UPDATED POST ESPN 30-FOR-30 TITLED “LANCE”…

Lance Armstrong

A legacy of two…

After years of speculation, ESPN finally did a two-part series titled “LANCE” as one of its 30-for-30 specials, which is a very well crafted series that seeks to bring ‘cultural perspective’ to sport. There was a lot I had already seen from previous documentaries on Armstrong, but one scene in-particular was interesting. They asked Lance about his visit a couple years back with Jan Ullrich (his main rival during all of his TDF wins), and Armstrong broke down and cried on camera. Ullrich was also caught for doping and his life has been anything but kind in the ensuing years - divorce, jail, etc. I’m not sure what to take away from that scene - Was it trying to show sympathy? Was it trying to show contrition? Or was it merely Armstrong trying to stamp down a point he continues to make - “Everybody was doing it, so why do we celebrate some and demonize others?” And to that end, he has a point. There have been many cyclists who have been caught doping, have served their respective bans, and are celebrated. What makes them different? The fact that they admitted it quicker? Cheating is cheating and while I get the argument that Armstrong went out of his way to make the lives of his accusers miserable, there were a lot of cheaters who were not ‘choir boys’. But perhaps the most captivating line came at the very end when a former Armstrong teammate and admitted doper said the following…

“After all of these years, I’m not sure what to think of Lance. There are good people who do bad things...and bad people who do good things. I’m still trying to sort that one out.”

— Bobby Julich (fmr pro cyclist & teammate of Lance Armstrong)

Lance Armstrong. You can love him. You can hate him. You can adore him. You can despise him. Armstrong mattered when he won the World Cycling Championship in 1993. He mattered when he won a stage at the Tour de France in 1995, just days after his Motorola teammate, Fabio Casartelli, was killed when he crashed on a mountain-top descent. He mattered on October 2, 1996, when he was diagnosed with metastatic testicular cancer. He mattered in July 1999 when he won his first Tour de France. He mattered in July 2005 when he won his 7th Tour de France. He mattered in January 2013 when he finally admitted that he deceived the world for nearly 15-years, and that he did, in-fact, use performance-enhancing drugs during all 7 of his Tour de France victories. He matters today...

Cancer:

Lance Armstrong was diagnosed with advanced metastatic testicular cancer on October 2, 1996 - a condition so advanced that it had invaded his abdomen, his lungs, and his brain. His doctors gave him a 20 - 50% chance of surviving - an optimistic estimate just to keep his hope alive. Miraculously, after a number of surgeries and numerous rounds of chemotherapy, Armstrong was declared cancer free and began his return to cycling in 1997. There was nothing fake about Armstrong's cancer - it was as bad as he said it was; he was as desolate as they said he was.

Armstrong was involved in cancer therapy trials at Indiana University, where he received the majority of his treatment - most of those trials were related to variants of chemotherapy that wouldn't scar his lungs so that if he did survive, he could have a chance of cycling again. But...he did not have access to many of the treatments that high-wealth individuals like Steve Jobs had. And you want to know why? He didn't have healthcare at the time. Most people don't know that the only way he got his cancer treatment was because one of his sponsors, Oakley Sunglasses, stepped in and covered the costs. It's the very reason that Armstrong remained so loyal to Oakley and its founder (Jim Jannard) throughout his career - Oakley would later cut all ties with Armstrong as detailed a bit below.

Post-Cancer Return:

He was a very different cyclist post-cancer - he lost 20 lbs. and the once-muscular triathlete-turned-cyclist was a very lean shadow of his former self. He did not perform well upon his return to pro cycling and was virtually ready to quit, until his friends convinced him to give it "one more go". Armstrong ended up changing his cycling style by increasing his cadence and using a lower gear - the once powerful cyclist was now using a much smaller gear, but was peddling at over 100 RPMs. The change in style allowed him to rely more on his aerobic endurance than on his muscular power - it made him a threat both in the time-trials and the mountain climbs. Hence, his increased aerobic dependence made EPO and blood transfusions the perfect method of cheating as both provided increased oxygen to the blood.

