What We’re Reading (Week Ending 07 December 2025) - 07 Dec 2025
Reading helps us learn about the world and it is a really important aspect of investing. The late Charlie Munger even went so far as to say that “I don’t think you can get to be a really good investor over a broad range without doing a massive amount of reading.” We (the co-founders of Compounder Fund) read widely across a range of topics, including investing, business, technology, and the world in general. We want to regularly share the best articles we’ve come across recently. Here they are (for the week ending 07 December 2025):
1. Understanding ROIC on Low Growth Businesses – John Huber
A 20% FCF yield that is durable is just as good as a reinvestment moat that grows at 20% (in fact, I’d take the former over the latter in many cases because growth rates of 20% tend not to last past a few years). Of course, many 20% FCF yields are also fleeting, but there are enough examples of durable companies (some examples below)…
…People are placing too much emphasis on the stated ROIC of low growth mature companies that earn high FCF and don’t need to retain much of their earnings. It’s important to remember that the capital on a business’s balance sheet is the money that someone else invested (i.e. shareholders in past years).
If there is no place to reinvest capital going forward, then what matters going forward isn’t the ROIC (which is based on a historical balance sheet figure that is no longer relevant). What matters in this case is the FCF that we can collect going forward and the price we have to pay to acquire that FCF (i.e. the FCF yield)…
…Imagine a real estate developer invests $5 million to build a new apartment building that produces $200,000 of annual cash flow. This is a 4% FCF yield, or in the parlance of real estate, a 4% cap rate (technically the cap rate uses a pretax number based on what RE investors call net operating income, but we’ll ignore taxes for simplicity)…
…Viewing this building as a “business” suggests this is a mediocre one at best: a 4% return on capital is not creating value because the investor could have likely earned better returns investing in some other real estate investment, other stocks, or some other asset class altogether…
…So we have a 4% ROIC business that isn’t creating value. Let’s assume the market goes south, the developer’s business is overleveraged and on the rocks, and he decides to bring on a partner to help inject much needed cash. He offers you a 50% share of this building at a valuation of just $1.5 million…
…Let’s look at your result: you invest $750k and now have a $100k of cash flow (50% share of the building’s overall annual cash flow).
This means that your return on the capital you invest is not 4% but rather 13.3% ($100k / $750k).
The same building had an original cost basis of $5 million. That was the initial capital that went into funding its development. This same asset that traded at a 4% yield now trades at a 13.3% yield. However, if you viewed the financials and crunched the ROIC for this building using GAAP financials, it would still show an ROIC of 4% because that is the capital that the original developer invested into the building.
Would this stop you from investing at a 13.3% yield (assuming you like the long-term prospects for the building)? Of course not. You would view this as a great deal.
2. Blue Owl’s teachable moment for investors and asset managers chasing yield and ‘hot money’ – Isla Binnie
Blue Owl’s (OBDC.N), opens new tab turnabout decisions in the last two weeks – to merge, and then not merge, and then maybe merge two of its private credit funds at a later time – offer a cautionary lesson for retail investors in search of higher yields and the asset managers chasing the billions in “hot money” wealthy individuals bring.
The New York-based asset manager withdrew a proposal last month to merge a $1.7 billion non-public fund for retail investors with a $17 billion publicly traded fund for institutional and retail clients after news of the deal helped send Blue Owl’s shares down more than 10% in less than two weeks. The retail investors, who had to vote on the plan, were spooked by two things: it could have forced them to take a 20% loss at current prices and Blue Owl paused redemptions until early next year…
…”The reason that private credit can advertise more yield is because they’re providing you more credit risk … it’s more concentrated investments in riskier companies. Now that doesn’t sound like a trade that should be in a liquid fund,” said Robert Cohen, director of global developed credit at DoubleLine, a bond-focused investment firm managing $90 billion in assets, referring to private credit in general.
Blue Owl’s proposal touched a nerve in credit markets already rattled in recent months due to a few high-profile bankruptcies that have undermined confidence in private credit. Also, some in the market fret that expectations of interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve could reduce the appeal of private credit investments, one of whose main selling points is their juicy yields.
3.Want This Hearing Aid? Well, Who Do You Know? – Steven Levy
Fortell is a hearing aid, one that claims to use AI to provide a dramatically superior aural experience. The chosen few included in its beta test claim that it seems to top the performance of high-end devices they’d been unhappily using.
