You're listening to TIP. On today's episode, I sit down with Chris Mayer to discuss the lessons from his book, 100 Baggers. Chris is the portfolio manager of Woodlock House family capital. Chris's book was published in 2018, and it has quickly become a favorite within the investing community. The book very clearly explains the ingredients needed for a stock to compound and grow to 100 bagger status, which is what we discussed during this episode.
In this episode, you'll learn the primary characteristics of companies that reached 100 bagger status in the past, how Chris views valuation when purchasing high quality companies, how Chris assesses the durability of a moat, why stocks are one of the best long-term protections against calamity and chaos, why Chris prefers to own companies with management teams that own substantial portions of the company's stock,
Why Chris chose to concentrate his fund into only 10 holdings, Chris's assessment of constellation software and why it's one of his favorite positions, and so much more. Chris is a wealth of knowledge and has really helped me a lot personally with determining what are the most important attributes of a business to look at.
And I find it really fascinating to study some of the companies that are in his portfolio, such as Constellation Software, Topicus, Copart, and Old Dominion Freightline. And these are all really high conviction names for Chris, as he only owns 10 or so stocks at the time of the recording.
What I also find fascinating about Chris's approach is how he makes investment decisions very infrequently. During 2022, for example, Chris mentions during this interview that he only made one purchase and one sell. If you haven't read 100 baggers, I really recommend the book. It's been really helpful for me in helping me refine my thinking of what to look for in a quality company to hold for the long run. With that, I really hope you enjoy today's discussion with Chris Mayer.
You are listening to the Investors Podcast, where we study the financial markets and read the books that influence self-made billionaires the most. We keep you informed and prepared for the unexpected.
All right. Hey, everyone. Welcome to the Investors Podcast. I'm your host, Clay Fink, and today I'm very happy because I'm joined by Chris Mayer. Chris, thank you for joining me today. Thank you. Good to be on with you, Clay. So I read through your book 100 baggers for probably the third or fourth time in preparation for this interview.
And it's definitely one of my go-tos when figuring out the types of things I want to look for when purchasing a company. I'd call myself more so like a quality investor. I want to buy a higher quality company, kind of what Warren Buffett's preached more and more. Maybe we could get this conversation kicked off by maybe just having you just tell us what a hundred bagger is and what brought you to writing a book on them. So a hundred mega just off that goes up a hundred to one. So you put a dollar and you get a hundred back.
How I got into it? Well, that's interesting. I started with Chuck Ockray, really, in 2011. He gave a talk called Investors Odyssey. You can find it online. Definitely recommend it. Great talk. In that talk, he mentions a book by Thomas Phelps, called Hundred to One in the Stock Market. I was investing junk. I thought I had read every kind of
investing book out there, all the obscure ones too. And I never heard of that one. So I got it and I really loved it. And I started quoting from it. And this was back when I was running my newsletter. I had a reader say, you should update that book. That's a great idea. So that's how it really got started. I started to put together the research on my own and to update Phelps's study. But that's what really inspired me.
It is kind of funny that you come across some of your best ideas from the outside. It just kind of serendipitously happens to you. And then you're like, hey, why didn't I ever think of that?
Serendipity is a powerful thing, man. That's one of my favorite words. Serendipity, it's never underestimate. Tell us some of the key characteristics you found in studying the hunter-bagger. I know you put a lot of money into updating the study to put together the new list of companies that achieved the hunter-bagger status. What were some of the key characteristics you found?
Well, I mean, the list that I created too, I sort of, you know, called it a little bit. So I took out a lot of the little tiny little microcap, microcap flares, like, you know, if some little mining stuff went from five cents to five bucks or something, that kind of stuff didn't make it.
Because I was trying to kind of grapple with the idea that you might be able to see these in the numbers, you know, you can't really predict if a mining company is going to hit it big or some small little biotech company is going to have a big drug that suddenly, you know, goes up hundreds of percent. We've all seen those happen. So I was trying to find see if there were some predictable ones and, you know, I guess I was a little bit.
I didn't find as much as I thought I would as far as this is kind of like a statistical profile, which I kind of hoped I might get more at. But because the path up the mountain is so varied. And there's so many different ways. But if I didn't like pick a few things, I would say, you know, almost all the stocks, all these stocks, you know, took a long time to get there. Like if there's kind of like imagine a fat tail, like most of them were 20, 25 years, it took to get there and to do that. And so you have to compound capital at 20 to 25%.
