In late August of 1992, tens of thousands of passengers sat in their cars in what was one of the worst traffic jams the country had ever seen. Miles of cars lined up along the Interstate 95 highway in Miami-Dade county desperately trying to escape the destruction behind them. As hurricane Andrew made landfall, the governor of Florida warned South Florida residents to either evacuate their homes or board their windows and prepare for the worst hurricane the state had ever experienced. Starting in the southern Atlantic, Hurricane Andrew grew to become one of only 4 known category 5 hurricanes on earth, with wind speeds reaching upwards of 170 miles per hour.

In a matter of days the storm caused extreme damage across Southern Florida, Louisiana, and the Bahamas. Over 65,000 homes were destroyed and more than 120,000 were severely damaged. Across the entire state, over 1.4 million people lost electricity for weeks. After all the damage was accounted for the result was far worse than any meteorological expert could have imagined.

Previous to Andrew, experts expected that the losses to insurance companies from a worst case hurricane would result in $4-5 billion in total insured losses. The actual amount was more than 3 times that amount. For years, Hurricane Andrew held the record for causing more insured damage than any other storm in history, with a total of $27.4 billion in losses according to the Insurance Information Institute.

Hit almost as hard as the citizens of Southern Florida were the balance sheets of insurance companies who for years had been drastically underestimating their loss exposure for the insurance policies they had underwritten for Florida real estate. So much so that eight insurance companies went bankrupt from the losses incurred from Andrew. The bankruptcy of these eight insurers, as well as the realization that they were getting grossly underpaid for the risk they were incurring, caused hundreds of insurers to exit the Florida property & casualty insurance market.

The result of this exodus of insurance companies was a severe imbalance in the capitalist equation as demand for home and property insurance grew sporadically but the supply virtually evaporated. When such imbalances occur regulation is only inevitable, particularly when it comes to a necessity such as insurance. To try and fix this imbalance, Florida regulators created the Florida Residential Property and Casualty Joint Underwriting Association (FRPCJUA) to make it easier for Florida residents to attain home insurance. The organization, with its overly long name, had yet a simple goal of either underwriting the insurance policies itself or serving as an intermediary to help homeowners find coverage with a private insurer willing to write the risk. The organization at its peak had written a total of 487,000 policies. In 2012, a combination of Florida's two largest state run insurers were combined to form Citizens Property Insurance Corp., which at the time had roughly $500 billion in loss exposure.

"Previous to Andrew, experts expected that the losses to insurance companies from a worst case hurricane would result in $4-5 billion in total insured losses."

However, even with government assistance, insurers still felt that the risk of major catastrophes were too widely concentrated on insurance companies and set out to find a method to spread the risk further. The solution was to spread the risk of major catastrophes such as hurricanes to investors willing to bear part of the risk in exchange for a potential return on their investment. The investor’s return would be in the form of a premium paid to them in a similar manner as a corporate or government bond, leading the new insurance product to be called a catastrophe bond; commonly known as a CAT bond.

The conventional way of spreading risk within an insurance company is to spread it among numerous different policy holders purchasing similar insurance and price the insurance premiums accordingly based on the odds of a loss occurring, and the potential amount of capital to be lost. In many instances, insurers are not willing to bear the entire risk of a certain possible loss, which drives them to the reinsurance market.

Reinsurance, simply put, is insurance for insurance companies. The purpose of which is to pass some of the loss exposure to another company. If an insurance company, for example, writes a policy to cover $2 billion in losses, but is only wanting to take the responsibility for losses up to $1.5 billion, it can pay a reinsurance company a premium to incur the responsibility for losses above $1.5 billion. The process is known as ceding risk to a reinsurer and has become a larger part of the insurance market due to the growth of some of the world’s largest reinsurers including Swiss Re, Munich Re, and Berkshire Hathaway.

The concept of the CAT bond took this idea one step further by ceding part of the risk to investors rather than reinsurance companies. In order to set up a CAT bond an insurance company has to go through the process of setting up a special purpose vehicle (SPV) which holds the capital to cover the possible loss. The capital that is put into the SPV is almost always invested in short term treasury bonds or some sort of money market instrument, which involves almost no risk.

When setting up the SPV for each CAT bond the terms are laid out to state the different aspects of the CAT bond. Each term, in Wall Street fashion, is given an specific name, each specifying a certain aspect of the bond. The attachment point specifies the level at which the bond is set to pay out. If the issue is to pay out on losses between $2 billion and $2.5 billion, the attachment point would be the point at which losses exceed $2 billion. When losses rise above $2.5 billion, in this example, the bond reaches its exhaustion point at which point the bond will no longer pay out.

In exchange for covering the possible loss, the insurance company pays the purchaser of the CAT bond annual premiums which the investor may consider their return on their investment, assuming no loss occurs. If the insured event does occur, the funds put into the SPV go towards covering the loss, and the investor in the CAT bond has the potential to lose the entire “principle” of their investment.

"Hit almost as hard as the citizens of Southern Florida were the balance sheets of insurance companies who for years had been drastically underestimating their loss exposure…"

As one can expect, the coupon paid out on a CAT bond is dependent on the risk the purchaser is taking on. Lower risk bonds pay out somewhat attractive rates compared to the risk-free treasury bonds that investors can purchase from the government. The majority of CAT bonds issued over the past year have ranged between 2% and 6%. The higher risk CAT bonds, though, can yield upwards of 10% but are issued very infrequently. The highest coupon issued over the past year, according to the analytics firm Artemis, had a coupon of 17.25%, covering Herbie Re.

The risk of losing the entire amount of principal may thwart off more conservative investors, but as hedge funds and pension funds go searching in desperation for higher yield these sorts of alternative investments begin to call their name, and call it loudly.

Since the introduction of the CAT bond in 2005, tens of billions of dollars have been sold to investors of all kinds. The biggest customer by far, though, for these newly created products are institutional investors who are employed solely to invest billions of dollars on behalf of others.

Like all new financial products that make their debut on Wall Street, CAT bonds have taken many different iterations and have been modified by countless firms to fit specific needs. And each firm, undoubtedly, comes equipped with a book of sales points to explain the merits of this “wonderful new product.” Perhaps the biggest selling point being the noncorrelation between the yield of a CAT bond and the returns experienced by the broader economy. The yield of a CAT bond in many cases is more correlated to the rising of global temperature than to the Federal Reserve’s prime rate.