These testers have made pilgrimages to Fortell’s headquarters on the fifth floor of a WeWork facility in New York City’s trendy SoHo neighborhood, where they were fitted for the hearing aids—which from the outside look pretty much like standard, over-the-ear, teardrop-shaped devices. But the big moment comes when a Fortell staffer takes them down to street level. There, among street clatter, honking cabs, and delivery trucks backing up to luxury stores, they are asked to conduct a conversation with a Fortell worker. Two other employees stand behind them, adding their own loud discourse to the urban cacophony.
Despite the din, the testers clearly make out what the person in front of them is saying…
… “A lot of people regard AI as something you’ll use to make businesses more efficient,” he says. “But people haven’t really internalized that you could use AI to make products exponentially better.”
De Jonge and Morris eventually dubbed the new company Chromatic, a name they later ditched, settling instead on Fortell. They realized that there would be two critical components in an improved approach to a hearing aid. The first would exploit the recent advances in AI for a better algorithm to selectively augment conversation. And the second would be a custom chip to process that algorithm in real time.
The first requirement became the province of Igor Lovchinsky, who had been Butterfly’s AI wizard. He’d come to the field late in life; up until his mid-twenties he’d been a Juilliard-trained concert pianist but left the field when he became enamored with science. Lovchinsky felt that the AI claims made by some other hearing aid companies were overblown; they were simply tweaking the amplification, he says, or aiming the microphones in a different direction.
“What became clear is that what was needed is source separation,” he says. “Take an audio wave that contains both things you want to hear and things you don’t want to hear, and separate them into just speech and just noise.” Even in 2021, it wasn’t clear that this was possible. “We all have this incredible neural network in our heads honed by billions of years of evolution to recognize speech,” he says. “If you do the source separation with the slightest deviation from full naturalness, your brain will immediately hear it.”…
…Having the right algorithms wouldn’t be worth much if you didn’t have a properly engineered chip to run them. To lead its silicon team, Fortell tapped as CTO Andrew Casper, another Butterfly alum who was a lead engineer on a Google team making AI chips. Casper also wasn’t sure that his task could be accomplished. “Your ear is very sensitive to latency,” he says, noting that if the altered sounds weren’t processed in 10 milliseconds—a hundredth of a second—it would throw users into a hellish uncanny valley. “We didn’t know if it could be done in that amount of time with a high enough fidelity so you aren’t going to notice distortions.” Only then, he says, could the company move to the final challenge: “Can we even put this thing into your ear?”
It was going to take years before the startup got those things right and could even begin to test on humans. Fortunately, the $9 million initial stake, the majority of which came from Kushner, provided a long runway. “For the first few years of the company there was no hearing aid in sight,” says de Jonge. “We needed to build for ourselves to see if the science problems could be solved.”
By 2023, Lovchinsky and Casper had made significant progress on their respective missions. Lovchinsky’s team realized that separating out the voices required creating a proprietary version of what is known in the industry as Spatial AI, involving a 3D understanding of the real world. (Confusingly, they also use the nonproprietary technology, spatial AI, in their product.) “It gleans perspectives from multiple microphones and can infer the same way that healthy people can, from both ears,” he says. His team also found a way to train their AI models with huge amounts of synthetic data that emulated all sorts of conditions. “It’s specifically useful in the most challenging environments,” he says…
…Now that the product is launched, Fortell will sell hearing aids in a single clinic on Manhattan’s Park Avenue. It’s decked out like a posh lounge, with the devices on display in a tasteful presentation that’s straight out of the Apple retail playbook. Hanging on the wall is a silicon wafer with the circuitry of the custom chips. In the early stages, his staff of four audiologists will serve only a couple of dozen customers a week, to make sure everything goes smoothly. In any case, while ramping up production, the supply will be limited.
This is great for Fortell, but it seems de Jonge’s initial impulse to usher everyone’s grandparents into the land of the hearing is in danger of being limited to the one percent, which doesn’t exactly qualify him for a Salk medal. When I ask de Jonge how his invention can scale to change life for the masses, his replies, whether due to secrecy on future plans or just not having a good answer, seem hand-wavy. In his defense, Fortell has resisted the temptation to jack up the traditional price of premium hearing aids—the $6,800 is actually a bit less than some other medically prescribed hearing aids. (As with other high-end hearing aids, the price is part of a package that includes fitting and support from professional audiologists.)…
…It’s hard to measure hearing quality, but Fortell has set out to prove scientifically that it has a better solution to hearing loss. It contracted researchers in NYU Langone’s audiology and neuroscience departments to consult on a blind experiment comparing Fortell with the leading AI-powered hearing aid competitor, a Swiss company called Phonak, whose devices retail for $4,000 and is considered the gold standard in AI hearing products. (In the study, Phonak isn’t mentioned by name and is identified only as the control hearing aid group.)