A year for twenty twenty five years and that gets you your hundred back that's basically the math of it so that kind of frames everything else is kind of backing into how do you get that how do you get that so. That's most important and i would say you know that means that you have to have companies that grow a lot right. So mcdonalds of the world's in the home depose that just just expanded.
and had the world is there, you know, market. I mean, those are the ones that kind of stand out. That's definitely one of those traits, the ability to just really grow, grow, grow high returns on capital, long period of time. Obviously, companies that did this also had, usually had some sort of moat, had something that they did that was difficult to copy. And then another one that I liked,
that I'm more sensitive to because I've integrated this in my own investing process and that's it, that they have some sort of entrepreneur or somebody behind it. So there's a number of like, you know, Charles Schwab, you got Charles Schwab, right? Steve Jobs behind Apple. I mean, there's always, not always, but there was often an individual entrepreneur, some driving force that really got it going. And that was important to the, to the name and their exceptions to that. But those are some
Yeah, and then the biggest one every study was TIP's favorite Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway. I think at the time you wrote the book, it was an 18,000 bagger, which just mind numbing returns when you think about it and look at his track record versus the S&P 500. Yeah, and that's crazy.
You know, as someone that's younger and is continuing to learn more and more about investing and listening to your past interviews, I know you talked about how you learned a lot along the way and kind of found your way to wanting to buy these higher quality companies. And I think one of the biggest struggles for me is the catch 22 of you want to own a great business, but oftentimes the market knows it's a great business and it's trading at a higher valuation or a higher multiple.
And I think that some investors kind of struggle with that because maybe 20, 30 years ago, a lot of these higher quality companies weren't trading at as higher multiples. But maybe we'll see that direction shift a little bit with higher interest rates now too.
Yeah, I mean, that's an interesting point. I mean, valuations for most of these great companies were generally higher. I mean, it wasn't like oil can find exceptions, right? When I think of like, Constellation software, you know, if you go back to like 2015 or 16, whatever it was, I think it was.
They had free crazy low, multiple earnings are like, what happened there? But that's kind of not very typical. Most of the time, great companies carry premiums. And even then it can still work out. I mean, I always think of those little exercises like Terry Smith is famous for doing, you know, where he looks at a company and he rolls back 20 years and
shows you what you could have paid instill may is still earn whatever 10% compound return and the p multiples are always really high, you know, i'd be careful of that kind of thing because you have to be right about the business but i've done that with some of my own own holdings i remember i did co part and.
I think I looked at like it's a 10 year period where it was up 10x, but I looked at what you could have paid and you could have paid like 60 something times earnings and still made 15% compounded over that decade, even though at the time was still trading in a premium to the S&P and it was 20 something times. So yeah, you really got to be right about the business.
And then I would say, you don't think of it necessarily like you only get one bite of the apple. So you buy some today and two, three years down the road, maybe you get another chance where it does get kind of cheap. So especially if you're younger and you're investing in these things for the long haul, you're going to get more assets as you go and you'll probably be buying them for years. That's another lesson with 100 baggers is that
For a lot of these stocks, you could have bought them at the highest price paid for, you know, the highest price they traded. And in a year, you could have done that for years in a row and still made a hundred times your money. So if you're really right about the business, you have more room on valuation than you probably think.
As you mentioned, you really need to be right about the business and a key piece of that is obviously what you've alluded to is the moat. A company needs to be able to continue to grow and continue to fend off competition and earn those high returns on capital and continue to grow earnings.
An example to nowadays, a stock that's kind of been punished is alphabet. Charlie Munger said they have the strongest moat in the world. Years back, they regret missing that one. And then now people are saying, you know, they have no moat. There's AIs coming in, chat GPT and all this and its capabilities. How do you go about assessing the durability of a moat?
Yeah, I spent a lot of time on that because that's, I mean, Clay, you naturally hit it. I mean, that's the thing. If you're going to own these things for a long time and you're buying businesses on paper, you know, earn high returns on their capital, you want to make sure they can continue to do it year after year. And so you have to spend a lot of time figuring out what makes it special, why are they earning those high returns?
So naturally excludes a lot of things that are very cyclical. You know, you might have some obvious example. We say you have oil and gas coming. It's earning great returns, but that's only because it's a we're at a good spot in the oil cycle. For example, that might might not always be the case, right? So you really have to spend time figuring out what makes it special. And I don't know. I mean, they're different kind of competitive advantages, you know, network effects. We all know, we all know some of these.
I think of an example like, say, co-part is a name I own. I always mention it because it seems to be a good example of a company that has a moat, has basically one other competitor insurance auto auctions. But its competitive advantage is really rooted in the real estate that it owns and accumulates over a long period of time. And then the network effects of having all these different buyers and sellers of
salvage car, salvage vehicles on their marketplace. And so that becomes very, very difficult for competitors to crack over time. So that's what you have to do. I mean, it's the case by case basis, looking at the companies and figuring out why, how is it able to earn those high returns and then being convinced that they can do it for a long period of time. And it's very difficult to copy what they do.
