Chris Kimble

A dinner with Michael Burry Yesterday, I was invited to dinner with @michaeljburry in San Francisco, and listened to his thoughts on investing, markets, and the world. He struck me as a genuinely nice guy, but also someone who sees the world through a very different lens than I do, or perhaps most people (hehe). I didn’t agree with everything he said, nor do I share his investment philosophies or prognostications. But, Burry is no dummy. He’s spent decades studying markets, developing convictions, making difficult decisions, and accumulating experiences that most investors have only read about. There’s tremendous value in understanding how he thinks, even when you disagree him. One of the most important lessons I’ve learned is that intelligence doesn’t always manifest itself in familiar ways. Some of the most interesting thinkers approach problems differently, focus on variables we barely consider, and arrive at conclusions that initially seem unreasonable. Sometimes they’re wrong, sometimes we’re wrong, and sometimes we’re simply seeing different pieces of a larger puzzle. I think one of the greatest obstacles to intellectual growth is our natural desire to be right. When someone challenges a belief we hold, our instinct is to construct a rebuttal rather than understand their argument. We search for weaknesses and prepare our response before the other person has finished speaking. In doing so, we’re defending what we already know rather than expanding what we understand. I’ve increasingly learned to approach these conversations differently. I’m not interested in proving my investment philosophy is superior or that someone else’s conclusions are mistaken. I’m interested in understanding how another intelligent person thinks, what experiences shaped their judgment, and what they might recognize that I’ve overlooked. Consider two experienced investors examining the same company. One sees an extraordinary opportunity while the other sees a disaster, despite both having access to the same information. Perhaps one understands the competitive advantages better, while the other recognizes risks that haven’t yet appeared. The fascinating question isn’t simply who’s right, but what each understands that the other might be missing. And that’s where intellectual curiosity becomes an advantage. Instead of dismissing an opposing argument, ask what assumptions would have to be true for that person’s conclusions to make sense. More importantly, what evidence would convince you that your own assumptions are mistaken? Those questions can teach you more than another conversation with someone who agrees with everything you already believe. Perhaps I disagree with 80% of someone’s conclusions, but the remaining 20% introduces an idea I’ve never considered. Maybe it’s a better way of evaluating risk, understanding capital allocation, or recognizing a weakness in my thesis. Something else I’ve come to appreciate is that learning doesn’t always require changing your mind. Sometimes a conversation strengthens your existing conviction while deepening your understanding of why you hold it. Other times, it exposes risks or questions you hadn’t considered. Either way, your thinking becomes more complete. I left my conversation with Burry with no desire to become Michael Burry or invest the way he does. But I did leave with a greater appreciation for how differently intelligent people can interpret the same world. The objective isn’t to borrow someone else’s conviction, but to examine their reasoning, challenge it against your own understanding, and incorporate whatever makes you a better thinker. The goal isn’t to think like Burry, Buffett, or anyone else. The goal is to become a better version of yourself as a thinker and investor. And sometimes the people who teach us the most are precisely the ones we disagree with. As always, wishing each and every one of you success on your investment journey! 🌹