The key for these financial products to prove profitable is for the investors to receive an appropriate return in relation to the likelihood of the catastrophic event occurring. Few fund managers, though, have the necessary experience to determine these rates. As the CAT bond becomes more popular the likelihood of investors mispricing the risk goes up. Such experience in determining risk lies mostly with insurance underwriters who for decades have been estimating these risks and gathering mountains of actuarial data on when their estimates have been right and when they have been wrong.

These underwriters, incidentally, are the ones who have been hurt most by these new products as they previously were competing only with other insurance companies to underwrite these risks. Underwriters now are competing against institutional money managers (with trillions to throw around), who may be, without knowing it, offering a foolishly low rate.

The extreme dangers that will result from these products will come about from extended periods in which there are not any major catastrophes. These long periods of catastrophic docility cause investors, and inexperienced underwriters, to price their insurance as if this period of stasis will continue into the future. A misconception that all experienced underwriters know isn’t true.

Making matters worse is that the clients of these institutional funds, who the actual money belongs to, certainly are not aware of the risks that are being taken with their money. And only until a massive loss occurs will their interest be peaked.

Roughly $30 billion is currently invested in CAT bonds set to be paid out if any number of catastrophic circumstances occur. While this number is miniscule compared to the amount of money invested in stocks and bonds, if the amount of money put into CAT bonds continues at a similar pace the risk could rapidly get out of hand. To prevent risk growing beyond what the market can handle, underwriters experienced in the risks of catastrophes will need to be given a bigger role at the institutional investment houses that are purchasing the CAT bonds; otherwise, the industry risks mispricing premiums in the same manner as insurers did in South Florida previous to Andrew, which could bring about losses just as damaging.

We live in an era of big data. Companies thrive off the information that consumers willingly give them. These firms keep detailed records about their customers, potential customers, past customers, and everyone in between in order to track what kind of decisions they are making and influence them to into making a specific decision. The extent of this data tracking was exposed when a large retailer tracked the data of a teenage girl’s web browsing and, after predicting one of her future purchases, sent her coupons in the mail for pregnancy tests, to the shocking surprise of her parents.

When it comes to buying and selling securities, though, decisions are not tracked nearly as closely, largely due to tight regulatory standards. While people have every right to keep their decisions private, is it possible to have a system that tracks the reasons for investor’s buy and sell decisions and also help remove some of the speculation surrounding financial markets and ultimately make the market a more rational place in which to operate.

If implemented and regulated properly, a system could be developed to help remove some of the speculating surrounding financial markets, benefit investors, and ultimately make the market a more rational place in which to operate.

The day-to-day price movements of stocks has been given a tremendous amount of attention since the advent of the ticker tape in 1867, which provided anyone interested in the stock market a way to keep up with price changes. And more advanced technology has meant even more attention goes to the ups and downs of the numbers on the screen.

Price movements are of course made by shareholders selling a stock for less than or more than what the price was selling for previously. If a stock was selling at $30 per share one day and the next day the shareholder sells it for $29 per share due to less demand for the stock, the price chart will show a drop of $1 per share. Similarly, if the demand for a stock is higher the next day and the shareholder can sell it for $31 per share, the chart will show an increase.

"If implemented and regulated properly, a system could be developed to help remove some of the speculating surrounding financial markets, benefit investors, and ultimately…"

When taken in aggregate, the billions of trades that go on with publicly traded equities create the price charts that are shown on any stock trading app or financial news channel.

Every single one of these trades must go through a series of complex processes involving the brokerage through which the trade was made, the clearing house that handles the transaction, and the brokerage that handles the trade from the person (or group) on the other side of the transaction. Along the way, the institutions involved with the plumbing of securities exchanges capture a few pieces of information from the parties buying or selling their securities, such as the price, the date of the trade, and what kind of security is being traded.

However, there is one piece of information that is not being captured which, since the start of America’s stock exchange in 1792, has primarily been information transmitted through word of mouth.

That is, the reason the trade took place.

The Way Things Aren’t

When someone buys or sells a security, they have a clear reason for doing so, whether it’s because they need money, they are afraid that the market is going to take a downturn, or because they heard that their neighbor (who drives a new BMW) is doing the same thing. Yet, that reasoning (regardless of whether it’s rational or not) usually stays in the head of the person making the decision. Nowhere is it captured what the reason is behind the millions of trades that take place on a day-to-day basis.

"The day-to-day price movements of stocks has been given a tremendous amount of attention since the advent of the ticker tape in 1867, which provided anyone interested in the…"

Because of this, observers of the financial markets, such as journalists, money managers, or politicians must make assumptions as to why the market is moving in certain ways. If a new trade tariff is announced on Monday, and on Tuesday the Dow 30 goes down 7%, it is assumed that the decline is due to fears about the trade tariffs, even though this is not a proven fact.

Entire industries are built off of this kind of speculation. Financial news websites, brokerages, and advisers all make money by convincing their clients that they understand these price movements better than others, and therefore it’s worth it to employ their services.

What many mistake as news or financial advice is nothing more than blind guesses about what has happened, what is happening, and what may happen in the future.

This speculation about the reasoning behind price movements causes a lot of unnecessary fear (and excitement) among the investing community as a large majority of investors in securities are basing their decisions off the perceived decisions of others. A concept that Keynes brilliantly described in his description of a beauty contest in which the goal was not to select the contestant you believed was the prettiest but rather to select the contestant that you believed that the other judges would select as the prettiest.

Once this blind guessing gets rolling it’s difficult to stop as we’ve seen in multiple different financial crises where the selling of securities feeds on the selling of securities until a panic develops.

A solution to removing the blind guessing game from the movement of security prices is to make transparent, in mass scale, the reasoning behind the trades. This solution would come in the form of something of an optional questionnaire being presented to an individual (or in some cases an institution) when they are placing an order to buy or sell a security.

The questionnaire would consist of a few options for the trader to choose from (with an “Other” option available too) which would change based on major events occurring at the time of the trade. In 2020 the main reason for a trade might be COVID, or in 2022 perhaps because of inflation, interest rates, or the war in Ukraine.

After being fed a large enough sample size of data, the institutions doing the plumbing of the securities would aggregate all the data into a presentable chart, which would display the top reasons that certain trades were made during any given hour, day, month, year, or decade. Naturally, this solution could only become optimal with enough time and with enough data.

The data gathered could then be broken down by certain sectors, stocks, indices, etc. so that the countless amount of financial news junkies in the country could view a graph of trade reasonings, filtered by different parameters.

These collections of graphs could very easily be displayed in the same manner and location as the graphs of a stock’s price movement in trading applications and research platforms such as Yahoo Finance or Bloomberg Terminal.