As I've learned more about how investors go about beating the market, it's been a really humbling experience. Initially, it's easy to believe that it's impossible to beat the market nowadays with all this information that's out there. Anyone can access it for free. You have all this money in Wall Street that can invest in certain resources you can't get access to.
The list goes on for reasons, you know, you won't be able to beat the market. And I was reading the joys of compounding. It's a fantastic book by God and Bade. And he talks about this study where they look back and they looked at, okay, here's the higher performing companies that are in high returns on capital and the lower performing companies. And what they found in that study is that the winners tended to keep on winning and the losers tend to keep on losing. And when you buy one of those winners at a fair price,
Essentially, the opportunity for an individual investor like me, the opportunity is to have that long time horizon. So buying those winners and then just allowing them to compound as you just sit and wait. And I think that's one of the beauties of it and something you've discovered in your research as well.
Yes, and I don't know that you necessarily want to make like being the market your goal right off the bat because it's kind of like, you know, saying you want to be happy. It's just not a goal you go at directly. It's kind of like it's the end result of a good process. And also you don't have to do it whole hog. If you were an individual investor, you could take some of your money, put an index fund and leave it there and then put some other part where you're trying to do better than that by studying businesses and doing as you suggest, trying to buy the winners and
And I definitely agree with that, that the winners tend to keep winning. And as always, again, there's always exceptions, but it's easier. You know, I was saying kind of joke with the end, you're just buying, you're buying a chart that goes up into the right and you wanted to keep going up to the right. But that's, that's what tends to happen. The winners do tend to keep on winning again, because they have some competitive advantage and something special and then they keep doing it. So I all good points, I would say.
Let's take a quick break and hear from today's sponsors. Are you feeling like investing in real estate is out of reach? Well, you're not alone. Concerns about experience, capital and time hold back many investors. That's why Connect Invest was created. To make real estate investing accessible to investors just like you. Connect Invest is an easy to use online platform that lets you participate in real estate through short notes.
These investments help fund a diversified real estate portfolio exclusively in the US, covering everything from acquisitions to construction and development. When you invest in short notes, you're not just providing funding to developers. You're positioning yourself to earn interest on your investment. It's a simple savvy way to grow your money while diversifying your portfolio without the hassle of owning or managing real estate.
And the best part, you can start with as little as $500. Getting started with Connect Invest is simple. Step one, create your account at connectinvest.com. Step two, fund your digital wallet with at least $500. And step three, select from 6, 12, and or 24 month short notes with fixed annualized rates of return of up to 9%. Then just sit back and enjoy your monthly returns throughout your investment term.
As a bonus, if you make your first investment within 40 days of signing up, you'll receive an extra $50. So sign up today at connectinvest.com forward slash TIP. That's C-O-N-N-E-C-T-I-N-V-E-S-T dot com slash TIP.
Time and time again, we've mentioned here on the show that companies need to either innovate or become irrelevant, and it's no different with your business. While most CEOs believe innovation is the lifeblood of their future, few CEOs feel their teams actually excel at innovation in more than 8 out of 10 innovation projects stall. Take the next big step towards solving these problems with innovation workspace from Miro.
Miro's innovation workspace will help your teams accelerate through the full innovation development cycle, helping them to be faster, more productive, and ultimately more effective. They have new AI-powered tools that accelerate your team through the full innovation cycle.
Whether you work in innovation, product design, engineering, UX, Agile, or IT, bring your teams to Miro's revolutionary innovation workspace and be faster from idea to outcome. Go to miro.com to find out how. That's M-I-R-O.com.
If you have trouble staying organized with notes and documents and feel like you can't keep it all straight, then listen up because you've got to hear about Remarkable, the paper tablet. I feel like the newly released Remarkable Paper Pro was made exactly for me as it tackles so many of the issues I've had with note-taking.
First off, it has a minimalist design and no notifications or apps, empowering me to focus on one task at a time without distractions. It actually feels and even sounds just like paper. But unlike paper, it comes with digital powers such as smart text conversion, which lets me convert whole pages of handwritten notes to type text, sort them into notebooks, or even share them with others.
Whether I'm brainstorming new guests to bring on the show, listing the projects I want to work on in the coming months, or taking notes on a new company I'm studying for my own portfolio, the new remarkable Paper Pro helps me keep all of my thoughts straight and I literally could not live without it.
It's also become a part of my nighttime routine as I can read ebooks without any glare or eye strain. Say goodbye to desk clutter and hello to effortless organization of your work life. Paper is about to change the world again. Get your paper tablet at Remarkable.com today. That's Remarkable.com. All right, back to the show.
Another piece I found quite interesting in your book was the focus on investing in stocks rather than other asset classes. Nowadays, there's a good number of people that put a lot of their wealth outside the financial system, and some probably just wait and hold cash waiting for the next crash to happen, essentially trying to time the market.
