2025-11-05 01:44:00
像数以百万计的其他人一样，我一直在关注和使用OpenAI的新视频模型Sora——我不断思考技术如何经常超越许可的范畴。一周是咖啡应用，下 week 是由文本生成的电影世界。每一次创新最初都是便利，最终却改写了规则。
星巴克原本无意成为金融机构。但每个时代的创新都会找到自己的方式来挑战规则。
世界运转于规则之上。但规则依赖于文件、委员会和日程表。技术则依赖于好奇心和咖啡因。
这种不匹配——人们构建的速度与机构回应的速度之间的差距——已成为现代生活的一个定义性力量。人们并非在违法，而是法律已经无法描述人们正在做的事情。
《咖啡银行》
星巴克是一家咖啡公司。但在金融方面，它也是美国最大的银行之一。客户集体持有的星巴克卡和应用中的预付余额接近20亿美元——超过美国85%的银行总存款额。
这个转折点在于客户并未完全选择这种模式。当你用星巴克应用付款时，你不能简单地当场使用信用卡。你必须预先将钱存入账户。这个单一的设计选择——微妙、便利且完全有意——将每一杯拿铁的购买转化为小额存款。星巴克悄然成为了一家金融机构，却从未申请过银行牌照。
这就是技术变革通常发生的方式：不是通过反抗，而是通过设计。从一个产品功能开始，逐渐成为监管盲点，最终演变为被接受的规范。
《Uber先例》
如果说星巴克代表了这种现象的微妙版本，那么Uber则是其喧闹、张扬的原型。
Uber为现代挑战监管边界的玩法编写了教科书。先推出，运营在灰色地带，让采用创造合法性。等到监管者反应时，公众意见——以及数十亿的乘客需求——已使逆转几乎不可能。
Uber真正的创新不仅仅是应用本身。它认识到，一旦技术达到一定规模，问题就从“这是否被允许”转变为“我们如何与之共存”。这种做法——快速行动，找到边界，让系统适应——已成为现代科技经济的默认操作系统。星巴克以自己的方式遵循了这一模式，加密货币网络、预测市场，以及现在的人工智能公司也如此。
《Sora时刻》
OpenAI的新视频模型Sora可以从文本提示生成电影画面。这令人惊叹。但在这份惊叹背后，有一种熟悉的不适：它学习了谁的作品？
该模型并未在孤立中发明其对运动、光线和叙事的理解。它吸收了这些——从由数百万未被询问、未被认可或未被补偿的人创作的电影、动画、设计和摄影中。公司坚称这是合法的，也许在现行法律下确实如此。但合法性和正当性并不相同。
版权法并非为一个机器能吸收人类集体视觉记忆的时代而设计。它为一个“复制”意味着压纸或烧胶片的世界而制定。法律仍然使用所有权的语言，而技术现在使用吸收的语言。
这种差距——在合法与正当之间——是权力悄然积累的地方。
《法律无法以代码的速度行动》
在历史上大部分时间，发明是瓶颈。如今，解释才是。监管者需要数年时间进行审议，而开发者只需数日时间进行迭代。等到规则跟上时，漏洞已变成了市场。
我们仍然谈论监管，仿佛它定义了可能性的边界。但越来越多地，它只是描述了人们已经决定要做的事情。但接受和公平并不相同。仅仅因为某事规模扩大并不意味着它应该被允许。
随着正式监管努力跟上步伐，非正式的监管已经介入：声誉、公众信任、用户反弹。它们比立法更快，但也更加脆弱。
世界需要敢于挑战极限的建设者，但也要有原则，记住这些极限最初存在的原因。抹去它所依赖的人的进展并不是进展——而是掠夺。
《未来总是始于灰色地带》
每一次重大的进步都始于灰色地带。铁路、信用卡、互联网——所有都扭曲了旧规则，直到社会决定是重写它们还是接受后果。人工智能只是这一传统中的最新一环。
挑战不在于阻止创新，而在于确保那些书写未来的人仍然对那些生活在其中的人保持责任感。未来并不总是要求许可，但也许它应该仍然要求同意。
---------------
Like millions of others, I’ve been watching and playing with OpenAI’s new video model, Sora—and I keep thinking about how often technology outpaces permission. One week it’s coffee apps; the next, it’s cinematic worlds spun from text. Each innovation starts as convenience and ends up rewriting the rules.
Starbucks didn’t mean to become a financial institution. But every era of innovation finds its own way to test the rules.
The world runs on rules. But rules run on paperwork, committees, and calendars. Technology, on the other hand, runs on curiosity and caffeine.
That mismatch—between how fast people can build and how slowly institutions can respond—has become one of the defining forces of modern life. It’s not that people are breaking the law; it’s that the law no longer describes what people are doing.
The Coffee Bank
Starbucks is a coffee company. But in financial terms, it’s also one of the largest banks in America. Customers collectively hold nearly $2 billion in prepaid balances on Starbucks cards and apps—more than 85 percent of U.S. banks hold in total deposits.
The twist is that customers didn’t entirely choose this setup. When you pay with the Starbucks app, you can’t simply use your credit card in the moment. You have to preload money into an account. That single design choice—subtle, convenient, and completely intentional—turned every latte purchase into a micro-deposit. Starbucks quietly became a financial institution without ever applying for a banking license.
This is how change usually happens in technology: not through rebellion, but through design. What begins as a product feature becomes a regulatory blind spot, and over time, an accepted norm.
The Uber Precedent
If Starbucks represents the subtle version of this phenomenon, Uber is its loud, brash archetype.
Uber wrote the modern playbook for testing the limits of regulation. Launch first, operate in the gray, and let adoption create legitimacy. By the time regulators react, public opinion—and billions in rider demand—make reversal almost impossible.
Uber’s true innovation wasn’t just the app itself. It was the recognition that once technology hits a certain scale, the question shifts from “Is this allowed?” to “How do we live with it?” That approach—move fast, find the edges, let the system adapt—has become the default operating system of the modern tech economy. Starbucks, in its own quiet way, followed it. So have crypto networks, prediction markets, and now, artificial intelligence companies.
The Sora Moment
OpenAI’s new video model, Sora, can generate cinematic footage from a text prompt. It’s astonishing. But behind that wonder lies a familiar discomfort: whose work did it learn from?
The model didn’t invent its sense of movement, light, and storytelling in isolation. It absorbed it—from films, animation, design, and photography created by millions of people who were never asked, credited, or compensated. The company insists this is legal, and perhaps under current law it is. But legality and legitimacy are not the same thing.
Copyright law wasn’t built for an era when a machine could absorb the collective visual memory of humanity. It was written for a world where “copying” meant pressing paper or burning film. The law still speaks the language of ownership. The technology now speaks the language of ingestion.
That gap—between what’s legal and what’s right—is where power quietly accumulates.
The Law Can’t Move at the Speed of Code
For most of history, invention was the bottleneck. Today, interpretation is. Regulators deliberate in years; developers iterate in days. By the time the rules catch up, the loophole has become the market.
We still talk about regulation as if it defines the edges of what’s possible. Increasingly, it just describes what people already decided to do. But acceptance and fairness are not the same thing. Just because something scales doesn’t mean it should.
As formal oversight struggles to keep pace, informal ones have stepped in: reputation, public trust, user backlash. They’re faster than legislation, but also more fragile.
The world needs builders bold enough to test limits, but principled enough to remember why those limits existed in the first place. Progress that erases the people it depends on isn’t progress—it’s extraction.
The Future Always Starts in the Gray
Every major leap forward begins in a gray area. Railroads, credit cards, the internet—all bent old rules until society decided whether to rewrite them or live with the consequences. Artificial intelligence is just the latest in that lineage.
The challenge isn’t stopping innovation; it’s ensuring that the people writing the future still feel accountable to the ones living in it. The future doesn’t always ask for permission. But maybe it should still ask for consent.
