. Anyway, we had an audit done of the results of the letter’s recommendations over the 10 years of it existence and they were very good. That got some notice in the company. And last year, in 2016, I joined Bonner & Partners. Bill Bonner, who was my publisher all those years, is the patriarch of the family office. I write the Bonner Private Portfolio, which allows readers to see what the family office is investing in with a $6 million sleeve devoted to equities. And I write Chris Mayer’s Focus, which is based around my book 100-Baggers.
That’s where I am today.
2. Chris, you have an impeccable professional background and solid experience. Which role has given you more satisfaction – that of a fund manager, where you generate wealth for your clients, or of a book author, where you get to guide so many faceless people, essentially strangers, who read your books?
Chris: That’s an interesting question. It’s not an easy question. I get a lot of satisfaction delivering good ideas that pay off. It’s harder to make the gains in the market, than write a book. The gains are great, but can be fleeting. And investing, as you know, involves stretches of time where you have to suffer.
I guess if forced to choose, I’d choose the books, perhaps because they seem more timeless and tangible and, as you say, reach far more people – and thus create more opportunities for interesting interactions with people.
Or more broadly, I’d say I get the most satisfaction from just writing – whether books or letters. I enjoy the process of writing, the way it makes you think and organize your ideas. I’ve always loved to write since I was a little boy when I used to write my own stories. I still do. I’m lucky that I can combine two things I love – writing and finance – and make a good living.
3. Sure. Chris, you have been in the investing business for so long. Can you describe the period or an event which proved to be the turning point in your career? Or is your success simply the culmination of your creative thinking and hard work?
Chris: The biggest turning point in my career so far was when I decided to start my own newsletter in January of 2004. For about $300, I set up a website that could take credit cards and published the first issue. I was printing copies at Kinko’s and mailing them to everybody I could think of. I remember I nabbed some notable early subscribers, including Marc Faber, Jeremy Grantham and David Tice.
That was a life-changer for me and set me on a path that I still walk today. It took some time to get to that point. As I said, I first had the inspiration to create a newsletter in 1997. But I didn’t know much of anything worth writing about. And I had little experience anyway. It took some time, but when I finally did it, it opened up a whole different world to me. As I say, I’ve gotten to travel the world – I’ve been to over 40 countries and met all kinds of interesting people, many whom I read and looked up to for years!
Sure, Chris. Even I would look forward to meeting you some day, if you happen to travel to India.
Chris: I’d love to meet you. I’ve love to be there. I’ve been there a couple of times; I’d love to go back.
4. Sure. You are operating in the family office space, which is attracting increasing attention particularly in the U.S. Could you describe your role with the Bonner Family Office?
Chris: I basically spend almost all my time looking for interesting things to invest in. My focus is on stocks, but I’m also starting to look other ideas, such as bonds. The Bonner family office is very informal. It’s still relatively young; it started in 2008. But I’m working on a plan that will add more structure and process to it, especially an asset allocation plan.
4 a. Alright. Given that equities are no longer inexpensive, are family offices actively looking at alternative investments, or asset classes such as precious metals or work of art?
Chris: Well, I would challenge your given. I’d say most equities are not cheap. Not all. We’ve still found some interesting things to do in equities. But the Bonner Family Office has large allocations to alternative assets, mostly gold. Gold is very useful because it is not highly correlated with the stock market, or at least it has not been highly correlated so far.
They also own a lot of real estate and hold quite a bit of cash. Most of the real estate they own, houses their publishing businesses.
5. All right. Can you describe your proprietary CODE system of investing?
C is for Cheap. My preferred methods of gauging whether a stock is cheap or not are to look at private market value, replacement cost or discounted cash flow. We use all three.
The O is for Owner-Operator. This is one of the things I’ve become known for, but I’m a big advocate of investing with people who have skin in the game. We like to invest in stocks where the insiders have a meaningful stake in the businesses they run. We spend a lot of time thinking about alignment and incentives of insiders.