And you reference the work of Barton Biggs in how he studied these different historical catastrophes, what I'll call them, and how one preserves their wealth during times of chaos. So talk to the audience about why investing in stocks offers investors good protection against this type of calamity.
Right? Yeah, I mean, Barton Biggs book was an interesting read. I think it's called War, Wealth, and Wisdom. And he looks at World War II and he looks at how different stocks, how far it's behaved. And even through that whole calamity, if you had bought US stocks, he would have been, he would have done OK.
I don't know if I would take that too, too much to extreme. I mean, I think the basic idea is that you want to own something, you want to own stuff. And if your own shares in a good business, a great business, your odds of surviving that calamity are probably okay. Now, we can come up with extreme calamities where that's not going to be the case, but most of things like wars and recessions and those kinds of things.
And just think about it. I mean, when you have a great business, you have, you also have, you have people, they're trying to figure it out, trying to figure out the problems and keep the business going. So I think people underestimate that because they tend to think that they just want to own something like gold or something that they know won't change. And they're certainly placed in your portfolio for those kinds of assets.
I don't think you want to underestimate the ability of a really good business to navigate its way through difficult times. I mean, just look at the 20th century is kind of a mess, but it's a number of stocks that didn't perfectly fine.
And the result of his work, he essentially recommended putting at least 75% of your assets into stocks. Yeah. And that's part and big. He was kind of pessimistic in that book, right? I mean, he wasn't... I think he had a lot of survivalist stuff in there too. And he still said 75%. And this guy is just looking at history of different markets and how they performed during very bad times.
Another piece I really resonated with in your book was the focus on owner operators. I was talking with one of our founders, Stig, about a company and I was telling them all about the business, how well the stock's done over time. He kind of ignored what I was saying about the business. He's like, how much stock does it do the insider zone? And it kind of just took me aback because it was pretty unrelated to what I was talking about. But I think it just hits on the point of how important
Insider ownership and owner operators is within a business. These are businesses that are heavily owned by the managers because the managers ultimately decide the fate of the business. Maybe could expand on what makes owner operator companies a ripening ground for investors.
The more and more I study business and the more experience I get, the more I realize that at the bottom, business is just about people. And I guess there are some businesses that are so great that even when they have lousy management, they can survive that for, you know, survive that. But I always think of that Buffett quote to where he says, you know, over 10 years, a CEO determines where six percent of capital love the business is employed, something crazy like that. So capital allocation makes a big difference.
And so I always like skin the game. There are a number of things I'd say, you know, the behavior of people who own a lot of stock is just different and especially comes out in times of crisis. And there's different studies for this that show that they'll invest and continue to invest even during down times where a more higher hand CEO might, you know, kind of pull back. And then what's preserved is, preserve his job doesn't want to be called in a question.
So I think about even specific examples of old Dominion freight lines as a business I own, and they have continued to invest in opening new distribution centers, even when the trucking markets are weak and where their competitors don't. I remember a slide deck from one of their presentations where they show over a 10-year period of time, the number of distribution centers, how it's grown for old Dominion, but for a lot of their competitors, it has not.
So that, you know, the willingness to invest in the business is very important. Uh, there's another interesting example. I mentioned copart and I tweeted this out, uh, the difference between copart and insurance auto auctions when it came to investing in the business. Copart again, owned by a Willis Johnson and Jay Deere that have quite a bit of skin in the game. And they think long term and invest long term, whereas insurance auto auctions was owned.
Mostly by investors, it was not an entrepreneur in the heart of that one. They were more intent on paying dividends and didn't reinvest in the business as aggressively. Over time, now you really see the difference. The market share for Copart is where they were almost equal, say, I think it was in 2016. Now it's like 60-40, it's landed for Copart. That's not something you can easily fix because Copart has been investing.
every year for all those years and billions of dollars by now. And so it's very difficult to make up that ground. So those are some reasons. I think also there's other evidence that's out there about families, family owned. I also count families as insiders. So if you have a family owned business, they tend to have certain behavioral patterns that
are good. And so for example, they don't play that earnings, the quarterly earnings game. They tend not to give guidance. They tend to be less levered, less financial leverage. So, you know, you add that all up. The incentives are just more aligned naturally when you have, when you're messing with people who have a lot of stock of their own, you're they're already on the same side as you just naturally by the fact that pay on so much stock. Again, I always like the point that there are exceptions to this. And I'm sure we can all come up with it.
Examples of businesses where the insider owned a lot and you know, it's still treated minority shareholders very poorly. But by and large, when we look at the good place to fish, you know, by and large, the populations of insider owned companies tend to outperform.