The test matched performance in environments where noise was coming at random intervals from three directions—kind of an emulation of the Cocktail Party Problem. “This is a configuration that’s particularly good to show the advantages of this aid, because what it does is actually extracting the various signals and getting rid of some of them,” says Mario Svirsky, the Noel L. Cohen Professor of Hearing Science at NYU School of Medicine, who consulted in the study (and was paid for his time).
Svirsky says the test and its goals were set out in advance. If it showed that Fortell notched a 4-decibel increase over its rival in boosting the desired signal, it would be a home run. But when they ran the study, the difference reported between the two devices was 9.2 dB in Fortell’s favor. “The results were overwhelming,” he says. “I’ve never seen such a categorical result in my career.” In one chart, the line representing the hearing improvement from Fortell virtually towered over the Phonak line. The study concluded, “In the most challenging multi-talker environment participants had 18.9X higher odds of understanding speech versus the top AI hearing aids on the market today.”
Naturally, I sought comment from Phonak about those results. Michael Preuss, the lead audiologist for Phonak’s AI platform, has been wearing hearing aids since he was 3 years old. Phonak, he says, has been in the business for 75 years and has been working with AI in its products for the last quarter century, and for the last seven years has pursued the idea of producing an AI chip—just like Fortell. Phonak, too, has spent years developing and testing its AI system, which rolled out last year to what the company describes as acclaim and adoption. When I tell Preuss about how some startup he never heard of trounced his product in a head-to-head test, he seems unruffled. “We have seen in the past that there is no industry standard in how you set up these studies and how you do these kinds of measurements,” he says. “You can design studies to enhance your own performance.” To be sure, Fortell did set up conditions that played to its strengths. But Svirsky says that those conditions were the ones that matter to hearing aid wearers. Also, unlike almost all studies performed by hearing aid companies, Fortell has submitted its work for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
4. “Suspicion of Gross Fraud”: some notes from passing on Intellego Technologies – Andrew Walker
The company at the center of this story is a tiny little Swedish company named Intellego Technologies; when I was researching them over the summer, they had a ~$200m market cap (note: I used USD there, but Intellego reports in SEK; for ease going forward, I will use SEK through the rest of this article. 10 SEK roughly equals $1, so just divide by ten to get to a rough USD number)…
…Bears claimed the company was…. let’s say incredibly sketchy. The financials didn’t really make sense. Despite seemingly massive profits, operating cash flow was basically non-existent. Bulls said the bears were missing the forest for the trees and misconstruing normal small company growth pains with something more nefarious…
…Obviously, that bull / bear debate seems to have been settled now; the stock getting halted because the company’s cash was frozen / the CEO getting arrested for “suspicion of gross fraud” has a way of settling debates…
…As I’ll detail, to say Intellego had a ton of red flags around it is an understatement.
But, even if you put those red flags to the side, there was a pretty easy reason not to invest: it was literally too good to be true…
…Here’s where the too-good-to-be-true part comes in: UVC dosimeters aren’t exactly an unknown technology; a quick amazon search reveals a heck of a lot of options for dosimeters. Sure, maybe a hospital grade disinfecting system needs something better than a color changing chameleon sticker, but this technology isn’t some wild revolutionary breakthrough. Intellego was guiding to more than 700m SEK in revenue and 400m SEK in EBIT for 2025. In USD, that’s ~$70m in revenue and $40m in profits, making Intellego a very large and profitable business…. and an extraordinarily fast growing one; revenue was ~260m SEK in 2024, and the company was suggesting >10B SEK (~$1B in USD) in sales in five years.
I could never find a single person who could explain to me why Intellego had a right to make such enormous margins and insane growth on a technology that seemed so simple / commoditized. I’d hear bulls wave their hands and say “probably some type of patent?”, but I’d never really hear a good answer why this was a defensible market that should yield such high profits / growth…
…As mentioned, in August Intellego guided to over 700m in revenue and 400m in EBIT for all of 2025. Intellego’s initial full year guidance came in February 2025 had been for over 500m in revenue and 160m in EBIT for all of 2025 (which in itself represented insane growth from 2024’s ~260m in revenue). If you believed those numbers, the business was going parabolic. But look at those numbers: from February to August Intellego increased their sales guidance by ~200m and their EBIT guidance by over 240m, which implies that the business was experiencing negative incremental costs. How?…
… I did want to share one last tidbit from my Intellego research: my call with their (again, I assume soon to be former) CEO. I had a call with him in early August to talk about the company. It was a really weird call (my first notes from the call were “weird call”) for a bunch of reasons, including that he showed up ~ten minutes late. I won’t get into all of the details of the call, but there is one specific thing that I’ve been thinking about a lot with the benefit of hindsight that might be interesting.
