Conversation No. 008

The 100 Year Conversation

In Conversation with Nikesh Arora

Risk, reinvention, and building through technological inflection points.

In this conversation, Nikesh Arora reflects on a career spanning finance, technology, and cybersecurity: growing up in an Air Force family and moving across India, weathering hundreds of job rejections, building Google Europe, working at SoftBank, and taking the helm of Palo Alto Networks without a background in cybersecurity. A masterclass on being a good CEO, he shares lessons on risk, acquisitions, preserving a founder’s speed, and why institutions endure by adapting through technological inflection points.

I met with Nikesh at Palo Alto Networks’ headquarters back in April and was immediately struck by how candid he was. Despite reaching remarkable success in his career—running Google Europe, working at SoftBank, being CEO of Palo Alto Networks—he refuses to accept any compliments. I called him even-keeled and he joked that his wife wouldn’t necessarily agree. When I asked him about his childhood to see if there was some indication he would become the Nikesh he is today, he laughed it off and called himself a boring kid.

The line he used was, “I don’t have anything bizarre; maybe that’s why I have limited success.” It wasn’t an attempt to be self-deprecating—it’s just how he sees himself—a proficient businessman, but not one born with some type of internal mandate or obsession with creating a business.

Yet his success is by no means limited, nor is the knowledge he has built over a dynamic career. Perhaps that self-awareness comes from the difficult start to his career. He was rejected from 400 jobs after business school at Northeastern University before getting his first role at Fidelity. Those rejections have stayed with him, not for spite’s sake but as a point of pride to help him remember where exactly he came from.

Personally, what I found so enriching about our conversation was his perspective on parenthood. As a father, I was curious about his philosophy. What stuck with me is his total rejection of overinvolved parenting. He told multiple stories about people who put too much pressure on their kids to excel in X or Y fields, and the kids burn out and have no sense of self. He wants to do the opposite, let his kids learn, and mess up, on their own.

Arora brought a unique perspective to the 100-year conversation series. He rejected our premise entirely, insisting that 100 years is not the proper framework to consider success. Rather, companies must adapt to whatever cultural moment they are moving between. The ability to react and grow as their industries change is a more valuable benchmark of success, he asserted. Maybe he’s right. Maybe moving forward, we can only hope our institutions bend with the times. And sometimes, that may mean starting from the very beginning.

On Growing Up

Gaurav Ahuja

You describe yourself as an Air Force kid. You moved around a bunch. What did that do to your psyche growing up as far as having to reset so many times, and how much of that was Air Force kind of military discipline versus just the moving itself?

Nikesh Arora

Well, it was a different time. There was no concept of parents leaving your kids behind or your mother staying behind. You packed your bag and moved. And India had a very interesting system because of the fact that we had to move every so often between different states. There's actually a series of schools which run, within reason, as per the same curriculum around the country.

If you moved from one city and landed in a different city, then you went to the same school, you'd end up pretty much in the same curriculum. Of course, you know, whole different circumstances, whole different environment, whole different surroundings, new friends and everything. It’s kind of a double-edged sword. I don't have friends I've known since kindergarten, because I can't remember seven schools ago who was with me in kindergarten. Sometimes people write me a letter and say, “Hey, we went to school together.” I'm like, “Wow, which one?” And it’s like, “Pick one of the seven that I went to.”

So there's that downside. But the flip side is that you learn at an early age how to adapt to circumstances, learn to make the best of what's around you, learn to relate to different people in different parts of the country.

Because as you know, in India different cities are almost different cultural centers. If you're in the northeast in Shillong, or you're down south in Bangalore, or you're in Allahabad in the middle of Uttar Pradesh, you're effectively in different cultures. So you learn what you would call cultural integration today, in a national context. You learn adaptability. You learn perhaps not to get too emotionally tied into something.

On Taking Risks

Gaurav Ahuja

You've described yourself, or maybe other people have described you as extremely even-keeled. Would you say that applies to both your personal and professional life?

Nikesh Arora

There are times I can be even-keeled. There are times I can be less even-keeled, depending on circumstances.

I think professionally, perhaps the direct consequence of that is that you roll with it. You get all kinds of crisis moments; you get all kinds of celebratory moments. You just have to make sure that you don't get too hung up on either side. You have to go figure out, challenge the moment, pick it up, and solve from there on.

