giofranchi

Require that management has “skin in the game”. The people who work with me know that, if services are not delivered in time, they won’t get paid, if (big) mistakes are committed, they won’t get paid, if 20% of all the revenues that come in don’t stay in the company for me to invest, they won’t get paid. Of course, even this way, I check on them every day! ;) giofranchi “As time goes on I get more and more convinced that the right method in investment is to put fairly large sums into enterprises which one thinks one knows something about and in the management of which one thoroughly believes. It is a mistake to think that one limits one’s risk by spreading too much between enterprises about which one knows little and has no reason for special confidence.” - John Maynard Keynes how did you build that expectation into your culture ?? Well, a few reasons: 1) First of all we are small: practically, I give work only to professionals, who do all the work: we have no secretaries (except one, who works half-time), and I do all the accounting (with a little help from a friend of mine, who is an accountant). 2) Through “unpleasant” examples: in the beginning I had to fire a few people who weren’t aligned with my way of seeing and doing things. Others left soon afterwards. Those who remained are a great team and still happy to work with me. 3) Through incentives: they are almost completely free, and enjoy very flexible work hours. They just know the quality of the work they have to deliver and its time schedule. It is up to them to manage their time and work. If they are able to deliver a higher quality work, in less time than it is required, they enjoy economic benefits accordingly. 4) Though I am not sure about that, I cannot rule out it also helped the fact that in Italy we have been through 5 recessions during the last 10 years… And the professional man was hit particularly hard! So, it might have been easier than usual for me to find the very few people aligned with my way of seeing and doing things. giofranchi “As time goes on I get more and more convinced that the right method in investment is to put fairly large sums into enterprises which one thinks one knows something about and in the management of which one thoroughly believes. It is a mistake to think that one limits one’s risk by spreading too much between enterprises about which one knows little and has no reason for special confidence.” - John Maynard Keynes Thanks That took some capacity for our suffer in the beginning. But I think freedoms key also those that left or fired are not worth anyone's time. I think your incentive structure build quite brilliantly and would have worked in any environment. Maybe a bit harder in a good environment with the temptation of money. But who love what they are doing would value freedom more than compensation and will take most importantly take pride in the what they do. In the end doing good work and contributing to society. How did this emerge? Or did you just think about this for some time and just applied it? Also how did you do compensation? Well, I don’t really believe in business plans… It just emerged through trials and errors. I knew from the beginning that my goal was to extract as much capital as possible from a “poor” and “unpredictable” business, then to deploy it into “great” and “very predictable” businesses (at good prices). Every time I encountered something useful to achieve my goal, it stayed with me. Every time I encountered something that hindered my goal, I threw it as far away as possible. Something got shaped out of this process. And it is still reshaping itself every day! Compensation is very easy: we have two bank accounts, the first I call the “bank account for operations”, the second I call the “bank account for investments”. Every time a client pays us, he/she deposits money on the “bank account for operations”, right afterwards I shift 20% of that sum to the “bank account for investments”. If I cannot find anything sensible to do with that 20%, it stays in cash. But: once on the “bank account for investments”, it will NEVER go back to the “bank account for operations”. Of course, all costs must be managed through what’s left on the “bank account for operations”. If costs are less than what’s left on the “bank account for operations”, then we are all happy, and the surplus will be distributed among the company and the professionals who work with me. If costs are higher than what’s left on the “bank account for operations”, the professional who work with me will receive a lesser compensation, and will have to wait for a better month, when the company will be able to refund them. Truth be told: the second instance, fortunately, has happened very rarely. Sounds silly?! Well, you asked…! ;D giofranchi “As time goes on I get more and more convinced that the right method in investment is to put fairly large sums into enterprises which one thinks one knows something about and in the management of which one thoroughly believes. It is a mistake to think that one limits one’s risk by spreading too much between enterprises about which one knows little and has no reason for special confidence.” - John Maynard Keynes

