.

27

Wasco Financial

38

43

48

60

61

63

Wasco 2008

64

71

()

77

1994 4 14

Grandmas Law

Latticework of Models

90% 80% 90% 80%-90%

Compound Interest

Permutation & Combination

Natural swing

Carl Braun
C. F. Braun Braun
Braun

Braun Braun

Braun 5 W
5 W whowhat
wherewhen
why
Braun why

WHY

why

Bell Shaped
Curve
backup systembreakpoint
critical mass

20

advantage of scale

90%

informational advantage

40 30

social proof

winner-take-all
situation

Saturday Evening Post

Motorcross

CBS

CBSPaley
Paley
CBS
Bill Paley 10

CBS Paley Paley

24

Sears Roebuck

42
42

Kitty Hawk

15% 40%

Kellogg
60%

3 20
4%

NCR

John H. Patterson

Patterson

NVR Patterson
Patterson

Bemidji
2/3

Iron Rule 20% 15%

32 1001

17%
17%

17% 10% 17%

harness racing

17%
17%

Santa Anita
off-track betting

20 20
20

50%

1/3
IBM 6
IBM

1/3
excess
value
20 30
600
600

IBM IBM
IBM IBM
IBM 6

Mr. Market

2-3

2
3

40

56 2-3

40 6% 40
6%
18%

Eisner
Wells

Marks &
Spencer

15%30 35% 13.3%

15% 35% 9.75%
3.5% 30 3.5%

10% 35% 30 8.3%

35% 6.5%
2%

200

1 2
1%


50
5060 70 IBM

Eisner Wells

Sees Candies
Coizueta
Keough

20%
1/5

1973-1974
1932 40 50
1973 1974

90%GEICO
100

GEICO
GEICO

GEICO
GEICO

1996 4 19

??
?

30

19

fitness landscape

25

40 4
100

200

.Steven Pinker
.

DoranNader

Psychological denial
3

Milgram experiment

2/3.

ABCD

multimodular

10

??

12 12
10


lollapalooza effect

lollapalooza effect

A
B
consistency principleoperant
conditioning

incentive-caused bias

incentive-caused bias
social proof
Serpico

referral scheme

2%

************************************************************************

98%

1995 7 31

autocatalysis

Pocahontas
lion king
50

1962 1965

100
?

14 20

25

marginal utility consideration

20

30
900

10-11%

15
15

preponderance
of the evidence,

CEO

genetic programming
40 55

14
X
?
?
?
X

?
?

Skadden Arps
Joe Florm

 Joe Floms

CEO ?

CEO CEO
CEO

CEO

20

24

no-fault rules

15 16

operant conditioning

20

Dawkins

70

70

70

Robert Cialdini B. F.

Thought Experiment,
?
?

1
2

70
Cravath

1996

2006 3

2007

1,200
1,000

() 75

65

12 5

()

GDP

(
)

Marcus Aurelius(
)

Alzheimer

:(1)(2)

65

20 (
(

30%

110

40
(
vs
, 76

()

,
()

15

()

75

(Glico

, CEO

,()()

()
()

(
)

10 ( Genre CEO

,())
,

Kenwood

,
,
Iskar
Iskar
Lebanese
(
) Iskar

,
()

8 (
)

USG
(
((

()

()

20

,
10-15

30 CEO CEO
20

?
( 1,200 ),

:()

(
)

:?

 17 , 1.2 ?

(),

()

90% 100%

:
:

,Costco(

LBO

15% 5%

LBO
15%

United Health CEO

,()

,,
,

()(
)

()

84
(

A B
A

(:

60

()

vs

5 2

Whole Foods Google

300

,,,

20

100 1%-2%

,,

,
(

:
,
,

,,
,,

GDP 2%

Wasco Financial

Wasco

2006 5
Wasco Wasco 2006 5
11 Wasco

Wasco

Wasco 710

 Wasco

1,000

Wasco

15

7%

5%

2002

50
Libor
250 2.5% Libor 10

10%
10%

1999
10

10
300

1987

3% 5% 5%3%

john Airgas

John
15 3

John

30%-50%

bail out
90
60

1,500
5% 3%

cabal

2002

380 80%
20%

10-15

2 800

24
4
4

Fannie Mae

20%
CEO

A
800 B 800

Wasco

Hollinger
Tweedy Brow Carl Icahn
Hollinger

Oscar Wilde

30%-40% 50%

Skilling

Iskar
Iskar

Iskar

Home Depot

3,500
Lou Simpson

Tweedy Brown
Hollinger

 CEO
CEO

Kmart
Tyco

Kmart
TycoFortune's Formula

35

CEO

Alit

41

3(

1972

8
Wasco

10

11 1993 1997

Coalmine

12

13 Wasco
?

14

Charles Thomas Monger

Charles Thomas Monger1924 1 1
,

1924 1 1 ,1948

300
12
1964 140 1962
.
1962 -1972 11
28.3% 1970 -0.1%

70 1969
1973

-1974 1973 -1974

31% 11
1975 75% 14 19.8%
16
1975

1978 ?