D is for Disclosures. And this simply means we want to stick with businesses we understand and where the public disclosures raise no red flags.
E is for Excellent Financial Condition. We don’t knowingly take balance sheet risk. We love fortress balance sheets.
Combined, all four elements make for a powerful filter, I think.
5 a. Yes absolutely – great filters, as well as great acronym, Chris! For what period did you carry out back-testing of its results, before launching it commercially?
Chris: The CODE was not a product of back-testing. It’s actually kinda funny how it came about. I remember there was a writer who wrote about me and my investment approach. And I felt he got a lot of things wrong; or rather, he missed a lot of things and he emphasized the wrong things. This was probably in 2007 or 2008. I always had a hard time explaining my investing philosophy to people anyway, in a soundbyte. You can’t just say you’re a value investor looking for undervalued stocks that you can hold on to. That’s not nearly different enough, that’s not interesting and people get confused and start pigeon-holing you as a “value investor” and think you invest in paper mills, newspaper stocks and things with p/es of 5 or something…
So, I started to really think about distilling my approach down to its barest essentials. What are the most important things I look for? And I came up with those four points. And after that it was just a matter of playing around with them and creating an acronym that was memorable but not stupid sounding. That’s how CODE came about.
I think my approach reflects the influence of two investors in particular, beyond the hard-to-escape influence of Buffett, Munger and Graham: and those influences would be Marty Whitman and Martin Sosnoff. Whitman is famous as the founder of Third Avenue and wrote some great books on investing. These books resonated with me because he had a focus on creditworthiness, which given my background in banking, made a lot of sense. The C, D and E of the CODE are directly out of Whitman. The O is more from Martin Sosnoff, who most people don’t know, but he wrote a couple of books in the 1970s and 1980s that I think are among my favorites on investing. One is called “Humble on Wall Street” that came out in the 1970s, and “Silent Investor, Silent Loser“. They’re out of print – you can get the used copies on Amazon. They’re great reads, because he’s an interesting and entertaining writer with a flair for metaphor. And he hammers home the idea of investing with people who have skin in the game. “Entrepreneurial instinct equates with insider ownership” is a phrase of his, which I think is true. Later, I discovered Murray Stahl of Horizon Kinetics, who also writes a lot on this topic of owner-operators.
6. Could you please throw some light on how you intend to build a concentrated portfolio of stocks with the potential of 100x returns, under your firm’s “Focus” service?
Chris: Sure, I intend to build it slowly, one stock at a time. I’d like to have 8-12 names in the portfolio. I don’t know the exact number, as it sort of depends on what the market gives us. We have a mock portfolio of $100,000 to start, to force us to think about position size.
6 a. Since the strategy focuses on small caps and mid-caps, is the risk involved also higher?
Chris: Well, that’s a good question and one that is often raised. It’s not as easy to answer. It’s actually very complicated. I mean, a small cap with one or two lines of business is usually riskier than a large firm with a dozen lines of businesses. But not necessarily. Because how the business is capitalized comes into play. And what you pay to own it also matters, of course.
I’d say, I think the stocks in Focus are riskier than the stocks I put in the Bonner private portfolio, if risk means the chance of taking a permanent loss.
However, I think the businesses we’ve added to Focus have been quite solid. Well financed, cash generative, with good insider alignment and big markets to expand into, which we’ve picked up at good prices.
6 b. Sure. What are the “fingerprints” or predictive traits of stocks with potential?
Chris: Well, there are several paths up the mountain. One very important trait, and one we focus on, is the ability to reinvest profits and earn high rates of return, over and over again. To me this is the most important trait. If you earn a 20% return on your capital and can reinvest it and earn 20% again, and then again… well, then it just becomes a math problem. A 20% return after about 25 years is a 100-bagger.
Obviously, there is a lot of work and judgment involved in determining whether a business can sustain high returns on capital.