2025-10-08 23:25:00
2006年获得金球奖后，菲利普·西摩·霍夫曼曾回答过一个关于他如何走到人生此刻的问题。
近二十年后，他的回答比以往任何时候都更加贴切。
“即使你正在试镜一个你不喜欢或根本不可能获得的角色，只要有机会在一个别人付钱的房间里表演，那便是练习技艺的免费机会。在那一刻，你应该尽可能地发挥你的演技，因为一旦你离开那个房间，那些观看你表演的人绝不会忘记你。这就是我唯一的建议，因为一切始终围绕这一点——如果你有机会表演，就将那些台词赋予生命；如果你做到这一点，最终总会有所成就。”
这种心态解释了霍夫曼在短短两年内便出演了《Along Came Polly》中的桑迪·莱利和《Capote》中的特兰姆·卡波蒂，后者为他赢得了奥斯卡奖。
退役的美国海军陆战队将军威廉·麦克雷文在他的著作《青蛙的智慧》中表达了类似的观点，他写道：
“我发现，在我的职业生涯中，如果你对那些小任务感到自豪，人们就会认为你值得承担更大的任务。”
他用自己职业生涯初期的一个故事来说明这一点，当时他并没有被分配去领导任务，而是被指派制作一个代表海军陆战队员（通常被称为“蛙人”）的花车，参加七夕节游行。
在接到任务后，麦克雷文坦言感到沮丧。在他看来，他加入海军陆战队是为了领导任务，而不是制作花车。但一位经验丰富的队友给了他一句安静的建议，说：
“迟早我们都得做一些自己不想做的事情。但如果你要做，就把它做好。制作出最棒的蛙人花车。”
麦克雷文牢记这番话，全身心投入到任务中，最终花车赢得了该类别的第一名。
随着时间的推移，麦克雷文后来领导了更具影响力的行动，包括指挥联合特种作战司令部（JSOC），并最终担任美国特种作战司令部（SOCOM）指挥官，该司令部统辖所有美国特种作战部队，包括海军陆战队、陆军绿色贝雷帽部队和空军特种救援部队。
不幸的是，我在职业生涯早期并没有充分理解这一教训。例如，毕业后，我以为自己可以直接进入职场并传授我新获得的智慧，而我本应更专注于倾听并认真对待那些看似平凡的任务。
幸运的是，我相信我并非唯一一个这样的人。如果我猜测正确，任何阅读这篇文章的人都能回忆起自己职业生涯中的类似时刻。
事实上，这发生在我们每个人身上。即使是那些最优秀的人。
只需看看汤姆·布雷迪，他曾在职业生涯初期承认自己深受这种心态影响。
在大二赛季结束后，布雷迪在球队的深度榜上排名靠后，每次训练只能获得一两次传球机会。因此，他向教练表达了不满，当时主教练洛伊德·卡尔回应说：
“布雷迪，我希望你停止担心球队其他球员在做什么。你只需专注于首发球员在做什么，二号球员在做什么，其他每个人在做什么。你不需要担心自己在做什么。你来到这里是为了成为最好的。如果你想成为最好的，就必须击败最好的。”
卡尔回建议布雷迪与体育部门的顾问格雷格·哈登会面。
布雷迪再次倾诉了他的不满——抱怨自己获得的传球机会有限。
哈登的建议很简单：
“只需专注于你所能控制的事情，专注于你得到的那些两次传球机会，把它们做到最好。然后专注于下一次的两次，再下一次的两次，再下一次的两次。”
布雷迪是如何回应的？
按照他的说法：
“所以，我就是这么做的。他们让我进行两次传球，我就像在超级碗上一样全力冲刺。我会喊道：‘伙计们，开始吧！我们准备好了！这次是什么战术？！’我开始在这些两次传球中表现出色，因为我在其中投入了热情和精力。很快，我获得了四次传球机会，然后是十次。在Greg instilled in me的新心态下——专注于你能控制的事情，专注于你得到的机会，而不是其他人得到的。把每一次传球都当作超级碗来对待——最终，我成为了首发球员。”
我们都知道布雷迪的故事之后如何发展，一切始于两次传球。
去年春天，我八岁的儿子在比赛中只能获得有限的上场时间，所以我给他读了这个关于布雷迪的故事。在沉默了几秒钟后，他抬起头看着我说：“汤姆·布雷迪也几乎没怎么上场吗？”
我回答道：“是的，小子，就像你一样。你只需要好好利用给你的一切机会。”
那天晚上离开他的房间后，我想到自己如果能回到过去告诉年轻的自己这一点，我愿意付出任何代价。
我会听从建议吗？
我希望如此，但如果这个概念对成年人来说都难以理解，我猜对孩子们来说就更加困难了。
尽管如此，我希望我能在更早的时候理解这一点。事实是，几乎总有人在看着你，因此值得以目的和自豪的态度对待你所做的每一件事。而且，即使没有人注视着你，那仍然是一个“练习技艺”的机会。一个提升自我的机会。一个培养强大习惯的机会。
由于时间有限，我们只有有限的机会。
我们不妨好好利用每一个机会。
---------------
After winning a Golden Globe in 2006, Phillip Seymour Hoffman replied to a question about how he got to this moment in his life.
Nearly two decades later, his response is more relevant than ever.
“Even if you are auditioning for something you know you don’t like or are never going to get, whenever you get a chance to act in a room that someone else has paid for, it is a free chance to practice your craft. And in that moment, you should act as well as you can because if you leave that room and you have done this, there is no way the people who watched you will forget it. That is the only advice I have because it is always about that — if you are given the chance to act, take those words and bring them alive; and if you do that, something will ultimately transpire.”
This mindset explains how within two years, Hoffman played Sandy Lyle in Along Came Polly and Truman Capote in Capote, winning an Oscar for the latter.
Retired United States Navy General William McRaven echoed a similar sentiment in his book, The Wisdom of the Bullfrog, writing,
“I found in my career that if you take pride in the little jobs, people will think you worthy of the bigger jobs.”
He illustrated this point with a story from early in his career when rather than being assigned to lead a mission, he was tasked with building a float that would represent the Navy SEALs (often referred to as “frogmen”) in the Fourth of July parade.
After receiving the assignment, McRaven was admittedly dejected. In his mind, he had joined the Navy SEALs to lead missions, not build parade floats. But a seasoned team member offered him a quiet piece of advice, saying:
“Sooner or later we all have to do things we do not want to. But if you are going to do it, do it right. Build the best damn Frog Float you can.”
McRaven took the message to heart, pouring himself into the task and the float went on to win first prize in its category.
Over time, McRaven would lead far more consequential missions, including commanding the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) and later the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM), which oversees all U.S. special operations forces, including the Navy SEALs, Army Green Berets, and Air Force Pararescue.
Unfortunately, I didn’t appreciate this lesson enough early in my career. As an example, after graduating from business school, I thought I could come right in and impart my newly found wisdom, when I should have been a better listener and executed the mundane tasks with as much vigor as the more interesting ones.
Fortunately, I don’t think I am alone. If I had to guess, anyone reading this can point to a similar moment in their career.
The thing is, this happens to all of us. Even the very best.
Look no further than Tom Brady, who has admitted he was consumed by this mentality early in his career at Michigan.
After his sophomore season, Brady was buried on the depth chart, only getting one or two reps per practice. As a result, he expressed his frustration to the coaches, to which head coach Lloyd Carr responded,
“Brady, I want you to stop worrying about what all the other players on our team are doing. All you do is worry about what the starter is doing, what the second guy is doing, what everyone else is doing. You don’t worry about what you are doing. You came here to be the best. If you’re going to be the best, you have to beat out the best.”
Carr then suggested Brady meet with Greg Harden, a counselor in the athletic department.
Once again, Brady vented his frustration — complaining about getting limited reps.
Harden’s advice was simple:
“Just focus on doing the best you can with those two reps. Make them as perfect as you possibly can. Then focus on the next two, and the next two, and the next two.”
How did Brady respond?
In his words,
“So, that’s what I did. They would put me in for those two reps, and man, I would sprint out there like it was the Super Bowl. I’d shout, ‘Let’s go boys! Here we go! What play we got?!?’ And I started to do really well with those two reps because I brought enthusiasm and energy. Soon, I was getting four reps. Then ten, and before you knew it, with this new mindset that Greg had instilled in me — to focus on what you can control, to focus on what you’re getting, not what anyone else is getting. To treat every rep like it’s the Super Bowl — eventually, I became the starter.”
We all know how Brady’s story played out from here, and it all started with two reps.
Last spring, my then eight-year-old son was wrestling with getting to play very limited minutes, so I read him this story about Brady. After sitting in silence for a few seconds, he looked up at me and said, “Tom Brady barely played too??”
To which I responded, “Yeah bud, like you. You just gotta make the best of your chances you’re given.”
After leaving his room that night, I thought to myself — I would give just about anything to be able to go back in time and tell my younger self this.
Would I have listened?
I hope so, but if this is a hard concept for adults to grasp, I imagine it’s even more difficult for kids.
Nonetheless, I wish I had appreciated this fact of life earlier. The fact is, someone is almost always watching, so it’s worth treating everything you do with purpose and pride. And, even if no one has their eyes on you, it is still a chance to “practice your craft”. To improve. To build strong habits.
Since time is limited, we only get so many opportunities.
We might as well take advantage of each one we get.
