You're listening to TIP. Since 2014, we have interviewed the best investors. Still, it's a special occasion when we welcome Manish Pabrai once a year, who's playing in his own league.

In this episode, Manish is enriching us with his framework on how to play the game of accumulating capital, how to give it away, and the life lessons learned along the way. If you, like me, have watched hundreds of videos with Manish, you're in for a different type of conversation with quite a few untold stories. Full disclaimer, I'm invested in Parai Funds. And with that said, let's go.

Since 2014 and through more than 180 million downloads, we've studied the financial markets and read the books that influence self-made billionaires the most. We keep you informed and prepared for the unexpected. Now for your host, Stig Brodersen. Stig Brodersen

Welcome to The Investor's Podcast. I'm your host, Dick Brodersen. And perhaps whenever you tune into this, you might be in Omaha. Perhaps you're walking from the annual meeting and you're going to the old market. Perhaps you're hanging out in the lobby at the Marriott downtown, the capital district, just to let serendipity happen. It's the Woodstock of capitalism, and who could ask for a better guest than you, Manish? Thank you for making time here prior to this special weekend. Manish Kondal :

Stig, I always like our pregame tailgate party every year. So that's great. You know, I was just telling my wife here before we hit record, it really feels like Berkshire. And she's like, what do you mean? What do you mean? It's like you're sitting at home. It doesn't feel like Berkshire at all. It's like, yeah, but around this time every year, I'm going to speak with my wife. We're going to pretend it's Berkshire weekend because that's whenever this is going to be published. And it feels like Berkshire. Absolutely. Absolutely.

So whenever I go to a restaurant, I go there with the intention of trying out the new dishes, and I always end up with the favorites. And it always makes you think of Buffett. He talks about this opportunity cost by not getting a cheeseburger, because you know what you're getting, but if you try something new... So okay, it's not too elegant of a segue, but I'm going to go there anyway, so please forgive me, Manish here. So

I had the pleasure of over the years, I think I've gone through 100, if not 200 of your videos. It's been absolutely wonderful. And so it's very, very difficult, right? If you do 200 videos and you do Q&As with students and whatever that you do, you'll very often get the same questions and all of that is perfectly fine. But I wanted to give myself this ridiculous challenge that I'm probably going to fail in. That is, I want to give you a new set of questions. I want to try those new tasty dishes there at the restaurant. So that's going to be the premise

And I'm not sure, yes, pun intended, if they will be tasteful. So Manish, are you ready to go? Manish Kandararajan Yeah, that sounds great to me. Give it a shot. All right. Let's see here how it goes. So the first question is, I'm going to make this comparison of relationships, friendships with stocks in the portfolio. And so we know that the best things in life comes from compounding.

And so we want to circle the wagons of our current friendships, but you probably perhaps also want to be open to new, wonderful relationships. So assuming that you agree with that premise, how do you think about attracting the right people into your life and investing in these compound relationships, circling the wagons, but then also start new friendships? Stig Brodersen :

Well, that's easier said than done. So it's a challenge in the sense that, I mean, if we were to do it, let's say the way Munger would recommend it, we'd be looking at opportunity costs, right? And what we own versus what might be possible to bring into the portfolio.

One of the things to keep in mind is the mistress always appears to look better than the wife, but she may actually not be better. Appearances can be deceiving. So we have to keep in mind that is this mistress really better or is the newness what is making it better?

That's a challenge. I think one way to think about it is, Buffett has talked about

the permanent holdings. I mean, he talks about some companies that he would not want to sell. Clearly, Apple was not one of them. But he has held American Express for a very long time. He's held Coca-Cola for a very long time. And the wholly owned businesses have all been held for a very long time. So I think that when I look at my portfolio,

There is clearly, I would say, a hierarchy in the sense that if I look at the portfolio I have today,

I like everything. If I didn't like it, I would have made a change, but I like everything. Now, when something new comes in, you know, a new mistress shows up. Now, if the mistress is truly attractive, then we can take a look at the lowest conviction ideas. And, you know, I think one should not be playing a game of 19 versus 20. Like, you know, the wife's a 19, the mistress is a 20. You know, that's probably not a good game because you can be off on that.

But if something in the portfolio is a six and a half out of 10, and the new kid on the block is nine and a half out of 10, then yeah, that should be a good candidate for considering a change. Now you have tax issues and other things, but...

You can think about it in those terms. But I think that's what makes investing very hard. So if we go back to the early 1970s, right? And the early 1970s, there was this concept, late 60s, early 70s, there was this concept of the nifty-fifty.

Basically, the idea was you bought these 50 happening blue-chip stocks, 2% into each one, and you didn't really care what the valuations were or anything. You just bought them all, and you kept them. Ignore all the noise.

What happened in 73, 74 is that was a crash in slow motion. It was a pretty big market correction when you look at the peak of 73 to the bottom of 74. The nifty 50 got taken out back and shot. It was a bloodbath.

And by 1975, nobody would admit they were invested in the nifty-fifty. Now, there is some controversy whether Walmart was part of that nifty-fifty or not. Some people think that Walmart had its IPO in 1970. Some people think that Walmart was one of the nifty-fifty. Now, just to make my case easier, we're going to assume Walmart was part of the nifty-fifty.

Let's say you invested in the Nifty 50, you put $100,000 into the Nifty 50, and $2,000 of the $100,000 went into Walmart, one of 50 bets. Now, let's also assume that all the other 49 holdings

go to zero. Now, there were some real losers in there like Xerox and Polaroid and Kodak and IBM, et cetera, which actually IBM didn't go to zero, but some of the other guys did go to zero. But there was also ADP and Coke and Amex and Disney and all of these companies in there. I'm taking everything to zero except Walmart. So you have $2,000 that you put in. If you kept it invested,

for the last 55 years with 98% of the portfolio going to zero, your annualized returns are almost 15% a year. And you blew out the S&P 500 with a 98% error rate. Now, to do that, one is you needed to recognize that Walmart was a beautiful wife and no mistress

was better than this beautiful wife. You had to hang on to it. Of course, in 1975, when the bloodbath took place, everybody exited, everything. Now, I also want to point out that when Walmart went public, Sam Walton already transferred shares to his kids when Walmart was a private company. He actually paid almost no estate tax because the shares were transferred and it was worth almost nothing.