Graphic Representations

Option Menu for Buy / Sell Form

Added to the form that must be filled out with every trade, detailing the type of trade, the quantity of shares, limit price, and timing would be a drop-down menu where a user would select the reason for buying or selling their security. The options shown on the menu would change based on various things going on in the world, such as geopolitical factors, economic factors, earnings, etc. A system would have to be developed among brokerage exchanges to choose the reasons that appear on the menu and update the reasons on a frequent basis. An “Other” option would allow a user to input a reason not listed in the menu, and these reasons could then be reviewed by exchanges to decide whether a different option should be added to the list. A similar system is used when returning a product on an online website in which it asks the user why they are returning a product.

With the widespread adoption of these features brokerage exchanges and market makers could aggregate the data and create graphs such as below that show the top reasons for buying or selling certain stocks, indexes, or etfs.

(Decisions Graph 1) – Coca-Cola (KO)

The reasons behind buying or selling a certain stock would likely be very different than the reasons for buying or selling a broader index. There would, however, be some similar macro-economic factors that would influence the trading of a single stock. Below is a graphical representation of a decisions chart on a widely known company, where a column chart depicts the top reasons behind the trades.

(Decisions Graph 2) – Invesco QQQ Trust (QQQ)

A similar graph shows the decisions behind buying and selling of a commonly traded ETF. While decisions behind trading of a single stock might be more representative of a micro-economic view point, certain etfs would give a broader view of people’s perspectives.

Likely the most common graph that would appear is that of the S&P 500 which would be a culmination of trades made of S&P 500 ETFs, as well as an aggregation of certain macroeconomic reasonings that were selected during the trading of certain stocks, etfs, or other securities.

These graphs would aim to clarify much of the reasons behind people’s trading and remove some of the speculation that goes on with people trying to understand price movements.

In the same way that Meta and YouTube benefit by knowing torrents of information about their users, financial information companies would benefit by knowing more about the decisions of investors. They would likely be quick to push brokerages to start collecting this data so they could add it to their arsenal of big data gathering on which their businesses thrive. Bloomberg alone makes enough from it’s Bloomberg Terminal (as well as other products) to give it a valuation over $20 billion.

Once the collection of this data becomes habit for a large enough group of people, the question then relates to the difficulties of capturing all the data.

Even if such decisions were guaranteed to be anonymous, most institutional money managers would prefer not to share their thoughts on why they are selling. In fact, institutional managers rarely place trades themselves but rather do so through a bloated collection of staff members and brokers. And making certain things anonymous in this arena would be almost impossible as 3 or 4 companies in the world hold most of the decision power with stocks, and one could relatively easily deduce which firm made the trade. The only way to push the institutional investor to share their thoughts is through a regulatory requirement mandated by the SEC, but this is not likely to ever happen.

This concept then becomes highly targeted towards retail investors.

But having this system built for retail investors is not all bad, as retail investors, or very small institutional traders, are the only ones who might have any interest in knowing the opinions and thoughts of the masses. Institutional money managers have practically no interest in the opinion of retail investors unless it’s to make a trade on the opposite side of their bet.

The preceding section lays out the systematic changes that would be required to implement such a system, but we have yet to touch on the psychological pitfalls that could result from it.

Psychological Challenges & Social Proof

Technology has already allowed people to share their opinions on practically everything, from liking an Instagram post, re-sharing a tweet, or leaving a 3-star review for a restaurant on Google; and others are quick to take these opinions as facts when there is an ample group who share the same opinion. In other words, social proof is as alive as it has ever been.

In some cases, social proof has its benefits. We’ve all found ourselves searching for a 5-star rated product on Amazon or avoiding a one-star restaurant when going out for a Friday night dinner.

But should we allow this same amount of social proof to seep its way into investment decisions?

The simple answer is, we already have. The idea of tracking people’s decisions in buying and selling stocks and using it as a basis to make one’s own decisions is nothing new. Technical analysts (people who look at charts to make decisions) do exactly this. Similarly, plenty of investors watch the news hoping to pick up on some advice from a so called “expert” on CNBC who claims they know what the market will do over the coming weeks.

What the proposed decision tracking system would do initially is bring more transparency to the reasons behind price movements, but inevitably it would start to serve as somewhat of a news source of its own for the people looking at the data.

Let’s review a hypothetical.

The dropdown options for buying or selling a stock would naturally be updated continuously based on what is happening in the world. Were this system to be around in the early 1960s, the Cuban missile crisis would certainly have been a top reason for selling. Today, potential reasons could include U.S.-China relations, war in Ukraine, inflation, etc.

Let’s say an investor chooses to sell 10,000 shares of company A because they think it’s overvalued and because of inflation. And let’s say 1,000 other sell trades are placed for those exact reasons, making our chart look like this:

Another investor, who may be less inclined to do their own research, looks at this Decision Chart for Company A and sees that stocks are being sold because others think they are overvalued and because of inflation. This investor then takes that graph as evidence that he should liquidate his stocks as well since “that’s what everyone else is doing it.”

The social proof then feeds upon itself, and when individuals go to make their trade, their actual reasoning becomes “that’s what others are doing”.

Again, this already happens. During a panic people sell their stock because everyone else is selling theirs, not because it’s the rational thing to do. However, this system would present more information than just the stock is going up or down. But having more information does not guarantee that people will make better decisions. What we really want is for people to be more rational.

Rationalization - Psychological Benefits

During panic times, no matter how brief, people will sell their stock in as rapid of a fashion as possible. If they place their sell order through an online brokerage, it may take less than a minute, with nothing during the process to halt them and force them to think through whether their decision is justified. These times of panic are often the best time to buy stocks, as Warren Buffett wrote in an Op Ed he published during the height of the financial crisis titled Buy American. I am.

But, if someone is selling their stock through a broker they may be asked if they are selling for good reason and then be encouraged to rethink their decision, assuming that they have a good and honest broker (an extreme rarity).

The psychological benefit of a reasoning question would be that the buyer or seller would be encouraged, for even just a brief second, to think about their decision, and perhaps stop them from making an impulsive move void of any rationality.

If there were an option for choosing “I’m selling because everyone else is selling” most would not choose it. Many traders would like to assume they are smart enough to make their own decisions. Plus, we are taught from an early age not to do something because everyone else is doing it. Remember the lesson about jumping off a cliff?

Essentially the reasoning questionnaire would aim to serve as an “are you sure this is a wise thing to do?” measure.