Other things we look for is big potential markets. We love to find firms that have a 1% market share in a growing space where they’re a leader in the field. We have one stock like that on which we’re already up nearly 80% on since September. And we have another in the hopper that we’re still doing due diligence on and looks good so far. You can run a long time with stocks like these.
Another plus is to have a talented entrepreneur at the helm. This is not a necessity, but my own study of 100-baggers did find an awful lot of these big winners had readily identifiable human faces behind them: Bill Gates for Microsoft, Steve Jobs for Apple, Sam Walton at Wal-Mart, etc.
7. Chris, coming to your books, “Invest Like a Dealmaker: Secrets from a Former Banking Insider” was published right during the period when the financial crisis of 2007-2008 was unfolding. What are the key takeaways of the book?
Chris: The big takeaway I hope people get from reading it is that there is more than one market for stocks. There is the public market, but there is also the market for control. (There are other markets, too, but I focus on these two in the book). And there are pricing disparities between the two that you can use to your advantage.
Maybe even a bigger, simpler point is that stocks represent businesses. And what the book aims to do is to get you to think holistically about a business, instead of just focusing on stock prices. Dealmakers, as I call people who buy and sell whole businesses, or chunks of businesses – like Warren Buffett and Carl Icahn – think this way. And that’s the real point of the view of the book.
7 a. Was the book conceptualized from the financial crisis, or the importance of macroeconomic factors?
Chris: No, it really wasn’t. In fact, I spend no time at all talking about the macro in the book. Ironically, the book teaches you more to ignore the macro stuff, or at least heavily discount it. It’s ironic, of course, because as you pointed out, the book came out during one of those periods where the macro drove everything, at least seems to, for a time.
But the message is still correct in my view. There are times when the macro seems to overwhelm everything, but for most people they are better off not trying to predict where the market is going to go, or what the economy is going to do. I think It’s easier to figure out businesses and stick with them. And the payoff is so much greater.
I remember a line from Thomas Phelps’ book “100 to 1 in the Stock Market” where he talks about how he called a market turn spot on. And he said, he would have been better off if he just ignored all that stuff and spent all his time looking for the next stock that could turn $1 into $100. While he was writing about a market collapse, there were dozens and dozens of such opportunities all around him, as he shows in hindsight.
So, I know nobody likes to hear this, and it’s become fashionable for even celebrated value investors to become macro-focused post the 2008 crisis, but I think it’s a mistake.
7 b. Alright. Interesting thoughts on the book, Chris. In hindsight, how have the strategies described in the book, performed over the last decade or so?
Chris: Hard to say, because the book didn’t provide a packaged strategy you could implement like some kind of computer program. The book provides a philosophy and a framework. It’s worked very well for me.
8. Sure. Your next book “World Right Side Up: Investing Across Six Continents” covers investing themes across diverse geographies, or emerging markets in six continents to be precise. How did you connect the dots as far as this theme is concerned?
Chris: Well, it struck me one day when I read story about how India and China used to be the largest economies in the world, several centuries ago, back in the 1500s and even into the 1800s. I thought that was very interesting. I also started to think about those advanced civilizations that existed at different times in the Arab world, or Central and South America, and even in parts of Africa. I was reading a lot about world trade and how it changed around this period too.
And so, it occurred to me that one way to think about the explosive growth of emerging markets was not to think about it as being revolutionary, or something the world has never seen, but instead to think about it as returning to a pattern that was more common long ago. So, the world right side up, so to speak.
8 a. Alright, great title for the book! How did you tackle the challenge of researching and analyzing such diverse markets, in terms of the travel and field work involved?
Chris: Well, it took years and I didn’t set out to a write a book initially. It was a theme I developed and wrote about in my newsletter over the course of 5-6 years before the book came out. So, I usually have several themes going on, not all of them lead to books, of course. But this one idea was particularly rich. The book almost wrote itself!
8 b. What were the short-cuts you used, in order to meet the publishing timelines, Chris?
