Edward Quince's Wisdom Bites: Cruel Ironies

 

Investing contains a cruel irony: we commit capital today for a future that refuses to cooperate. We make decisions under uncertainty, but price assets as if tomorrow will behave politely.

Jason Zweig, channeling Benjamin Graham, describes two fundamentally different approaches to this problem: projection and protection.

Understanding the difference is the difference between surviving markets and being periodically surprised by them.

The Projection Temptation

Projection is the default setting of modern finance. Analysts extrapolate current trends—AI adoption, margin expansion, market share dominance—and project them far into the future. The story becomes the justification for the price.

Projection requires optimism, confidence, and precision. It also requires you to be right about variables you do not control: growth rates, competition, regulation, interest rates, and human behavior.

That’s a long list of things to get right simultaneously.

The Protection Alternative

Protection is quieter and less exciting. It focuses not on how good the future might be, but on how bad it could get—and whether you can survive it.

Protection is price discipline. It is buying assets cheap enough that disappointment does not equal disaster. It assumes your forecasts are flawed and builds defense accordingly.

This is the essence of Graham’s Margin of Safety—not brilliance, but resilience.

Why Protection Wins Over Time

Projection feels intelligent. Protection feels boring. But investing is not scored on excitement—it is scored on outcomes.

Projection asks: What if everything goes right?
Protection asks: What if I’m wrong?

Only one of those questions keeps you in the game.

The Lesson

Stop trying to calculate earnings in 2030. Start asking whether your portfolio can survive the ignorance of 2026.

You don’t need to be prescient. You need to be consistently not stupid.

XTOD

“It is remarkable how much long-term advantage people like us have gotten by trying to be consistently not stupid, instead of trying to be very intelligent.” — Charlie Munger