40
24% 1300 65
50

29 34

(
)

[]

1978

(some what efficient)

30% ~40%

 450

(Herb Stein)

IQ

19

1989

1973 1974
1978

()

40 492

Seeking Wisdom: From Darwin to Monger

Peter Beveling

492

Use notions
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
What is the issue?
*
*
*
Utility-applicability
*

*
*
*

*
*
Understand what it means

Filters and Rules

*
*
*
What do I specifically and measurable want to achieve and avoid and when and why?

*
*
*
*

*
*
What is the cause of that?
*
*
*

*
*

Degree of sensitivity if I change the

assumptions

* Has my goal different cause

short-term and long-term

*
What available alternatives do I have to achieve my goal?

*
*
*

*
What are the consequences?
*
*
*

*
*
*

*
*
*

Bias

*
*

The hypothesis
*
*

*
*

*
Look for evidence and judge the evidence
*
*
*

?
hat is the quality of the evidence

*
*

Disprove my (or others) conclusion by thinking like a prosecutor

*
*
/
*

*
*
*
*

*
*
*
*
*

What are the consequences if I am wrong?

*

/
*

/
*
/

1.
2.

3.

4.

6.
7.

8.
9.
10.
11.deprival super-reaction syndrome

12./
13.
14.
15.

16.

--

30

1.

5%

BF

2.

3.

70

NCR John Patterson

4.

Max Planck

CBS CEO 20

20

A
X Y X Y X

6.

100%

Sambaed

7.

1964
50 6070

1973-74 1972

50

8.

9.

contrast phenomenon

10.
1600

25%

11.deprival super-reaction syndrome

180
179 3/4

New Coke
100

Gazette CEOKeogh

12./

13.

14.

21

15.

16.
availability

CEO John Gottfried

1991
CEO

17.
3000 300

1500
15

CEO
1500 3000

18.

Feuerstein

19.
20.

programming
deprogramming

21.
22.
say-something syndrome

18%

1%

1.

2.

3.

4.

. 1994

90%

40 30 10

social proof

AT&T
IN-BASKET

2008 8 . CNBC

2008 9 29 . MidAmerican(
) 2.3 18 10%

500 7 .
Charlie Monger
.
70 400
(David Skolt)

.
.

Pleased But Not

Satisfied

10

.Charlie Monger

2009 1 11
F6F0 F3DMF6DM E6

BYDLOGO
BYD

F6DM
F6DM
DM

290 103
8 60 500%

2008 Wasco
2009 5 6
WESCO

2 2 04

Socratic solitaire

2
lollapalooza effect

Maynard[1]

insurable interest[2]

Wells Fargo

3 Wasco
Wasco

cap-and-trade

50%[3]

ABC

4%

8 Wasco?

Wasco

Wasco

40%
[4]
[5]

5
outliers,(Malcolm Glad well)[6]

1
1 40 25
1860
1910
TIPS[7]

910%
3%
2

4Is dellKent

7
130
130

10

Burlington Northern

11

12

13

outliers 200

14 5

200

15
30

16

17 GEICO 1
7

18

19

20

25

21 70

100

22

23 500

24

30

25AIG
AIG

26

27

28

29

30

31

 20

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------[1]1905-1982

[2]
[3]1951 1953

[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] 1997 1 15

1986 Hayward School

1
2

7 7

20

1
2

60

Samuel Johnson)

 X X

180
1986

1986

50 1998 4 24

The solitaire Mystery

5
1
2
3
4 50
5

16

1incentive-caused bias

2man-with-a-hammer tendency,

A B
AB A
B A
B

X
X
1
2

5
6

1%
13 1%

take what you wish

300

tragedy of the commons

1
2

marginal-utility
advantage

1948

fundamental organizing
ethos,

1
2

150

1
2

4 3

1
2

1
2
Warren

organizing guide and the filing system

()