2025-09-18 05:52:00
新学年的开始是每个孩子生命中的独特时刻。一个充满期待的时刻，同时也伴随着同等程度的紧张与兴奋。他们的父母也一样，这就是为什么我被一位小学负责人在返校夜写给家长的建议清单所打动。
家长们，
以下是一些即将到来的新学年建议：
尽量保持对孩子的客观态度，并现实地看待他们的期望。我们并不是说要减少对孩子的爱，而是要以现实的方式看待他们的优点和局限。
充分了解孩子的情况，并开放接受他人的观察。老师和教练等可以为您提供宝贵的信息，您需要花时间去倾听。
将“坏消息”视为需要处理的问题，不要过度反应。保持冷静并思考！请记住，即使我们这些父母在成长过程中也犯过一些错误。
仔细倾听孩子的话，但要区分倾听与认同。孩子们擅长表达观点，但不要轻易将孩子的观点等同于“真相”。
为孩子留出一些未安排的时间。您会惊讶地发现，有多少孩子似乎只有在被安排好一切时才能做任何事。请记住过去的日子，那时我们需要自己决定如何安排时间。
在育儿过程中，要保持一致性，并且父母双方要齐心协力。不要空洞地威胁，也不要让孩子们在父母之间挑拨离间。
我们的主要目标是帮助孩子成长为一个聪明、有思想、有同情心、能为社会做贡献的成年人——一个多年后能够对自己说：“我有能力做出明智的决定，并独立克服困难。” 您在过程中所做的决定，可能会增强或削弱实现这一目标的可能性。
对于任何读到这篇文章的家长来说，这些建议可能都会引起共鸣。对我而言，至少是这样。
现在，如果让我告诉你们一个小秘密，你们会怎么想？
如果我告诉你们，这篇文章写于1992年，你们会有什么反应？
我坦白说，当我第一次读到它时，既感到惊讶又感到欣慰。惊讶是因为它几乎就是我预期2025年一位学校负责人会向家长提出的建议。欣慰是因为它提醒我们，随着时间推移，唯一不变的是人类的行为。
虽然这份清单是关于如何育儿的，但它同样适用于生活中的许多其他方面——包括商业和投资。
#1 — 保持客观并现实地看待期望
家长们几代人都在与这个挑战作斗争，而且很可能永远都会如此。我们自然希望为孩子提供最好的，也希望他们能有所成就。然而，事实是，真正的卓越是例外，而非常态。然而，认识到这一点比以往任何时候都更困难。
原因是什么？
部分原因在于社交媒体精心挑选的片段，比如孩子们进球、考试拿高分、掌握乐器和赢得奖项的画面，让家长觉得自己的孩子落后了。于是他们增加了更多的辅导、补习和专业化训练，不幸的是，这更有可能导致疲惫，而不是卓越。
如今许多投资者也正经历类似的问题，这体现在风险投资、杠杆ETF和加密货币等高风险投资的流行，以及越来越多的人陷入“快速致富”的骗局。
为什么？
原因与家长们失去客观性相同。无论是看到杰夫·贝索斯在游艇上，还是《名城真豪门》中的女性，或者社交媒体上人们在异国度假的照片，许多人感觉在过去十年中错失了巨大的回报，现在试图弥补。
这正是已故的查理·芒格所说的：“不是贪婪推动世界，而是嫉妒。”
问题是，当人们在这个周期阶段采取过度冒险的行动时，几乎总是以失败告终。
#2 — 保持充分了解并开放接受反馈
“充分了解”似乎意味着与过去不同的东西，这在很大程度上是由于信息传播的速度加快。对家长来说，过去意味着知道孩子的大致行踪，并信任他们会在天黑前回家。现在，它却意味着通过GPS追踪他们的每一个行动。至于接受反馈的开放性，由于现在许多人容易感到冒犯，老师和教练往往犹豫是否提供反馈，这阻碍了孩子的成长。
对投资者来说，过去意味着多读书并了解世界的发展方向。如今，它却常常意味着通过推特和彭博社等渠道实时了解每时每刻发生的事情。不幸的是，这种信息洪流使许多人“只见树木不见森林”，导致投资组合的频繁调整和更差的表现。
#3 — 将“坏消息”视为需要处理的问题，不要过度反应
无法接受差成绩是生活的一部分，导致了教育史上最大的过度反应之一——成绩膨胀。
结果是什么？
没有人真正了解孩子们的表现，特别是大学和雇主。因此，为了获得录取，孩子们感到必须通过其他方式来突出自己，于是他们参加无数课外活动。然而，GPA依然比以往任何时候都高。
投资者同样不喜欢坏消息，只不过我们尝试用流动性不足来解决公开市场负面新闻带来的波动。问题在于，波动往往能创造最好的投资机会，至少对那些能够利用它的人而言。鉴于流动性不足的追求已经如此普遍，我们才刚刚开始看到其副作用。
#4 — 倾听仔细，但区分倾听与认同
倾听与认同是截然不同的两件事。我个人有九岁和七岁的孩子，他们越来越喜欢夸大事实，因此我倾听得比认同得多。但我想，随着他们年龄的增长，这种区分会更加微妙。在我的经验中，最好的投资者会倾听每个人的意见，但原因可能与您想象的不同——他们倾听是为了了解当前的共识。一旦了解，他们往往会转向相反的方向……即不认同。
#5 — 为孩子留出一些未安排的时间
所有人都知道我们的孩子被安排得太满了（参见成绩膨胀的后果）。毕竟，如果进入顶尖大学或获得理想的第一份工作是“终极目标”，而且只有通过无休止的活动才能实现，您还能期望什么呢？然而，孩子们比以往任何时候都更加疲惫、焦虑和压力重重。
至于市场，摩根·豪斯尔经常说，他最好的思考往往发生在散步的时候。没有iPhone，没有播客，没有音乐，只有他自己在行走。试试看。
#6 — 育儿时要保持一致性
作为一名父亲，我必须承认自己在这方面并不出色。我有时会威胁惩罚——“如果你不停止这样做，我们就离开！”——但随后又收回威胁，很可能是因为我自己并不想离开。问题是，我的孩子已经察觉到了这一点，这成了一个问题，因为他们像克林特·伊斯特伍德在《致命武器》中那样，现在开始质疑我的威胁。
大多数投资者在这方面同样表现不佳。他们今天是价值投资者，明天又变成成长型投资者。今天是主动管理的粉丝，明天又转向被动投资。今天热爱私募股权，明天又退出。无论如何，通往成功的最可靠路径是保持一致性。选择一个策略并坚持下去。不要反复无常，尤其是在现在这个时刻。如果您过去十年一直持有国际股票，我不会建议您现在抛售。如果您最近才涉足私募股权并考虑配置，请确保您有能力长期维持新的承诺。如果您考虑削减任何剩余的商品或能源敞口，我实际上可能会考虑增加。
那么，这对我们意味着什么？
事实是，尽管我们告诉自己现在与几十年前大不相同，但现实并非如此。当然，世界变得更快、更嘈杂、更具竞争性，但良好生活或稳健投资组合的核心原则并没有改变。事实上，这些原则可能比以往任何时候都更加重要。正如这位小学负责人所建议的那样——控制好期望，充分了解（但不过度了解），避免过度反应，仔细倾听，并保持一致性。纸上简单，实践中困难。但无疑具有永恒的价值。
对于所有家长和孩子，祝你们新学年好运。我知道我需要。
对于投资者，我也要说同样的话——祝你们好运……我们都需要。
The beginning of a new school year is a unique time in every kid’s life. A time full of expectations, and equal amounts of trepidation and excitement. The same could be said for their parents, which is why I was struck by this list of suggestions that a lower school head wrote for a back-to-school night.
Parents,
A few suggestions for the upcoming school year:
Try to remain objective about your child and realistic about your expectations. We are not talking here about loving your child any less — just about viewing his strengths and limitations in a realistic way.
Keep yourself well-informed and open to the observations of others about your child. Such people as teachers and coaches can provide you with valuable pieces of information, and you need to take the time to listen.
Accept “bad news” as a problem to be dealt with. Do everything you can to keep yourself from overreacting. Keep calm and think! Remember that even we parents have made a mistake or two along the way.
Listen carefully to your children, but make the distinction between listening to them and agreeing with them. Kids are good at conveying a perspective. Don’t succumb to the temptation to equate the child’s perspective with “the truth.”
Leave the child some unscheduled time. You would be surprised to see the number of kids who can’t seem to do anything unless it’s been planned and scheduled for them. Remember the old days when we had to determine for ourselves some of the things we were going to do with our time.
Act consistently over time; and, mothers and fathers, act together. Don’t make empty threats. Don’t let children play off one parent against the other.
Our main goal is to help your child develop into an intelligent, thoughtful, compassionate, contributing adult — a person who years from now is able to say to themselves: “I have the capacity to make sound decisions and to work through obstacles on my own.” The decisions you make along the way can serve either to enhance or reduce the probability that the goal will be reached.
For any parent who read this, it probably resonated. It did for me at least.
Now, what if I let you in on a little secret?
What if I told you this was written in 1992??
I’ll be honest, when I first read it, I was both surprised and relieved. Surprised because it is almost exactly what I would expect a head of school to suggest for parents in 2025. Relieved because it is a reminder that one thing that never changes over time is human behavior.
While this list pertains to how we parent our kids, it could apply to many other things in life — including business and investing.