I mentioned the joys of compounding, and he has a chapter all about incentives, and he's following these Buffet and Munger quotes, and you know, you read that chapter and you're like, just like blown away that incentives really drive so much of human behavior. If you want to understand why someone's doing what they're doing,
It goes back to the incentives. And when someone owns a lot of stock, just naturally, they're going to want the shares of the stock to do well over time. And they're going to be more likely to think long term and make those conservative type decisions.
Right. Yeah. I mean, but my Munger's famous quote on that has shown me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome. So yeah, and that's a big part of what I do at Woodlock House is look at the incentives and we, you know, our portfolio is full of companies that have high insider ownership. So it's important.
You mentioned woodlock and the fund you're managing. So transitioning from your book, 100 baggers, what were some of the key takeaways other than maybe the owner operator piece that you've implemented into your own process? Do you always try and apply this template when you're investing in a company or are there other sort of situations?
That's a great question. I mean, I think that, yeah, when I did the study, it definitely had an impact. I began to appreciate a lot more the compounding that these high quality companies are capable of and it results. But it took a while. I was kind of slow to go that way entirely. But even when I opened my fund in 2019, I was still, I still had some positions that were like some of the parts or deep value kind of or special situations.
And it's only it's gradually over time has been pushing more and more and more to just doing the finding some high quality companies I can just own for a long time. And so finally, I'm all the way over there and 100% now and I'm really not interested in buying something that's trading at a deep discount to beers and then you play some side of catch up that's going to take place over next year or two and then you trade and do another one.
I don't do any of that now. So now I would say, yeah, I'm 100% with the outline that I put in 100 baggers. So the big ones would be focusing on that return on capital and a high return businesses that can continue to do that for years and years. That's really the focus. And I think maybe one difference is in the book I talked about staying with companies that are small in market cap.
And in the fund, I've kind of, I've expanded that. I mean, I have some companies that, well, there may be like 30 billion an hour or so, although when I bought them, they were less. But still, I think that would be one difference is that I'm not so much focused on market cap, but focus more on the returns. I mean, I still favor smaller companies, but I think in, I don't think I'm going to, I wouldn't, in the fund, I'm going as small as I said in the book, that would be one difference. But other than that, yeah, that book is really the laid out the principles of what I do now.
Another aspect of a business I've really come to appreciate is the return on capital because that's really at the end of the day is really going to drive your investment returns over the long run. So I'm curious if there's a certain figure or hurdle rate you're looking for, maybe when you're analyzing new investments or analyzing that return on capital.
Yeah, I mean, I try to underwrite to at least 15% in compounds of double over five quadruple over 10. And that's, you know, with what I think are reasonable assumptions for the business. And there's no special magic to it. I mean, I look at, I try to make some reasonable estimate of what return on capital is.
make some reasonable estimate on what the reinvestment rate is, and then you get that compounding number, see what you get, the end of five and 10 years, have some multiple on that, and then what's your IRR to know. So that's the way I think about it. And I really don't get much more complicated than that.
One thing I really like is how transparent you are with your portfolio on Twitter. I know that psychologically that can be difficult for some people to share a position they hold because it becomes difficult to change their mind when the facts change because they've already stated they have a position in it. Could you give an example of a company you were holding that you ended up selling? And the reason I wanted to ask this is because
You mentioned earlier, it takes 100 bagger, 20 plus years to play out and selling interrupts that process and you have to kind of start over, I guess I'll call it. One famous example of selling too early is Buffett selling Disney at the split adjusted price of 31 cents. He sold at a 55% gain and that ended up costing them billions as many now. So what's the recent example of a company you've sold and how your thesis was busted?
Well, yeah, I know for first to talk about the transparency thing, I think, you know, writing a newsletter for all that time that I did and being in a fishbowl that way, having a portfolio just open all the time and everybody's seeing every movie make. I think that was good kind of training for this because it gives me thick skin. I really, I really don't care who are much what other people think and happy to change my opinion. And that's the way it goes. I mean,
I'll tell you one cell was, uh, well, I was the only stock I sold last year. I won by one cell. So I was Texas Pacific. And I had that since my fun started in 2019. I owned it. It was a good winter, big winter, but I think what.
What these has changed is I miss read sort of the insiders there and they corporate governance like just hours and hours and anybody can you search Texas Pacific and you could find TPL is a ticker and you'll find lots about the sorted tale of what's going on there since
You know, use is on executive pay the way they've just a lot of things way they've handled their proxy with shareholders. I mean, it's the long list of things. So I couldn't take that any longer. And that that was one that I sold. Very interesting.
Since we mentioned your portfolio, you have somewhere in the ballpark of 10 holdings, and someone in the audience on Twitter wanted me to ask, why do you feel confident running such a concentrated portfolio when unknowns are always lurking?