My wife looks at me and says, “I don't know how you can balance with that and not take a moment to understand the implication of what just happened.”

Like it's happened, so the question is: What is gonna happen next? All the easy problems get solved before they get to me. I don't get paid to solve easy problems. I get paid to solve harder problems or things where people get stuck and don't know whether they should go left or right.

Gaurav Ahuja

You came to the U.S. for school from very humble beginnings. Was there a point when you started to say, “Hey, I’ve kinda made it?”

Nikesh Arora

I was gonna leave after I made $100,000. My friend and I sat down one day and said, “Listen, if I just make $100,000, I think we can go back to India, have a great life.” Because I think my first salary was $2,600 a year. So $100,000 was a fortune at one point in time. And it was never about the money. It never is about the money.

Taking risk is not about how much money you can make out of it. It's very hard to generate excessive return without taking risk. So risk is a constant in anything you do, whether it's in your life or in your profession. I think risk is correlated to the outcome you want to create, and the outcome could be how can Palo Alto be the biggest, most evergreen cybersecurity company in the world?

If you want to go with that aspiration, you have to decide what level of risk is right at what point in the trajectory of the company. You're not going to achieve greatness with Palo Alto on a constant basis without trying to figure out what is the next risky thing we have to do to be able to pivot the company, you know?

My biggest paranoia right now is: Where is AI going to go? Our job is to go solve for security for the next technological wave. If I don't solve it, somebody else will. And usually in Silicon Valley, fortunes are made and destroyed in technological inflection points. When mobile came about, when the internet came about, around $2 trillion in companies were created. When the internet came about, one of them was Google. Or when mobile came about, trillion-dollar companies were generated. When streaming came about as a consequence of the internet, you have YouTube and Netflix and the likes of it.

So every time there's a technological inflection point, a new trillion-dollar company is born. You have the Anthropics and the OpenAIs of the world. So the question becomes: How do you adapt to that next technological inflection?

I think the biggest risk for any tech company right now is: how are you going to adapt to AI? How do I take 20,000 people who could become legacy and make sure that we pivot hard and pivot fast so that we're ready for the next wave? And that's a risk, because if you move too soon, you run the risk of being too early and giving up your existing business. If you take too long, it could be somebody else who goes and takes that space, or, God forbid, you move in the wrong direction. Then there's a risk that you miss everything.

On Rejection

Gaurav Ahuja

You’ve said before, when you take a new CEO job, take a few big swings right when you get there. Did you feel that way at the start of your career as well, as you came out of school?

Nikesh Arora

That's a fair question. Coming out of business school at Northeastern, you apply for a bunch of jobs. People at school say you're destined for Wall Street. You apply to every Wall Street company. They all tell you you don't have enough finance. It's a bit of a humbling moment. I said, “I graduated first in my class. What do you mean I don't have enough finance?” Somebody actually hung up when they misunderstood that I went to Northeastern, not Northwestern.

So that's what you deal with. You know, I have rejection letters in my house where the printer ran out of ink, so the rejection letter's only half printed, but I knew it was the rejection letter. When you’ve dealt with 400 rejections in your face, you're not feeling a risk-on moment at that point in time.

At that point in time, I was trying to figure out, “How do I make sure I can give my father back his $2,000 so I can go back home and make sure that I can build myself a career?”

So, I was busy making plan B. My plan B was to go get a PhD in finance from Boston College if I didn't get a job. And then I got the tenth Fidelity job I applied for. Thankfully, they had no HR system, so they couldn't tell that I'd been rejected nine times. At that point in time, you know, it's Maslow's hierarchy. I had to look for food, shelter, pay the rent, and feed my family. It wasn't about actualizing my ambition. I'd do whatever they wanted me to do.

Clearly from there, life has moved on. But I think once you find your feet, once you find your place, you understand what you're capable of. Even then, I went to work to do the best I could; I went to work to see how we can do things right as opposed to doing what needs to get done. You can't be so disruptive that they throw you out on the first wave. Once you get past that, you see success in that, you feel slightly more confident in your role in the workforce.

On Childhood and Parenting

Gaurav Ahuja

A common theme that I keep hearing in some of these interviews is that there was some obsession in childhood. Was there some thread in there that might point towards the future for you?

Nikesh Arora

I don't have anything bizarre. Maybe that's why I have limited success, because I don't have something so crazy in me. I didn't invent the internet, I didn't make the first self-driving car like Elon did. I just run a normal business. That's the difference.