#1 — Remain objective and realistic about your expectations
Parents have wrestled with this challenge for generations, and likely always will. It’s only natural to want the best for our children, and to want the best from them as well. Yet the truth is, true greatness is the exception, not the rule. However, recognizing that reality feels harder today than ever before.
The reason?
In part because social media’s curated clips of kids scoring goals, acing tests, mastering instruments, and winning awards convince parents that their own kids are lagging. They subsequently pile on more coaching, tutoring, and specialization, which unfortunately has a better chance of breeding burnout than greatness.
Many investors today are suffering from something similar, evidenced by the rise in the popularity of riskier investments like private equity, leveraged ETFs, and crypto, while others are increasingly falling for “get-rich-quick” schemes.
Why?
For the same reasons parents lose their objectiveness. Whether it’s seeing Jeff Bezos on his yacht, the women in The Real Housewives of Name that City, or social media photos of people on vacation in exotic locales, many people feel they have missed out on the outsized returns over the past decade and are trying to catch up.
This is precisely the reason the late Charlie Munger said, “it’s not greed that drives the world, it’s envy.”
The trouble is that when people take outsized risks at this stage of a cycle, it almost always doesn’t end well.
#2 — Stay well-informed and open to observations
Being “well-informed” seems to mean something different than it used to, in large part due to the speed at which information travels. For parents, it used to mean knowing their kids’ general whereabouts and trusting they’d be home by dark. Now, it involves tracking their every move with GPS. As for openness to feedback, since many now take offense, teachers and coaches often hesitate to provide it, hindering kids’ growth.
For investors, it used to mean being well-read and having a good sense of where the world was headed. Today, it too often means being aware of what is happening every minute of every hour of every day through outlets like Twitter and Bloomberg. Unfortunately, this deluge of information has made many “miss the forest for the trees,” leading to increased turnover and worse performance.
#3 — Accept “bad news” as a problem to be dealt with and don’t overreact
An inability to accept that bad grades are a part of life has led to one of the greatest overreactions in the history of education — grade inflation.
The result?
No one knows how kids are truly doing, notably colleges and employers. As a result, to gain admission, kids feel like they need to differentiate themselves in other ways, so they overload on countless activities outside of school. Yet, GPAs are still higher than ever.
Investors hate bad news too, only instead of grade inflation, we have experimented with illiquidity as a solution to the volatility created by negative headlines in public markets. The problem is, volatility is often what creates the best investment opportunities, at least for those able to take advantage of it. Given this push for illiquidity has become so widespread, we are just beginning to witness the side effects.
#4 — Listen carefully, but make the distinction between listening and agreeing
Listening and agreeing are vastly different things. Personally, with a nine- and seven-year-old at home who have been increasingly stretching the truth, I do a lot more listening than agreeing, but I imagine this will get more nuanced the older they get. In my experience, the best investors listen to everyone, but for a different reason than you might expect — they listen in order to determine what the current consensus is. Once they do, they often start leaning the other way…i.e., they don’t agree.
#5 — Leave the child some unscheduled time
Everyone knows our kids are overscheduled (see the consequence of grade inflation). After all, when getting into the best college or being offered a great first job is the “end-all-be-all” and only possible with endless activities, what do you expect? Yet, kids are more overwhelmed, anxious, and stressed out than ever.
As for markets, Morgan Housel has often said that his best thinking occurs when he goes for a walk. No iPhone. No podcasts. No music. Just himself walking. Try it.
#6 — Act consistently over time when parenting
As a dad, I will fully admit that I am not great at this. I have been known to threaten a punishment – “we’re leaving if you don’t stop doing that!” – but then back down, likely because I personally don’t want to leave. The problem is my kids have caught onto this and it’s a problem because like Clint Eastwood in Sudden Impact, they now call my bluff.
Most investors are equally poor at this. They are value investors one day, growth the next. Fans of active managers today, and passive tomorrow. In love with private equity, then out of it. Either way, the most reliable path to success is consistency. Pick one strategy and stick to it. Don’t flip flop, especially now. If you’ve held international equities for the past decade, I wouldn’t bail now. If you’re late to the game on private equity and considering an allocation, make sure you’re capable to sustaining new commitments for years to come. If you’re thinking about scrubbing any commodity or energy exposure you have left, I actually might consider adding instead.
So where does this leave us?
The fact is, as much as we tell ourselves that things are vastly different than they were a few decades ago, the reality is they aren’t. Sure, the world is faster, noisier, and more competitive, but the core tenets of a good life — or a resilient portfolio — haven’t changed. In fact, they might matter more than ever. Namely, as this lower school head suggested — keep your expectations in check, stay well-informed (but not too informed), avoid over-reacting, listen carefully, and remain consistent. Simple on paper. Hard in practice. Timeless for sure.
For all parents and kids out there, good luck in the new school year. I know I’ll need it.
For investors, I’ll say the same thing — good luck…we all need it.
2025-09-04 01:59:00
我的新书《花钱的艺术》将在下个月出版。 您可以在下面预购这本书。 投资者克里斯·戴维斯——伯克希尔·哈撒韦和可口可乐董事会成员——表示，这本书“与其说是续集，不如说是对我首本书《金钱心理学》的精湛、奥斯卡级别的完美收尾”。 我写这本书是因为我发现关于如何积累财富的建议有很多，但关于如何使用财富的却几乎没有。 这本书不叫《花钱的科学》，因为我并不认为存在这样的东西。我更感兴趣的是花钱的艺术。艺术无法被简化成一个适用于所有人的公式。艺术是复杂的，常常是矛盾的，涉及诸如个性、贪婪、嫉妒、地位和遗憾等话题。 这就是这本书的主题。 现在，我认为你可以用金钱来创造更好的生活。 我认为购买美好的东西能带给你快乐。 我热爱雄心、努力工作，尤其是独立。 但在我写了二十年关于金钱的内容后，我不断惊讶于大多数人对金钱的渴望和使用方式是多么糟糕。我们很少清楚自己真正想要什么，也很少知道如何将金钱用于比衡量地位和成功更重要的事情。 我试图从多个角度探讨花钱的艺术。但你会发现，这本书有几个共同的主题：
My new book, The Art of Spending Money, comes out Oct 7th.
You can buy it here.
Investor Chris Davis – who serves on the board of Berkshire Hathaway and Coca-Cola – says, it’s “not so much a sequel as the masterful, Oscar-worthy completion of” my first book, The Psychology of Money.
I wrote this book because I found there to be too much advice on building wealth but almost none on what to do with it.
This book is not called The Science of Spending Money because I don’t think such a thing exists. I’m more interested in the art of spending money. Art can’t be distilled into a one-size-fits all formula. Art is complicated, often contradictory, and covers things like individuality, greed, jealousy, status, and regret.
That’s what this book is about.
Now, I think you can use money to build a better life.
I think buying nice stuff can bring you joy.
I love ambition, hard work, and – most of all – independence.
But after writing about money for two decades, I am constantly amazed at how bad most of us are at knowing what we want out of money, or how to use it as anything more than a benchmark of status and success.
I try to tackle the art of spending money from several angles. But you’ll find a few common denominators in this book:
There are two ways to use money. One is as a tool to live a better life. The other is as a yardstick of status to measure yourself against others. Many people aspire for the former but spend their life chasing the latter.
Money is a tool you can use. But if you’re not careful, it will use you. It will use you without mercy, and often without you even knowing it. For many people, money is a financial asset but a psychological liability. Blind lust for more can hijack your identity, control your personality, and wedge out parts of your life that bring greater happiness.
Spending money can buy happiness, but it’s often an indirect path. Money itself doesn’t buy happiness, but it can help you find independence and purpose – both key ingredients for a happier life if you cultivate them. A big, nice house might make you happier, but mostly because it makes it easier to have friends and family over, and the friends and family are actually what are making you happy.
Enduring happiness is found in contentment, so those happiest with money tend to be those who have found a way to stop thinking about it. You can value it, appreciate it, even marvel at it. But if money never leaves your mind it’s likely you’ve found yourself with an obsession, where it controls you. The best use of money is as a tool to leverage who you are, but never to define who you are.
If you’re confused about what a better life would look like, “one with more money” is an easy assumption. But that can sometimes mask deeper problems. Money is so tangible that it’s an easy goal to strive for, and pursuing it can become the path of least resistance for those who haven’t discovered what truly feeds their soul.
Everyone can spend money in a way that will make them happier. But there is no universal formula on how to do it. The nice stuff that makes me happy might seem crazy to you, and vice versa. Debates over what kind of lifestyle you should live are often just people with different personalities talking over each other. Author Luke Burgis puts it another way: “After meeting our basic needs as creatures, we enter into the human universe of desire. And knowing what to want is much harder than knowing what to need.”
The book comes out October 7th. I hope you enjoy reading it.