Chris: Good question. In this case, the shortcut was that I was able to mine much of what I’d already written in my letters. And I had about a year to make it into a book.
8 c. Okay. While Institutional investors have been investing in Emerging Markets, it’s still a challenge for retail investors. Could you please comment on this?
Chris: I agree. And I’m going to take an unpopular position here and say the retail investor should not feel compelled to be in emerging markets. For one thing, as Phelps once said, “When investors go overseas they often exchange risks they can see, for risks they can’t see”. Second, you get a lot emerging market exposure in many U.S. companies anyway, who have businesses in these places. And third, you don’t get much benefit from diversification because as we’ve seen, when the market goes to pot, all these things tend to go down together.
Most retail investors who go overseas to invest just find novel ways to lose money. That may sound overly cynical and maybe it is. But it’s not easy.
8 d. Which is your favorite Emerging Market currently, as opposed to what you may have stated in the book back then?
Chris: My favorite now would be India. Yeah, I think Modi’s reforms will make a lasting impact. And it’s investable. I have several ideas on how to invest there that I think are intelligent and will work.
9. Alright, sure. Maybe I can share a couple of ideas from India with you, Chris! Well, your latest book “100 Baggers – Stocks That Return 100-To-1 And How To Find Them” is a treatise and a treat to read, and is probably your most celebrated book. “100 to 1 in the Stock Market” by Thomas W. Phelps had already been in existence since decades, and it must have been a bold decision, to try and write a new book on the same topic. Your book comes across as quite original, in spite of the theme itself being quite old.
Chris: Well thank you for those kind words, and yes, it is my most popular book by far actually… The idea to write a modern take on 100-baggers actually came from a reader. I had been a big enthusiast of Phelps’s original book and I would quote from Phelps in my newsletter. This reader told me one day, “You should update the study and do a new book.”
Honestly, the thought had not occurred to me, which seems odd now, but the instant he said it, I thought it was a great idea and I set about, working to making that happen.
9 a. Alright. Great to see you acknowledge the role of a reader behind the idea of your book – I’d say very few authors would do that. Please share some thoughts on this great book.
Chris: Well, I really enjoyed putting it together. The actual study – getting the data on the 100-baggers from 1962 to 2014 and sorting that out was tedious. But I had help there from Stephen Jones at Stringer Advisors. It was just a massive amount of data. And getting it in a form that made sense took many iterations and a lot of work.
Otherwise, my goal was to write a short book – about 200 pages is what I had in mind – that focused on this topic. I also enlisted readers to send me their stories, because I had the sense that this was an everyman’s story. That it was about just holding on to stocks for decades. My intuition was affirmed by the flood of stories I got from readers usually about their parents or grandparents that had held on to stocks for decades and then they had astounding wealth as a result.
I also spoke with Chuck Akre of Akre Capital Management about it. He’s the guy who turned me on to Phelps in the first place. He has had two 100-baggers in his long and successful career. Anyway, Akre was a gentleman and it was a treat getting to spend time with him.
I’m just happy it came out well and that hopefully, I did honor to Phelp’s memory.
9 b. I’m sure you did, Chris. What were the patterns that you identified, via your study of past 100-baggers?
Chris: Several emerged. Some obvious, such as it helps to start small. You need a lot of growth. It helps to have a valuation tailwind, where your p/e goes from 10 to 30 or something like that. It helps to have that owner-operator that we talked about. Most important is the ROE or return on capital – and that ability to reinvest and earn a high ROE or return on capital again and again.
9 c. Sure. Chris, the importance of ROE and how it leads to 100-baggers cannot be overemphasized. However, stocks may get also re-rated for various reasons, including aggressive profit growth.
Chris: Absolutely right…. And catching these changes can lead to great gains. Pepsi is in the book as a case study, and the re-rating there occurred when it expanded into overseas markets.