7X the Miracle:

And so the man once regarded as a threat to win single stages shocked the world by winning the Prologue (opening time trial) at the 1999 Tour de France, beating Alex Zulle by 8-seconds on the line - a large margin of defeat for such a short distance. Armstrong went on to win the 1999 Tour de France by over 7-minutes - to give you a sense of how big of a margin that is, most Tours are won by a minute or two. The great Greg LeMond won the second of his two Tour de France victories by just 8 seconds. And the rest as they say is...history. After the 1999 Tour, Armstrong went on to win the next 6 Tour de France's, eclipsing the record of five held by a number of cyclists. The closest victory he ever had was in 2003, when he won by a mere 62 seconds, a decent margin by most standards, but a razor-thin margin for Armstrong.

The Comeback and Fallout:

In 2009, Armstrong returned to the Tour de France believing that he could win the Tour "clean" - he eventually finished a very reputable 3rd place - a remarkable feat for a guy who had been out of pro competition for 4 years and was nearly 40 years old. He made one last run in 2010, which turned into a disaster due to a number of factors including a fall. And so many, including me, thought the Armstrong story was basically played out - cancer survivor turned 7x Tour de France winner turned philanthropist turned washed-up cyclist finally ready to settle into retirement. Armstrong had one problem - a guy named Floyd Landis. Landis was a former teammate who won the 2006 Tour de France only to be stripped of that title for testing positive for a banned substance and suspended from the sport for two-years. Upon his return, he sought out a position on Armstrong's Team Radio Shack, only to be told to effectively "take a hike". Landis turned out to be the grenade that exploded in Armstrong's face. Landis went on to tell his story to the press about the years of doping practices that took place on Armstrong's USPS team. But, then he went to the Federal Government, which opened an inquiry into the matter as Armstrong's main sponsor for the team was the USPS - a division of the Federal Government. Several inquiries and numerous depositions later, the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) turned over its findings to the UCI, which found enough credence in the report to strip Armstrong of all 7 Tour de France victories. What transpired within a matter of weeks was an avalanche that completely buried Armstrong - all of his major sponsors left him (Nike, Oakley, Trek, Giro, FRS, etc.) - an event that Armstrong calls a "$75 million day" and then then the biggest hit came, Armstrong was effectively forced to resign from the Livestrong Foundation - the charitable organization that he started to provide support and research in the fight against cancer.

A Complicated Legacy:

Whether you like it or not, Lance Armstrong raised $500 million for the Livestrong Foundation and provided hope to thousands of people who faced cancer - you can say it was a facade for his lying and cheating, but I know a lot of liars and cheaters who haven't raised a dime for anything good. And Armstrong was more involved in that organization and the cause itself than most would like to believe. He visited people; he sent text messages to people battling the disease; he recorded video messages; he showed up at events; he showed up at hospitals - he was an active member of the cancer community. Who am I to say whether it was genuine or not? But I do know this - he was there and he sent one of the most powerful messages that has ever come from a professional athlete or other public figure who has survived an illness as pervasive as cancer is: "Not only can you overcome the odds and beat the disease; you can actually be better than you were before." In a 2008 Livestrong blog post, Armstrong wrote to one of the many people battling cancer that he built a relationship with - a kid named Jimmy Fowkes. He wrote:

"Lastly, My thoughts and prayers go out to Jimmy Fowkes who is one of most amazing young men I have ever met. He is a survivor who is awaiting test results on a possible recurrence. He is an inspiring individual who has not only raised large sums of money for the LAF but who has taught so many people what it means to LIVESTRONG. Best wishes to his little sister Molly, and his parents Margo and Dan whom I have come to know well. They are truly part of the family and as I told Dan over the weekend, the entire LIVESTRONG Army stands ready to help."

Fowkes endured 4 recurrences of brain cancer and went on to raise $230,000 for the Livestrong Foundation. He went on to attend Stanford University. He remains the only four-time winner of the National Collegiate Cancer Foundation scholarship. Fowkes passed away from cancer in February-2014 and Armstrong sent out the following tweet:

Tweet from Armstrong following the death of a cancer patient he built a relationship with.