2025-09-02 23:24:00
2025年PGA巡回赛在本周末圆满落幕，汤米·弗利特伍德在亚特兰大东湖高尔夫球场赢得巡回赛冠军，谱写了一段精彩的翻身故事。这是他自八年前加入巡回赛以来的首个冠军，也带来了职业生涯中最大的一笔收入（1000万美元）。
本周末也标志着LIV高尔夫赛季的结束，自沙特阿拉伯四年前推出该巡回赛并挖走多位PGA巡回赛的顶级球星以来，这已是LIV高尔夫的第四年。
这引发了一个问题——尽管像弗利特伍德这样选择留在PGA巡回赛的球员们持续表现出色，但那些跳槽到LIV高尔夫的球员们表现如何呢？
以大满贯赛事作为成功衡量标准，答案是——最坏的情况。因此，LIV高尔夫成为了一个案例研究，说明了仅仅参加比赛就能获得改变人生的财富会带来怎样的后果。这些教训远远超出了高尔夫运动的范畴。
LIV高尔夫于2021年推出，旨在多样化沙特阿拉伯依赖石油的经济结构并提升其全球形象。然而，它跳过了自然发展的过程，而是选择通过向顶级PGA球员提供巨额、有保障的合同来迅速获得关注：
琼·拉姆（3亿美元）
菲尔·米克尔森（2亿美元）
布鲁克斯·科普卡（1.3亿美元）
达斯汀·约翰逊（1.25亿美元）
布莱森·德尚博（1.25亿美元）
卡梅隆·史密斯（1亿美元）
李·维斯特伍德（4000万美元）
帕特里克·里德（3500万美元）
通过这种方式，LIV高尔夫颠覆了职业高尔夫的激励机制。
这是如何发生的呢？
因为在PGA巡回赛上，收入取决于表现——要“入账”，你至少必须晋级。而LIV巡回赛的合同则无论比赛结果如何都保证支付。
因此，一个合乎逻辑的问题是——这种新的激励机制对表现产生了怎样的影响？
表现悖论
虽然有少数例外（尤其是布莱森·德尚博和琼·拉姆），但大多数球员的表现确实有所下滑。考虑一下PGA巡回赛上在加入LIV之前和之后表现最突出的几位前球星：
达斯汀·约翰逊——在离开PGA巡回赛之前，约翰逊世界排名第二，曾在大满贯赛事中取得四次前十名（包括两次前三名）的成绩，并在2020年赢得了大师赛。加入LIV之后，他在过去八次大满贯赛事中有五次未能晋级。根据Data Golf的排名，他目前的世界排名为第120位。
卡梅隆·史密斯——史密斯同样曾世界排名第二，在大满贯赛事中取得六次前十名的成绩，并在2022年圣安德鲁斯英国公开赛上夺冠。此后，史密斯在过去八次大满贯赛事中有四次未能晋级，目前世界排名为第92位。最近，在2025年美国公开赛（奥克蒙特球场）中，有14名LIV球员参赛，其中只有6人成功晋级，而那些晋级的球员在周日的决赛轮中都显得无关紧要。
那么，是什么导致了这种下滑呢？
有些人指出LIV高尔夫较弱的竞争环境、较小的观众群体以及全球旅行的负担。但更简单的答案在于人性——突如其来的、有保障的财富可能会削弱你的动力和驱动力，使你在过程中变得过于安逸和自满。
但，你是否要责怪他们呢？
诚实点……如果有人明天就给你1亿美元，仅仅是为了到场，你还会继续在练习场练到日落，反复击球直到手心起茧，并且半数时间都带着行李箱生活吗？
可能不会。
初步结论
根据这些数据，我最初得出的结论是，获得有保障的巨额收入会使保持动力变得非常困难。要维持纪律、持续努力，因此表现下滑并不令人意外。不过，为了确认这一点，我查阅了其他几项体育运动的情况。我发现了一些令人惊讶的结果。
我首先搜索了：
“团队体育历史上最糟糕的合同”
这产生了大量列表，主要包含因伤病而表现不佳的球员，而非缺乏努力的球员——比如MLB的迈克·特鲁，NFL的德尚博·沃森，NHL的里克·迪皮特罗，以及NBA的阿伦·休斯顿。
我有点惊讶，于是随后搜索了：
“团队体育中当前最高的有保障合同”
结果包括像NFL的乔什·艾伦、NBA的斯蒂芬·库里以及MLB的布莱斯·哈珀这样的球员，他们目前仍在顶级水平上竞技。
这表明我最初的理论可能有误，或者至少不完整，这又引发了一个问题——为什么这些有保障的合同对这些运动员产生了与LIV高尔夫球员截然不同的影响？
我得出的结论是，这很可能归结为责任感。
在团队体育中，运动员需要对队友和教练负责。他们每天都要在更衣室、 clubhouse 或 huddle 中面对他们。他们的成功或失败直接影响他人的表现，进而影响他人的生活。而在高尔夫运动中，球员只需对自己的表现负责。
结果？
缺乏对他人的责任感，自满更容易迅速出现。
那又如何？
这种动态不仅适用于体育领域，事实上，我们正在金融市场上看到类似的现象，其影响可能非常重大。
事实是，近15年来，无数资产类别都经历了持续的牛市，这可能使许多投资者和公司变得过于安逸。从股票（包括公开和私人）到房地产、贵金属、私人信贷、高收益债券以及加密货币，任何具有“风险溢价”的资产都大幅上涨。结果是，无论是个人还是机构，总金融资产都出现了显著增长。
总金融资产——家庭和非营利组织（Statista）：
与此同时，失业率保持低位，信用利差依然紧缩，利润率也维持在高位。
那么，我们目前处于什么境地？
处于一个不适宜过于安逸的环境。需要采取团队合作的心态。要像乔什·艾伦和斯蒂芬·库里那样，而不是像达斯汀·约翰逊和卡梅隆·史密斯那样。要认真考虑谁依赖你以及你所管理的投资组合（或业务），无论是你的公司、客户、同事、投资者、合作伙伴还是家人。
这意味着要意识到，你的投资组合（或业务）的成功很可能受益于非常强劲的顺风，但现在却变得脆弱，那些收益可能在眨眼之间蒸发。此时，重新平衡投资组合并考虑将资金重新配置到更便宜、风险更低或目前不受欢迎的资产（或业务部分）可能是明智之举。
在你所投资的公司或基金方面，寻找那些具有强大文化、股权广泛分散，并且有历史记录表明其能够应对周期波动的公司。那些在困难时期面对员工并带领他们度过难关的领导者。例如，摩根大通CEO杰米·戴蒙，他带领公司度过了金融危机，比任何人都做得更好，并解释了部分原因，他说：
“我们的客户知道我们会在他们身边，稳定可靠，为他们做好工作，并且我们因此获得合理的回报，这至关重要。”
事实是，一个强劲的经济和市场环境是一件好事。我们应该为此感到庆幸，因为这几乎总是带来更高的生活水平和人均GDP。然而，正如钟摆一样，牛市相关的行为可能会走得太远。因此，那些受益最多的人可能会错误地将成功归因于技能而非运气。如此一来，当市场最终崩盘时，就像达斯汀·约翰逊的世界排名一样，投资组合的价值可能在相对较短的时间内大幅下跌。
事实是，目前机构投资组合中充斥着股票（包括公开和私人），401(k)计划的参与率也从未如此之高，导致超过65%的美国人对美国股票有所接触。这导致了私人股权投资估值的显著上升，以及标普500指数目前的市盈率高达23倍。问题是，过去一个世纪中，任何在这些水平上投资的资金，其后续十年的回报率几乎为零（年回报率在-2%到2%之间波动）。
投资的讽刺之处在于，感觉最好的时候往往正是投资组合最脆弱的时刻——而感觉最糟糕的时候，实际上却是它们最安全的时刻。换句话说，现在不要过于安逸。与LIV高尔夫球员不同，没有什么是保证的。
---------------
The 2025 PGA Tour season wrapped up this past weekend with a great redemption story after Tommy Fleetwood won the Tour Championship at East Lake in Atlanta. The win was his first since joining the Tour eight years ago, netting him the biggest payday of his career ($10 million).
The weekend also marked the end of LIV Golf’s season, nearly four years after the Saudis launched the new tour and poached a number of the PGA’s biggest stars.
This begs a question — while players like Fleetwood who chose to stay with the PGA Tour have continued to thrive, how have the players who made the jump to LIV fared?
Using major championships as the barometer of success, the answer is — underwhelming at best. As a result, LIV Golf has become a case study in what happens when someone earns life-changing money for simply showing up. The lessons reach far beyond golf.
Launched in 2021 to diversify Saudi Arabia’s oil-dependent economy and enhance its global image, LIV Golf skipped the organic slow-build process, choosing instead to buy immediate relevance by offering massive, guaranteed contracts to top PGA players:
Jon Rahm ($300 million)
Phil Mickelson ($200M)
Brooks Koepka ($130M)
Dustin Johnson ($125M)
Bryson DeChambeau ($125M)
Cameron Smith ($100M)
Lee Westwood ($40M)
Patrick Reed ($35M)
In doing so, LIV upended professional golf’s incentive structure.