Require that management has “skin in the game”. The people who work with me know that, if services are not delivered in time, they won’t get paid, if (big) mistakes are committed, they won’t get paid, if 20% of all the revenues that come in don’t stay in the company for me to invest, they won’t get paid. Of course, even this way, I check on them every day! ;) giofranchi “As time goes on I get more and more convinced that the right method in investment is to put fairly large sums into enterprises which one thinks one knows something about and in the management of which one thoroughly believes. It is a mistake to think that one limits one’s risk by spreading too much between enterprises about which one knows little and has no reason for special confidence.” - John Maynard Keynes how did you build that expectation into your culture ?? Well, a few reasons: 1) First of all we are small: practically, I give work only to professionals, who do all the work: we have no secretaries (except one, who works half-time), and I do all the accounting (with a little help from a friend of mine, who is an accountant). 2) Through “unpleasant” examples: in the beginning I had to fire a few people who weren’t aligned with my way of seeing and doing things. Others left soon afterwards. Those who remained are a great team and still happy to work with me. 3) Through incentives: they are almost completely free, and enjoy very flexible work hours. They just know the quality of the work they have to deliver and its time schedule. It is up to them to manage their time and work. If they are able to deliver a higher quality work, in less time than it is required, they enjoy economic benefits accordingly. 4) Though I am not sure about that, I cannot rule out it also helped the fact that in Italy we have been through 5 recessions during the last 10 years… And the professional man was hit particularly hard! So, it might have been easier than usual for me to find the very few people aligned with my way of seeing and doing things. giofranchi “As time goes on I get more and more convinced that the right method in investment is to put fairly large sums into enterprises which one thinks one knows something about and in the management of which one thoroughly believes. It is a mistake to think that one limits one’s risk by spreading too much between enterprises about which one knows little and has no reason for special confidence.” - John Maynard Keynes

Require that management has “skin in the game”. The people who work with me know that, if services are not delivered in time, they won’t get paid, if (big) mistakes are committed, they won’t get paid, if 20% of all the revenues that come in don’t stay in the company for me to invest, they won’t get paid. Of course, even this way, I check on them every day! ;) giofranchi “As time goes on I get more and more convinced that the right method in investment is to put fairly large sums into enterprises which one thinks one knows something about and in the management of which one thoroughly believes. It is a mistake to think that one limits one’s risk by spreading too much between enterprises about which one knows little and has no reason for special confidence.” - John Maynard Keynes

Are we too bearish? http://www.viewfromtheblueridge.com/category/broyhill-letter/ giofranchi “As time goes on I get more and more convinced that the right method in investment is to put fairly large sums into enterprises which one thinks one knows something about and in the management of which one thoroughly believes. It is a mistake to think that one limits one’s risk by spreading too much between enterprises about which one knows little and has no reason for special confidence.” - John Maynard Keynes

- Margin of Safety giofranchi “As time goes on I get more and more convinced that the right method in investment is to put fairly large sums into enterprises which one thinks one knows something about and in the management of which one thoroughly believes. It is a mistake to think that one limits one’s risk by spreading too much between enterprises about which one knows little and has no reason for special confidence.” - John Maynard Keynes

Thank you for sharing! The only really interesting video I have seen from Davos so far. giofranchi “As time goes on I get more and more convinced that the right method in investment is to put fairly large sums into enterprises which one thinks one knows something about and in the management of which one thoroughly believes. It is a mistake to think that one limits one’s risk by spreading too much between enterprises about which one knows little and has no reason for special confidence.” - John Maynard Keynes

IceCap Asset Management January 2013 giofranchi “As time goes on I get more and more convinced that the right method in investment is to put fairly large sums into enterprises which one thinks one knows something about and in the management of which one thoroughly believes. It is a mistake to think that one limits one’s risk by spreading too much between enterprises about which one knows little and has no reason for special confidence.” - John Maynard Keynes IceCap_Asset_Management_Limited_Global_Markets_January_2013.pdf