To this day, he still sends private videos and notes (like the below) to people afflicted by cancer - there is no longer any media coverage. There isn't hoards of people lauding him anymore for being some hero. So I have no idea why he does it. But does it really matter? The act of it counts for something - it has to:

"Hi, Melody. I’m Lance Armstrong. I just wanted to send you a short video message to let you know that I’m thinking about you and I’m pulling for you. I understand you’ve had some up-and-down news when it comes to your health. Just hang in there and know there are brighter days ahead. If there’s anything I can ever do to help you, please let me know. In the meantime, keep kicking cancer’s ass. Best of luck."

So while it may sound like I'm a fan of this guy who ignores the fact that not only did he cheat and lie, he made life hell for anybody who posed a doubt (via lawsuits, taunting, etc.), I'm not. I'm fully aware of the brutal nature at which he treated anybody who doubted the credibility of his miraculous recovery. I think it's disgusting. In some ways, I think his actions in response to the allegations of wrongdoing were worse than the wrongdoings themselves.

Armstrong lives a quiet life now that he says is "thinning out". He is still facing a number of lawsuits that threaten any semblance of wealth that remains. He has five kids now, a gorgeous girlfriend / partner (who is also mother to one of his children), and frequently does interviews where he discusses the very things he's despised for. He says he's sorry, but nobody really knows if he's sorry for cheating -or- if he's sorry for getting caught for cheating.

I don't know what the future holds for Lance Armstrong, but for the vast majority of people that hope we never hear from him again, I'm not one of them. I think he still holds a lot of 'potential' to do good for two fights:

1. The fight against cancer, and,

2. The fight against that fine line that exists between 'winning' and leaving your character behind in the process. 

I'm not actually sure which is more significant or relevant in today's world. They're both afflictions that the new generation is constantly faced with - one of the afflictions (cancer) invades the body. The other affliction (the pressure to win even if you have to lie, cheat, and steal) invades the mind. Both awful; both pervasive.

“And that’s why Lance Armstrong still matters - he has suffered through two powerful diseases, and [I believe] he has much left to teach us about those fights - one of the fights [cancer] can teach us about the power of hope and courage; the other [lying, cheating and stealing] can teach us about the power of deceit.”

— - Author

**Originally published on May 14, 2017

Tonight, Derek Jeter's number 2 will be retired by the New York Yankees - it will be the last single digit number retired by the franchise. Having your number retired by such a storied franchise alongside legends like Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, Joe DiMaggio, Lou Gehrig (and many more) is an incredible recognition, but it leaves so much on the table of what his career meant to the modern day professional athlete as the 'ultimate role model'.

Yes, Derek Jeter has first-ballot Hall of Fame stats - 3,465 hits (6th all time & most by any shortstop ever), a .310 batting average, 14 All-Star Selections, 5 Gold Gloves, 5 Silver Slugger Awards, 2 Hank Aaron Awards, 1 Roberto Clemente Award, and 5 World Championships. But those stats do not adequately articulate why we, even as non-Yankees fans (as I am not), still rooted for Derek Jeter.

• 20 Years in One Uniform: Derek Jeter played 20 major league seasons for 1 franchise. Today, you'll be lucky to find a player with that type of longevity who hasn't played for 3-4 franchises. Jeter displayed a unique sense of loyalty that few players today care about. Was he paid well? Absolutely. But, all sports superstars are paid well, yet very few exhibit the loyalty of a Derek Jeter or even a Kobe Bryant.
  
  Those 20 years weren't always a bowl of cherries either - his 5 championships were split between two different regimes - the Joe Torre era and now the Joe Girardi era. And he played for a very hands-on owner that was not shy about blasting his own players and coaches in the media.
   