It has been 55 years since the Walmart IPO, and it has been 33 years since Sam Walton died. The Walton family today owns 46% of Walmart, okay? 55 years after the IPO. There were a lot of helpers that came to the Walton family saying, "You should diversify, and you should do this, and you should do that," and all these things. They told them all to get lost.

They paid no taxes. They had no frictional costs. They had huge dividends. There's a very strong message there. This is not some outlier example. We've seen a lot of studies where most of the returns in the stock market come from very small sliver of companies. Even Warren Buffett has like a 3% or 4% hit rate. Most of the time, when we encounter a mistress,

we're going to be disappointed. Okay. So we got to keep that in mind. It's wise words.

I get tempted to say, and if I sound wise, it's wisdom born out of pain. And then I'm sort of like, but why is this next door? It's going to sound terrible if she like, he starts to hear me. Anyways, it takes me here to the next question, because I've heard you being asked quite a few times from students, like what kind of advice would you give to someone who starts with a little money or who is 20 or 25?

I'm sort of like, I would be curious to hear, because I just turned 40, and I know last year you turned 60. If we look away from the whole wife and mistress thing, if we can, which advice would you give to yourself at 40 and 50, whenever it comes to life? And why would they be different? Stig, it's all about compounding. And there are three variables with compounding. Your starting capital, the rate of return,

and the length of the runway. Now, what we really need is a very long runway. A long runway is a marvelous thing. Warren Buffett bought his first stock when he was 11 years old. He said he was wasting his time until then, okay? But he bought his first stock when he was 11 years old. He's going to be 95 this year, okay? So 84-year runway.

and counting, which is great. One of the things that I had assumed when I was 40 years old is that I was going to be leaving planet Earth on June 11th, 2044, one day before my 80th birthday. Then recently, I went to God Google and I asked God Google, "When am I leaving?"

Of course, when you ask God, Google, you're going to get an answer. God, Google said, you're going to be leaving on June 11th, 2054. I got 10 more years. 10 more years is a beautiful thing, not because I like my fellow humans, but because I like a long runway. As we talk today,

I have 29 years and three months and a few days left, which is great. It's incredible. So my 40-year self, I really wouldn't have a lot of – well, the one big piece of learning that I've had in the last 20 or 21 years –

that I wish my 40-year-old self had was that I did not appreciate. I had a flawed model of investing, and it stuns me that I had this flawed model of investing for almost my entire investing career. It only dawned on me in the last few years that

that the way I'm doing things is quite stupid. So my model when I was 40, and even when I was in my 50s, early 50s, was that you try to buy a business for half or less than it's worth. And when it gets valued at 90% or more of intrinsic value, it's time to move on, bring in the next mistress.

And that sounds rational, but it's the dumbest thing. And the reason it's the dumbest thing is we don't know what intrinsic value is. We may have a guess at it, but the great businesses surprise to the upside. And they really kind of blow your mind.

in terms of what they are actually able to do. I mean, Warren Buffett was having difficulty playing 25 million for See's Candy. Basically, the dividends that they have received in the last few decades is approaching 3 billion. More than 100x of what they invested, they still have the business, which is doing very well.

but the dividends have been 100, more than 100X, right? And they would have never guessed that in their wildest dreams that it's going to give us two and a half, three billion in dividends and counting. So we are never able to really appreciate how great some good businesses can be. We also may not fully, we definitely will not be able to understand which businesses are the great ones till after we've owned them for a while.

So, basically, the advice to my 40-year-old would be that, listen, idiot, you're going to get some companies in the portfolio that are truly exceptional. You will know that they are exceptional. I don't need to go into the past to tell you which ones are going to be exceptional. You will know. Just change your framework.

which is that when you own an exceptional business, a fraction of an exceptional business, do not sell it at 90% of intrinsic value. Do not sell it when it's fully priced. Do not sell it when it's overpriced. You can possibly think about selling it when it's egregiously overpriced. When you figure out the difference between overpriced and egregiously overpriced, call me collect.

You know, the call me collect stick, the 30 somethings just missed that. They don't know what that phrase means.

Yeah, you're absolutely right. I remember in the early days I was traveling, I don't think I had a cell phone. I don't think really anyone had a cell phone other than some high flyers. But then you would go into a convenience store and you'll get a phone card, and then you would plug that card into a phone booth, and then you could call people. I mean, in my case, I couldn't ask anyone to do a call collect, so I had to use a phone card. I didn't have as many friends as you. So-

There's a friend of mine, and just to digress for a second, there's a friend of mine in Chicago. And when he had his first son, he was a diehard Buffett Munger fan. When he had his first son, he named him Charlie Warren. His first name was Charlie, middle name was Warren, last name is Oberman, Charlie Warren Oberman. And I remember when Charlie Warren Oberman was born. And when Charlie Warren Oberman turned 20, he contacted me.

And I said, Charlie Warren, do you know? Do you know I know your whole life story? So anyway, when Charlie Warren was born, his dad sent a picture of his to Warren and Charlie. And Warren sent him a note back saying that Charlie Warren has a stock tip. His first stock, call me collect.

That's such a beautiful story. It's true. Well, Manish, I want to talk a bit about, I'm inclined to say the good old days. I don't know if there were the good old days, so please forgive me if I'm taking that in vain, but you and your brother used to help your father with his businesses. And you previously talked about how it honed your skill and how you're grateful about all the things that you learned because you were his board of directors, you and your brother.

I'd be curious to hear, how is your relationship with your brother today? And how much is nature and nurture regarding business and investing success? And I know this is a personal question. I know nothing about your brother. So please take this in any kind of direction whenever it comes to nature and nurture that you want to. My brother and I are very close in age. So there are three of us. I have a sister and a brother. And my sister's four years younger than me.

And my brother is 15 months older than me, so I'm kind of in the middle. We grew up together. We went to the same college, same major. And we've obviously had very parallel lives. And of course, I moved away from my computer engineering roots.

and he stayed closer to those roots. So I moved away into investing and he's an expert in network security and HIPAA and all these things. But we both became entrepreneurs and we both did quite well. So it worked out so well.

I think we both got similar lessons from those early days in our teen years, which was very lucky where we were basically exposed, like drinking from a fire hydrant. We were exposed to business very early in life and not just exposed to business, but initiation by fire. So it was...

I didn't realize at the time, but it was a great gift. It was a wonderful gift.