Eric, I don’t understand your point here. Savings = Investments, provided, of course, that you actually invest them! If people deposit money in the banks and the banks don’t lend, that money is not put to work… Isn’t that a problem? Another story is “how much” money people deposit in the banks, and therefore how much they save. I would like to see people saving 10% of their income, and banks putting those savings prudently to work. Sorry, surely I missed your point… giofranchi Your desire to boost savings would be working against Fisher's desire to stimulate aggregate demand from credit growth. Begin with income, add to it new credit, and take away savings. That gives you aggregate demand. Eric, I am not so sure I understood what you mean. Let me explain what I mean: whenever a client pays my firm for a service it has provided him/her, I immediately take 20% of the money coming in and I invest it in other productive businesses, which I believe have good future prospects. I don’t use that 20% to give parties, or to buy a fancier office space. Now, I don’t see any difference with an individual or a family. Ok, 20% maybe is too much, so let’s say I would like to see each family save 10% of its income. Then, because not everybody is able to spend much time evaluating the best way to put to work their savings, there are banks. Which collect savings and should in theory be smart enough to use them properly. And, of course, to use them properly means to facilitate credit to those businesses which really deserve it. There is a whole world of difference between lending to good businesses on their way to be highly profitable, and letting homeowners borrow because they want a new, bigger “palace” they cannot afford, or letting the government borrow and squander people’s money on its largesse or on silly projects. I think Mr. Fisher is deploring the fact that big banks, to misleadingly strengthen their balance sheets, have ceased to lend to trustworthy businesses, the only ones truly capable of creating employment and wealth. giofranchi That's assuming little or no debt. Usually when people with average/substantial debt start "saving", they don't invest. Like ERICOPOLY said they start paying down debt. When they bring the debt down to the level they are comfortable with, they'll start spending/raising debt level again. What you are talking about requires broad and substantial change in western/american mindset. And it is tough in the culture of immediate gratification and "you deserve better/the best". That’s exactly why I agree with Hawk4value and think that suffering sometimes can be useful and even necessary. Though, I also agree with Eric and Vinod, when they say policymakers will never allow suffering to last longer than very few months. So, we are stuck with a very uncertain situation: what could really be useful, won’t be allowed to happen, because politically unacceptable. The result is a sort of limbo: we don’t suffer much, but we neither improve much. Of course, there is another solution: maybe tomorrow everyone with a western/american mindset will reopen his/her copy of Charles Dickens’s David Copperfield, read those words of wisdom once again, and act accordingly: “Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.” :) giofranchi “As time goes on I get more and more convinced that the right method in investment is to put fairly large sums into enterprises which one thinks one knows something about and in the management of which one thoroughly believes. It is a mistake to think that one limits one’s risk by spreading too much between enterprises about which one knows little and has no reason for special confidence.” - John Maynard Keynes

I think this is a very good interview with Mr. Taleb, and he also talks about the TBTF problem: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-25/taleb-skin-game-and-his-disdain-public-intellectuals giofranchi

Eric, I don’t understand your point here. Savings = Investments, provided, of course, that you actually invest them! If people deposit money in the banks and the banks don’t lend, that money is not put to work… Isn’t that a problem? Another story is “how much” money people deposit in the banks, and therefore how much they save. I would like to see people saving 10% of their income, and banks putting those savings prudently to work. Sorry, surely I missed your point… giofranchi Your desire to boost savings would be working against Fisher's desire to stimulate aggregate demand from credit growth. Begin with income, add to it new credit, and take away savings. That gives you aggregate demand. Eric, I am not so sure I understood what you mean. Let me explain what I mean: whenever a client pays my firm for a service it has provided him/her, I immediately take 20% of the money coming in and I invest it in other productive businesses, which I believe have good future prospects. I don’t use that 20% to give parties, or to buy a fancier office space. Now, I don’t see any difference with an individual or a family. Ok, 20% maybe is too much, so let’s say I would like to see each family save 10% of its income. Then, because not everybody is able to spend much time evaluating the best way to put to work their savings, there are banks. Which collect savings and should in theory be smart enough to use them properly. And, of course, to use them properly means to facilitate credit to those businesses which really deserve it. There is a whole world of difference between lending to good businesses on their way to be highly profitable, and letting homeowners borrow because they want a new, bigger “palace” they cannot afford, or letting the government borrow and squander people’s money on its largesse or on silly projects. I think Mr. Fisher is deploring the fact that big banks, to misleadingly strengthen their balance sheets, have ceased to lend to trustworthy businesses, the only ones truly capable of creating employment and wealth. giofranchi

Sprott's Market at a Glance January 2013 giofranchi MAAG-Jan-2013.pdf

Would anyone have a scribd login or a downloadable link? Find them in attachment! giofranchi 33821202-Third-Edition-Volume-11.pdf 34032487-Third-Edition-Volume-21.pdf 34032517-Third-Edition-Volume-31.pdf