• Scandal-Free Career: Derek Jeter entered the Major Leagues in 1996, which was sandwiched between the baseball strike that lost the sport many fans in 1994 and the now infamous 'artificially powered' home run derby year of 1998 where Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa both broke the single-season home run record held by Roger Maris. He joined the league at a time when the media's coverage of athletes started to delve far beyond what they did on-the-field.
  
  Derek Jeter played his entire career during an era of scandal-after-scandal in professional sports - Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs), Adultery, Rape, Murders, Multi-million dollar contracts given to players whose playing abilities turned out to be worth nothing, and the list goes on. Yet, Derek Jeter was never so much as implicated in ANY scandal. Did he date a lot of women? Yes, but the difference between Jeter and so many other pro athletes when it comes to having flings with many women is that he was not married - a subtle but important distinction.
   

• 'The Captain': The modern day sports locker room has become a reporter's paradise for information that is intended to send subtle, yet very public messages about players who can't get along with teammates. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to find a story where Jeter's name was mentioned in the context of negativity from a teammate, nor will you find a story where Jeter publicly criticized a teammate.
  
  Even when A-Rod was going through his steroids scandal, Jeter handled it very delicately by talking, but not taking aim - he provided his views on PEDs, but he did not take it to the point of criticizing A-Rod through public channels. Jeter was known as 'The Captain' for a reason - he was a consummate leader who worked hard at the game, and always let his play on the field do the talking.

It is hard to find really great role models in sports today who perform brilliantly and haven't been involved in some scandal or moved from team-to-team looking for better money. When history looks back at this era of sports, there will be one name that overwhelmingly takes the spotlight - Michael Jordan. And there's nothing wrong with that - Jordan was the most successful and dominant player who hit his peak at that perfect time when sports transcended the boundaries into media, entertainment, and business (e.g., Nike Air Jordan's). But, if Jordan had started his career in 1996 as opposed to 1984, I can guarantee you that his image would have been significantly tarnished by his off-the-field behavior. We saw a glimpse of it with the gambling, but let's face it, that was not Jordan's only vice. Derek Jeter will be as underappreciated 50 years from now as he is today. 

"Derek Jeter was not perfect, but if we put who he was into the context of this generation of professional athletes, he was about as close as it gets...and that's why we Celebrate and RE2PECT him."

HALL OF FAME: In 2020, Derek Jeter received 396 of a possible 397 votes from the Baseball Writers’ Association of America (BBWAA), falling just 1 vote shy of being the second unanimous selection to the most prestigious honor that one can achieve in Major League Baseball.

0.023% - those are the current odds that a high school football player in this country ever plays in the NFL. Yet, when you look at how kids are using the transfer portal, you would think that number is not 0.023% but 23.0%.

The Transfer Portal facilitates a student athlete's ability to change schools & avoid any penalty (you used to have to sit out a full season to restore eligibility). Now, you can transfer at the end of one season and play the next. It is not uncommon to see kids who are on their 3rd or 4th schools. NIL aside, the transfer portal is great for creating 'parity' in college football but don't think for a second that it comes without a cost.

WHY SHOULD I WORK ON MY GAME & GET BETTER TO 'WIN' MY POSITION WHEN I CAN 'INHERIT' IT ELSEWHERE?

You rarely see kids actually putting in the work to win a job anymore b/c why should they? Receiving something is far easier than earning something. But that's what the transfer portal facilitates - the idea that a kid who 'inherits' everything has any notion or will to work for anything. If you don't like your job after 4 months...leave.

WHAT'S THE HARM IN MORTGAGING MY FUTURE FOR A 0.023% CHANCE AT PLAYING IN THE NFL?

If a kid is on his 3rd or 4th school, my guess is (and I know I'm going out on a limb here) that academics haven't been a priority. So now we have more college football players graduating into the 'real world' with no academic foundation AND no sense of what it takes to 'earn a job'. It is sad and a future we are solely responsible for perpetuating. I am not saying a kid who has been with 4 schools in 5 years isn't academic; I am saying the chances of building the mentality and foundation needed to succeed in this world are likely diluted by a nomadic approach towards such a formative period in life.

