How to make the right decisions isn’t taught at school. It’s not taught at university. And it’s certainly not taught in workplaces. Yet, decision making is central to everything we do, from investing and work to life more generally.
Through reading and experimenting, here are the five decision making tools that I’ve found most useful:
1. Stick with something you could do for life.
I made a New Year’s resolution to go to pilates and yoga classes to keep in shape. Nearly nine months on, things haven’t gone to plan. There have been the usual interruptions such as holidays. I’ve also had some injuries that I’ve been battling with. Also, life stuff has got in the way. The result: the resolution has been a failure.
My mistake is one many people make – looking at what you’d like to do in the short-term instead of thinking about what is sustainable in the long run.
That’s why I like author Morgan Housel’s suggestion: pursue things that you could do for the rest of your life.
Do you want to take up yoga? Can you see yourself doing it for the next 30 years, or however long you’ve got?
Do you want to switch to a new job? Could you see yourself working at that firm and in that role for the long term?
Do you want to buy a stock, or invest a certain amount in a variety of equities? Would you be comfortable with that decision for the next 30 years?
If nothing else, this rule eliminates a lot of the frivolous and emotive decisions that we make, including half-heartedly acting on New Year’s resolutions.
2. If you’re not saying, “HELL YEAH!” about something, say no.
This comes from author Derek Sivers and is a good rule for those who are often over-committed.
When making a decision, if you're not saying, “This is amazing and I’d be crazy not to do it”, then it’s a no.
If your friend offers a part-share in his business, it’s either a “HELL YEAH!”, or a pass.
Are you thinking about learning a new language? You’re either all in, or it’s a no.
Like rule number 1, what this rule does is eliminate a lot of frivolous decisions so you can focus on what really matters.
3. List pros and cons, with a twist.
This rule comes from Canadian billionaire, Seymour Schulich, who was one of the men behind the creation of Franco Nevada, the world’s largest resource royalty company.
We’ve all made a list of pros and cons for decisions in our lives. Which university to go to, whether to accept a job offer, and so on. Schulich adds a twist to the concept.
Here’s how it works. On one sheet of paper or word document, list all the positive things you can about the issue in question, then give each one a score from zero to 10. The higher the score, the more important it is to you.
One another sheet or document, list the negative points, and score them from zero to 10. This time, though, 10 means it’s a major drawback.
Then add up the scores on each sheet. If the positive score is 2x or more than that of the negative, you should do it. If not, you should leave it.
I used this rule when making one of the larger decisions of my life – whether to invest in a motel:
Should I invest in motel X?
The positives:
1. It could give me a decent income and return over both the short and long term. Rating: 10.
2. I could oversee it with relatively minimal work given two managers are already in place. Rating: 9.
3. It’s in Sydney and not many hotel/motel businesses go up for sale in the metropolitan area. Means less travel. Rating: 8.
4. It’s in a great area that should grow over time. Rating: 7.
5. I’d gain direct business experience and knowledge. Rating: 6.
6. The business sellers and our future landlord are experienced and helpful, and hopefully that would continue. Rating: 3.
Positive score = 43.
The negatives:
1. It’s a big outlay of cash and is higher risk than many other assets. Rating: 7.
2. It’s a big leap given I haven’t been directly involved in motel operations before. Rating 5.
3. Though not directly involved, I’d take on managing more than a dozen employees. Rating: 5.
4. I’d have to travel an hour to get to the motel, likely once a week. Rating: 3.
Negative score = 20.
As you can see, there are more than twice the positive to negative points. I took Schulich’s advice and invested in the motel, and it turned out satisfactorily.
4. Probability-weight outcomes
This rule comes from investor Mohnish Pabrai and is most applicable to business and investing.
One of my pet peeves are the notions of fair value, intrinsic value, or a price target. I don’t think any of these things exist.
There is no such thing as Commonwealth Bank is worth X amount. Or its price target is this amount.