I spent most of the call pressing on my key question: how could a product that seemed so simple / commoditized generate such high margins / insane growth? The CEO was pretty dismissive of those concerns (at least in my opinion), and on the heels of the call I would have a lot of mental debate with myself: was he dismissive because he was crazy, or was he dismissive because there was something so good about the product that he knew he had the right to be dismissive (was Steve Jobs crazy to be dismissive of the Zune?). The interesting thing is that he was quite cavalier on all of my questions about competition…. but he was completely honed in when I asked him questions about the company’s accounts receivable. Multiple times he told me “our one weakness is accounts receivable” or “we know that the receivables are our big weakness.”
I’ve heard CEOs mention receivable as an opportunity to improve (i.e. bring receivables from 60 days to 50 days and ROIC improves markedly!), but I’ve never heard a CEO say they were a weakness, let alone the company’s sole weakness! It just seemed like a really weird focus / Achilles heel for a company whose products were so in demand that revenue was set to ~triple, and it seemed like a strange thing for a CEO to be so singularly focused on.
5. The Untold Story of Charlie Munger’s Final Years – By Gregory Zuckerman
In the year before his death, Munger made over $50 million from a bet on an out-of-favor industry he had shunned for 60 years. He revved up his real-estate activities, working with a young neighbor to place big, long-term wagers, unusual for a nonagenarian. He faced down health challenges and wrestled with the future.
“Even a week or two before passing away, he was asking questions such as, ‘Does Moore’s Law apply in the age of AI?’” recalls his friend Jamie Montgomery, referring to whether artificial intelligence would see exponential gains like those experienced in computational power…
…Munger made his own investments, too. Sitting in a recliner in his library, he’d grab green Value Line binders from a nearby desk and pore through data on publicly traded companies.
For decades, he barely looked at coal stocks, friends say, but in 2023, these companies grabbed his attention. Coal usage was in a long-term decline, and investors saw a bleak future for the industry. Yet many producers remained profitable, trading at inexpensive levels. Coal will remain necessary as global energy demand grows, Munger argued to friends and others.
“He read an article that said coal was down the chute,” Borthwick recalls. “He said, ‘Horse feathers.’ ”
In May 2023, Munger purchased shares of coal miner Consol Energy. Later in the year, he bought shares of Alpha Metallurgical Resources, which produces coal for steel production. By the time of Munger’s death, Consol had doubled in value. Alpha had also surged. Together he scored paper gains of more than $50 million, friends say…
…Back in 1978, a surgeon had bungled cataract surgery, leaving him blind in his left eye. He learned to compensate, installing bright lights around the house. Around 2014, though, Munger experienced a problem in the optic nerve of his right eye. He faced the possibility of going blind—yet he took the setback in stride, says Li Lu, a regular visitor. Munger decided to adjust his life, asking others to read to him and contemplating other steps.
“I’ll have to learn Braille,” he told one friend. He had studied it after his botched cataract surgery but never mastered it. He was ready to try again.
That turned out not to be necessary. His right eye slowly improved, but Munger’s movement became constricted…
…Munger was counting down to a 100th birthday party on Jan. 1, 2024. Friends and longtime business associates including Jim Sinegal, Costco’s co-founder, planned to fly to Los Angeles for the festivities.
Munger’s health was faltering, though. He sensed the end was near. When a friend asked how he was feeling, he replied: “There’s a lot wrong with me.”
When he discussed his legacy, he said he was comfortable with his accomplishments and optimistic about Berkshire’s future.
“Once it’s built, you don’t need to be Warren and Charlie,” he told a friend. “What we have is a framework for looking at investments.”
Near the end of life, Munger leaned on humor for strength. He told family members that Diet Coke was responsible for his longevity, lightening the mood.
And he shared a wish with a visitor.
“Oh, to be 86 again,” he said.
Late on Thanksgiving evening two years ago, days before his death, Munger was admitted to a hospital near Montecito. He asked family members to leave the room so he could call Buffett one last time.
They shared a last farewell.
Disclaimer: None of the information or analysis presented is intended to form the basis for any offer or recommendation. We currently have a vested interest in Apple. Holdings are subject to change at any time.