With such a simple change to the security trading process the initial impact is easy to pinpoint, which is the availability, analysis, and distribution of more data, derived from people’s decisions and the reasoning behind them. All which news organizations, financial service companies, and indeed stock manipulators, would take advantage of. But the long-term impact is much less certain.

The optimistic result would be a more rational approach to investing with fewer decisions made on impulse and more made on a rationalized thought process. Given human nature, though, and historical evidence, this optimistic scenario is not likely. The more pessimistic outcome is that the availability of this information would bring more unnecessary trading from retail investors who would likely use the data as guidance on what they should be doing, leading to even more instances of negative social proof and irrationality.

The purpose of this paper, then, is to propose an interesting idea, but not necessarily a good idea. One of the biggest benefactors from tracking this data could end up being stock promotors and salesmen whose income is dependent on more and more trades; which would be a negative for society. However, unless this system were to dramatically change people’s financial behaviors this idea of Trading Thoughts is best left to the imagination.

Principle 1: An Investor Must Understand the Difference Between Investing and Speculating.

There are two requirements for a security to be considered an investment: 1) A safety of principle 2) An adequate rate of return. If a security is lacking one of these requirements it cannot be considered an investment and should instead be classified as a speculation. In order to be successful, an investor must restrict themselves to securities consisting of both requirements.

While often misunderstood by the general public, the definition of investment was determined in the late 1940s when Ben Graham set out two requirements an asset must have in order to be considered an investment:

An investment must provide a safety of principle.

An investment must provide an adequate rate of return.

"While often misunderstood by the general public, the definition of investment was determined in the late 1940s when Ben Graham set out two requirements an asset must have in…"

A safety of principle can be obtained from any asset, that over time, shows no sign of losing its value and which can be resold to another party at a reasonable price in relation to its value. Both non-productive assets such as gold, whose value is not derived from what it produces, but rather from its scarcity as a resource, as well as productive assets such as a business, whose value is based on its ability to produce profits, can deliver a safety of principle.

The deciding factor that determines if an asset is an investment or a speculation is the presence of an adequate rate of return, something that can only be delivered through productive assets.

Because gold, as well as other precious metals and commodity-like assets, lack the ability to reproduce anything, an increase in their value depends solely on the willingness of others to pay higher and higher prices for them.

Producing assets, on the other hand, such as businesses, farmland, and real estate, draw their value from what they are able to produce. A business’ value depends on the profits it is able to earn, farmland's value depends on the crop yield it is able to produce, and real estate’s value depends on the income it receives from tenants. As a result, these producing assets deliver both a safety of principle as well as an adequate rate of return and can therefore be classified as an investment.

An axiom thus reveals itself that speculators aim to make their profit by gambling on the buying behaviors of others, while investors aim to make their profits on increasing the production of their producing assets and using those profits to purchase more and more producing assets.

If one restricts themselves to investing in productive assets rather than speculating in non-productive assets, their financial results will prove far superior.

"A safety of principle can be obtained from any asset, that over time, shows no sign of losing its value and which can be resold to another party at a reasonable price in…"

Principle 2: An Investor Must Have the Right Temperament Towards the Market.

An investor must be able to stay rational throughout the volatility that’s involved with financial markets. They must not feel influenced by the trends of the market or the reaction of others, but should instead be able to think for themselves to make rational investment decisions.

The main difficulty with investment is not derived from one’s ability, or inability, to properly value businesses. Nor is it in having the proper insight into the future prospects of a business. The main difficulty is derived from one’s ability to be patient with markets and not submit to the ever-increasing amount of speculation and irrational behavior in securities markets.

As discussed previously, a key difference between an investor and speculator is their approach to price fluctuations in the market. While a speculator will try to predict price fluctuations to occur in the future, an investor will take advantage of market fluctuations after they have occurred. The problem with the speculator's approach is that in anticipation of certain price movements they are overcome with emotions when their predicted price movements either do not occur or go in the inverse direction to their original hypothesis.

An investor, on the other hand, will have no conviction on the short-term price movements of a stock, but will instead be ready to take advantage of price movements after they have occurred. Whether this means buying at an unusually low price or selling at an unusually high price, it is vital an investor do so based on a rational way of thinking rather than an emotional judgement.

As a result, the far more frequent behavior of a successful investor will be instead to do nothing during the day to day price fluctuations of financial markets; which presents yet another difficult feat of being an investor, which is the act of inaction.

Because stocks are so liquid, far too many people feel an obligation to make frequent buy and sell decisions rather than sit idle while their stock holdings grow in value. Yet, this does not seem to be the case with owners of privately held businesses; an odd peculiarity of business ownership. While public equity and private equity exchange hands at different rates, the attitude towards owning each should in no way be different. Just as if they owned 100% of a business, an investor should focus on the operations, competitive advantage, and financial position of the company they own stock in, not the price someone is willing to pay for their equity.

Once an investor has developed a habit of ignoring the short-term market fluctuations and instead focusing on the economic fundamentals of the business, they will begin to see stocks as what they truly are, which is small pieces of businesses.

Principle 3: An Investor Must View Stocks as Businesses.

In order to be successful with investment, an investor must see a stock for what it actually is, which is a small piece of a business. An investor must therefore take the same approach to buying stock as they would in buying an entire business.

Due to the high liquidity in financial markets, it has become very common for people to view stocks as little more than a piece of paper whose price fluctuates on a day to day basis. Feeding this misconception has been the push from Wall Street firms to get people to buy and sell stocks as frequently as possible, which in turn brings commission to stockbrokers. The reality, however, is that every stock certificate represents a small ownership interest in a business, whose price performance, over the long term, is directly correlated to the performance of the business. Due to this fact, an investor must take the same approach to purchasing a stock certificate as they would in purchasing an entire business.

Fortunately, the governmental regulations existent in the United States require that publicly traded corporations release to the public all material information about the business in a timely manner. This allows investors in common stock to do a thorough analysis of the business just as they would in purchasing a privately held corporation.

Naturally, when purchasing a privately held corporation, a business owner will put his full attention on the economic fundamentals of the business, such as margins, turnover, management, and a series of other essential factors; absorbing as much information as possible about the business before moving forward with any sort of investment.

While this behavior of thorough analysis of a company may come naturally to the purchaser of an entire entity, often is the case people will purchase common stock without doing anything close to this amount of research. It is therefore the responsibility of the investor to force themselves into the mindset of a business owner and approach investments in the exact same manner. Only after an investor has fully adopted this mindset can they move forward with business valuation.

Principle 4: An Investor Must Understand that Every Stock has an Underlying Value.