How so?
Because on the PGA Tour, pay depends on performance — to finish “in the money,” you must at minimum make the cut. Meanwhile, on the LIV Tour, contracts are guaranteed no matter where you finish.
So, the logical question is — what impact did this new incentive structure have on performance?
The Performance Paradox
While there are a few exceptions (notably Bryson DeChambeau and Jon Rahm), most players’ performance has deteriorated. Consider two of the biggest former stars on the PGA Tour in the years prior to and after defecting to LIV:
Dustin Johnson — Prior to leaving the PGA, Johnson was ranked #2 in the world, had four top-10 finishes in majors (including two top three finishes) and a Masters victory in 2020. Since joining LIV, he has missed the cut in five of the last eight majors. He currently ranks #120 in the world according to The Data Golf Rankings.
Cameron Smith — Smith was also ranked #2 in the world, had six top-10 finishes in majors and a victory at the 2022 British Open at St. Andrews. Since then, Smith has missed the cut at four of the last eight majors. Currently ranked #92 in the world. Most recently, just six of the fourteen LIV players who played in the 2025 U.S. Open at Oakmont made the cut, and those that did were irrelevant come Sunday’s final round.
So, what explains the drop?
Some point to LIV’s softer competitive format, smaller crowds, and global travel demands. But the simpler answer lies in human nature — sudden and guaranteed wealth can reduce your drive and motivation, making you too comfortable and complacent in the process.
But, do you blame them?
Be honest… if someone handed you $100 million tomorrow just to show up, would you still grind on the range until sundown, chip until your hands blister, and live out of a suitcase half the year?
Probably not.
Initial Conclusion
Given this data, I initially concluded that receiving guaranteed life-changing money must make it very difficult to stay motivated. To maintain your discipline. To grind. As a result, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that performance would suffer. However, needing confirmation, I looked at a few other sports. What I discovered surprised me.
I first searched for:
“Worst contracts in team sports history”
This produced lists that largely consisted of players who disappointed due to injuries, rather than a lack of effort — players like Mike Trout in the MLB, Deshaun Watson in the NFL, Rick DiPietro in the NHL, and Allan Houston in the NBA.
I was a bit surprised, so I subsequently searched for:
“Highest current guaranteed contracts in team sports”
Answers included players like Josh Allen in the NFL, Steph Curry in the NBA, and Bryce Harper in the MLB, who are all still playing at an elite level.
My original thesis appeared to be incorrect, or at least flawed, which begged another question — why have guaranteed contracts had a much different impact on these athletes than on LIV golfers?
I concluded it likely boils down to accountability.
In team sports, players are accountable to their teammates and coaches. They must face them daily in the locker room, clubhouse, or huddle. Their success, or lack thereof, has a direct impact on other people’s performance, and therefore their lives. Meanwhile in golf, players only have to answer to themselves.
The result?
Without a level of responsibility to others, complacency tends to creep in more quickly.
So What?
This dynamic applies far beyond sports. In fact, we are witnessing something similar in financial markets and the implications could be material.
The fact is, a sustained bull market for close to fifteen years in countless assets has potentially made many investors and companies a bit too comfortable. From equities (both public and private) to housing, precious metals, private credit, high yield bonds, and cryptocurrencies, anything with a “risk premium” has appreciated materially. The result is a massive increase is total financial assets across both individuals and institutions alike.
Total Financial Assets — Households and Non-Profits (Statista):
At the same time, the unemployment rate has remained low, credit spreads are still tight, and profit margins have remained elevated.
So, where does this leave us?
In a situation where it will pay to not get too comfortable. To take a team player mentality. To be like Josh Allen and Steph Curry instead of Dustin Johnson and Cam Smith. To strongly consider who is depending on you and the portfolio (or business) you manage, be it your firm, clients, colleagues, investors, partners, or family.
This means realizing that your portfolio’s (or business’s) success has likely benefitted from a very strong tailwind, but is now vulnerable and full of gains that could evaporate in the blink of an eye. Rebalancing and a thoughtful reallocation to assets (or parts of the business) that are cheaper, less risky, and/or out of favor may be prudent at this time.
When it comes to the companies or funds you invest in, look for those with strong cultures, widely dispersed equity, and a demonstrated history of navigating through cycles. Those with leaders who have faced their employees during difficult moments and led them to the other side. Leaders like J.P. Morgan CEO, Jamie Dimon, who navigated his firm through the financial crisis better than anyone and explained part of the reason why, saying,
“Our clients know that we are there for them, are steady, do a good job for them, and that we earn a fair share for ourselves for doing so, which is critical.”
The fact is, a strong economy and market is a great thing. Something we should all be thankful for because it almost always leads to things like higher standards of living and GDP per capita. This said, like a pendulum, the behavior associated with a bull market can swing too far. As a result, those who benefit the most can wrongly attribute this success to skill rather than luck. In doing so, when markets eventually crack, like Dustin Johnson’s world ranking, a portfolio’s value can drop materially in a relatively short period of time.