That's a good question. I mean, I wouldn't recommend it for everybody. And when you have a 10 talk portfolio, there's a lot of things that are automatically, you know, no go. So I'm not involved, you know, I'm not involved in anything that has financial leverage. I don't have any deeply cyclical businesses. All the stocks I have.
produce a lot of cash of high returns on capital and have really entrenched competitive advantages. So the odds of a permanent impairment in any one position is very low. So that's one reason. And two, you know, there's a good case for concentration. I'm sure you've seen a number of different studies and
You know, people have something of a false view that somehow the number of stocks they own is going to save them. You know, the owning 25 is safer than owning half that number and really depends on what, what, what you own, right? So there's a lot of different research. I forget, you know, I remember Joel Greenblatt. He said something like six to eight, you know, there's other ones that say 10 to 12, whatever the number is, the advantages of diversification roll off pretty quickly. Certainly you capture almost all of it. Benefit type 20.
Um, me probably at 80% or so, maybe more with, with even 10. So I'm more comfortable with that because, you know, I can get, I get to know those businesses really well and really get to understand them deeply. You know, we talked earlier about what makes them special, why they earn those high returns on capital. So I really dig into that. And so I'm really, very comfortable owning them over a long period of time. That, that's how you get, that's how I get the comfort.
Let's take a quick break and hear from today's sponsors.
Simple Mining based in Cedar Falls, Iowa offers a premium white glove service designed for everyone from individual enthusiasts to large scale miners. They've been in business for three and a half years and currently operate more than 10,000 Bitcoin miners. Based in Iowa, their electricity is over 65% renewable thanks to the abundance of wind energy.
Not only do they simplify mining with their top notch hosting and on-site repair services, but they also help you benefit financially by running your operations as a business. This approach offers significant tax advantages and enhances the profitability of your investment.
Do you ever worry about the complexities of maintaining your mining equipment? They've got you covered. For the first 12 months, all repairs are included at no extra cost. If you experience any downtime, they'll credit you for it. And if your miners aren't profitable at the moment, simply pause them with no penalties.
When you're ready to upgrade or adjust your setup, their exclusive marketplace provides a seamless way to resell your equipment. Join me and many satisfied miners who have simplified their Bitcoin mining journey. Visit simplemining.io slash Preston to get started today. That simple mining.io slash Preston to get started today. With simple mining, they make it simple.
Whether you're starting or scaling a company, demonstrating top-notch security practices and establishing trust is more important than ever. Vansa automates compliance for SOC 2, ISO 2701, GDPR, and more saving you time and money while helping you build customer trust.
Plus, you can streamline security reviews by automating questionnaires and demonstrating your security posture with a customer-facing trust center, all powered by Vanta AI. Over 7,000 global companies like Atlassian, Flow Health, and Cora use Vanta to manage risk and prove security in real time.
Vanta hooked up our audience with a special offer of $1,000 off Vanta at vanta.com slash billionaires. That's V-A-N-T-A dot com slash billionaires for $1,000 off. You want to hear my favorite sound in the world?
That's the notification I get every day when I make another sale through Shopify, the commerce store that's revolutionizing millions of businesses worldwide. When I first started my site business, I had no idea where to start. But after I got signed up on Shopify, I've realized that starting and scaling a business is nowhere near as hard as it used to be. With Shopify, I got my website up and running with ease so I could almost immediately turn my attention to driving traffic and sales.
My business would be nowhere without Shopify and brands like Alberds, Jim Shark, and Aloe who all you Shopify would probably agree with me. Upgrade your business and get the same checkout I use with Shopify. Sign up for your $1 per month trial period at Shopify.com slash WSB. That's all lowercase. Go to Shopify.com slash WSB to upgrade your selling today. That's Shopify.com slash WSB.
All right, back to the show.
He talked about how the main reason he invested in the company was because of Mark Leonard, the company's founder and president. I'm actually releasing an episode all about constellation here this weekend. The episode will be released by the time this conversation goes out.
For those who not aren't familiar, many of you likely are by now, Constellation's a holding company where every year they're acquiring dozens and dozens of these small software businesses. And they're just using the profits from those businesses and just renting and repeating and going out and buying more businesses. So.
Francois said when he read Mark Leonard's letters, he described it as love at first sight. And I can relate to it that as I read his letters and put together that episode. So I'd love to just get your general perspective on why Constellation made the cut for you.
Yeah, that's the same for me. I read the letters, but I'll say it first. I was skeptical. A skeptical for a long time. I remember thinking, you know, they can't be acquiring good companies. They're about rolling up these. There's no terminal value on these things. Got to be junkie.