Eric, I don’t understand your point here. Savings = Investments, provided, of course, that you actually invest them! If people deposit money in the banks and the banks don’t lend, that money is not put to work… Isn’t that a problem? Another story is “how much” money people deposit in the banks, and therefore how much they save. I would like to see people saving 10% of their income, and banks putting those savings prudently to work. Sorry, surely I missed your point… giofranchi

They can't so much as take a piss today without getting approval. Here we are waiting for "permission" to pay a dividend. Well, if you had to assign a probability to the fact that Mr. Fisher's proposal will truly be implemented, which would it be? ??? giofranchi Low probability. Why? I don't think "the people" even want it. For example, I bank with Wells Fargo. It's not because they have a gun to my head, it's because I've moved from Los Altos Hills, to Eugene, to Los Angeles, then on to Seattle, and now Montecito. Never have I had to open a new bank account. It's very convenient. Why would I want Mr. Fisher to create a law that says Wells Fargo can only be a small community bank? What a pain in the rear in today's world where you don't grow up, work, and die in your same small community. Eric, commercial banks can do business wherever they want, opening how many branches they want. What Mr. Fisher proposes is they cannot be commercial and investment banks at the same time. And only the assets of commercial banks should be guaranteed by the government. What’s wrong with that? giofranchi I didn't realize that he was an advocate of letting firms continue to control a trillion in deposits. Rather, I thought he was gunning for all banks over $250b in assets. They may be misquoting him, but here is what one author claims: He identified 12 "megabanks" with assets of over $250 billion as too big to fail. http://www.cnbc.com/id/100385916/Fed039s_Fisher_Break_up_banks_that_are_039too_big_to_fail039 It sounds like he wants to "down-size" the commercial banking operations, but maybe it's just a poorly worded sentence and I'm misunderstanding him: "Only the resulting down-sized commercial banking operations, and not shadow banking affiliates or the parent company, would benefit from the safety net of federal deposit insurance and access to the Federal Reserve's discount window," he said. I have posted his most recent speech on this thread. If you then look at the slide that follows the quoted paragraphs, I think it becomes very clear what he is advocating. Maybe, I misunderstood him, but I don’t think he is saying that “parent holding companies” should not exist, and he is not putting any limit either on the dimensions of a pure commercial bank. Am I missing something? giofranchi Unless there is another, here is the one you posted to this thread: http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/'macro'-musings/?action=dlattach;attach=1306 On page two, under "Defining TBTF", he writes: The reduction of market discipline has been further eroded by implicit extensions of the federal safety net beyond commercial banks to their nonbank affiliates. Notice how he says "further eroded"? He thinks size alone is too big of a deal and must be curbed -- the ones with non-bank affiliate protection are not the only ones he is gunning for, they are merely icing on the cake. Then he goes on to say how big banks are a problem but not small ones when they "get into trouble" -- he is not talking here about non-bank affiliates enjoying protection, he is clearly saying that size alone of the commercial bank is enough to pose unacceptable risk: The 12 institutions that presently account for 69 percent of total industry assets are candidates to be considered TBTF because of the threat they could pose to the financial system and the economy should one or more of them get into trouble. By contrast, should any of the other 99.8 percent of banking institutions get into trouble, the matter most likely would be settled with private-sector ownership changes and minimal governmental intervention. Well, maybe it is like you say. Anyway, when was it the last time that a TBTF institution had to be bailed out because of its commercial bank operations?! I cannot recall a single instance in witch it actually happened. Of course, there must be some examples, but don’t you agree with me that they are by far a minority of the cases? Even if they weren’t, and small or medium sized commercial banks were actually required, I would be glad to change my bank account, when I move from one city to another, if that were required to prevent the pain of bailing them out every 10 or 15 years! giofranchi

Special Event: Starz Network Is Prime for Acquisition http://sumzero.com/headlines/media/STRZA/154-special-event-starz-network-is-prime-for-acquisition giofranchi

