.

1

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. BraunBraun

Braun

BraunBraun

Braun5 W

5 Wwhowhatwherewhen

whyBraunwhy

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 PaleyPaley

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

IBMIBM

IBM6

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% 303.5%

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

6

19

.

fitness landscape

25

404 100 200

.Steven Pinker.

DoranNader

Psychological denial

3

Milgram experiment

2/3.

ABCD

multimodular

10

??

12 12

10

lollapalooza effect

lollapalooza effect

C

C

AB

consistency principleoperant

conditioning

incentive-caused bias

incentive-caused bias

social proofSerpico

referral scheme

2%

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

98%

?

1995 7 31

autocatalysis

Pocahontaslion king

50

19621965

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

A

B

CEO?

CEO CEO

CEO

CEO

20

24

no-fault rules

15 16

operant conditioning

20

Dawkins

70

3

70

70

Robert Cialdini B. F.

Thought Experiment,

?

?

1

2

70

Cravath

1996

1

2

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

:

,()

,,

,

()(

)

()

A

:

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

2502.5% 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%

5

cabal

2002

380 80%

20%

10-15

2 800

24

4

4

Fannie Mae

20%

CEO

A

800B 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

.

1

2

-

3(

)

4

1972

5

6

7

8Wasco

9

10

11 1993 1997

Coalmine

12

13 Wasco

?

14?

?

!

?

Charles Thomas Monger

Charles Thomas Monger1924 1 1

,

1924 1 1,1948

300

12

1964140 1962

. 1962-1972 11

28.3% 1970-0.1%

701969

1973

-19741973-1974

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

NCRJohn Patterson

4.

Max Planck

CBS CEO 20

20

A

XY XY 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

CEOJohn Gottfried

1991

CEO

17.

3000 300

1500 15

CEO

1500 3000

18.

Feuerstein

19.

20.

programmingdeprogramming

21.

22.say-something syndrome

18%

1%

1.

2.

3.

4.

. 1994

90%

40 30 10

social proof

4

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

1

2

lollapalooza effect

Maynard[1]

insurable interest[2]

Wells Fargo

3 Wasco

Wasco

4

cap-and-trade

50%[3]

ABC

5

4%

6

,

7

8 Wasco?

Wasco

Wasco

1

2

40%

[4]

[5]

3

-

4

5

outliers,(Malcolm Glad well)[6]

1

1 40 25

1860

1910

TIPS[7]

910%

3%

2

3

4Is dellKent

5

6

7

130

130

8

9

10

Burlington Northern

11

12

13

outliers 200

14 5

200

15

30

0

16

17 GEICO 1

7

18

19

20

25

21 70

100

22

23 500

24

30

25AIG

AIG

26

27

8

28

29

30

31

20

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

[1]1905-1982

[2]

[3]19511953

[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

501998 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

3

4

5

6

:

1%

13 1%

:

take what you wish

300

tragedy of the commons

1

2

3

6

1

2

marginal-utility

advantage

1948

fundamental organizing

ethos,

12

150

1

2

3

4 3

12

12

Warren

organizing guide and the filing system

()

1654(Blaise Pascal)(Pierre Fermat)

4

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 BP(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

19909 9 13)

1

3 2

1 2 3

1

1 2

2 3

3 2

2/3 1/3

2/3

()

A BP(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 50.5

50.5525224.6%

5 6

7 8 9 10 6 7 8

910

510/510-5252

610/610-6210

710/710-7120

810/810-845

910/910-910

1010/1010-101

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

+23/3(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 365 525,6001400 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

-

()1010

-

-

()

3

-

4

-

5

-

5

6

.

2

.

.

2006

100

/

IPO

1974

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1

2

15

3

4

5

.

GAAP

GEN RE

5-10

.

.

. 1994

90%

40 30 10

social proof

4

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