Everybody's Got to Find Their Game

I had a conversation recently with a couple of sharp investors — guys who spend their days analyzing high-growth technology companies, trying to predict which ones will dominate the next decade.

Smart people. Thoughtful. Good at what they do.

And I left the conversation feeling a little bit like I’d been left behind.

Let me explain.

What companies like SpaceX are doing is remarkable. What Elon has built is genuinely extraordinary, and there’s no denying the potential for a tremendous amount of value to be created.

But when I look at a business doing something like $25 billion in revenue — revenue, not profit — being valued in the trillions… my brain just stops cooperating.

Because at that point, you’re not valuing what exists today.

You’re betting on what might exist in the future.

You’re betting on execution. You’re betting on unknowns. You’re betting on a world that hasn’t played out yet.

And I can’t get comfortable with that.

That’s not a criticism of people who can. It’s just an honest admission that I can’t.

One thing that stood out in the conversation — these guys talk about the long-term story, the multi-decade vision. But when it comes to actually managing capital, they’re operating on a two-year time horizon.

In and out of positions. Constantly adjusting. Constantly monitoring.

That makes sense for their game.

But it’s not mine.

I continue to believe that one of the only real competitive advantages left is long-term thinking.

Not talking about the long term — actually operating that way.

Buying and building things you intend to hold for a very long time.

And if that’s the approach, you need to own things that are durable. Things likely to stand the test of time. Things where the cash flows are predictable enough that you can actually value them without needing to guess what the world looks like in 2035.

That’s why I focus on boring cash flow businesses that are unlikely to be disrupted.

Air filters. Distribution. Things nobody writes breathless Twitter threads about.

I asked them directly: do you really think there’s excess alpha to be made over simply indexing the S&P?

Both said yes. Without hesitation.

Their argument was that if you’re truly connected — if you can access private companies, talk to management teams, understand what’s actually happening inside these businesses — you can develop a real edge.

And they’re probably right.

There are people who have done this at a very high level and beaten the market.

But here’s the part I think most people miss:

That edge is not evenly distributed.

If you’re not already deeply in that world — if you don’t have real access, real relationships, real information advantages — you’re probably playing without the edge you think you have.

You’re competing in a game where other people are better informed, better positioned, and moving faster.

I would put myself firmly in that bucket when it comes to tech investing.

I don’t have that edge.

And I’m fine with it.

I’m endlessly fascinated by technology and AI and everything that’s coming. I watch it closely. I study it.

And then I go back to building.

Expanding product lines. Growing the delivery footprint. Acquiring distribution businesses. Compounding cash flows in a category that people need whether the AI revolution happens on schedule or not.

Sitting in that conversation, I felt the pull.

The part of me that wanted to believe I could predict the future. That I could make those bets with conviction.

That would be exciting.

But I don’t have that edge.

What I do have confidence in is much simpler:

Businesses with stable, growing, predictable cash flows. Businesses I can understand. Businesses I don’t need to make heroic assumptions to value.

There are a lot of games you can play in markets.

Some require speed. Some require access. Some require predicting the future.

And then there’s this one:

Buy durable things. Hold them. Keep compounding.

I don’t need to predict the future to win.

I just need to keep doing that.