BUT NIL NIL NIL.

Yes, I get the NIL money thing. But if anybody saw what happened at UNLV this year, it should be a wakeup call about how NIL works - it is an unstructured and unregulated way to lure kids in with little-to-no legal guarantee on the part of the ppl luring them in. Do you really think these boosters are putting up big $ for NIL if the kid does not perform on the field? For every big NIL deal, there's usually a lot of fine print that makes the deal look far better than the payoff. There is a handful of very select players that will make $millions with NIL - those are also the same exact players that comprise the 0.023% referenced above.

The NCAA is there to protect "student"-athletes. The transfer portal is not protecting anybody except the boosters who fund these programs. It is like Venture Capital - VC firms are willing to 'throw' $1M at 50 startups because they only need one to hit for that "spreading" to create a huge ROI. Well in this case the 49 that don't work out are not defunct startups; they are college 'graduates' in the workforce. Is that good policy?

Republished - originally published in 2014.

For those familiar with the Kevin Spacey thriller, The Usual Suspects, the name 'Keyser Soze' should ring a bell. Soze is a seemingly mythical character working behind-the-scenes whose 'ruthlessness and influence have acquired a legendary, even mythical status.' He is never truly seen and those who work for him follow his directions like puppets hung from strings.

Al Haymon - rare public appearance

Over the past ten years, the boxing world has seen the rise of its own 'Keyser Soze', in the form of a boxing manager / promoter named Al Haymon. Haymon is a Harvard graduate, and was long known as a music promoter prior to his entry into the sport of boxing. The parallels between Haymon and Soze run large, in the sense that he is a 'behind-the-scenes' guy who wields a disproportionate amount of power in boxing - for example, he's able to get fighters that would generally not be considered Pay-Per-View (PPV) fighters onto PPV cards. He's built up fighters like Adrien Broner with mediocre / above-average boxing talent into superstars.

Known as boxing's 'power-broker', Haymon has been able to build a stable of fighters under-contract that represent the best-and-brightest that the sport has to offer. Unfortunately for all of us, he wields his power in a way that protects his fighters from the best fights that can be made by way of blocking potential blockbuster showdowns. Haymon fighters have little-to-no say in the fights they engage in and thus, we are often left with lopsided victories, 'paper champions', and general mediocrity.

Adrien "The Problem" Broner is perhaps the best manifestation of Haymon, the puppet-master. Broner is a cocky, flashy young fighter coined 'the next Mayweather' (he even refers to Floyd as 'big-brother'). And for a while, everybody had no reason to doubt this kid - he looked tremendous moving his way up the various divisions and becoming a three-time world champion. This was all working great until Broner had to fight a real fighter - Marcos Maidana - yes, the same Maidana that Mayweather just beat. Not only did Maidana put Broner on the canvas twice, he exposed what many had long-suspected, Broner is a fraud. Broner's post-fight interview after his one-sided victory against a 'nobody' on Saturday's Mayweather under-card fight demonstrated a kid who is not "the problem", but rather "a problem", and luckily for all of us, the WBC agreed and has suspended Broner for the comments.

Like Soze, Haymon is rarely seen in public and uses his right-hand man, Sam Watson, as his public representative - analogous to the role of 'Kobayashi' in The Usual Suspects. Haymon's role in the sport is continuing to grow - he has strong alliances with Floyd Mayweather Jr., Leonard Ellerbe and perhaps most-troubling, Golden Boy Promotion's (GBP) CEO, Richard Schaefer. Schaefer has been engaged in a very public dispute with GBP's majority shareholder and namesake, Oscar De La Hoya. Additionally, Schaefer has publicly declared that he will not deal with Bob Arum / Top Rank - boxing's other main promoter who handles Manny Pacquiao, Timothy Bradley, and a host of other top talent.

Being an obstructionist by protecting second-rate fighters and giving them massive paydays they don’t deserve while preventing the public from seeing the best fights at the right time DOES NOT make you a genius.