Gaurav Ahuja

I wouldn't call the level of success mild by any means, but maybe that's the more inspirational part, that there wasn't some child-prodigy nature in you. What did you spend your weekends and free time on as a kid outside of studying?

Nikesh Arora

Boring, dude. Reading books, hanging with my friends, playing cricket in the village square. Everything was normal. I loved watching cricket. When I was a senior in school, my father bought the first color TV we had in the house, and I went on his two-wheeler to pick it up. Those were the normal passions of a kid.

Gaurav Ahuja

Okay, now flip it. You're a dad now. There are some themes you must have had from your childhood that you're trying to replicate now as a parent, and maybe there are things you're trying to do really differently. There has to be some thread here of something that's made you Nikesh.

Nikesh Arora

You know what's fascinating is that billions of people have had parents. Parenting is the most practiced activity in the world. Nobody has the formula yet. Nobody can crack the code and say, “If I did this, this is how my child's gonna turn out.”

The part that I appreciated the most that my parents did for me is they didn't tell me what to do. They let me figure out what I wanted to do. As long as you get the choice to make your decisions, you feel confident in your decisions, you make them with enough knowledge, you make good choices, that's all you can teach your kid.

Beyond that, they're gonna have to go fend for themselves. There are too many times where parents get too involved and want their kid to do a certain thing. I don't want my kids to resent something because I want them to do something. I want my kids to be healthy, happy, inspired, and do their best.

On Leaving Finance and Joining Google

Gaurav Ahuja

Transitioning back to your work, before we get to Palo Alto Networks, what was the step into Google? Where did you start thinking about that opportunity?

Nikesh Arora

So, I was an investment analyst in Boston. I worked with Fidelity. It was November '99. I used to cover telecom companies. They were trading at 15 times EBITDA. They used to trade at three to four times EBITDA in normal times.

But somehow they were going to power the internet around the world, and telcos were the new gold. I used to cover European and Asian telecoms. As a result, I was the best stock picker for two years, partly because of the market, partly because I chose the better ones in there. I was bored to death.

I said, “There are only three things that matter in stocks: what's their long-term growth rate, what's their margin profile, and how much cash flow they generate.” Then you put that in a DCF and you tweak the WACC rate, and you get a value.

But it became harder and harder to tweak the WACC rate after a certain point. I was like, “These things are going off the charts.” So I wrote a sell note in November of '99. Sell everything in telcos because these things are overvalued. They said you have to pick the relatively better ones. I said, “The problem is the relatively better ones are the cheapest ones because they're gonna go down the least.”

I sold every piece of equity I owned, and I told my boss I was gonna quit. He was like, “Are you kidding me? I'm gonna pay you lots of money if you stick around.” I said, “No, these guys from Deutsche Telekom who I cover want me to come advise them. They're gonna pay me a million bucks. I'm gonna work for them.” So I left Boston and went to Bonn in Germany. My daughter was 2, and I'm like, “Man, holy shit. What'd I just do?”

I moved from Boston, which is a perfectly fine life. I’d just bought a house. I moved to Germany, in the middle of nowhere, advising a large German telco. We bought VoiceStream and I worked there for a few years. I did a mobile data startup when mobile data didn't mean anything. And then in 2004, I got tired of flying from London to Bonn to work, and thought, “What am I doing with my life?” So I quit.

I was going to do another startup, and I was writing a business plan. And then my friend came to me and said, “Listen, there's this company from Silicon Valley; they're looking for somebody to run Europe. It's too small for me. Maybe you should apply.” So I met Omid Kordestani. He used to be head of business at that time. And four weeks later, I was the new head of Google Europe.

They had asked me to interview with everybody in the team. I said, “I don't want to interview with people who are going to work for me. I want to interview with people I'm going to work for first.” Larry and Sergey rarely came to Europe, but they were coming to town in two weeks. I walked around the British Museum while Sergey interviewed me. Then, I flew to California and interviewed with 12 people. Four weeks later, I was head of Google Europe. That was December 2004. Google went public in August 2004.

On Building Google Europe

Gaurav Ahuja

So you're now at Google leading Europe. In the many years you had there, which was a really quick rise, outside of the company doing really well itself, was it just also perfect alignment of where the company was in its growth and where you were in your career?