Well, that's the thing with most things in life. It doesn't always appear to be a gem because it's typically packed into something that's not always nice. So thank you for sharing. Well, one of the things that I had read about with Marcus Aurelius with his stoic philosophy is that adversity is a blessing. To encounter adversity and overcome it is a great blessing. And

Now, that's a quote, but when I look back in my life and I look back at all the difficult times in my life, it was those difficulties that led to the greater growth and higher highs. We cannot tell this when we are going through these painful periods. Munger said that no one is immune. Everyone's going to have reverses in life.

we are not going to be able to have a life without reverses. And the good news is, when there's a reverse, we should be excited. So now what happens is, I'm almost like an observer. If I encounter adversity now, I know that I don't know how it's going to help me. I don't know how I'm going to get out of it. In the middle of it, obviously, there are a lot of challenges. But I know, I have the confidence to know

that this is a beautiful thing, I should be grateful, and I know this will lead to higher highs. I just don't know how. So play the cards, and life will work out.

Let's take a quick break and hear from today's sponsors. If you're a high net worth individual, a family office, or an institutional investor managing significant Bitcoin holdings, there's one question you need to be asking. Is your Bitcoin insured against loss? AnchorWatch is the first and only Bitcoin custody provider that lets you hold your own private keys while fully insuring your Bitcoin with up to 100 million per customer of coverage backed by Lloyds of London.

Other custodians may have some fractional insurance coverage, but Anchor Watch customers are named on the insurance policy for the amount of insurance they choose up to full one-to-one coverage. Why is Bitcoin and Anchor Watch so much more insurable than other custodians? There's two reasons. First, Anchor Watch is Lloyd's of London cover holder, which means they're actually writing the insurance, not just buying it.

The second is Anchor Watch's Trident Vault is simply the best multi-sig custody solution in the industry, so your Bitcoin is safer. It's distributed, customizable, and protected by time locks, so it meets the needs of many types of customers. From funds to business treasuries to individuals, it's ideal for Bitcoin inheritance too.

When you combine the personalized A-plus rated Lloyd's of London insurance with the most advanced custody platform, you found the best option for controlling your Bitcoin without compromise on protection. Sign up for more information over at anchorwatch.com slash investors or reach out to the Anchor Watch team to learn more about insured custody or other custom insurance solutions.

DeleteMe makes it easy, quick, and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. It is easier than ever to find personal information about people online. With DeleteMe, you can protect your personal privacy or the privacy of your business from doxing attacks before sensitive information can be exploited. As someone who spends a lot of time online,

I've seen how easy it is for personal info like your address or phone number to get out there, and Delete.me gives me peace of mind by removing that data. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete.me. Now at a special discount for our listeners. Today, get 20% off your Delete.me plan by texting WSB to 64000. The only way to get 20% off is to text

WSB to 64,000. That's WSB to 64,000. Message and data rates may apply.

Trust isn't just earned, it's demanded. Whether you're a startup founder navigating your first audit or a seasoned security professional scaling your GRC program, proving your commitment to security has never been more critical or more complex. That's where Vansa comes in. Businesses use Vansa to establish trust by automating compliance for in-demand frameworks like SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, and more.

And with automation and AI throughout the platform, you can proactively manage vendor risk and complete security questionnaires up to five times faster, getting valuable time back. And Vanta not only saves you time, it can also save you money. A new IDC white paper found that Vanta customers achieve $535,000 per year in benefits, and the platform pays for itself in just three months. Join over 10,000 global companies like Atlassian,

Quora, and Factory, who use Vanta to manage risk and prove security in real time. For a limited time, listeners get $1,000 off Vanta at vanta.com slash billionaires. That's V-A-N-T-A dot com slash billionaires for $1,000 off. All right, back to the show. That's such a wonderful, healthy, healthy mindset. Thank you for sharing that, Anish.

It really makes me think of this thing where you mentioned monger and how we talked about how you should always learn from your mistakes, but sometimes don't learn too much, meaning don't let it limit you. Just quickly to this point here about nature and nurture, I think we've probably all seen examples of nature and nurture in some, both of them. And I had the pleasure of running into one of your daughters last year in clusters with guys event. I was like,

Oh, so both nature and nurture is at play here. It's like, boom. Here we are.

Okay. I'm going to shift gears here a bit and talk about money. I guess you can say we talked about money for some time, but I've been wondering about this. I don't know if you ever heard this idea of like, can a penny make you wealthy? No, but then at some point, if you're a billionaire, it's really a stack of pennies. And then at some point in time, one penny must have made you feel wealthy. Anyways, when was the time

where you felt like an extra dollar wouldn't increase your happiness and you can make up that dollar to whatever kind of amount you want. Basically, I'm asking, when did you feel like any additional cash wouldn't make any difference in your life quality? When I was, I think, around 33 or 34 years old, that I wouldn't be able to consume the wealth I had at that point.

I knew right then that incremental spending at that point would not increase happiness. I was aware of the fact that after 33 or 34, that basically, there was going to be a very strong likelihood of extra wealth, but trying to come up with some way to spend it

or even spend part of it would not have increased happiness. Even now, I always look at

How can I make myself happier? It's a constant. I'm very, very happy with it. If there are things that money can do that could make me happier, I'd be the first to execute on it. But there are very few things at this point. When you get past a certain base level, it's not going to increase happiness. I really appreciate that Buffett and Munger had many conversations between themselves

about their homes. Munger built his home in the 1960s. I visited that house many times for having meals with him. He raised his kids over there. He'd been living in that home for six decades.

Very happy. It's a ranch home. You would pass it. You would not even look at it twice. It wouldn't stand out in any way. We've seen Buffett's house as well. He's been there for more than 70 years. Both of these individuals talked to each other, noticed that they had friends who were obviously much less wealthy than them, who were buying big mansions and whatever else.

And they just didn't see that doing any of that was going to make them happier. In fact, I subscribe. Munger and Buffett are a little bit different in the sense that when Munger passed away, he had maybe half a dozen or more homes. I mean, I know there was one in Newport Beach. There might be a couple in Hawaii. There was at least two or three in Santa Barbara.

and then he had his home in LA and so on. So he had at least half a dozen homes. Then of course, in Minnesota where he went fishing and so on. He would tell me that Warren had a second home in Laguna Beach, which his wife wanted to go for the Christmas holidays and all that. And he said that before Susie's ashes had turned cold, he had put that house up for sale.

Okay, so he had one second home, which his wife wanted, and he was happy to do that for her. He used to start writing the annual letter from the Laguna home when he went there in December. But he didn't need it, right? And I look at my friend Guy, for example, who has many homes, and to me, that's a headache.

