Conviction over category

Most investors are told to pick a lane. Specialize, build a reputation in one sector, and become the obvious call for every company in it. It is sensible advice, and for many firms it works. We have chosen not to follow it.

Sector lines are drawn by analysts, not by the businesses themselves. Some of the most important companies of the past two decades sat awkwardly between categories: a logistics business that was really software, a retailer that was really a data company, a chemicals supplier that was really a quiet hold on one essential input. A specialist sees those businesses through the lens of their own field and often misses what makes them work. Someone who has looked across many fields is more likely to recognize the pattern.

Breadth also brings perspective that depth alone cannot. What we learn from an operating business changes how we read a venture company, and what we see in a fast-growing startup changes how we think about a mature one. Lessons travel. A firm confined to one sector only ever learns from that sector.

None of this means anything goes. Without a lane, the discipline has to come from somewhere else, and for us it comes from a consistent set of questions rather than a fixed list of industries. Is the business essential? Are the people exceptional? Would we be glad to own it for a decade? Those questions apply to a rocket company and a food producer alike. Holding them constant is what lets us move across fields without drifting.