The level of success an investor has depends on their ability to identify securities selling for less than they are worth. In order to do this however, an investor must understand that every stock has an underlying value which is based on the economics of the business. Once this is understood an investor can go through the process of valuing businesses and purchasing the stock of ones selling for far less than they are worth.

Few people will deny the fact that every stock has an underlying value, which over the long term reflects the economics of the business. However, there is often a disconnect on how this value is calculated. So, let us start by defining the value of a business using a definition that was described by John Burr Williams in The Theory of Investment Value and later affirmed by Warren Buffett in his Economic Principles of Berkshire Hathaway:

The value of any business is the discounted value of all the cash that can be taken out of the business during its remaining life.

This definition should be the center point on which all business valuation is done.

To understand how much cash can be taken out of a business, one must understand what the business is likely to earn over the pursuing years, and therefore how much will be paid out to its owners, who are all expecting an adequate rate of return.

This brings us to the sole purpose behind investing. Which is that the only reason for putting money into an investment now is to get more money back at a later time. The key to business valuation then, is to estimate the future cash flows of a business and then purchase the business, or a piece of it, at a price that will provide an adequate rate of return from these cash flows.

In estimating these future cash flows an investor must identify the key variables that determine the earnings of a business, such as the sale of iPhones for Apple or the sale of unit cases for Coca-Cola, and then estimate what the volume of sales is likely to be over the coming years.

It’s important at this stage of the investment process that an investor not become overly optimistic in their estimation of future cash outlay, but rather base their estimations on rational thinking as well as a thorough analysis of the business’ past earnings, competitive advantage, and future prospects.

Parallel with the principle that all stocks have a value, is the rule that over time the price of a stock will come to match the true value of the business. This concept is one people often have great difficulty with. However, a look at the history of all publicly traded corporations will reveal the fact that regardless of any short-term price movements, no matter how volatile they may be, the price of a stock will inevitably come to match the true value of the business. While the volatility of markets may make this hard to accept, it is essential an investor realize this truth if they intend to earn superior investment returns.

Principle 5: An Investor Must Have a Wide Margin of Safety.

Due to the uncertainties involved with purchasing marketable securities, an investor will greatly increase their chances of success if they incorporate a large enough margin of safety between a security’s price and value that even a mediocre sale will yield a favorable result.

The large number of unknowns involved with valuing a publicly traded company makes it essential for an investor to have a wide margin of safety. Put another way, when purchasing a business an investor should aim to pay no more than 70% of the intrinsic value of what the business is worth in order to account for the unknown fluctuations that might occur in the operations of the business.

As an example, let us imagine that a security analyst stumbles across a company earning $20 per share and has been growing at a reasonable rate over the past few years. After further analysis of the company’s tangible assets, debt, competitive advantage, as well as the going rate for long-term government bonds, they value the company at roughly $350 per share. After this valuation process the analyst references their personal stock manual to find the company is selling for just under $320 per share and quickly buys a block of the company’s stock with the hopes of a $30 per share profit.

Over the pursuing years, a series of unforeseen events fall upon the company, causing their earnings to fall from $20 per share to $13 per share. Shocked at these events, the analyst sells his stock out of fear the company’s earnings will continue to drop and his investment will go further south, and then spends the rest of the year in despair at the apparent mistake he has made.

Over the next 5 years the company fails to reach their $20 per share earnings peak but continues to earn an ample return of around $15 per share. Because this analyst failed to account for any unforeseen events and purchased the security for a price far too close to what the business appeared to be valued at, they failed to have a wide enough margin of safety which ultimately lead to a poor investment result.

If, however, they had taken the proper investment approach and accounted for the “vicissitudes of time” as Ben Graham put it, they would have instead tried to purchase the security for no more than 70 cents on the dollar, compared to 90 cents on the dollar that was actually paid, and the analyst would have continued to have a satisfactory investment despite the company’s fall in earnings.

This is a habit that must be developed within all investors. Without this margin of safety principle incorporated into every investment decision, one will likely fall into the habit of speculation rather than true investment and will in turn suffer the poor results destined to stock speculators.

Principle 6: An Investor Must Stay within their Circle of Competence.

In order to value a business, and henceforth identify ones selling below their value, an investor must have a high level of confidence in what the business is going to earn over the pursing years. Because of this, an investor dramatically improves their chances of success by staying within areas of business they feel they have a superior level of knowledge.

Due to the overconfidence man often has in himself, and the animal spirits John Maynard Keynes identified within all of us, it is extremely easy and very tempting to convince ourselves we have superior knowledge in areas where we in fact don’t. Because of these irrational tendencies, an investor must constantly strive to restrict themselves to areas where they do indeed have a superior level of knowledge. Without the proper amount of self- restraint, an investor will drift into areas that can only offer the illusion of successful investment.

The question remains of course, how to define one’s circle of competence and ensure that they stay within that boundary.

Defining one’s circle of competence consists not of understanding how the products or services of a company work, such as the computer science behind a technology company, but rather understanding how consumers react and adapt to a company’s products and services in their buying decisions; and from there understanding what consumer behavior is likely to be over the next 5 to 10 years. If one cannot say with assurance what the attitude of consumers will be towards a company’s offerings in the future, then they cannot designate the company as one within their circle of competence.

This again leads us to further restricting ourselves to investments that offer a safety of principle, an adequate rate of return, a wide margin of safety, and now ones that reside within our circle of competence. Making this refinement all the more difficult is the often-excessive pressure that comes from others to act on things that are seen as fashionable at the time, but are in reality purely speculative (tulip bulbs, dot com stocks, sub-prime mortgages, bitcoin).

However, if an investor can stand by their own convictions, not giving in to the emotions of the crowd, they can rest assured by their investment decisions, and superior returns can only be certain. These six principles, which have been developed and modified by a number of different investors over the years, particularly Benjamin Graham in his book The Intelligent Investor as well as Warren Buffett in his speeches and writings, have proven successful for these investors for almost 100 years and there is little doubt that they will be applicable into the next 100 years.

January 1st, 2020 marked the second time that Charlie Munger lived through the 20s. As it happens, it was also the man’s 96th birthday.

Just 4 years later he would have turned 100 years old, though, unfortunately, he passed away just weeks before reaching this centennial feat. In the days following his death, business papers were full of stories of the man who so nearly made it to 100. But, for all intents and purposes, he did live to 100, in the same way John D. Rockefeller famously lived to 98, even though he made it only to 97 and 10 months.