I remember very skeptical of that, but then I finally did and I don't remember what was the impetus that finally got me to sit down and actually go through his letters, but that was when it was like, wow, you know, yeah, it definitely got my interest then way up and then I started to do a lot more work on it. I remember I tried to contact other investors on Twitter who had known the name and try to just kind of orient myself to what's going on there.
But now it's one of my favorite holdings. I've done a lot of work and I've talked to a lot of people who've worked there, and I think it's a supremely rational place, really driven by all the things we're talking about. I mean, we turn on invested capital and growth rates of the heart of the incentives there.
So, yeah, that's the gist of it. I mean, there are a number of interesting markers, like they have the same number of shares outstanding now as they did when they went public. Just the track record of compounding free cash flow per share. The incentive system is great. Like I said, the executives there, they have to take a portion of their bonus that he used to buy shares, so they don't get any option grants, no freebies.
Mark let it himself is, you know, he has kind of like a frugal personality focus on shareholders, which I think then permeates the rest of the organization. You know, there was that one letter where he mentions he pays up from business class at a pocket. So there's all kinds of little things like that. I think it's a very special company and that's like, it's a good one to just own and leave alone. Was there anything interesting in particular you found in talking with people that worked there?
Yeah, I mean, you know, they, how data driven they are, how they really stick to their hurdle rates on, on these acquisitions. So that definitely stood out. I mean, I remember, you know, if it's a 25% hurdle rate, if you have a deal is 24.8, no go. So it's a lot of discipline like that that I think is admirable. And then just the M&A machine itself.
their ability to find new names. I mean, I think their database, from what I've heard, is over 100,000 names. So, suddenly, you know, context, I think they bought 134, something like that last year. So, suddenly, in the context of over 100,000 names, maybe 134 doesn't sound so.
The other thing is the decentralized model is really amazing. They've got these six operating units, but a lot of the M&A has pushed down. It's not like you have just people sitting in headquarters doing 134 deals one every third day, sitting there doing these, whatever it is. It's really farmed out to these six groups and even within those groups and there's certain M&A, the ability to M&A. It's very decentralized.
which is remarkable. I don't know that anyone has succeeded to quite the extent consolation has with that model. Yeah, the decentralized piece is quite interesting. I can see a lot of positives from that, but one tweet I just saw the other day talked about how there was issues with compensation of some of their employees, and that can be kind of one of the drawbacks with the decentralized pieces. Each of these managers in the operating groups kind of need to figure out
what works for them. And if they don't get these great ideas from some of the other groups, then they might not move quick enough because there might not be as much communication at times.
Yeah, there's been some turnover more recently, recently being, I don't know, the last year or so. And most of that has been in, yeah, like M&A teams, you know, there's a number of copycats. And if you look at them, they're ex-consolation gods. So this is a, it will be interesting to see how this plays out over time. But then, you know, when I talk to people who are close to the organization or a little higher up,
They will tell me that the people left are, I don't want to say they're fine. They're okay, letting them go. They're younger people. They went for money. And the higher level executives are very stable. You get those golden handcuffs with your shares and all that. So we will see.
I think the big if for me with constellation is their mo in their growth runway. I know that the management team is going to do right by shareholders. They are going to try and take advantage of them. They're never going to budge on their hurdle rates and they're going to be transparent when they think their returns are going to be lower on their acquisitions going forward. So how do you assess or think about the mo in the growth runway? Is it something that's knowable?
No, I mean, yeah, that's the big question. Like if you're constantly sure there is like how long they can keep going and there must be a limit out there. So there's a limit out there somewhere. But the way I think of it, there's a couple of ways. One is I mentioned 100,000 plus in the database. I think there's plenty of room and I've talked to actually some of the copycats as well and they don't even necessarily run into each other. So it still seems like there's a lot of names. They're still hard to believe because it's just
But there's a lot of these things out there. The world's pretty big. It seems like it. It seems like it. So that's one. And then the other way I think of it is that, you know, if I want anybody on the planet to be thinking about how to deploy capital, it would be Mark Leonard and his team, right? So.
I have a feeling they're going to come up with some interesting things to do. They have other avenues. We saw the way they did the all-script steel. We saw how they did the spin-off with Topikas. They're doing another one. I've heard they could go into horizontal market software. They could go into another vertical. I have a great deal confidence in them and I think they'll be able to.
Figure out interesting things to do and if not then i think they will return the capital and that will be. I mean at some point that will happen right there will be you can't go to the sky but you also remember you know people said the same thing about Berkshire for a lot of years and skip going and going going so. I suspect we have a lot of time left on consolation.
Your fund also holds Topikis, which is a spinoff of consolation. I think I read somewhere that Topikis is around what consolation was in 2010, 2011, in terms of their size. So do you view them any differently? You know, just as highly capable of a management team, just probably more room to grow.