The fact is, today, institutional portfolios are loaded with equities (both public and private) and 401k participation has never been higher, leading to more than 65% of Americans have some exposure to U.S. equities. This has led to a material rise in private equity valuations and an S&P 500 that currently stands at 23x price-to-earnings. The trouble is that over the past century, any dollars invested at these levels have produced near-zero returns over the subsequent decade (ranges from -2% to 2% annually).
The ironic part about investing is that the times that feel the best are often when portfolios are most vulnerable — while the moments that feel the worst are actually when they are most secure. Said another way, don’t get too comfortable right now. Unlike the LIV Golfers, nothing is guaranteed.
2025-08-14 05:54:00
我逐渐接受的一些事情：
经济不确定性很少多或少，只是人们对于潜在风险的无知程度发生了变化。
你应该专注于那些会造成永久性伤害的风险，而对造成暂时伤害的风险则不必太在意，但实际情况往往相反。
唯一能积累财富的方式是让你的自我认知与收入之间存在差距。
每个人都是某个群体的一员，却低估了这个群体对其思维方式的影响。
很多财务争论其实只是拥有不同时间视野的人在互相争吵。
人们很容易将“我擅长这个”误解为“别人不擅长这个”，从而高估自己的技能价值。
区分玫瑰色的乐观与上升趋势中的混乱时期非常重要。
如果你的期望增长速度超过收入，无论积累多少财富，你都不会对金钱感到满足。
无法预测过去的能力并不会影响我们预测未来的欲望。确定性如此宝贵，以至于我们永远不会放弃对它的追求，而大多数人如果诚实面对未来的不确定性，可能根本无法起床。
没有错失恐惧症可能是最重要的投资技能。
在现代世界中，良好的辨别谎言能力比任何东西都更有价值。
大多数人所谓的“信念”其实是一种故意忽视新信息的意愿，这种信念一旦形成就可能变得危险。
人们的欲望差异很大，除了三点：尊重、感到有用、以及对时间的控制。这三点几乎是普遍的。
市场是理性的，但投资者却在玩不同的游戏，而这些游戏在其他人看来是不合理的。
存在一个最佳点，你掌握了重要的东西，但又不够聪明以至于不会感到无聊。
从经济史中得出的一个重要结论是：过去并不像你记得的那么好，现在也不像你想象的那么糟，而未来会比你预期的更好。
大多数自以为是的人其实正在经历人生中的巨大痛苦。人们隐藏自己的缺点，这需要你对他们的怪癖和情绪进行盲目的原谅，因为你并不知道他们正在经历什么。
历史由意外事件推动，而预测则由显而易见的事件主导。
悲观主义听起来总是比乐观主义更聪明，因为乐观主义听起来像是一种推销，而悲观主义则像是在试图帮助你。
每一个过去的衰退都看起来像是一次机会，而每一个未来的衰退则看起来像是一场风险。
一种令人安慰的错觉是认为别人糟糕的处境不会发生在自己身上。
对许多人来说，变得富有这个过程的感觉比拥有财富本身更令人愉悦。
某件事可以是事实正确但语境上毫无意义。糟糕的想法往往至少有一些真理的种子，这给了追随者信心。
每一个市场估值都是今天的一个数字乘以对明天的一个故事。
喜剧演员是唯一真正优秀的思想领袖，因为他们理解世界运作的方式，但更愿意让你发笑而不是让他们自己显得聪明。
人们是在被惊讶时学习的。不是在读到正确答案或被告知自己做错了的时候，而是在经历预期与现实之间的差距时。
人们往往比知道自己可能快乐的事情更确定自己会生气。快乐是复杂的，因为你不断改变目标，而痛苦则更可预测。
变得富有和保持富有是两件不同的事情，需要不同的技能。
金钱最大的内在价值是它能给予你对时间的控制。
过去的成功总是看起来比实际更容易，因为现在你知道了结局，而当你试图回忆过去时，又无法抹去今天的认知。
“从历史中学习足够的内容，以尊重彼此的错觉。” ——威廉·杜兰特
从那些经历过风险的人身上能学到更多，而不是那些看似战胜了风险的人，因为承受风险所需的技能更可能重复且适用于未来的风险。
没有什么太好或太坏的事情能永远保持不变，因为繁荣时期通过自满和杠杆效应种下了自我毁灭的种子，而困难时期则通过机会和恐慌驱动的解决问题种下了自我恢复的种子。
大多数人其实可以负担不起成为优秀投资者，但他们无法负担成为糟糕的投资者。
金钱能为你做什么以及不能为你做什么并不直观，因此大多数人会对突然拥有更多或更少金钱时的感受感到惊讶。
你的个人经历只占世界发生事件的0.00000001%，但可能占你对世界运作方式看法的80%。
一些不可持续的事物可以比你预想的持续更久。
“财富最不被察觉的一面是，当经济变得不必要时，金钱带来的快乐就会停止。一个能随意购买自己渴望之物而无需咨询银行家的人，其实并不珍惜他所购买的东西。” ——威廉·达文
拿破仑对军事天才的定义是“在周围人疯狂时仍能保持平常心的人”。在商业和投资领域也是如此。
很难区分大胆与鲁莽、贪婪与雄心、反潮流与错误。
伍德罗·威尔逊曾讨论过某件事是应归功于达尔文还是牛顿。这是一个有用的观念。一切事物都应归功于其中一人，而你必须知道某件事是否随时间适应和改变，还是永远保持不变。
风险有两个阶段：第一，当它真正发生时；第二，当它的伤痕影响我们后续的决定时。经济衰退以及随之而来的持续悲观情绪，往往造成更大的伤害。
告诉人们他们想听的内容，你就可以在很长时间内错误而不受惩罚。
乐观和悲观总是会超出预期，因为只有当你略微超越它们时，才能真正了解它们的边界。
声誉在两个方向上都有惯性，因为人们希望与赢家建立联系，而避免与输家交往。
用数字欺骗比用文字更容易，因为人们理解故事，但面对数字时眼神会变得呆滞。正如俗话所说，用Excel写下的虚构作品比用Word多得多。
很容易利用他人，但同样也容易低估那些长期被利用的人群所拥有的力量和影响力。
你只有五秒钟来吸引人们的注意力。无论是书、博客、电子邮件还是报告，如果你不能在五秒钟内抓住他们的注意力，就几乎耗尽了他们的耐心。
看起来好像我们十年或二十年都没有创新，其实是因为要等到十年或二十年后，创新才会成为显而易见的成功。
你出生的时间和地点对你的生活结果的影响，可能比你有意为之的任何事情都更大。
大多数人擅长学习事实，但不擅长学习规则——那些从事件中得出的广泛教训，适用于未来的事件。
每个人都在对未知的未来下注。只有当你与他人的下注不一致时，这种行为才被称为投机。
有两种信息：一种是你在未来仍然会关心的信息，另一种则是随着时间推移变得越来越不重要的信息。长期知识与过期知识。当你遇到新事物时，识别哪一种是关键。
那些导致异常成功所需的特质，同时也是导致失败概率增加的特质。大胆与鲁莽之间的界限很薄。因此，不要盲目赞扬成功或批评失败，因为它们往往做出相似的决定，只是运气略有不同。
在沟通时，“了解你的受众”很容易变成“迎合你的受众”。
大多数财务错误发生在你试图让事情发生得比所需更快的时候。复利不喜欢你使用捷径。
大多数人有一个最佳的净资产水平，超过这个水平后，幸福感不再增加，而更多的钱反而成为社交和心理上的负担。这个数字因人而异，但很可能比大多数人想象的要低。
风险是你看不见的、认为只发生在别人身上、没有关注的、故意忽视的、以及未被新闻报道的。一次小的意外通常比几个月来一直被报道的大灾难造成更大的伤害。
创新和经济可以相距甚远。Twitter直接影响核国家之间的地缘政治，而其价值却只有Progressive汽车保险的一半。
风险管理更多是关于识别在实际发生之前可能出错的事情数量，而不是你如何应对风险。
市场上的营销（挥舞手臂）太多，而品牌建设（建立信任）太少。
很多人并不清楚自己在下什么赌注。也许他们以为自己在押注颠覆性技术，结果发现他们其实是在押注低利率。或者他们以为自己在押注替代能源，结果发现他们其实是在押注补贴和税收优惠。许多赌注失败并非因为赌注本身错误，而是因为你不了解自己最初在下什么赌注。
住房常常是伪装成安全资产的负债。
询问最大的风险是什么，就像询问你期望被什么意外所震惊。如果你知道最大的风险是什么，你就会采取行动，而采取行动会降低风险。你的想象力无法理解的正是危险的东西，这也是为什么风险永远无法被掌控。
很多优秀的写作都在阐述人们已经直觉知道但尚未言明的观点。这之所以有效，是因为读者在不费力质疑其真实性的情况下就能学到新东西。其他选择要么是明显且广为人知的观点（乏味），要么是非明显且未知的观点（通常需要太多努力去理解，导致不耐烦的读者离开）。
情绪可以超越任何层面的智慧。
小风险被夸大，因为它们容易讨论；大风险则被低估和忽视，因为它们在发生前似乎荒谬。
如果你有一个想法，却认为“有人已经做过这个”，请记住，有1010本已出版的温斯顿·丘吉尔传记。
没有人像你一样关注你。
约翰·D·洛克菲勒的价值相当于4000亿美元，但他从未使用过青霉素、防晒霜或布洛芬。在他成年生活的大部分时间里，他甚至没有电灯、空调或墨镜。财富的一切都是在特定期望背景下的处境。
读更少的预测，更多的历史。研究更多的失败，而不是成功。
生活中存在最佳的谎言比例。对麻烦、无意义和低效没有容忍度并不是一种值得称赞的品质；这其实是对现实的否认。一旦你接受一定水平的谎言，你就会停止否认其存在，并对世界运作方式有更清晰的认识。
大多数问题比看起来更复杂，但大多数解决方案却比它们本身更简单。
大约每十年，人们就会忘记泡沫形成和破裂的周期大约也是每十年一次。
如果某件事无法被了解，你最好不那么聪明，因为聪明人会欺骗自己以为他们知道，而普通人更可能耸耸肩，最终更接近现实。
你无法相信风险而不同时相信运气，因为它们本质上是同一回事——承认你无法控制的事物对结果的影响可能比你自己的行为更大。
“现实会以与你错觉相等的比例回报你。” ——威尔·史密斯
风险的最大燃料是杠杆、过度自信、自我和急躁。其最大的解药是拥有选择、谦逊和其他人的信任。
百年一遇的事件其实经常发生，因为许多不相关的事情都可能出错。如果有一种新灾难性大流行的1%可能性、一种毁灭性萧条的1%可能性、一种灾难性洪水的1%可能性、一种政治崩溃的1%可能性，等等，那么明年或任何一年发生不好的事情的概率……都非常高。这就是为什么阿诺德·汤因比说历史是“一件接一件的麻烦事”。
突然遭遇意外困难的人可能会采纳他们以前认为不可能的观点。
最容易说服人们你很特别，是因为他们还不了解你所有不特别的地方。
一个大群体随时间推移可以变得更好信源。但他们在动荡时期无法平均变得更耐心、更不贪婪或更冷静。这永远不会改变。
好想法很容易写，坏想法很难。困难是质量的信号，而写作障碍通常更多反映的是你的想法，而不是你的写作能力。
每天早上醒来想要解决问题的人比想要制造麻烦的人更多。但制造麻烦的人却获得更多关注。因此，在坏消息的鼓点中缓慢前进是常态。
一切皆为销售。
A few things I’ve come to terms with:
There is rarely more or less economic uncertainty; just changes in how ignorant people are to potential risks.
You should obsess over risks that do permanent damage and care little about risks that do temporary harm, but the opposite is more common.
The only way to build wealth is to have a gap between your ego and your income.
Everyone belongs to a tribe and underestimates how influential that tribe is on their thinking.
A lot of financial debates are just people with different time horizons talking over each other.
It’s easy to mistake “I’m good at this” with “Others are bad at this” in a way that makes you overestimate how valuable your skills are.
It’s important to know the difference between rosy optimism and periods of chaos that trend upward.
If your expectations grow faster than your income you’ll never be happy with your money no matter how much you accumulate.
The inability to forecast the past has no impact on our desire to forecast the future. Certainty is so valuable that we’ll never give up the quest for it, and most people couldn’t get out of bed in the morning if they were honest about how uncertain the future is.
Having no FOMO might be the most important investing skill.