Virtually none of the articles about Munger were able to focus on his life without portraying him as the right-hand man of Warren Buffett, who for 60 years was Mungers business partner and friend. Yet, there is much to be said about Munger aside from his partnership with Buffett, with countless unique qualities, shown elegantly in Poor Charlies Almanac, a collection of Munger’s talks as well as a brief account of his life.

One particular quality that set Munger apart from the very beginning, instilled in him long before his acquaintance with Buffett, was his willingness and eagerness to bet big when the odds were well enough in his favor.

In a talk to the University of Michigan in 2011, Munger recounts a youthful story he frequently heard from his mother, who took it upon herself to relay the important messages she received from her grandfather (Charlie’s great-grandfather).

"Virtually none of the articles about Munger were able to focus on his life without portraying him as the right-hand man of Warren Buffett, who for 60 years was Mungers…"

As Charlie relays it, his grandfather exuded the fact that “good opportunities in life are rare, and when you find one… seize it boldly and don’t do it small” .

This mindset, which is shunned in finance classes as it goes contrary to the diversification obsessed know-nothings, is what Munger attributes so much of his success to.

Not only did this mindset set Charlie apart from the general population, but it also set him apart from his “Super Investor” cohort, who were more inclined to diversify their investments into perhaps dozens of stocks, while Charlie happily sat by with just a few.

The effect of this is shown by the audited investment track records of a group of extremely successful value investors laid out in Warren Buffett’s famous paper The Super Investors of Graham and Doddsville. As Buffett puts it “[Munger’s] portfolio was concentrated in very few securities and therefore, his record was much more volatile... He was willing to accept greater peaks and valleys of performance, and he happens to be a fellow whose whole psyche goes toward concentration, with the results shown.”

The most famous period of “peaks and valleys” was the period between 1973 and 1975. The period of 1973 – 1974 which saw a dramatic market decline caused most of the investors the pain of a negative return, but Charlie’s fund suffered the most due to the concentration of his. In 1973 the return of the Over-all Partnership was -31.9%, and in 1974 the fund fell a further 31.5%. In 1975, however, the peak finally emerged as the market recovered from the short-term panic and Mungers’ partnership rose 73.2% in a single year.

Looking back, this does not invoke gut-wrenching emotions as the performance of ’73 and ’74 are not so disturbing when the 1975 return is right there for display. But one can only imagine the experience Munger had when having to tell his partners, for two years in a row, their investment had fallen by a third.

"One particular quality that set Munger apart from the very beginning, instilled in him long before his acquaintance with Buffett, was his willingness and eagerness to bet big…"

Yet Munger, who was well versed in hardship after losing his first child to cancer, developed a few more life principals which were to never feel sorry for yourself and no matter what happens just keep your head down and plug away. His persistence during these down years were of course rewarded as many of the equities both Munger and Buffett bought during this period were ones held on to for decades, providing returns in excess of 1,000%.

Modern finance tells us to diversify, sell if volatility gets too high, focus on stock prices, betas, volatility indexes, and countless other meaningless figures to bring about the best returns with the lowest risk. However, one can’t ignore the fact that the most successful investors over the past century, including the group from Buffett’s paper, held no regard for these widely acclaimed figures.

But from Munger’s standpoint it is not enough to ignore the advice of diversification; one has to go further and do the complete opposite to have his level of success. When asked at The Daily Journal annual meeting why he and Warren had done so much better than everyone else, Munger characteristically responded “it’s simple, we tried to do less.”

Figure : Investment Record of Charles Munger from The Superinvestors of Graham-and-Doddsville

The Founder Can’t Be Everything

The early 1800s was a period when France’s rule over Europe was absolute. After Napoleon Bonaparte rose to power during the French revolution in the 1790s, numerous countries tried to join forces to defeat France in battle only to be met with defeat thanks to the creativity and ferocity of its small statured leader.

After yet another victory against Austria in 1809 during the war of the fifth coalition the Napoleonic army seemed undefeatable and France’s reign over Europe seemed unchangeable. This naturally brought about an immense sense of pride among the French population who, under their glorified leader, seemed to be in a permanent position of dominance against its European neighbors.

Wanting to expand his reach beyond western Europe, Napoleon decided to launch an invasion of Russian in 1812, but his army was met with a strong resistance and eventually had to retreat after sustaining heavy losses. His army was again defeated in 1813 after Austria and Prussia formed another coalition to put an end to Napoleon’s power, and after the coalition’s victory at the Battle of Leipzig their success seemed inevitable. Within a year, the coalition overtook France and brought Paris under its control, forcing Napoleon to step down from the throne in April of 1814, after which he was exiled to the island of Elba.

After Napoleon’s exile the spirit of France almost withered away, as their reign as the dominant power of Europe had seemingly come to an end, and their only hope for revival was a return of the Napoleonic era that they had lived in before. To get this, what they really wanted was their emperor back, and through an uncanny and dramatic series of events, their wish would come true.

"After yet another victory against Austria in 1809 during the war of the fifth coalition the Napoleonic army seemed undefeatable and France’s reign over Europe seemed unchangeable."

With the help of almost 1,000 men, and under the nose of British security, Napoleon was able to escape from the island of Elba and return to the country he had once ruled. In virtually no time at all after his return Napoleon had the military on his side and almost all the population backing him, allowing him to recapture the throne and return to being emperor. The excitement of Napoleon’s return was fueled by a fantasy that France could return to being the power it once was, all because of the return of the leader that had led them there before.

However, it would not take long for these dreams to be shattered. After regaining power, Napoleon ambitiously went to war with by then the seventh coalition to defy him, and after just 100 days of being back in power Napoleon lost at the Battle of Waterloo, condemning him to his final fate.

The British exiled him once again - this time forever - to Saint Helena where he died in 1821, and the hope that Napoleon would restore France to its former glory died with him.

With the rise of any great entity, comes an assumption that its founder is the main element of its success. The success of Apple under Steve Jobs, the dynasty of the Bulls under Michael Jordan, and Walmart under Sam Walton are all examples of an organization’s initial success being tied to the individual who led it to success.

When the iconic leader leaves, though, there is a sense of loss among the organization as if the spark that kept things going has been removed; as happened with Disney when its ultra-creative founder passed away in 1966, or when Steve Jobs passed in 2011. Yet, in both cases the companies were able to build upon what their founders created, despite the figure-head of the organization no longer being around.

Long lasting dynasties, though, are not ones that are built upon one person’s shoulders so that their departure causes the organization to collapse. As with France during Napoleon’s first exile, without the proper infrastructure things got to the point that even the miraculous return of its emperor could not set the country back on a successful path.