Yeah, I think that's about right. I mean, they're focused more on Europe and Europe is a little less competitive than North America. And Topikus has some advantages there being in those individual markets, having local people there that speak the language, know the rules. So I think Topikus will be a good one. I think it's very much like a mini-consolation.
Since you wrote the book 100 baggers, everyone wants to know what the next 100 bagger will be, but we don't want to put too much pressure on you or any particular company, but maybe you could share one of your higher conviction holdings.
Well, you know, I only have like 10 names of pretty much, they're all pretty much high conviction names at this point. Yeah, I mean, we mentioned a couple like, you know, I'd certainly think coparts are really good one, particularly because now their chief competitor is kind of put up the white flag. I agree to be acquired by Richie Brothers and
I don't know whether that deal will happen or not. The Richie brother shareholders are revealing, but you clearly have a wounded distracted competitor that is at, I think, a structural disadvantage at this point. They would take a lot of time and a lot of money and it wouldn't even be certain that they could equal, equalize with copart.
That's a good one. And coparts still, I mean, seems to get better with age as the network effects kind of take hold. And they still have plenty room to expand overseas. So that would be, that would be one super clean balance sheet and great team. I mean, really good capital allocators. This is a team, you know, they're, they're not paying any dividend. They're reinvesting everything. So very good compounder still.
That is another great point that you brought up related to copart. You mentioned some research that was done for a copart related to their competitor where the competitor was paying out dividends and copart was keeping the money internally and reinvesting. And the difference in their returns, just like the astounding over time. So it goes to show the importance of great capital allocation. And if you have a great capital allocator at the helm, they're going to recognize that
If you have a great business and you have reinvestment opportunities, then dividends aren't a great use of capital because that's money that could be used to deploy internally within the business. So I think that was also a really great point that I think a lot of younger investors overlook some people get attracted to dividends.
Yeah, that was one of the more controversial things that Tom Stelp said in his book when he wrote that dividends are an expensive luxury. And it's just basic math. If you have a great business, you'd rather they take all the cash and keep reinvesting. And if they can, there's certainly a place for dividends. You don't want companies to just take the money and invest in lower quality businesses or blow it on the stupid acquisitions and things. So there's definitely a place where eventually companies should pay a dividend. But if you're focused on these looking for these big multi baggers, then
Probably not going to be in a dividend pair. Now, sometimes company returns might be high enough where they could still pay half of their cash flow out of dividends, men still compound really high. And there's rare bit rarely, but you'll find every once in a long, long while you'll find a business and grow without any reinvestment at all, and has very high returns. And so it's a math problem. It's some combination of returns and reinvestment that you want to get a good compounding number.
Yeah, tying that into two businesses, we've talked about Berkshire, to my knowledge, never paid a dividend that I know of anyways. And then Constellation software, they pay a small regular dividend and they were paying these special dividends when they had extra cash. And I believe it was a couple of years ago, Leonard released a letter stating that they're going to be discontinuing any special dividends until they state otherwise, because they want to
put that cash back into the business. And I think that's a great decision. How one of the executives is like bugging more cleanse to discontinue these and eventually he comes around to agreeing with them and making that move. Right. I mean, if you're earning 30% and then you're returning and you have your opportunities to invest and get 25% return, but instead of taking that, you give it back to your shareholders.
You know, shareholders would probably say, keep it invested in 25. That's still a really, really high return. So I think that's a very big positive that he came around on that. And yeah, that's another feather in his cap, I suppose.
We had talked about obviously consolation and Berkshire, and I view Mark Leonard just as this buffet-like character. So if I were to spend this weekend just studying one company or one founder that maybe you just really admire or maybe even one investor, is there anyone that you have in mind that would be worth researching and maybe even me potentially covering on the show?
Well, you know, Will Johnson copar as a great story is that book jumped the gold. I definitely recommend that great story. And not as well known. That would probably be the one I would go with. I mean, old Dominion also has a very good story because they're the Congdon family and they've started back in the thirties with like a single truck lane. And there's also a book they have.
that tells their corporate story. But in that case, it's not one executive per se. It's more of a family over several generations, but still an interesting case study. Awesome. Well, Chris, thank you so much for coming onto the podcast. I really enjoyed it. Huge fan of your work and enjoy following you. So before we close it out, how can the audience get in touch with you and learn more about your book and your fun?
Yeah, well, I'm on Twitter, so that Chris W. M-A-Y-E-R. And I have a website with Lockhouse Family Capital. I have a blog I write occasionally, so those are two best places to find out more. Awesome. Thanks so much, Chris. All right, thanks, Clay.
Thank you for listening to TIP. Make sure to subscribe to Millennial Investing by the Investors Podcast Network and learn how to achieve financial independence. 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.
