Put bluntly, facts don’t exist. Versions of them do: what is a fact for me, is a picture of a worldy experience that commonly more than one person enjoys. That means that the interpretation of experiences yields different pseudo-facts depending on the points of view.
Even if we could agree on facts¹, different versions of facts exist for each individual. And that’s a big reason many of us like to simplify this disparate view into numbers/financial statements, albeit losing perspective and nuance – still we strive to acknowledge it.
Which begs the question: what is the real competitive advantage in investing? Deep research or deep pondering?
The vast majority of research pieces has the same underlying data and sources, so what would differ among them? Is it a matter of BRUTE FORCE & EFFORT? I’d say deep research is simply a pre-requisite for playing the real game. But what we call “edge” or “variant view” arguably lies within FRAMING, PONDERING, and how you INTERWINE separate pseudo-facts.
The market is a weighing machine (many claim it’s efficient, sovereign and omniscient), but so should we be weighing machines. In the world of big data, robots may arbitrage headlines, but they can’t (at least yet) ponder multiple subjective arguments like we can do. Counterintuitively, stretching investment horizons simplifies our job is in spite of additional possible outcomes. At least we are an order of magnitude right instead of precisely wrong.