Given these dynamics, it is unlikely that we will see any Arum fighters face any Haymon fighters, which includes any possibility of a Mayweather / Pacquiao showdown - we all lose. Additionally, there is a very real possibility that Schaefer pulls the carpet out from underneath De La Hoya and defects to build a new company with Haymon, Mayweather, and Ellerbe. If that were to happen, I see no other outcome than for De La Hoya to join forces with Arum (whom he recently reconciled with). Such a development would only further divide the current landscape of boxing and allow for the creation of more 'Adrien Broners' - mediocre fighters handed disproportionate and unearned opportunities.

But like what we've seen happen with Broner, there is only so much protection you can afford these fighters. Eventually, they are going to have to fight real talent and the cream will rise to the top.

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist. And like that...he is gone."

I recently met with a product executive from Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (“TSMC”) - the world’s leader in advanced semiconductor fabrication who can call companies like Apple and Nvidia (amongst many others) as its partners. TSMC has grown into nearly a $1 Trillion dollar company that has achieved revenue growth CAGR of over 15% for nearly 30 consecutive years.

TSMC is a ‘pure-play’ fabricator - they do not design chips; the company is strictly focused on fabricating the designs of others. Simply put, without TSMC, companies like Apple and Nvidia would have nothing more than silicon designs on paper. It is the first fabricator to successfully produce process nodes of 3 nanometers (NM’s). I am not an engineer, but it is my understanding that the smaller the node of the processor, the more efficient the chip is (speed, power efficiency, etc.).

In 2020, TSMC committed over $10 billion of investment to build fabrication facilities outside of Phoenix, AZ - the actual investment is estimated to be nearly triple the original amount as it seeks geographical diversification due to geopolitical tensions in the Asia-Pacific region.

The TSMC Arizona project has not come without controversy. The company’s executive leaders have made a number of incendiary comments about the American workforce lacking both the skills and work-ethic needed to successfully achieve the promise of its investment.

As a shareholder of TSMC, I simply wanted to understand what enabled TSMC to achieve its current market leadership position and hold the keys to the advanced semiconductor gates of possibility.

Our customers are our partners and we rely on their input - we don’t know everything

TSMC was built on a sense of humility - it took a lot of time, investment and trust to build relationships that remain the core of its financial success today. It works hand-in-hand with its partners on setting and managing expectations on such cutting edge technology that it must advance every year to maintain its market position. For example, Apple was multi-sourcing its own silicon fabrication for a number of years to companies like Samsung, but the Samsung relationship was riddled with a number of issues (including tons of litigation around other issues) that prevented it from ever earning the trust it needed to really capture Apple’s commitment. TSMC brought a level of focus and expertise to the table that Apple wanted:

“We come to the table with a very simple message - semiconductor fabrication is all that we do - we are the best at what we do because of our focus. But make no mistake, winning Apple’s trust was all about proving [not just saying] we could deliver the best product at-scale and meet their deadlines.”

“Additionally, TSMC is very proud of working hand-in-hand with the executive leadership teams of its partners - we do not just take their designs and run with them; we always engage with our partners to understand and manage expectations - we work in an industry where production yield is significantly low at the beginning of a new process and those yields scale with production volume to drive cost-per-unit down. We need to know their product timelines so we can scale yields to a level that sufficiently meets their product rollouts and unit forecasts. It is a dynamic and day-to-day relationship that requires honesty and at-times, humility. We are best off by building trust with our partners - there is so much media in the world today, we are best off when we maintain direct communication so our partners hear from us.”