I think if I had a second home, not only would it not make me happier, it would actually make me unhappy because it would just add burdens. My books would get split into two different places. I don't want the books getting split in two different places. I want one place. I would have to have two setups. I'm spending time traveling between these two setups for what? On a daily basis, I eat two meals.

I eat brunch and I eat dinner. The brunch I eat every day is the exact same brunch I eat every day when I'm in Austin. I've been having that same brunch for several years. No desire to change it. Any change would make it worse, would make me unhappy. I'm happy with no travel. I'm happy with one home.

There's very few things that money can do that can make you happier. And there's many things money can do that can make you unhappy. That's wonderful. Thank you for bringing that up, Manish.

So I sort of suspected you would say that, or so I hope you would say that, because it's a wonderful, wonderful segue into the next thing here. So I'm going to give you an unreasonable premise here. Please feel free to challenge it, but here we go. I would make the argument that you could make significantly more money than you do now if you really wanted to, doing things you didn't want to do.

I don't really know how, but let's say you would take some endowment money or something and they would want to redeem at any point in time, or you couldn't invest in this and that sector, whatever. It doesn't really matter. And perhaps that completely off, but I'm pretty sure you could make more money than you do now by doing things you don't want to do. So assuming that's correct, if we added another, I don't know, let's say we add $100 million to a net worth and we just learned

it's not going to make a difference. $1 is not going to make a difference. $100 million is not going to make a difference. Then I'm going to ask you, you could give that money away.

But then I'm also going to give you the premise that if you give away $100 million or $200 million, you probably don't get extra benefit utility out of giving because you still help a ton whenever you do that. So assuming those crazy premises are right, how do you think about this? Do you feel you have a responsibility?

to do things you don't want to do for money that doesn't make you any happier so you can give away that money and improve other people's lives. I know that was a crazy long question. Yeah. I mean, I think that for me, it's a total no-brainer that I would never want to do something that would reduce my joy and happiness in life by even one iota. So if I'm going to do something which makes me

There's more travel, there's more human interaction, life is more frantic and all that. It wouldn't be of much interest. I would end up with more money to give away. Now, the giving away money for me has never been about any legacy or anyone patting me on the back.

or in any way feeling good, I was not looking, and still I'm not looking, for any kind of reward of any kind from that activity. It actually was designed, and this is how I conceived it almost two decades ago, and it's how it is today, is I like playing games, and I like playing math games. And Dakshana,

I tell this to the students when I meet them. I said, I'm so sorry to disappoint you, but your part of math came in my head. I'm not actually doing this because I have some great love to make your life better. I know that your life is becoming a lot better, which is wonderful.

But for me, it's really more about the cold calculus of the game that is what is most exciting. So the game I'm playing is that I have a compounding engine that is hopefully increasing wealth for the next 29 years and months, so on. And I have an engine which is trying to give that wealth away, right? Now, if we are able to compound...

at let's say a 15% rate of return, right? So life is all about doubles. It would double every five years. So approximately six doubles. Six doubles is 64X.

Right? So that's a significant amount of money, multiplication. Plus I'm getting fees on other people's money and all that. So it'd be more than that. There's some taxes, but probably you'll still end up being more. So to me, the great challenge, and I don't know whether I'll be able to meet this challenge and I'll be disappointed if I didn't meet the challenge, but it's a really tough challenge.

is one day before I die, June 10th, 2054, I want to have $10,000 left, or maybe even $500, $5,000 left. That'd be even better. Now, if a day before I die, there's $3 billion left, I have failed. I lost the game. Now, the difficulty with this challenge is I don't want to give the money to Red Cross.

Because the red cost is, with due respect, suboptimal. For me, the challenge is to be left with 10,000, but to have it given away in a manner that

that any critical observer would say, that was fantastic. Not my friend saying that was fantastic. Someone who's a critic looks at it and says, that was fantastic. He may have had other flaws, but this was fantastic. Okay. So that's what I'm looking for is an objective observer saying, now that was cool, right? Now, to me, it's extremely challenging.

Because as the numbers get larger, giving money away is more difficult than making it. And I have a lot of respect for Chuck Freeney, you know, the book, The Billionaire Who Wasn't, which is a great book.

Chuck Frieden died with very little money, rented an apartment in San Francisco. Awesome. But that journey is not an easy journey, but it's a fun journey. It's a really fun game for me. So this is like, from my point of view, it's like a three-dimensional test just for the next 29 years, where I know the compounding end is pretty autopilot. That part I have no concerns about. It's the other side because, for example, the current program that we run at Dakshina

where we're spending about $3 million a year. Once we are spending about $7 million a year, we cannot spend any more money in that endeavor. We run out of seats and brains and all of that. What if I had $100 million a year to give away, which hopefully will happen at some point? Well, that program can only take $7 million. I don't know today what I would do with the other $93 million. If the other $93 million doesn't go into endeavors

that make the critics say that was awesome. That's terrible. So that's the challenge. That's the whole focus of this life is playing this game. You know,

Stig Brodersen : Manish, whenever I see you on these calls with some of the scholars from Daksana, I can tell that you moved and they tell you that they met you and they've seen you and it's just a beautiful, wonderful moment. And then you tell them that they're a part of the game that you're playing and I could just see like the panic in their eyes and they're like, "Where is this dude going with this?"

You know, I like to have fun with them. One time I went with a friend of mine, young guy from the US to a Dakhshina campus, and he looks like Mark Zuckerberg. Okay. He looks very similar to Mark Zuckerberg. And we decided before we went on the campus that I'm going to call him Zuck.

Okay. And I'm going to just say, oh, this is my friend, Mark Zuckerberg. You know, I call him Zach and he founded a company. You might've heard of Facebook and he's going to hang out with us. Okay. So I say this in the class and, you know, it reminded me, it reminded me, it was so funny. The thing is one time Bill Gates was in some very rural village in India with Melinda Gates.

And they go into the hut of a very, very poor old lady in that village. So it's Melinda Gates, Bill Gates, and this old lady in this small hut. She doesn't have much. She's very poor. And there were a lot of reporters, et cetera, but they were not allowed to come in the hut while the Gates were having the interaction. Then the Gates left. And then the reporters went in to talk to this lady. And they said,

Do you know who that was? He says, oh, no, some foreigners came. The lady says, some foreigners came. So the reporter said, yeah, but do you know that that was the richest person in the world? And the lady said, all foreigners are rich. Now, she was right because in her life experience, she had never met a white person who was not significantly wealthier than her.

