FREE NEWSLETTER

Billy’s Certificate – 1937

Go to main Forum page »

AUTHOR: W.D. Housley on 6/24/2026

My great aunt survived the San Francisco earthquake of 1906 with nothing. We know this because she wrote a letter to my grandmother in Kansas asking her to sell the property they had inherited together. She and Billy had nothing left. Nothing at all. A Union soldier — that is how she described him in the letter — handed her a pair of long johns. That was what she had to wear.

She and her husband William F. Sipes — Uncle Billy — rebuilt from nothing. In May 1937 Billy bought 75 shares of the Chicago and Northwestern Railway at $100 each. The railroad had just come out of bankruptcy two years earlier. Billy thought he was buying at the bottom. The thesis was sound. The railroad was real. The Midwest needed it.

When my great aunt died she left my mother the stock certificate. It is an extraordinary document. Engraved locomotives. Ornate script. Registered by what is today Citibank. Signed by the Vice President and Assistant Treasurer of the railroad.

Worth nothing.

The 1935 bankruptcy had wiped out the original shareholders before Billy ever bought in. Multiple restructurings followed. By the time Union Pacific absorbed the Chicago and Northwestern in 1995, Billy’s shares had been reorganized out of existence long before.

The tracks are still there. Union Pacific freight rolls over them today.

Billy was right about the railroad. He was wrong about the investment. That gap — between being right about what gets built and being right about who profits — is the most important lesson in American economic history. Nobody teaches it.

The pattern goes like this.

The government needs something built. Too large, too risky, too expensive for public funding alone. So it opens the door — land grants, subsidies, tax credits, loan guarantees — and lets private capital and human nature do the rest.

Euphoria. Speculation. Collapse. And then quietly, after the wreckage clears, the thing gets built.

The government always gets its railroad. Retail investors usually do not.

The 1860s. America needed to connect the continent after the Civil War. Congress passed the Pacific Railway Acts. Hundreds of railroad companies formed. Investors poured in fortunes.

Then came 1873. The crash. Retail investors wiped out.

The golden spike had already been driven at Promontory Summit in 1869. The continent was connected. The government got what it needed.

A century later the government needed the world wired. DARPA had built the internet for the military. Commercial buildout required private capital on a scale no appropriation could match.

The Nasdaq peaked in March 2000 at 5,048. By late 2002 it sat at 1,114. Pets.com. Webvan. WorldCom. Trillions gone.

The fiber was already in the ground.

Amazon survived. Google launched inside the wreckage. The world got connected. Most investors did not get their money back.

One wonders if the same is true of the Special Purpose Acquisition Company boom of 2020 to 2022. Most collapsed. A handful of the companies they brought public are now being built with government money. The dust has not yet settled.

We are living inside this pattern today with artificial intelligence.

Hundreds of billions flowing into chips, data centers, models, applications. One dominant infrastructure provider at the center the way Cisco sat at the center of the internet buildout in 1999. Thousands of companies that will fail. A handful that will define what comes next.

The government’s need is explicit. AI supremacy is a stated national security priority. The CHIPS Act. The executive orders. The Pentagon contracts. Same playbook. Different decade.

The question is not whether AI is real. It is. The railroads were real too.

The question is which companies are the tracks and which are Billy’s certificate.

The investors who made real money in each of these cycles were not the ones who bought at the peak. They were the ones who understood what the government needed built, waited for the speculators to wash out, and bought the survivors when prices reflected fear instead of story.

The pattern does not remove risk. Billy bought after the 1935 bankruptcy thinking the worst had passed. He was right about the railroad. The restructuring erased him anyway. Being early to a correct thesis is its own kind of being wrong.

There is one question worth asking before putting money into any of these cycles.

Not whether the technology is real. Not whether everyone is buying it.

Is this one of the companies that will still be standing — with shares that still exist — when the dust settles?

Billy’s certificate is beautiful. I keep it because it reminds me that being right about the future is not the same thing as profiting from it.

The tracks are still running. Uncle Billy’s investment is gone. And so is my inheritance.

Subscribe
Notify of
18 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Paul Welch
16 days ago

Thank you for sharing this story. One of the most valuable points is the distinction between a successful enterprise and a successful investment. The railroad continued to operate, the infrastructure remained useful, and later owners benefited from its value, yet the original shareholders did not necessarily participate in those long-term gains.

The example also highlights a risk that investors sometimes overlook: ownership structures can change significantly through bankruptcies and reorganizations. A sound thesis about an industry or asset does not guarantee a positive outcome for shareholders. Understanding how value is distributed among creditors, shareholders, and future owners can be just as important as understanding the underlying business itself.

john deam
18 days ago

Excellently written. Thoroughly enjoy your writing style as well as your thoughtful points. Keep it up.

Will
18 days ago

Really enjoy creative writing. And if any discipline needs it, it is the ‘dismal science’. thanks!!

Tim Mueller
18 days ago

In 1937 a $100 a was a lot of money, a lot. A round $2,300 in todays inflated dollars. That was too much for one share of stock. Even $10 then ($230 today) was still a lot.

Mike Gaynes
20 days ago

The Chicago and Northwestern was three blocks from my house. My grandfather took it to work every day in the Loop.