Few things are as valuable in the modern world as a good bullshit detector.
Most of what people call “conviction” is a willful disregard for new information that might make you change your mind. That’s when beliefs turn dangerous.
People have vastly different desires, except for three things: Respect, feeling useful, and control over their time. Those are nearly universal.
The market is rational but investors play different games and those games look irrational to people playing a different game.
There’s a sweet spot where you grasp the important stuff but you’re not smart enough to be bored with it.
A big takeaway from economic history is that the past wasn’t as good as you remember, the present isn’t as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate.
Most assholes are going through something terrible in their life. People hide their skeletons, which requires blind forgiveness of their quirks and moods because you’re unaware of what they’re dealing with.
History is driven by surprising events but forecasting is driven by obvious ones.
Pessimism always sounds smarter than optimism because optimism sounds like a sales pitch while pessimism sounds like someone trying to help you.
Every past decline looks like an opportunity and every future decline looks like a risk.
A comforting delusion is thinking that other people’s bad circumstances couldn’t also happen to you.
For many people the process of becoming wealthier feels better than having wealth.
Something can be factually true but contextually nonsense. Bad ideas often have at least some seed of truth that gives their followers confidence.
Every market valuation is a number from today multiplied by a story about tomorrow.
Comedians are the only good thought leaders because they understand how the world works but they want to make you laugh rather than make themselves feel smart.
People learn when they’re surprised. Not when they read the right answer, or are told they’re doing it wrong, but when they experience a gap between expectations and reality.
People tend to know what makes them angry with more certainty than what might make them happy. Happiness is complicated because you keep moving the goalposts. Misery is more predictable.
Getting rich and staying rich are different things that require different skills.
Money’s greatest intrinsic value is its ability to give you control over your time.
Past success always seems easier than it was because you now know how the story ends, and you can’t unremember what you know today when trying to remember how you felt in the past.
“Learn enough from history to respect one another’s delusions.” -Will Durant
There’s more to learn from people who endured risk than those who seemingly conquered it, because the kind of skills you need to endure risk are more likely repeatable and relevant to future risks.
Nothing too good or too bad stays that way forever, because great times plant the seeds of their own destruction through complacency and leverage, and bad times plant the seeds of their own turnaround through opportunity and panic-driven problem-solving.
Most people can afford to not be a great investor. But they can’t afford to be a bad investor.
What money can and can’t do for you isn’t intuitive, so most people are surprised at how they feel when they suddenly have more or less than before.
Your personal experiences make up maybe 0.00000001% of what’s happened in the world but maybe 80% of how you think the world works.
Unsustainable things can last longer than you anticipate.
“The thing that is least perceived about wealth is that all pleasure in money ends at the point where economy becomes unnecessary. The man who can buy anything he covets, without any consultation with his banker, values nothing that he buys.” - William Dawson
Napoleon’s definition of a military genius was “The man who can do the average thing when everyone else around him is losing his mind.” It’s the same in business and investing.
It’s hard to tell the difference between boldness and recklessness, greed and ambition, contrarian and wrong.
Woodrow Wilson talked about whether something was accountable to Darwin or accountable to Newton. It’s a useful idea. Everything is accountable to one of the two, and you have to know whether something adapts and changes over time or perpetually stays the same.
Risk has two stages: First, when it actually hits. Then, when its scars influence our subsequent decisions. The recession, and the lingering pessimism that does as much damage.
Tell people what they want to hear and you can be wrong indefinitely without penalty.
Optimism and pessimism always overshoot because the only way to know the boundaries of either is to go a little bit past them.
Reputations have momentum in both directions because people want to associate with winners and avoid losers.
It’s easier to lie with numbers than words, because people understand stories but their eyes glaze over with numbers. As the saying goes, more fiction has been written in Excel than Word.
It’s easy to take advantage of people. It’s also easy to underestimate the power and influence of groups of people who have been taken advantage of for too long.
You have five seconds to get people’s attention. Books, blogs, emails, reports, it doesn’t matter – if you don’t sell them in five seconds you’ve exhausted most of their patience.
It always looks like we haven’t innovated in 10 or 20 years because it can take10 or 20 years before an innovation is an obvious success.
When and where you were born can have a bigger impact on your outcome in life than anything you do intentionally.
Most people are good at learning facts but not great at learning rules – the broad lessons from events that will apply to future events.
Everyone is making a bet on an unknown future. It’s only called speculation when you disagree with someone else’s bet.
There are two types of information: stuff you’ll still care about in the future, and stuff that matters less and less over time. Long-term vs. expiring knowledge. It’s critical to identify which is which when you come across something new.
The same traits needed for outlier success are the same traits that increase the odds of failure. The line between bold and reckless is thin. So be careful blindly praising successes or criticizing failures, as they often made similar decisions with slightly different levels of luck.
When communicating, “know your audience” easily becomes “pander to your audience.”
Most financial mistakes come when you try to force things to happen faster than is required. Compounding doesn’t like when you try to use a cheat code.
There is an optimal net worth for most people, after which not only does happiness stop increasing but more money becomes a social and psychological liability. The number is different for everyone, but is probably lower than most people think.
Risk is what you can’t see, think only happens to other people, aren’t paying attention to, are willfully ignoring, and isn’t in the news. A little surprise usually does more damage than something big that’s been in the news for months.
Innovation and economics can be miles apart. Twitter directly influences geopolitics between nuclear states and is worth half as much as Progressive Auto Insurance.
Risk management is less about how you respond to risk and more about recognizing how many things can go wrong before they actually do.
There is too much marketing (waving your arms) and not enough branding (building trust).
A lot of people don’t realize what bet they’re making. Maybe they thought they were betting on disruptive technology, but it turned out they were betting on low interest rates. Or they thought they were betting on alternative energy, but it turned out they were betting on subsidies and tax credits. Many bets don’t work not because your bet was wrong, but because you didn’t realize the bet you were making in the first place.
Housing is often a liability masquerading as a safe asset.
Asking what the biggest risks are is like asking what you expect to be surprised about. If you knew what the biggest risk was you would do something about it, and doing something about it makes it less risky. What your imagination can’t fathom is the dangerous stuff, and it’s why risk can never be mastered.
A lot of good writing makes points that people already intuitively know but haven’t yet put into words. It works because readers learn something new without having to expend much energy questioning whether it’s true. The alternatives are points that are obvious and well known (boring) or something that’s non-obvious and unknown (often takes too much effort to understand and impatient readers leave).
Emotions can override any level of intelligence.
Small risks are overblown because they’re easy to talk about, big risks are discounted and ignored because they seem preposterous before they arrive.
If you have an idea but think “someone has already done that,” just remember there are 1,010 published biographies of Winston Churchill.
No one is thinking about you as much as you are.
John D. Rockefeller was worth the equivalent of $400 billion, but he never had penicillin, sunscreen, or Advil. For most of his adult life he didn’t have electric lights, air conditioning, or sunglasses. Everything about wealth is circumstances in the context of expectations.
Read fewer forecasts and more history. Study more failures and fewer successes.
There is an optimal amount of bullshit in life. Having no tolerance for hassle, nonsense and inefficiency is not an admirable trait; it’s denying reality. Once you accept a certain level of BS, you stop denying its existence and have a clearer view of how the world works.
Most problems are more complicated than they look but most solutions should be simpler than they are.
About once a decade people forget that bubbles form and burst about once a decade.
If something is impossible to know you are better off not being very smart, because smart people fool themselves into thinking they know while average people are more likely to shrug their shoulders and end up closer to reality.
You can’t believe in risk without also believing in luck because they are fundamentally the same thing—an acknowledgment that things outside of your control can have a bigger impact on outcomes than anything you do on your own.
“Reality will pay you back in equal proportion to your delusion.” – Will Smith
Risk’s greatest fuels are leverage, overconfidence, ego, and impatience. Its greatest antidote is having options, humility, and other people’s trust.
Once-in-a-century events happen all the time because lots of unrelated things can go wrong. If there’s a 1% chance of a new disastrous pandemic, a 1% chance of a crippling depression, a 1% chance of a catastrophic flood, a 1% chance of political collapse, and on and on, then the odds that something bad will happen next year – or any year – are … pretty good. It’s why Arnold Toynbee says history is “just one damn thing after another.”
People suffering from sudden, unexpected hardship can adopt views they previously would have considered unthinkable.
It’s easiest to convince people that you’re special if they don’t know you well enough to see all the ways you’re not.
A large group of people can become better informed over time. But they can’t, on average, become more patient, less greedy, or more level-headed during periods of upheaval. That will never change.
Good ideas are easy to write, bad ideas are hard. Difficulty is a quality signal, and writer’s block usually indicates more about your ideas than your writing.
More people wake up every morning wanting to solve problems than wake up looking to cause harm. But people who cause harm get the most attention. So slow progress amid a drumbeat of bad news is the normal state of affairs.
Everything is sales.