For her, the calibration difference between the reporter who was white and Bill Gates who was white was meaningless. When I was in the Dakshina scholars telling them this is Zuck, what I saw in their faces was the same thing that I would have seen in the faces of the leaders. They said, all of Monish's friends are happening. What's unusual about that? They just took it in stride.

That's a fantastic story. Thank you for sharing that with us, Manish. I think it's so beautiful that you're saying that you're not looking for a reward with everything you do and with Daksana and it's a game.

So I have this segment here about Dakshina because I kind of feel we should talk a bit about it. And I, selflessly, together with some members here at TIP, we are in the very early innings of starting a school holding underprivileged scholars into the Filipino version of the IIT.

And so whenever we say IIT, we are referring to the Indian Institute of Technology, which is not a random place, I should say. You just mentioned Bill Gates before. Just to elevate it, he said that if you could only hire for one place, it would be IIT and not whatever kind of Ivy League school. So very, very prestigious. And our business model, if you can call it that for an NGO, has been very simple. We have a wonderful board, and I said to them,

I have no idea how to do this. So here's a link to all the letters that Moniz wrote to the Alexander Foundation, and we're just going to do the same just in the Philippines." And then they sort of look at me the same way that the student, the scholar, she's like, "And then how do we do that?" So anyways, I sort of tried to break it down and said, "After reading the letters, I kind of feel like, let's try to break it down into three sections." So we want to make sure

we have the best possible education. Then we want to make sure that we identify the scholars with the most potential. And then we also want to make sure that they're below the poverty line. And what we found is that identifying scholars below the poverty line might not sound like a hard task, but I would say it's probably the hardest nut to crack. Stig Brodersen : It's very difficult. It's not easy. Stig Brodersen : It's not easy because there's such a strong incentive for the scholar's family to misreport their socioeconomic status.

Could you please paint some color around this and how you have solved it at Dakshana? Well, it's a constant battle. So one of the issues that Dakshana faces is the quality of our coaching services that we offer to our scholars to get them ready for IIT is better than the private sector offers. Okay. So if you are a middle-class family or a rich family and you had a choice,

you would want your son or daughter trained at Dakshina. Now, when we offer that level of quality in what we are giving, it means that

Everyone's trying to crash the gate. Some people are very direct with us. I'll get messages saying, "I'm happy to donate $50,000 to Dakshina if you will take my kid. Just one seat. Take the kid for one seat. I'll give you $50,000."

$50,000 is a lot more than it would cost them to get coaching somewhere else. They're putting a value which is above what the private sector charges. Now, obviously, this creates a lot of incentives.

The other thing what Dakshina has tried to do is we really want to go to the bottom of society. My definition of bottom, many other nonprofits in India find it's too extreme. But we're really looking for

absolutely nothing families at the bottom. What we have done is that for our main campus where we take kids after they finish high school, we actually have in-person interviews. When we do the in-person interviews, and I should not say this because now they're going to watch this video and then they're going to know how to beat the system. Stig, make sure it doesn't play in India. I'm banking on that.

So when we do the interviews, the questions we ask are not relevant. Okay. What we're looking at is what shoes is the person wearing? Okay. What phone does he have? So we ask them, you know, can I see your phone?

And if that phone is more than a $30 phone, we know we've got an issue. We look at the languages that the parents speak. If they speak English, that's a red flag. Even if they speak Hindi, which is the national language, and they're not from the northern region of India, that's also a red flag.

So we're usually trying to see that most of the parents have only one language they speak. We look at the education level of the parents. We look at things like, is there television in the home? Okay. Now, one of the things that we do

is we do the interviews, but we have so many alums now who want to volunteer and help us that we send them in some cases where we get to boundary cases where we're saying, it's all there, but we're not sure. The litmus test when we're not sure is to visit the home. Visiting the home is very painful and very expensive because it's the middle of nowhere.

But the alums are used to traveling cheap throughout India and whatever. They got student fares and all that. They don't mind going. So we'll find an alum who's somewhat close by. But then what happens is every year, we do an analysis of what we think was a percentage that defrauded us. There is a percentage that gets through.

that people are too smart, that they get through. But it's a very small number. It's a small single-digit percentage. What our goal every year is to reduce that. I mean, we've had situations where we've done all this stuff, we've done all the analysis, and then when the person is coming to the campus for the first time, he's being dropped off in an SUV.

with some very well-dressed relatives, and we know we got taken. Stig Brodersen : I'm so happy that you bring up the example of the SUV. Whenever I'm speaking with the board, I'm saying, "You have to look at page 13 here from the 2011 report. That's where all the gold is." And it talks about how you would sometimes do home visits, and then you were talking about an SUV with a family that reported less than $60. And

I was sort of going this route, because I spoke with the board about it. And one of the things that we talked about was home visits. And then it came up, so we are not as far as having alumni. So that was a really, really good tip, because then we run into the problem that some of the areas where you would send some of the staff would probably be dangerous, to be frank, because it's very poor. And depending on how you appear, it might not be safe for you to be there. So that's part of it. But then I thought like,

Going away from that, I thought about it as we have bad debt here on TAP, which I shouldn't say, but we have some advertisers that don't pay. And to some extent, that's part of the business model. It's like you have bad debt, you don't know who it is, and you're trying to minimize it. But if you want to make sure that everyone prepays and you can do it metaphorically, what that would mean for an NGO, it would be more expensive for you to go that route and have zero bad debt, but then you lose out a ton. So I would imagine like

How do you think about that? Is that bad debt that you had? At the time, it was 5% to 8%. I would imagine that it's less now. But is that bad debt you have where some just, and that's just the way it is? Yeah. I mean, I think on the one hand, if we go extreme on that, we'll be excluding deserving people, which is not good. And so there is a balance. There's a balance we have to do. So it's like in any business. If you're a retailer, you have annual shrink.

inventory shrinks and you're running a business, you're going to have some bad debts. I mean, the thing is you can have policies that reduce that and so on. That's why Walmart came up with a greeter, right? Greeter would drop the shrink a lot. I mean, at the end of the day, what we've always tried to do with Daktana is we run it like a business. We run it the way you run your business, right? So this metric...

of what percentage of kids are we supporting that we shouldn't have supported is a very important metric. And we try to get accurate statistics on that. And all I'm trying to do is that next year is slightly better than this year.