1654 (Blaise Pascal)(Pierre Fermat)

B A A B
A B

A B AB

A B
246
0-1 1

186
47 26 5 5.2
(Variability)

(
) 3000
40

1
2 ()
1/2 50%

(Relative Frequency)

1000 400
()
() 400/1000 2000 900
900/2000
1/2

0.3%
(
50 ) 1000 3

(New York Knicks)

90%

()
A B P(A)P(B)
5%
3%
0.15%( 0.050.03)

A B
4 B A 1/3

B A 1/3 B 123
2 A

1/3 33%

50%
(Monty Hall
Dilemma)(Marilyn vos Savant)(Parade
1990 9 9 13 )

1
3 2

2/3

1/3

2/3

()
A B P(A)+P(B)
2 4 6 (
2 4 ) 2 4 2
1/6 4 1/6

2 4 1/6+1/6
33% 1
A 30% 70%
A A

1 4 6
4 6
6 5/6
6 12345
4 6 5/65/65/65/648.2%
4 6 1-48.2%51.8%

n m
nm 4
3 5
60

--
----------

3216
36 n(6)
n(6) n-1(5) n-2(4)
n nn 1 n
12 12
11 12479,001,600
n r n r
n/(n-r)! 100
100 3 970,200 100

/(100-3) 5 24
56

n r n r
n/r(n-r)!
10 3 120 10/3(10-3)

10
5

50%
50%( 1-)
10
10 210 1024 1024
() 10
()
10 1 1024 1204
1024 1

5 10
5 252 10/5(10-5)
10
5 50% 10
5 5 252

5
0.5
50.5525224.6%
5 6
7 8 9 10 6 7 8
9 10
5 10/5
10-5
252
6 10/6
10-6
210
7 10/7
10-7
120
8 10/8
10-845
9 10/9
10-9
10
10 10/10
10-10
1
638
50% 10 5
638 5 (0.5)5(0.5)5638=62.3
n k
(n k )()k(1-) n-k
252(0.5)5(0.5)5+210(0.5)6(0.5)4+120
(0.5)7(0.5)3+45(0.5)8(0.5)2+10(0.5)9(0.5)1+1(0.5)10(0.5)0=62.3%
n
0 1

()()(
) 5 3 6
6 6 1/6(
) 1-1/65/65
3 5 3 6 5
/3(5-3)! 10(1/6)3(5/6)2=3.2

98% 94.1%( 0.980.980.98)

() 5.9%( 1 2
3 )
3
+2 3/3(3-3)(0.98)3(0.02)0+3/2
(3-2)(0.98)2(0.02)1=99.8816% 0.1184%
845
4
+3 +2 4/4(4-4)
(0.98)4 (0.02)0+4 /3 (4-3) (0.98)3 (0.02)1+4 /2 (4-2) (0.98)2
(0.02)2=99.996848% 0.003152%
31,726

150

49 6 49/(49-6)!613,983,816

24 1440 365 525,600 1400 27

159

(0.8)626%

160

10 0.01%( 0.410)

99.4%(1-0.610)
161

86.5%(1-0.9992000)

() 1
161

)
162

0.05% 50

( 1-0.955092.3%) 0.05%
95% 50 7.7% 50
92.3%
162

3.9%(1-0.99940) 10

33%(1-0.96110)
162

3.2%((1-p)30=38%) 5

15%(1-0.9689)
165

1,048,576( 210)

2.8 1/1,000,000 280 (1/1,000,0002.8

)
165

365 365

364


1/3650.27% 3 3
3 2 3
363
363/36599.45%
3
365/365364/365363/36599.18%3
1-0.99180.82% 23

36536436334349.3%
36523
23 1-0.49350.7%
178

10 (10000.510)

180

10 10/(10-2)245 45(0.8)2

(0.2)80.007%

()
-

)
-

()

()()

()

()

/()

()
-

()

()

()

()()
()

()
-

()(
)
-

2-3

()
-

()

()

(
)

()

(
)()

()
()

1
-

)
-

10

2
-

() 10 10

()

3
-

4
-

5
-

2006

100
/

IPO

1974

1
2

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

1
2
3
4

5
6
7

9
10
11
12
13

14
15
16
17
18

15

GAAP

GEN RE

5-10

. 1994

90%

40 30 10

social proof

AT&T
IN-BASKET

20% 15%

3:2
100:1
17%
10% 17%
17%

30

2-3

40 6% 40
6% 20-30 18%
ROE

1973 50 20

IPO