That’s happening all the time on this board in various threads. Here’s a good example on the ARM thread where I had started an 8% position one day, and after another poster informed in the thread that Softbank owns 90% of the company, I sold my whole position the next day. That ownership issue of an investment bank holding 90% of the shares was unacceptable for the investment criteria I am looking for.
That is the real value of the board to me, because I could have gone a very long time investing in ARM before discovering Softbank owns the company. In about 1.5 months time since I posted about ARM went from $120 to $180 or about a 50% gain, so sometimes it doesn’t always play out the way you want. It’s still better off for me to get that information early and make a decision based on it.
Maybe the fact that those (and other) risks are enough to keep most of the board out of HIMS, or keep their position small, beg the question of whether a 20% position is justified. Is HIMS really the best idea available right now? Better than all the consensus companies?
Are you really trying to suggest that board members lower their own conviction or lower their allocation in positions because they are not in the consensus group that the board invests in? That again seems against Saul’s philosophy which is to think for yourself, and make decisions based on your own conviction. There’s no part of the philosophy which says to look up what others are holding, and adjust your allocation based on that. On one hand you are saying we need to avoid group think, but then saying you should seriously consider re-evaluating your companies if they are not in the consensus.
I’m curious why I cannot get anybody to respond to my bear case for Axon with the CEO’s unethical actions. I don’t understand why this topic has never come up on the board, or why investors either don’t care or don’t know. I’ve mentioned the CEO’s actions before for my own reasons for selling, but I’m also hesitant to post too much about it because I know so many are invested in the company. I think we should be looking critically at any company, and not just saying this is a good investment because it is “consensus” and other investors like the company.