That is a wonderful little book! :) giofranchi

They can't so much as take a piss today without getting approval. Here we are waiting for "permission" to pay a dividend. Well, if you had to assign a probability to the fact that Mr. Fisher's proposal will truly be implemented, which would it be? ??? giofranchi Low probability. Why? I don't think "the people" even want it. For example, I bank with Wells Fargo. It's not because they have a gun to my head, it's because I've moved from Los Altos Hills, to Eugene, to Los Angeles, then on to Seattle, and now Montecito. Never have I had to open a new bank account. It's very convenient. Why would I want Mr. Fisher to create a law that says Wells Fargo can only be a small community bank? What a pain in the rear in today's world where you don't grow up, work, and die in your same small community. Eric, commercial banks can do business wherever they want, opening how many branches they want. What Mr. Fisher proposes is they cannot be commercial and investment banks at the same time. And only the assets of commercial banks should be guaranteed by the government. What’s wrong with that? giofranchi I didn't realize that he was an advocate of letting firms continue to control a trillion in deposits. Rather, I thought he was gunning for all banks over $250b in assets. They may be misquoting him, but here is what one author claims: He identified 12 "megabanks" with assets of over $250 billion as too big to fail. http://www.cnbc.com/id/100385916/Fed039s_Fisher_Break_up_banks_that_are_039too_big_to_fail039 It sounds like he wants to "down-size" the commercial banking operations, but maybe it's just a poorly worded sentence and I'm misunderstanding him: "Only the resulting down-sized commercial banking operations, and not shadow banking affiliates or the parent company, would benefit from the safety net of federal deposit insurance and access to the Federal Reserve's discount window," he said. I have posted his most recent speech on this thread. If you then look at the slide that follows the quoted paragraphs, I think it becomes very clear what he is advocating. Maybe, I misunderstood him, but I don’t think he is saying that “parent holding companies” should not exist, and he is not putting any limit either on the dimensions of a pure commercial bank. Am I missing something? giofranchi

Thank you! Had a quick look at the contents can't wait to read chapters like: Yes! Thank you for posting! Very interesting! :) giofranchi

I think you should download the 2012 AGM presentation from Fairfax website. Then, read all Mr. Watsa’s letters to shareholders: they are great, full of a lot of information both on Fairfax and on the insurance industry and the investment world in general. :) giofranchi

They can't so much as take a piss today without getting approval. Here we are waiting for "permission" to pay a dividend. Well, if you had to assign a probability to the fact that Mr. Fisher's proposal will truly be implemented, which would it be? ??? giofranchi Low probability. Why? I don't think "the people" even want it. For example, I bank with Wells Fargo. It's not because they have a gun to my head, it's because I've moved from Los Altos Hills, to Eugene, to Los Angeles, then on to Seattle, and now Montecito. Never have I had to open a new bank account. It's very convenient. Why would I want Mr. Fisher to create a law that says Wells Fargo can only be a small community bank? What a pain in the rear in today's world where you don't grow up, work, and die in your same small community. Eric, commercial banks can do business wherever they want, opening how many branches they want. What Mr. Fisher proposes is they cannot be commercial and investment banks at the same time. And only the assets of commercial banks should be guaranteed by the government. What’s wrong with that? giofranchi

They can't so much as take a piss today without getting approval. Here we are waiting for "permission" to pay a dividend. Well, if you had to assign a probability to the fact that Mr. Fisher's proposal will truly be implemented, which would it be? ??? giofranchi

Vinod, Eric, PlanMaestro, thank you very much for the nice discussion. 1) When I referred to Germany in the ‘20s or Japan in the ‘90s, I didn’t certainly mean that they were the same as the US and Europe today… it is obvious they were not! I just referred to them as the last major deleveragings in modern history, where interventionist policies played a most important role. I think it is very dangerous to delve too deeply into the details of each situation. I don’t think that complex systems, like global macro economies are, could be so easily understood. And to infer lessons, and therefore courses of action, from something not properly understood is always very dangerous. I think we should leave it to the plain, incontrovertible evidence: have interventionist policies succeeded with flying colors in the past? NO. 2) The markets left alone are brutal. No doubt about that. And something too brutal isn’t politically acceptable. No doubt about that either. And that notwithstanding, markets left alone are the only ones which truly provide the right incentives for much needed changes. For instance: a) The Glass-Steagall Act was approved in 1933, because the market had been so brutal with banks. Vice versa, today banks are almost as powerful as they were in 2007, almost as if nothing had happened in between… Mr. Fisher can talk and propose very sensible solutions, but, as long as TBTF banks wield so much power, it will all be in vain. :( b) US Personal Saving Rate in 2009 reached 6% from 2% in 2007. It is back to 3.6% today… Very bad! :( Suffering will never be accepted by politicians and will always be postponed and diluted as much as possible. But, unfortunately, suffering is also the only potent spur that makes people do the right thing. giofranchi