"Wanting to expand his reach beyond western Europe, Napoleon decided to launch an invasion of Russian in 1812, but his army was met with a strong resistance and eventually had…"

Walmart, Apple, and Disney are all immensely successful because their founders laid the foundation to set the companies on the right course, without making the success solely dependent on one individual as Napoleon’s empire was.

In the beginning, the founder is all important in setting the ship on the right course, but long enough into the journey the ship must be able to steer itself, using the principles of the founder as a navigational guide.

In western societies such as the United States, which has seen consistent economic growth year after year, with just a few exceptions, the idea of having the economy closed during 2020 due to the coronavirus was incomprehensible. Not only did it make the country question whether the government has the right to take such measures, it also meant taking away an entire year’s worth of economic growth.

Today, with the worst of the pandemic behind us, we are comparing everything, such as plane tickets, movie tickets, home sales, and miles driven, to where they were in 2019; pre-COVID.

China, however, has been imposing lockdowns for close to 3 full years, while teasing the populous on occasion about a reopening of the economy, only to clamp back down as soon as cases start to rise again.

The impact of these lockdowns is devastating to the world’s second largest economy, not to mention the psychological impact these lockdowns may have on people over the long term.

For a county so dead set on becoming the world’s largest superpower, both economically and militarily, one wonders what they must be thinking with these drawn-out lockdowns, that apparently have no end in sight. This also poses the question of how the county’s 1.4 billion people have progressed through these lockdowns with very few uproars or protests.

"China, however, has been imposing lockdowns for close to 3 full years, while teasing the populous on occasion about a reopening of the economy, only to clamp back down as…"

The answer is two-fold. The Chinese culture promotes a high tolerance for seemingly long periods of hardship if it means a better outcome over the long-term. And when the Chinese think of the long-term, they think in terms of decades and centuries, rather than months and years as is the case in many western societies. This is largely due to the immense difference in time that these societies have been around. People in America compare these difficult periods to the 245 years the county has been around - meaning a 2-year period of stasis or decline would represent nearly 1% of the nation’s existence.

In China, though, periods of hardship are put in relation to the country’s 3,500-year history, meaning a 2-3 year down period represents practically nothing compared to the society’s entire existence.

Yet, regardless of the length of time a society has been around, a 2-year lockdown still feels similarly painful to the individual going through the lockdown, as it is taking up a portion of people’s lives, which have similar length expectancy in many societies.

But with China’s collectivist culture, the impact on the individual is much less important that the impact on the many. Therefore, if groups of individuals suffer from extreme depression due to being in lockdown in China, it is worth their pain to protect the greater society from the spreading of disease.

In America, we champion the hairdresser who stays open during the lockdown to provide an income for her family, yet Chinese culture would be quick to shun her for putting the needs of herself and her family above what may be best for the rest of the nation.

In a similar fashion, we in America see government lockdowns as a form of our natural rights being taken away, and evidence of officials overstepping their authority, because after all, the government serves and answers to the people. In China, the roles of authority and the people are flipped.

"The impact of these lockdowns is devastating to the world’s second largest economy, not to mention the psychological impact these lockdowns may have on people over the long term."

This brings us to the second major cultural difference, which is the attitude toward authority and government. America’s government was set up by the people for the people, and if elected officials behave in a manner contrary to what the people want, then the population reserves the right to replace the existing government through their voting power.

In China, the authorities and the central government are seen in a very paternalistic fashion, where leaders are seen as father figures who watch over the people and who are presumed to know what is best for the nation. Therefore, many of the people in China do not look on the government as a greedy body of politicians demanding what the people should and shouldn’t do; but instead look up to the government with respect and trust that they will do what is best for the country, even if it’s something they may not like.

These two disparities between western and eastern cultures and their views towards long-term thinking and attitude towards authority, gives a slight explanation to westerners confused by Chinese behavior during these lockdowns. While the behavior of the Chinese population may seem very submissive in relation to how westerners might behave, their attitudes are quite in line with their eastern collectivist culture, particularly as a culture from the world’s oldest living civilization, that has existed for well over 10 times longer than any modern western society.

As the Chinese society becomes more prominent in today’s global economy, with its rapid growth over the past 2 years putting its economy on par with the United States, it will more important for westerners to develop an understanding of their culture, just as it will be necessary for the Chinese to develop an understanding of the western culture in order to work with, and indeed compete with, the world’s current economic superpower.

Below are 10 surfier ways to create the ideal hypochondriac, using a series of tools that are more readily available every day.

Give them ready access to all the possible diseases known by science.

Along with access to the world’s diseases, it’s important to also provide gruesome detail on the potential risks of having certain diseases.

Put them in a society which benefits financially off fear.

Flood their TVs, smartphones, and computers with ads describing newly discovered diseases accompanied by (conveniently) a drug that will help to treat that disease. In crafting the advertisement, ensure that symptoms described by the actors and actresses are as broad as possible which will assist in scaring a wider audience.

"Flood their TVs, smartphones, and computers with ads describing newly discovered diseases accompanied by (conveniently) a drug that will help to treat that disease."

Hide all natural remedies to cure disease.

Ensure that no governmental funding goes towards educating the population on eating healthy and exercising. These two imposters provide no benefit to the top line of pharmaceutical companies and must therefore be buried at all costs.

Forget the cause, focus on the symptoms

American does this beautifully well. The vast majority of diseases and symptoms derive from unhealthy eating and lack of exercise, and we have mastered the art of ignoring these two. Better to keep the focus on random ailments, and symptoms and ensure that the symptoms don’t go away by not treating the root cause.

Ensure no practice is done on stress management and relaxation

Worry and stress is a vital part of a well formulated hypochondriac, and without these emotions one might learn to relax and let the body heal itself.

"Ensure that no governmental funding goes towards educating the population on eating healthy and exercising."

We must focus on things such as that the body develops new cancer cells every day and for God’s sake ignore the fact that the body’s immune system successfully kills these cancers on a routine basis.

Long slow walks must be avoided. Meditation must be shunned, and as an added benefit, ensure that family and friends feed the concern by offering their own ill-informed opinions along with anecdotes about bad things that have happened to them or their friends.

Give them a suite of doctors with no training in nutrition or exercise

Exercise (the enemy of building a hypochondriac) boosts many chemicals that improve mood, the body’s mobility, and all around makes one feel healthy. Chemicals such as endorphins, serotonin, and dopamine all increase from exercise. This must be kept from common knowledge. These things are much better coming from a pill bottle picked up at the local pharmacy than from something horrifically natural like everyday movement.