In my experience, it’s much more useful to think in probability-weighted terms. So if I’m thinking of buying CBA, I’ll do some estimates of what they may earn over the next five years. I’ll do pessimistic, moderate and aggressive scenarios for these earnings. Then at the end of five years, I’d put a P/E multiple on the stock under the three different scenarios. Then, I’ll weigh up the probabilities of each scenario happening.
If there’s an 80% chance of a +10% annual return, then it could be a good buy. If there’s an 80% probability of a sub-5% return, it might be a pass.
I often do five different scenarios and probability-weight each of them.
The benefit of this rule is that it’s a more realistic way to look at future outcomes. Nothing, especially in investing, is certain. This caters to that.
I’ve also found this rule makes you think more about the assumptions that go into your earning forecasts, and whether they are realistic or not.
5. Invert, always invert.
Charlie Munger once said, “All I want to know is where I’m going to die, so I’ll never go there.” This thinking was inspired by the German mathematician Carl Gustav Jacob Jacobi, who often solved difficult problems by pursuing a simple strategy: invert, always invert.
“[Jacobi] knew that it is in the nature of things that many hard problems are best solved when they are addressed backward,” Munger said.
For example, let’s say that you want to be happier. Thinking forwards, you could run through all the things that you could do to foster happiness. Inverting the problem, you could investigate all the ways to make yourself miserable. In an ideal world, you’d want to avoid these things.
Inverting a problem won’t always solve a problem, but it may save you from making a silly decision.
****
In my article this week, I explore how Australia’s housing and superannuation markets have grown to unprecedented sizes, far outpacing the real economy and challenging traditional economic assumptions. What happens if these asset classes keep expanding - can the system sustain it, or are we heading for a reckoning?
****
I'll like to bid farewell to Joseph Taylor, who has helped out with Firstlinks over the past 18 months or so. It's been a pleasure to work with him and I wish him all the best back in his homeland of Scotland.
James Gruber
Also in this week's edition...
Clime's John Abernethy says recent disclosures reveal Australian politicians hold investment property portfolios far larger than the average household, raising serious questions about conflicts of interest amid the nation’s housing affordability crisis.
What if retiring debt-free isn’t always the smartest move? Tony Dillon says keeping a mortgage with a redraw facility can offer retirees flexible access to home equity, helping manage cash flow without the pitfalls of a traditional reverse mortgage.
Dimitri Burshtein and Peter Swan think the ASX’s obsession with 'independent' directors may be undermining its own markets, as David Gonski highlights the simple yet overlooked need for directors to truly understand their business. Private equity’s savvy governance model is quietly pulling the best companies out of public view - at ordinary investors’ expense.
"Dotcom on steroids" is how GQG describes the current state of US big tech companies. After years of outsized gains, it says these businesses now confront a turning point as growth slows, competition intensifies, and capital spending soars - raising questions about the sustainability of their lofty valuations. They advise investors to be cautious, as today’s AI-driven hype may mask deteriorating fundamentals and the risk of structural disruption.
Trade wars and tariffs are rewriting the rules of global investing, turning sudden policy shifts into a new source of risk, and opportunity. The real winners? Capital's Matt Reynolds says it will be companies with pricing power, agile supply chains, and resilient business models that not only survive disruption but thrive through it.
Lawrence Lam believes the next generation of wealth creation is likely to emerge from founder influenced firms that combine scalable models with long-term alignment. And he says four signs can alert investors to these companies before the crowds.
Lastly, in this week's whitepaper, Yarra Capital looks at future winners from the structural shifts in AI, energy and defence.
Curated by James Gruber, Joseph Taylor, and Leisa Bell
Latest updates
PDF version of Firstlinks Newsletter
ASX Listed Bond and Hybrid rate sheet from NAB/nabtrade
Listed Investment Company (LIC) Indicative NTA Report from Bell Potter
Plus updates and announcements on the Sponsor Noticeboard on our website