Hey! biaggio, did you post that for me??!! ;D ;D ;D I did not know Mr. Rochon, but I could not feel more in tune with what he said! ;) I should check out his firm. Thank you very much, giofranchi

Find the Q4 2012 letter to shareholders in attachment. giofranchi Qlet2012-04.pdf

I think macro is complicated in some aspects but very simple in others. What we can know is that: - This deleveraging, as any other on Earth except for Great Britain's after the Napoleonic Wars, will be solved by default, by strong inflation or by a combination of the two (Rogoff and Reinhart, see Ray Dalio too). There is no mathematical way developed countries are going to pay what they currently owe in real terms if you add up sovereign debt, pension and health care commitments. - In the developed world, the most powerful political constituency are middle-aged and old people, who apart from real state, are mostly invested in bonds and cash. These people also know that pensions will never keep up with prices, no matter how many laws promise to index them. They are aware that default or inflation will be an economic disaster for them, which means that before any government attempts to default or inflate its debt away, things have to get really ugly, 1930's, blood-on-the-streets ugly. There has to be such a terrible crisis that even people who know that they are going to lose a good chunk of their life savings see inflationary policies as a lesser evil. A very good bet therefore is that before inflation, there HAS to be deflation, nasty deflation. Inflation won't start casually. What we don't know (and can't possibly know): when and how this will happen. I think Japan is a misleading case, because of its incredible economic strength and social cohesion. Any other country but Japan would have collapsed into default or hyperinflation 10 years ago. So things may move faster that we expect. Or not. How does this translate into an investment thesis? If you are very smart (or think that you are) as Ray Dalio, Kyle Bass or Hugh Hendry, you can try to make money off it, by guessing right the timing and sequence of events. If you are not, I don't think the solution is to raise cash and try to time the market, unless you are absolutely constrained to invest in a single country. The best way to protect yourself is to keep away from expensive markets and be fully invested in cheap ones. At the bottom of the Great Depression, the Shiller P/E index fell to 5.6, in the 80's it fell to 6.7. If you invest at a Shiller P/E of 11, you'll see a 40% drop. If you invest at a Shiller P/E of 23, you may see your investments drop by 70%. So if you are in a cheap market and Armageddon arrives, you'll survive, and if it doesn't, you will still do very well, probably outperforming those invested in more expensive markets. It is interesting that Mark Spitznagel's results also predict an eventual >70% drop in the US market from current levels. At market bottoms you get Tobin's Q of ~0.3, now we are above 1. http://www.universa.net/UniversaSpitznagel_research_20110613.pdf So what will cause stocks to collapse? A Japanese implosion, war in Iran with long-term closure of the Hormuz straits, a disordered break-up of the Eurozone, war in the China Sea. Take your pick, there is plenty of trouble brewing in the world. txitxo, I agree with you: if you can find great bargains, go for them! Always! The fact is I know just a few companies that I like. And, being just a few, I think I know them well enough to really be able to judge at which price they become true bargains. I am no trader, and I cannot muster the confidence to, let’s say, find some statistically cheap Japanese stocks, spend some time on them, and think that I am smart enough to call them true bargains, while the market clearly disagrees with my thesis. I know that some people follow that approach and are very successful. So, I am not saying it doesn’t work. Far from me! What I am saying, instead, is just that my temperament is not suited to follow that approach. Right now I am certain that the stock price of every company I follow, and would like to increase my investment in, is bound to fall significantly, should a market meltdown come. So, given my “minuscule investment universe”, what do you suggest I should do? If you were me, not able to invest in Japan, not able to invest in Europe, not able to invest in Brazil, China, or anywhere else, and only interested to invest in a bunch of north-American stocks, I have full confidence to put my firm’s whole net worth in, what would you do? Wouldn’t you agree with me that the so-called “opportunity cost” is way too high right now? Paraphrasing Mr. Buffett, you should invest as if you could just make 10 investments in your whole life… ok, that’s too extreme, but really: if you could just make 10 investments in your whole life, what would you do right now? giofranchi