9 d. Chris, I recently interviewed Sean Iddings, author of the book “Intelligent Fanatics Project”. This book focuses on eight exceptional leaders who founded great companies. Your owner-operator / skin-in-the-game concept is similar, since intelligent fanatics too owned significant stakes in their own businesses. Which of the founders you’ve come across, would you describe as intelligent fanatics?
Chris: You mean present day founders? I think I’d include Steven Udvar-Hazy at Air Lease, Thomas Peterffy at Interactive Brokers, Vincent Bollore at Vivendi and Bollore SA… I think Elliott Noss at Tucows is going to be somebody people write about in the future. There are others.
9 e. Sure, thanks for sharing these names, Chris. You have a positive view on outsider CEOs who create great value for investors. Again, how does one identify the strengths and capabilities of such CEOs, ahead of the market?
Chris: It’s hard. One thing to look for is insider ownership. Second is to look at the compensation. The fact is, most of these outsider CEOs that we love, they don’t pay themselves outrageous sums of money. Look for the fingerprints of a shareholder mentality – things like timely buybacks, or behaving in a counter cyclical manner, dutch tenders… Read transcripts. And when you read those transcripts, look for blunt talk – which reminds me of Johann Rupert at Richemont, another guy I’d put in that category of intelligent fanatic.
9 f. Okay. Identifying potential 100-baggers may be challenging, but holding on to a “coffee-can portfolio” which is holding stocks sufficiently long enough, could be even more difficult. How do you think investors could address this challenge?
Chris: Oh, you hit on what may be the biggest challenge. So, identifying them is hard enough, right? But holding them is maybe even harder.
So I have some examples. An extreme example, but one that serves to make the point, is Amazon. You could’ve bought it in 2000, at the peak of the tech bubble, and still earned 13% annualized return through today, versus just 5% for the S&P 500 – if you held on. That’s the key. But to hold on meant you had to suffer through a 94% decline to the bottom of 2001. Yes, 94%.
You could also have bought it at the 2007 market peak, just before the onset of the great blaze known as the Global Financial Crisis. Even after such a poorly timed purchase, you would’ve earned 26% annualized return, versus 6% for the S&P 500.
This is not an isolated example. Apple is a good one. Even if you paid top prices in 2007, and simply held on, you earned 23% annualized over the ensuing decade versus 7% for the market. But you had to suffer through a 56% decline.
Wal-Mart is another interesting example of a great business whose stock suffered through some nasty drawdowns over the years. If you bought the stock in 1987, just before the market crash and held on, you would’ve earned 24% annually over the next ten years. But again, you had to suffer a drop of more than 33% shortly after you bought it. Same story in 1990… and again 1992…
So, holding is tough…
The coffee can idea which you mentioned is a potential workaround. The idea is that you segment off a part of your portfolio and you just don’t look at it. The idea comes from Robert Kirby, who wrote about it in the 1984 article of the Journal of Portfolio Management. You can find it online and I recommend it; it’s a classic.
9 g. Also, selling is a difficult decision for most investors. When should investors consider exiting stocks which have say, returned 100 to 1, if at all they are thinking of selling?
Chris: Yeah, nobody is a good seller. For really great stocks, the right time to sell is never. I think selling has to be dictated by your thesis. If you have a thesis for a stocking it is no longer true, then I think you have to give up on it. You also sell when you’ve made a mistake. And that mistake manifest itself in what’s going on the company, not the stock price. I have several pages on when to sell in the book, but I don’t break any new ground, frankly, because there isn’t any new ground to break. My general advice would be, to be a reluctant seller.
I might add here, Chris, that I have myself seen certain stocks in India returning 100x over the period of just last 14 years or so, less than 15 years, in fact. In hindsight, it surely seems even more amazing.
Chris: Yeah. I remember looking at the Indian market as a whole, as a 100-bagger from I don’t know, sometime in the late 1970s to now; the entire market’s a 100-bagger. It’s amazing.
10. Absolutely. What are you reading preferences and favorite authors? How have these changed or evolved, compared with say a decade ago?