We understand our value in the value-chain

“We are the best in the world at advanced semiconductor fabrication. We do not try to be everything to everybody. We are not designers of semiconductors. The best thing that TSMC ever did was recognize that fabrication was a strategic differentiator when most of our competitors believed that the chip design was where you would win. Many viewed fabrication as a commoditized process; we viewed fabrication as an equal part in commercializing the best chips in the world. But, it took a vision many years ago to understand that and people even within the company did not always see it. There was a time when fabrication was not seen as a strategic piece of the value chain. Our leadership had the foresight into what chips would become in the future and the expertise required to translate designs into efficient and powerful silicon,”

We try to focus solely on product, not process

“TSMC is the company it is today because of an unrelenting commitment to our product. “We try to remain lean and we strive for a collaborative culture. However, we are not obsessed with committees, endless meetings about meetings, and we don’;t bring people into discussions that they do not need to be a part of. We want our people to focus on what they are great at and that requires organizational discipline. Our partners want the best product possible and we must align around that goal to be successful. We do not have the benefit of wasting time on worrying about internal processes - we have a formula that works and we see no reason to make it more complex than it needs to be.”

The comments about the American workforce were not taken well - we understand that cultural differences exist. We are in the business of making the best product possible and that requires a level of skill and commitment that we will not compromise on. We said what needed to be said.

“We made the investment in Arizona knowing there would be challenges of building fabrication facilities in the middle of a desert thousands of miles from our roots. Yes, we were caught off-guard by some of the deficiencies in personnel, but we always view these relationships at partnerships that require dedication to make them work. We are seeing progress and we have become much better with merging both corporate and geographic cultural differences. When we invest, it is not simply about deploying capital It is also about deploying our people to be on-the-ground. That is what true partners do - they demonstrate mutual interest with both financial and human capital. We are not there yet, but we have made significant progress in bridging the divides that we saw early on. We need this to work and are committed to making it work.”

If we do right by our partners, we will continue to be successful

“We report our earnings just like every other publicly-traded company. However, we don’t manage our business by quarter - if we did that, we would not be where we are today. We invest where we think strategic advantage exists and we are willing to give up short-term gains for long-term results. We see companies that are managing to each 90-day period and it shows - there is a lack of strategy when every decision is made on short-term gain - it is very tactical and you cannot be the best by simply managing with tactics.”

“We never let the ‘noise’ of the market interfere with the focus of our company. That is how we manage our business and the results are a reflection of that clarity.”

Nike Sneakers Sold

Nike has been disappointing on multiple dimensions and consumers have jumped ship - the revival of New Balance and Asics, combined with the emergence of ON and Hoka have all come at Nike’s expense. Instead of being the brand of innovation, forward-fashion, and quality, they have resorted to the same strategy that they have been using for 15 years now - Retro’ing sneakers from the past. It is unimaginative and frankly, boring. The only thing that has changed is the prices - they continue to rise and the quality continues to go down.

Sneakers take up a lot of space. They require a climate controlled storage unit to keep them from completely falling apart (especially sneakers that are 10+ years old). They are not like watches that can be easily stored in a safety deposit box.

What is rare and valuable today can be re-released tomorrow. Case-in-point…the Nike Wu-Tang dunks from 1999 that just released. That shoe was a Friends-and-Family (F&F) ‘icon’ - a true grail (only 50 pairs produced) that often fetched upwards of $40,000 on the open market. The pair that just released is not a limited sneaker and sells for $150.

Point being, Nike is cratering the market of its most avid collectors. There is no telling that they won’t re-release anything anymore. The Eminem Jordan 4’s, the ‘original and true’ Nike Yeezy’s, the Tiffany dunks, etc. There is already rumors that the Jordan 1 Shattered Backboards from 2015 are going to release next year.

Rather than wait to see which sneaker’s value they will crater next, it was prudent to find a broker who could move a lot of 35 pairs of my most valuable sneakers. You definitely take a haircut by selling the full lot instead of selling each pair individually, but it is truly a hassle to do that. It also helps to have everything in a Size 11.0 - a very popular size with a large market of buyers.

So for the second time, I have sold a large lot of sneakers all-at-once, but this time it was out of fear - fear that the value of these sneakers will be a fraction of what they are worth today because Nike looks to drive revenue by destroying the one thing that made them valuable - rarity.

New Balance has become the staple - they are far more comfortable, have a much higher quality being ‘Made in the USA’ and don’t come with all the hype - they’re just great shoes.

And nobody was ever criticized for paying off debt - even if that debt was a 3.25% mortgage.