Nikesh Arora

Well, the good news was most Silicon Valley companies originate here, by definition. You build a strong team, you do a good job executing in the US. Then internationally, you start by hiring an international person. It's like 159 countries can be covered by one person, whereas we’ll cover one country with 500 people here. Google had many heads of international, and then you get a little smarter and say, “Well, let's have somebody for Europe different from Asia Pacific.”

And last I looked at the map, there's no country called Europe. I keep trying to fly to Europe, and you can't. It doesn't exist. Then they have people running Europe from outside Europe—from the US. Like somebody from Florida was running finance. It's very hard to run teams in different countries when you're not there physically.

So, the initial part of the job was just blocking and tackling and saying, “Let's have a team that only cares about winning the UK.” I remember my first meeting when I joined. I was extremely patient the first two months I was there because actually it was just one guy who ran Europe. I sat there, I watched him do his job, and I had one analyst. I said, “Come, let's go run around and figure out what's gonna happen.”

We set up a meeting, supposed to be at St. Martin's Lane Hotel. These 13 people show up, and there's a bit of a crisis at breakfast. I go, “What's it about?”

“Well, the person running finance is unreachable.” “Who is that?” “She’s the head of finance.” “Where is she?” “She lives in California. I think she's gone into labor, so she didn't do the slides you asked for.”

I'm like, “You're telling me you guys run 13 countries and you have no metrics, no math... no forecasts. They all come from California. That's the deal?”

So the early days were just blocking and tackling and getting the business set up, in a way. But the good news was, from 2004 to 2009, we took Europe from 26% of the company's business to 48% of the company's business. Which, perhaps, was the only time that the European revenue of a tech company exceeded the US revenue.

On Leaving Google

Gaurav Ahuja

I'm sure you were getting many recruiting calls from other companies over all of those years. What was the motivation to go to something that was really different from Google?

Nikesh Arora

I got to know Masa after Yahoo sold its US search business to Microsoft, leaving Yahoo Japan at risk of losing its technology. Masa came to Google, and he and I crafted a deal where Google would power Yahoo search in Japan, while the two companies kept separate advertising systems. The Japanese FTC approved it, and Google and Yahoo became partners.

So Masa and I became friendly. He used to come stay in Atherton and chat with me and talk about stuff. Then he called me and said, “I think you should come work for me.” We ultimately negotiated on a paper napkin.

I told him I wouldn’t sign anything until I talked to Larry Page, and I did. With Larry’s blessing, I went to work with Masa.

On Joining Palo Alto Networks

Gaurav Ahuja

So you’re talking to the board of Palo Alto Networks about joining as CEO. What was exciting to you about the setup? Why was it worth considering?

Nikesh Arora

There are not that many jobs that show up which are great. Usually, it’s a job where a founder wants you to come join them, and they want to stick around. Having worked mostly with multiple billionaires, I was ready to own my own thing.

It was a growing market. Cybersecurity was only going to get bigger. The more technology we deploy, the more you need cybersecurity. The founder had never been the CEO. He was involved as a technical mentor to the technology organization, but didn’t have an operational role.

It was a professionally run company. Mark McLaughlin was a great guy—high integrity, high culture. The company was still growing north of 20%.

There was only one problem: I had no idea what cybersecurity was. Other than that, it was a great opportunity.

Gaurav Ahuja

At this point in your career, you’d had a lot of success. But cybersecurity and enterprise sales were a different ballgame. Did you experience imposter syndrome?

Nikesh Arora

Oh, I freaked out every day. I used to come to work like, “What am I doing here? Who am I?”

I said that to the board. I was like, “What’s wrong with you guys? I don’t know anything about cybersecurity. You’ve got 5,000-plus people who know a lot about cybersecurity.”

But then again, I knew nothing about advertising when I joined Google. The imposter syndrome didn’t go away quickly. It took a while. Can you imagine coming here, spending three months in cybersecurity, then having to go on a roadshow to meet 50 customers when I’m petrified?

I remember going to Bloomberg. There were six really smart technical guys. I had no idea what they were saying 70% of the time. Thankfully, I had a technical person as the account manager who knew what he was doing. I just nodded, smiled, took notes, and thought, “Holy shit.”

It’s petrifying not to understand. Even now, I can walk into meetings where people are way more technical than I am.