On all fronts, that's the only objective at Dakshina is that we try to do a slightly better job on 20 different variables next year than we did this year. If we keep doing that, it ends up becoming world-class.

Let's take a quick break and hear from today's sponsors. You just realized your business needed to hire someone yesterday. How can you find amazing candidates fast? It's easy. Just use Indeed. When it comes to hiring, Indeed is all you need. Stop struggling to get your job post seen on other job sites. Indeed's sponsor jobs help you stand out and hire fast. With sponsor jobs, your post jumps to the top of the page for relevant candidates so you can reach the people you want faster.

And it makes a huge difference. According to Indeed data, sponsored jobs posted directly on Indeed have 45% more applications than non-sponsored jobs. How fast is Indeed? In the minute I've been speaking to you, 23 hires were made on Indeed according to Indeed data worldwide. There's no need to wait any longer. Speed up your hiring process now with Indeed.

And listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility at Indeed.com slash billionaires. Just go to Indeed.com slash billionaires right now and support our show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com slash billionaires. Terms and conditions apply. Hiring Indeed is all you need.

Robert Leonard : When we were young, we used to dream of being anything, an astronaut, the president, a prince. But as you get older, your dreams change, focusing less on running the world and more on how you can take your skills and ideas and turn them into something real. Instead of dreaming of going to space or owning your own castle, maybe you start dreaming of owning your own business. You'll need a website, a payment system, a logo, and a way to advertise to new customers. It can all be overwhelming and confusing,

But thankfully, that is where today's sponsor, Shopify, comes in.

Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses all around the world and 10% of all e-commerce in the US. From household names like Mattel and Gymshark to brands like mine that are still getting started. Working with Shopify is like having a commerce expert at your side with world-class expertise. Turn your big business idea into reality with Shopify on your side. Sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling today at shopify.com slash WSB.

That's shopify.com/wsb. Holding Bitcoin is the best way to protect your family from the threat of fiat currency collapse. And few people understand this better than Tony Yazbeck, cybersecurity expert and founder of The Bitcoin Way. Tony was in Lebanon when the currency imploded. He's seen the chaos that erupts when the ATM stop working and the bank accounts get frozen. He knows what it's like to lose everything.

But with his cybersecurity expertise and by fully adopting Bitcoin, Tony was able to engineer his escape. And now Tony and the Bitcoin Way team work to make sure this never happens to you. With over 25 years of experience, their expert training empowers you to self-custody your family's Bitcoin the right way, secure your devices and protect your privacy, develop robust inheritance plans, and secure for plan B citizenship.

The Bitcoin way can transform you into a sovereign individual. You just need to take the first step. Schedule a free consultation today at thebitcoinway.com slash TIP. All right, back to the show.

So whenever I'm speaking with a team, I would basically copy that from you, clone that from you, I should say, and then say, it's so hard to give away money and so easy to make it because of the feedback loop. And then they sort of look at you and you're like, sort of like an arrogant foreigner, like why are you saying it's so easy to make? But it's like, yes, you know where I'm going to go with this. In capitalism, there's a feedback loop. If you don't make money, you know you've done something wrong. And so what I said to the team is that

We have one KPI, I've cloned this here from Daksana, so equivalent to IIT. That number needs to be as high as possible. That is the single metric we're looking at. Then whenever you do that, let's say you would, for example, give bonuses if it's at a certain level, then you run into the issue that you have people who then have incentive to admit students that probably doesn't come from below the poverty line, but there's a probably higher probability that they're going to pass. How do you navigate that?

In your organization, do they get bonuses based on different metrics? Is it because it's different metrics throughout the organization? How do you handle that? Well, yeah. I mean, that's a really important thing. So incentives are a very big part of Daktana. Our teams are very well-incented.

Even though they have joined, many of them are joined because of the calling and the purpose. But there's a separation of church and state. So the faculty, which is really focused on teaching the kids, has no control over who we admit. And the people who are focused on who we admit are not compensated directly based on the results.

We've kind of separated those two. Even within those groups, I'm looking at it, our CEO is looking at it. When we do selections, a large amount of our success depends on our selections.

We have to make sure we've got the brilliance. We have to make sure we are below the poverty line and really deserving kids. There, we have tried to make sure that the incentives are in alignment. Then on the other side, when we care about the results, those guys had nothing to do with who we picked. They're just purely focused on the results.

Fantastic. Thank you for sharing. So I should obviously say, I would encourage everyone to read the wonderful letters. Even if you're not interested in philanthropy, they're just interesting to learn about the business model of giving away money.

So one of the things I really like in the letters is that you're not shy about really attacking the toughest problems. And I think that whenever I speak to people about our organization and what we want to do, there is this natural tendency to focus on getting the best teachers. Like say, yeah, it's all good that with the poverty line and the most deserving, but let's figure out how to get the best teachers. And by and large, it's probably the easiest process.

problem to solve because to some extent you can throw money at it, whereas it's a little bit trickier with the others. And running an organization that's giving away money, I think you really have to face those decisions head on. And you want to make sure that you're not falling prey to this idea of the path of least resistance, like what is easiest to solve instead of focusing on what's tough to solve. And so one of the problems that we've been looking at is, should we, for example,

target specifically students that come from abusive homes. And one way to do that is to build housing and then get them out and so on and so forth. And I don't want to drone too much on that and bum everyone out whenever I say that, but whenever you do that, there's just incredible amount of problems you run into. And then if it's housing, then it's bribes that are not even seen as bribes, but more like local property transfer tax. And there are tons of stuff going on.

And so I guess my question to you is, have you identified problems where you've just said, "This is just too hard"? It's wonderful if we can solve it, but it's just too hard. We want to do hard things, but not things that are this hard. And how do you figure that out within your organization? Stig Brodersen : Yeah. So I think, Stig, you have to be realistic. It's not just difficult, it's impossible.

to optimize for more than one variable. When we are trying to do selections, for example, we only have two things we're looking at. We're looking at the brilliance and we're looking at the socioeconomic status of the family. We have a couple of other things like we give some preference to girls, we give preference to disabled, and so on, but we basically don't get into a lot of stuff beyond that.

