📖John Neff
Inversion Thinking
Invert problems to find insights forward thinking misses.
Instead of asking how to succeed, ask how to avoid failure. Inverting problems often reveals insights that forward thinking misses.
🏠 Everyday Analogy
📖 Core Interpretation
John Neff advocates a repeatable process: define criteria, execute consistently, and review decisions against evidence. Process quality drives outcome consistency.
💎 Key Insight：Avoiding failure is often more productive than pursuing success.
AI Deep Analysis
Get personalized insights and practical guidance through AI conversation
❓ Why It Matters
Without process, there is no reliable feedback loop. Structured execution and review improve decision quality over time.
🎯 How to Practice
Run a decision loop of research, thesis, execution, and post-mortem; document assumptions and update playbooks with evidence, not hindsight bias.
⚠️ Common Pitfalls
Having opinions without execution criteria
Reviewing outcomes but not decisions
Abandoning rules during volatility spikes
📚 Case Studies
1
Black Monday Crash (1987)
During the October 1987 crash, Neff avoided expensive growth stocks and held diversified, low P/E, high-dividend names.
✨ Outcome：Fund fell less than S&P 500 and recovered faster, illustrating how valuation discipline and income cushion limited downside damage.
2
Ford Motor Turnaround (1974)
During the 1973–74 bear market, Ford traded at a very low P/E as auto demand slumped. Neff bought heavily, believing earnings would normalize when recession and oil-shock fears eased.
✨ Outcome：Within several years, Ford rebounded sharply, delivering substantial gains and validating the low P/E contrarian bet.
See how masters handle real scenarios?
30 real investment dilemmas answered by legendary investors
Explore Scenarios →