On Cybersecurity and Competition

Gaurav Ahuja

When you were deciding to take the job, you talked about what was right about the opportunity. Does there also have to be enough wrong with a company that you can actually change it—enough right, but enough broken?

Nikesh Arora

I don’t think what’s broken should be the focus. The question is: What assets can you bring to bear in the market to deliver a unique proposition that differentiates you from other people?

We had a good product. We had great customer relationships. There was leverage in both of those things. We were in a fast-growing field. And I think it’s fair to say that eight years ago, the cybersecurity industry was very kumbaya.

Cybersecurity was odd because everybody thought there were swim lanes. If you were in the firewall business, you stayed there. If you were in the endpoint business, you stayed in the endpoint business. Identity stayed in identity. Nobody decided to cover the entire spread of cybersecurity. So there was the opportunity.

The other insight I had was that we had less than 1% market share, and we were close to the largest cybersecurity company in the world. There’s no sector in the world where the biggest player has only 1%. So there was an opportunity. The question was: How do you capitalize on it?

Gaurav Ahuja

This series is called the “100 Year Conversation.” Cybersecurity, if you take the McAfee and Symantec era as its beginning, is still a very young industry.

Nikesh Arora

The industry has only been relevant since mass consumer connectivity became a thing. Every company wanted to make sure its applications were available to every end user. We all ran to make our systems accessible to everyone. The moment we did that, we exploded the attack surface. Every bad actor could get into your systems posing as a consumer or an employee.

Every 10 or 15 years, everything you’ve built your company on—a new set of attack techniques—becomes so old and so well-protected that bad actors move on to new ways of attacking you.

My adversaries are constantly innovating, which is the perversity of it. If your adversaries are constantly innovating, why aren’t you innovating as fast as the adversaries?

Gaurav Ahuja

Being first to a new platform may give a cybersecurity company an early advantage. But what creates an advantage that lasts for decades?

Nikesh Arora

The perimeter does not change over time. It’s still the endpoint. It’s still your data center. It’s still the perimeter of your cloud infrastructure. The attack techniques change because you allow other technologies into your perimeter.

Think about AI. Some version of a natural-language chatbot is going to be allowed into the perimeter. The AI vector brings with it a whole series of new ways to attack you. I can prompt-inject. I can hijack your AI. So now I have to protect that new technology through the same sensor.

Historically, we built a new sensor for the perimeter of each technology. What has now happened is we’ve become smarter and said, “If I can own the sensor, I will protect every technology.” It’s a lot easier to build the software capability than to deploy a new sensor.

Gaurav Ahuja

So the surface area becomes harder and harder for a new competitor to catch up with.

Nikesh Arora

Yes. It’s important to understand that M&A is not the strategy. The strategy is to make sure you meet the customer’s needs from a product perspective as quickly as you can. The choice is either to build it or buy it.

If it takes me a year to build a binary analyzer and somebody becomes the owner of 20 million endpoints of binary analysis, now I have to fight that company because they’ll try to creep into my business.

I’m better off either building that capability or owning it. If I buy it, I own the early-adopter customers and the fastest technology in the space. I just need to make sure I don’t slow them down.

On Making Acquisitions Work

Gaurav Ahuja

Why haven’t other industries done what Palo Alto is doing? There must be other industries where M&A and integration matter just as much.

Nikesh Arora

M&A is an amazing tool, especially in an industry where 2,000 companies get funded every year. I walk into Israel, everybody wants to show me their company. I walk into a cybersecurity conference, they want to show me their company. The good news is that founders have gone back and raved about working at Palo Alto—how we treated them with respect, gave them big jobs, and funded their companies.

When we agree to a deal, we spend 30 to 45 days aligning the product roadmap. I learned that from the first company I bought. I fought with the founder for six months. I wanted to build one thing; he wanted to build another. I finally said, “If I bought your house and you lived there rent-free for a year, who would decide what color to paint it?” He said, “You. It’s your house.” I said, “Good. I bought your company. Now we’re building it together, not just you.”

So I told the founder of Chronosphere, “You’re part of Palo Alto. I want you to run faster than you want to. Tell me what you need, because my team will find a way to slow you down somehow. Let me at least do the part of accelerating you as much as I can.”

Gaurav Ahuja

Maybe that explains why other companies haven’t done this as successfully. How many Fortune 500 CEOs can create that kind of environment for founders?