Because if we start going into things like you said, abusive households and all of that, that's going to become a very complicated problem. We find a lot of issues in the homes of the families where the kids have come from, but we wouldn't have known that

at the beginning. It comes out in dribs and drabs over time. So I would say that that would be a really difficult thing to add to your plate. I would not go there. I think that if you're going to try to work with abused kids, don't try to work with brilliant abused kids.

Just work with abused kids with whatever you need to do to help them. Because I think now you're trying to put too many variables into the same thing. It becomes really hard. So it's important to keep things as simple as possible. It's important to make sure everyone understands that game plan. They're not going to understand the game plan if it becomes complicated. And then it works. One of the things that has really helped, Dakshina, you were talking about hiring teachers, etc.,

is our oldest alums are now early 30s, 33, 34 years old. Something like more than half the folks we hire now are our alums. More and more of our alums are making up the faculty. More and more of our alums are making up a lot of our management team. All the way, except the CEO, when I go one level below the CEO at Dakshina, it's all alums.

For these individuals, it's not about the paycheck. It's very clear to me when I meet them that their passions for Dakshina vastly exceed mine. They're not stupid like me playing some game. They actually deeply care about the mission. They have a purity I don't have. It's beautiful to see, actually. It's amazing to see.

Wonderful. Okay. Perhaps someone out there is thinking, it's Berkshire weekend. They started on such a high note. We haven't almost not talked about investing. So thank you. Thank you for your generous and candid responses. Thank you. For selfish reasons, I wanted to ask those questions. And thank you, Manish. I'll now transition into something about investing. So years ago, you recommended a

on this show, you recommended Peter Thiel's wonderful talk, "Competitions for Losers." And that talk was just such an eye-opener for me. And I went from thinking that companies have a mode or thinking most companies have a mode, which I probably mainly thought because, I don't know, management told me or other bulls on Value Investors Club told me or whatever. Of course, that's a terrible process. So I sort of turned the table and I was thinking, "Okay, let's just assume that companies don't have any mode."

And really the way to see if they have a moat is if the DOJ are sort of like pulling into court and they keep on saying, oh, we don't have a moat. Poor me. I'm Amazon. We have such a small sliver of global retail, whatever they would say. That's whenever you know they have a moat. And so anyways, I read Rose Greenwell's wonderful book, Competition Demystified. And I did that after going through that talk. And he also talks about that most companies don't have a moat.

But execution in itself can be a mode. There's this story that you sometimes talk about with those two gas stations, and then one owner goes out, does a little extra, and the other doesn't. But I'm curious to hear if we can bring that up to a level in talking about how do you look at execution being the mode, and how do you evaluate from the outside if a company has an execution mode? Stig Brodersen : Yeah. So

The evidence tells us, going back to the beginning of our conversation where I said, if you just held your Walmart shares and everything else went to zero, you did really well. We look at Buffett's example where 3%, 4% of what he invested in has truly moved the needle. The rest hasn't done that much.

What those two pieces of data tell you is that enduring moats are few and far between. It's just the nature of capitalism that everything gets competed away. Now, if you are someone like ASML,

or you're someone like Nvidia, those are some moats that are going to stay for some time because you've got a head start. ASML may stay forever. That's like black magic action. It is really anomalies in capitalism that lead to moats. It's very difficult to actually conceive of a business and then start a business saying, "I'm going to have XYZ moat," and actually be successful at doing that.

Even when we look at a business like Coca-Cola or we look at a business like American Express, these started moatless. There were no moats. The founders had no idea what a moat is. And they kind of stumbled along. And in some cases, their original business model died and a new business model emerged accidentally and they made it. So almost impossible to start out with the idea that I'm going to create a moat.

and moats are very rare. I would say that approach businesses and their moats with very jaundiced eyes.

Thank you. So I'm a bit on the fence of asking you this question, Manish, because I kind of feel like I'm going to paint myself into a corner. You often get this question about your circle of competence and your graceful response. If you ask that question, then you probably don't know enough. And I kind of feel, I still have a question about circle of competence. It's just, how do I ask it without Manish shooting me down? Anyways,

Whenever it comes to regulation, it's such a black box for so many of us. And it's really interesting to hear you talk about different regulation whenever it comes to different businesses and how you identify it and so on and so forth. Assuming that we don't have a circle of competence whenever it comes to regulation, which we probably don't by asking this question, how do we train that as laypeople? No degree in law or anything like that. As laypeople, how do we train that regulation

figuring out the impact of a business angle? Yeah. I mean, I think one has to approach circle of competence with a lot of humility. So when you say, okay, there's this business, it can be impacted by regulations, changes in regulations. How do I handicap that? And the answer is,

It may be that that question leads to putting that business in the too hard pile. I think what humans have difficulty with, a lot of humans have difficulty with giving up. They don't want to give up. You're saying, okay, I like this business. I've seen this business. I've spent some time on this business, but I don't understand this part of it.

How do I get to understanding that part? And I think Buffett and Munger's answer would be that 99% of businesses need to go in the too hard. So basically, that's where people have difficulty, where they're not willing to easily give up.

I think it was in 2014 or something thereabouts. I used to go with Guy Spear every year to Omaha on Thursday because I had asked Buffett's assistant, Debbie, if she would go to lunch with us.

She said, "I'd love to go to lunch with you guys." I actually love Debbie. She said, "But when you come for the annual meeting, Friday is like a zoo at the office. All these celebrities coming, I can't." But she said, "If you come on Thursday, I can come to lunch with you guys on Thursday." Guy and I, we're general leisure. We have nothing going on. We can go on Thursday. We can go on Monday. We don't care. We started going to Omaha Thursday morning, and then we'd go meet Debbie for lunch.

And one year, I think it was in 2014, by the way, the lunches with Debbie, which we had for several years, blew away the lunchwood war. It was so much fun. And I used to always tell Debbie, I start the conversation with Debbie like this. I said, Debbie, between us girls, can we talk? Can we really talk? She said, Monish, what do you want to know? Anything you want to know, I'm going to tell you.

Okay. And then we would talk about all kinds of things. It was just great. So one year in 2014, when we went to have lunch with Debbie and we come to the 14th floor of Kiewit Plaza, the elevator opens and Warren is standing there.

I thought, "Okay, he's maybe going in the elevator somewhere." But it turned out he was standing in the lobby of the elevator to greet us. Fortune 10 CEO coming to the elevator for meeting two yo-yos who he doesn't have an appointment. I start talking to Warren, and I think he'll take the elevator down. Then he says, "Do you guys want a tour of headquarters?"