Make it easy to have an unstable and unhealthy diet

Highly processed foods, refined carbs and sugar, and an ample amount of food grease are all good ways to inflame the body’s internal systems such as the gut and blood stream, which will in turn trigger the body’s stress hormones and engage the part of the brain which detects threats; warning us that we are under attack or dying.

Keep the mind idle as to provide ample time for worrying

If given enough to do in work or in life, the hypochondriac may forget about their ailments; possibly for long enough for the ailments to go away. Therefore, one must keep the subject sedentary with little to do but worry about their symptoms.

Wonderfully, with enough idle time, and with access to the world’s diseases (as prescribed in step 1) the hypochondriac will be able to discover even more ailments they might have.

Along with exercise and nutrition, good sleep day after day can restore the body and the mind naturally, curing both the symptoms as well as the worrying. To avoid this, ensure that subjects have advanced tools to provide poor sleep quality. Devices such as television and smartphones are great at shining blue light into subject’s eyes, disrupting their circadian rhythm, and confusing the brain on when it’s time to go to sleep.

Use these fabulous tools whenever possible.

Kill Multiple Birds with One Stone

The world has provided us with amazing ways we can implement many of these steps at the same time. A great example are the highly processed and highly caffeinated energy drinks infused with sugar, as well as ice cream shakes disguised as coffee such as vanilla lattes and cappuccinos. These drinks are not only good for ensuring poor sleep quality but also lead to immense blood sugar volatility which is a great way to invoke high emotions and further worrying.

When building your hypochondriac please use these steps with care and consideration. While using a few of these steps can still show positive effects, using all of them is best practice.

Fortunately, for those in America, there is ample access to all the tools laid out here and one should have no trouble in accomplishing any of these steps.

For those in other countries (particularly those with much more regulated food processing and advanced single payer healthcare systems) these steps may be harder to follow. Rest assured, though, U.S. corporations are working tirelessly to bring the same level of access to things like processed foods, drugs, and even sedentary lifestyles to other countries around the globe. Therefore, please be patient. In no time all the world should have everything it needs to turn us all into hypochondriacs!

A Tribute from His Son

Success, as a wise man once said, is when you reach the end of your life and the people that you want to love you, do love you. No statement could be truer for my dad.

From families to friends to strangers, he was renowned as someone easy to get along with, someone who always seemed to leave you laughing. He was in constant search of ways to help those around him — a trait he inherited from his father and worked tirelessly to instill in his own children.

Since his passing, I have been flooded with memories of his heart, humor, and humbleness, of his ability to sit there silently yet still be the funniest person in the room. Though at times he may have appeared solitary, those closest to him knew these moments of silence were spent thinking through his next prank, inevitably leading to another “Ric Story.”

These stories ranged from the time his family played Secret Santa, only to find out on Christmas Day that they had all somehow drawn Ric as the person to buy a gift for, to the time he convinced his mother-in-law to crawl on hands and knees through her hallway as a method for testing her new alarm system.

"From families to friends to strangers, he was renowned as someone easy to get along with, someone who always seemed to leave you laughing."

For every story of his humor, though, there are even more of his generosity and kindness.

At a moment's notice, he would be at one’s home, ready to lend a hand in any way he could. There was no hesitation or expectation of a favor in return. He helped family and friends for the simple pleasure of helping family and friends.

When he wasn’t pulling pranks or helping others, his time was spent crafting phrases that, despite your best efforts, you’d never get out of your head. The most notable of which —“we’re off like a herd of turtles”— went from a funny way of saying goodbye to the final words of his toast at my eldest sister’s wedding.

All of these moments compounded into a human who was utterly loved by those around him. With so many wonderful moments and memories, I can’t help but wonder: how can he be gone? A question I have asked myself over and over, until the truth finally set in.

And the truth is that he isn’t gone.

While his body may no longer be with us, his spirit is as alive as ever. He lives on through all the “Ric Stories” ingrained in his family and friends; through the qualities that his kids have derived from him, and through the lessons that we will pass on to our own children.

"Since his passing, I have been flooded with memories of his heart, humor, and humbleness, of his ability to sit there silently yet still be the funniest person in the room."

So long as the stories are shared, so long as the love, goodwill, and generosity remain, so long as all those traits that made Ric the person he was continue through his family, his friends, and his heirs, he will never truly be gone from our lives.

The VERB Kind Fundraising Breakfast

Makayla was in the Orange County Juvenile Detention center from February 2020 to November 2020 with little expectation that her life after her sentence would be much different than before. But during her time in jail, she had a weekly ritual to look forward to that not only gave her something to be excited about, but also served as an encouragement to behave better so she could attend.

Every Monday a group of volunteers, coordinated by a nonprofit organization known as The VERB Kind, gather at numerous county jails throughout Florida (and now Alabama) to spend time with minors who have been incarcerated for a variety of reasons, and each serving different time lengths.

The group of volunteers go in every Monday, start with a group discussion, then break up into smaller groups to have a closer interaction with the teens to discuss what got them there and what their goals are to do better after they leave. While the whole meeting takes less than 3 hours, split evenly between the male and female inmates, it has a resounding impact.

Beyond the walls of the county jail, The VERB Kind works with kids who are recently released from jail and serves as a first point of contact to connect them with the resources they need for better education, extracurricular activities, and employment opportunities. The VERB Kind has 3 main societal goals of reducing re-incarceration rates, improving education via higher graduation rates, and connecting previously incarcerated youth with employment opportunities.

"Every Monday a group of volunteers, coordinated by a nonprofit organization known as The VERB Kind, gather at numerous county jails throughout Florida (and now Alabama) to…"

Makayla was one of thousands of teens who benefited from The VERB Kind’s impact on incarcerated youth in Florida and after her sentence was over The VERB Kind’s volunteers assisted her in finishing high school and applying for, then attending college. Stories like hers are what drives the more than 250 volunteers to give their time every week to mentor the kids. The ultimate goal of The VERB Kind, according to its founder is to “give back hope to the 60,000 incarcerated teens in America” and ensure they get the same opportunity as the rest of us, despite their youthful mistakes.

On December 8th, 2022, The VERB Kind will be hosting an exclusive fundraising breakfast at Rio Pinar Golf and Country Club to raise awareness and the necessary funds to accomplish their goals of opening in every county in Florida by the end of 2023. The free breakfast will feature {celebrity}, an encouraging speech from The VERB Kind’s founder, and an open discussion on the importance of philanthropy across Florida. The event will be held that Thursday morning from 7:30am to 9am.

For more information contact the CEO and Founder Haley Hunt at Haley@theverbkind.com