Chris: Oh, I think my favorite authors have changed over the years. I read a lot of non-finance books. I really enjoy the work of Alan Watts and the philosophy he espouses. I’ve been reading more of his stuff lately. I like Robert Anton Wilson’s non-fiction, particularly Cosmic Trigger. Other long-time favorites include H.L. Mencken, P.G. Wodehouse, Charles Bukowski’s poetry, Hunter Thompson… I’m sure I’m leaving out someone… I read a lot of old books by dead authors.
Otherwise, I read widely on the net.
10 a. That’s quite an interesting reading list, Chris. Which are your favorite books published in the last 12-24 months?
Chris: Well, you mentioned the Intelligent Fanatics Project, that was a fun read.
11. There’s been a striking shift of funds from actively managed to passively managed. Do you think it’s a temporary phenomenon, and do you expect active to regain its position going ahead?
Chris: I think this is probably been one of the biggest changes in the market in the 25 years I’ve been involved. No, I think passive investing is here to stay. It’s just a question of how much of the pie it claims. I think the trend probably has a long way to go yet.
And I don’t really think it’s a bad thing necessarily. For the average investor looking for a place to put his retirement money for 20 or 30 or 40 years, I don’t think you can go wrong with an S&P500 index fund, for example. It’s probably a better option than mutual funds you have to choose from. It also has the effect of weeding out a lot of weak active managers who probably shouldn’t be in the game anyway. I still believe in active management obviously and I think they’ll be plenty of opportunities for active managers in the years ahead. The rise of passive investing also distorts markets to some degree and I think in this also creates opportunities for active managers.
12. Sure. Chris, the S&P 500 currently trades at 18x forward earnings, amid bullish investor sentiment. What in your view is the road ahead for the markets?
Chris: Well I think many stocks look expensive to me. I think if you look at the constituents of the S&P 500, you find a lot of large firms that aren’t growing very much and trade for very rich multiples of earnings. I think you find a lot of companies that I’ve enjoyed tailwinds that are no longer going to be with them, such as a long decline in interest rates and a long rise in profit margins.
So it’s going to be tougher. But the world is a big place and there are a lot of markets out there. We found interesting things to do in Europe and in Japan recently, for example.
12 a. Do you expect corporate profits to grow at least at lower double digits, over the next few years, to justify the current valuations?
Chris: I don’t think so. But I’ve been surprised plenty of times before.
12 b. Alright. This brings me to my last question, Chris. What in your view are the key threats to U.S. economic growth and corporate profitability?
Chris: It’s a very abstract concept, you know, “U.S. economic growth”. I don’t really have a strong opinion. Probably because I don’t really look at the world that way. I don’t think in terms of U.S. economic growth, but I think in terms of specific companies are specific sector that might benefit. So, I think you’ll see pretty much what we’ve seen so far which is some sectors are going to grow and some sectors are going to struggle, or stagnate or even shrink.
Sure, Chris. Thanks so much for your patience, and sharing all these absolutely amazing insights. Have a nice day!
Chris: Thank you very much! Same to you. I enjoyed the conversation, and great questions!
Amazon India Links for Books mentioned in this interview:
Certification and Disclaimer:
We certify that the interviewee did not, and will not, pay us any remuneration directly, or indirectly, for publishing this interview on our website. In other words, this is not a “promoted” interview.
The interview contains the interviewee’s personal views and opinions. Beyond Quant InvestTraining may or may not necessarily subscribe to them in whole or part, or vouch for their accuracy or completeness, or otherwise. The contents of the interview, including stocks discussed, if any, should not be construed as investment advice, and we no accept no liability or responsibility, for the use of the same by anyone.
© All rights reserved. No part of the interview should be used in any manner by any third party, or redistributed or published on any website or elsewhere, without obtaining prior, written permission of Nitiin A. Khandkar, owner of http://bqinvesttraining.com/. Any such re-publication should clearly attribute the interview to Beyond Quant InvestTraining.