I said, Warren, if you want to waste your time with a couple of yo-yos, we are all game. He said, let me give you a tour. He's showing us all the memorabilia in the office. He showed up the letter he sent to long-term capital management when he was trying to buy that business.

Then the first shares of Burlington Northern and his Coke machine, his Coke fountain. He has got his private Coke fountain. He was showing how it works and all that. Then finally, he takes us to his private office to show us his office, private office. I noticed that on his desk, there's a box which says, too hard. I heard about this right here. There's a box which says, too hard. The box was empty. I said, Warren, the too hard pile.

Everything's supposed to go in the too hard pile. You have all these piles of papers. Nothing's in the too hard pile. What's going on?

He said, "Oh, that's just an illusion, Monish. It takes a bunch of papers and dumps it in the too-hard pile. See, it's completely full now, and we're going to put more in it so it's even more full." But a guy like Warren needs to have a box on his desk. If you go to God Google and say, "Buffett too-hard picture," it'll show a picture of him in his office with the too-hard pile box. Okay?

God, Google will show you whatever you want. You can see the box. Someone as disciplined as Warren needs a physical box to remind him that most things he cannot understand. This is a very high IQ guy. This is a guy who's a child prodigy and all of that.

He still has the humility to understand that 99% of stuff I'm not going to understand. So this regulation question, the moment you encounter something like that, be very comfortable with saying no very fast to almost everything. There should be 10 companies in the world that you understand, and there should be 10,000 that you have no clue about.

And then I should say, well, I'm in that lucky situation that being an investor in Popeye Funds, I don't even need to understand it. But I did give myself the challenge to read up on the 10 case the other day, and I was thinking, "I don't understand this." But I hope you do. I hope you do, Manish. And it sort of takes me to my next question here. I've had a lot of people, because I do talk about, you know,

different stocks I invest in. I'm not as smart as you. I can't own 10 stocks. I only have five stocks because I only feel I understand five companies, apparently, at least at a reasonable valuation. And so I like to say to people that mine is over-diversified whenever they tell me, mine is so concentrated. I was like, yeah. And then you, of course, can say that, let's say in one of your funds, raises is just, what, 60%. It's a massive part of it, right? So I'm probably the only one of your investors who feel like you're

not too concentrated. But anyways, you can quote me on that. I hope I don't speak out of school whenever I mention that. But it sort of takes me to the question. So I get asked by a ton of people, so why, apparently you have this podcast, you sit around, you're a bit of a yo-yo, you just sit reading in 10Ks, you don't really understand too many, so you only invest in five. Why do you also invest with money? And so

one of the things I tell them is that I have to be humble. I only have a track record that's from 2014. So I don't even know if I'm any good. It's like, you should probably play this thing you hear about. Mine just talks about Walmart and how important it is to have one winner and what that means. And so one of the things I say to tell people is that it gave me a lot of comfort investing with you because you set up the first fund, what, 1999, and then the two others shortly after. And so I was kind of thinking at least two decades, that's sort of like

That's a good time of saying you have a long runway, but then at the same time, you also have a long track record because we want to have our cake and eat it too. But I guess my question is, how long should a track record be and how much should it outperform before you can say with a 90% certainty, 95% certainty that it's skill and not luck? Yeah, that's a great question. I would say you need plenty of time. You need more than 10 years and preferably something like 20 years.

Simple as that. How do you think in terms of overperformance? I know it's sort of an unreasonable question because it's tough to come up with an equation. Just call collect me whenever you have the equation, Manish. But of course, there's a difference between have you beaten the S&P 500 or whatever kind of index for 0.1% or 5% or 10%. We all know what Buffett did in the early days of the Buffett partnership. So how do you

I know that I'm seeing it up for you in a terrible way, but how much outperformance would you need to see over, let's say, 20 years before we can say, "Ooh, this is skill. This is not 0.1%. This is truly skill." Well, I would just like to point out something that when Ted Wechsler was being hired by Berkshire Hathaway, I think he joined in 2010, thereabouts, I think, around then.

And maybe a little bit later, but in the 2007 to 2009 time period, he was down more than 70%. So they hired a guy who, when they looked at the recent past before they hired him, it looked horrible. The numbers looked horrible. He was 30 points behind the S&P in those years.

but they still hired him because they looked past, they looked at the longer-term record and went with that. I think the thing is that when we look at someone like, let's say, Steve Ballmer, there have been three CEOs at Microsoft. I talked to some Microsoft investors who hate the period

of owning the stock when Steve Ballmer was CEO. But it really wasn't fully Steve Ballmer's fault. He came in when the stock was ridiculously overvalued, and he left when it was ridiculously undervalued. Then Satya comes in with an undervalued company, and he hits it out of the park. He created a lot of value, but his starting point was a value stock. So

We can get a lot of distortions, even looking at 10-year periods because of this notion, because markets can be very overvalued. So I would say that anyone, when they're compared to the S&P in the last decade, is going to not be looking great because the S&P is coming off an incredible 10 years. But the next 10 years, a lot of yo-yos will probably beat the S&P because it's so elevated.

So I think the selection of an investment manager is one of the most difficult things to do. Very, very hard to do. All right. Well, Manish, thank you for being with me on this metaphorical

restaurant, trying all of these new dishes here. I don't know if it was tasteful or not, but any concluding remarks? Stig Brodersen : I very much enjoyed the conversations today. It was fantastic. And we got to sample a bunch of new dishes. Stig Brodersen : We did. We did. Stig Brodersen : We mixed it up with some of the oldest gold, but we got some new dishes in there too. All right. As I'm letting Manish go, I want to wish you a happy Berkshire weekend.

If you're listening to this after the Woodstock of Catalyst, or you just couldn't make it this year, we have our own version of a virtual year-round Berkshire here on The Investor's Podcast. So if you're a kindred spirit in value investing and philanthropy, and want to hang out with me and the Verdi Group online, you are welcome to join our waitlist for the TIP Mastermind Community. We have a link in our show notes for more information. My co-host, Clay Fink, will contact you with more details on the next steps in the process and how to submit an application.

Thank you for listening to TIP. Make sure to follow We Study Billionaires on your favorite podcast app and never miss out on episodes. To access our show notes, transcripts, or courses, go to theinvestorspodcast.com. This show is for entertainment purposes only. Before making any decision, consult a professional. This show is copyrighted by the Investors Podcast Network. Written permission must be granted before syndication or rebroadcasting.