Nikesh Arora

There’s more to it than that. Many of those founders still come here once a week to give me a report. And 90% of the time, I’m telling my team, “Back off. Let them run.”

They’ll say, “I’m waiting for finance to approve 20 new engineers.” I’ll ask, “When you were CEO, did finance have to approve them?” “No.” “Then go hire them.” Or they’ll say recruiting can’t allocate resources. I’ll say, “Go hire your own recruiter.”

I create the uncomfortable friction inside my own team and say, “You’re slowing them down. They have a right to accelerate at the same pace at which they were operating outside of here.” That’s the problem. Most Fortune 500 CEOs will not spend any time with a $200 million company they acquire. It gets tucked into division B, pod four. The person who used to be CEO is now the senior vice president of pod four, and they want to leave from day one.

On Building a Culture That Endures

Gaurav Ahuja

Despite not being a founder, it feels like you act with the time horizon of one at Palo Alto Networks. Is part of the reason you can take that emotional authority over the company that there wasn’t a founder you were taking over from?

Nikesh Arora

That’s a good question. I think it’s more than that. I have a view that organizations take on the form of their leader, whether it’s a founder or a CEO. That’s how companies operate after a while, because either explicitly or implicitly, people are trying to impress the leader. And the best way people think of impressing a leader is imitating them.

You look at Google; it runs like Larry Page. Tesla runs like Elon Musk. Meta runs like Mark Zuckerberg.

About 90% of the people at Palo Alto have worked at the company while I’ve been CEO. What have they seen? They’ve seen the company increase its market cap five or six times. They’ve seen it go from being one of 10 companies in the market to being the leader in cybersecurity. They’ve seen the company win.

Everybody wants to associate themselves with a winner. If you’re helping them win, they end up wanting to embrace that culture. People want associated success. They want a culture that helps them win.

Gaurav Ahuja

Imagine Palo Alto Networks is still at the top of the industry 100 years from now. What does the company have to focus on to make it that far?

Nikesh Arora

I think 100 years is the wrong framework. In 100 years, I don’t know what business Palo Alto will be in. The question is: What survives 100 years?

What survives 100 years is your culture. Have you built a business that is nimble? Have you built something that is looking around corners? Have you built something that anticipates what’s going to happen in the future? Have you built something that understands how economic gains will be made in a new environment two, three, five, 10, or 15 years from now?

I don’t know what the world is going to look like. Is cybersecurity still relevant, or will we be in a different business? If the thing we call cybersecurity today is called physical AI tomorrow, perhaps we should become a big player in physical AI. We have to be able to move laterally.

So the question is: What assets survive the next 15 years and allow me to build a new set of assets on top of them? And what assets survive after that?

I don’t think 100 years is one leap. The question is, through subsequent leaps and technological inflection points, how do we duck and weave, build new assets, and survive?

The opinions expressed in this newsletter are my own, subject to change without notice, and do not necessarily reflect those of Timeless Partners, LLC (“Timeless Partners”). More...

Nothing in this newsletter should be interpreted as investment advice, research, or valuation judgment. This newsletter is not intended to, and does not, relate specifically to any investment strategy or product that Timeless Partners offers. Any strategy discussed herein may be unsuitable for investors depending on their specific objectives and situation. Investing involves risk and there can be no assurance that an investment strategy will be successful. Links to external websites are for convenience only. Neither I, nor Timeless Partners, is responsible for the content or use of such sites. Information provided herein, including any projections or forward-looking statements, targets, forecasts, or expectations, is only current as of the publication date and may become outdated due to subsequent events. The accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the information cannot be guaranteed, and neither I, nor Timeless Partners, assume any duty to update this newsletter. Actual events or outcomes may differ significantly from those contemplated herein. It should not be assumed that either I or Timeless Partners has made or will make investment recommendations in the future that are consistent with the views expressed herein. We may make investment recommendations, hold positions, or engage in transactions that are inconsistent with the information and views expressed herein. Moreover, it should not be assumed that any security, instrument, or company identified in the newsletter is a current, past, or potential portfolio holding of mine or of Timeless Partners, and no recommendation is made as to the purchase, sale, or other action with respect to such security, instrument, or company. Neither I, nor Timeless Partners, make any representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness or fairness of the information contained in this newsletter and no responsibility or liability is accepted for any such information. By accessing this newsletter, the reader acknowledges its understanding and acceptance of the foregoing statement.