And yes, the freights that lulled me to sleep in the 1960s still roll.

Dan Smith
20 days ago

Ramona first came to me for the preparation of her 2004 taxes. She had a capital loss carryover exceeding $100K. Her stock broker in Florida had her invested in some of those companies described in your post. Forty years worth of $3K deductions to offset her pension income; Ramona was 80 years old. We joked that the grim reaper couldn’t call on her until they were all used up.

R Quinn
20 days ago

You make one mistake in all this. “The government.” The government is not an entity, it is us, the people, so in your examples, the collective “we” got what we wanted while some individuals did not.

Will
18 days ago
Reply to  R Quinn

I, too, would like to think that ‘we’ are the government. But I fear that the government is owned by those powerful monies.

Mark Crothers
20 days ago

I really enjoyed this, thank you. It made me think of the tension within index funds at the present time.

Index investing is supposed to be the humble, diversified alternative to Billy’s mistake — don’t pick the winner, own everything. But “own everything” in a market-cap weighted index at the moment means owning an enormous slug of a handful of AI infrastructure companies. You’re nominally diversified across 500 companies but your returns are increasingly hostage to Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta, Amazon. You have to wonder: is the present index simultaneously the tracks and the certificate?

Index funds assume the market is the tracks. But the passive investor today hasn’t chosen concentration the way Billy did. It’s crept up on them. Which in some ways makes it more dangerous — at least Billy knew he was making a bet.

DavidHLancaster
20 days ago
Reply to  Mark Crothers

Mark,
Your comment made me decide to investigate my technology exposure through my Morningstar subscription. The vast majority of our investments are in very diversified total US and world stock funds. Our top 10 technology positions account for less than 8% of our portfolio, with our largest exposure being Apple at less than 2%.

UofODuck
18 days ago

You’re right, of course, but picking winners instead of losers has never been easy. I spent my career in the investment business and we worked with a universe of about 300 stocks and would build portfolios that contained 30-40 names. Different industry weightings always applied, but I’d bet today’s industry weightings are heavily skewed towards tech. Why? Because they are outperforming everything else and the elusive Alpha is always top of mind for any manager.

As far as I can tell, no one yet has invented a crystal ball that will help investors pick the right stocks or correctly time when to buy or sell. If you are generating anything close to a market return (less fees) for your particular asset allocation, you’re doing great.

Overall. markets have risen steadily since for the last 50 years. That said, market corrections of up 25% occur often and we’ve had at least three occasions since the 70’s when markets have corrected by up to 50%. As a result, your time horizon and ability to remain invested can be as important as what you own.

DavidHLancaster
18 days ago
Reply to  UofODuck

U,
If you are generating anything close to a market return (less fees) for your particular asset allocation, you’re doing great.”

We have an 8.7% annual return in the past 10 years, and just this year crossed the mark where in our total investing time have made more in returns than the amount invested.

Mark Crothers
20 days ago

David, the average cap-weighted S&P 500 sleeve sits around 34% in the Mag 7, and if you expand that to a developed world tracker it drops to roughly 24%. In a typical 60:40 portfolio, that translates to about 20% exposure via the S&P or 14% via developed world — so, I’m guessing, sitting at 8% suggests your portfolio is probably more bespoke to your own preferences

Grant Clifford
20 days ago
Reply to  Mark Crothers

Some interesting YTD (June 22, 2026) stats on S&P 500, Mag 7 and diversification:

Mag 7 +1.34% YTD
S&P 500 +9.16% YTD
S&P 493 +14.76% YTD

The 493 have been doing the heavy lifting.

Mag 7 stocks off their highs:

Microsoft -32.23%
Meta     -28.63%
Netflix   -45.58%
Alphabet -12.60%
Amazon  -15.35%
Tesla     -17.32%
Nvidia    -11.39%

The rotation out of Mag 7 has been going on for about a year and the market is still near all time highs.

Diversification is doing what we hope it will do and is being achieved with index funds. Where is the money going? Some examples YTD:

Russell 2000 (IWM) +21.67% YTD
Small cap value (AVUV) +20.87% YTD
Vanguard Value (VTV) +15.1% YTD
Vanguard mid cap (VO) +11.30%
MSCI Emerging Markets (EEM) +30.78% YTD

It is possible to have a diversified portfolio which keeps the overweight of the Mag 7 in the S&P 500 in balance.

Terry Wawro
19 days ago
Reply to  Grant Clifford

Thanks for this update. I was getting mildly worried about the over-weight in the Mag7 myself. Good to know that the lower 493 are pulling the wagon this year.

Mark Crothers
20 days ago
Reply to  Grant Clifford

Grant, interesting data indeed. On concentration risk — there are plenty of ways to skin the cat. I’ve chosen to tilt towards Europe, UK dividend kings, and Southeast Asia and Pacific developed and developing markets to bring my US tech exposure down to a level I’m personally comfortable with.

D.J.
20 days ago

That’s quite a cautionary tale! Your post reminds me of that line by Kevin O’Leary on Shark Tank: “Pioneers get slaughtered, but settlers prosper.”

I recall a hydrogen fuel cell company back in the 1990s: Ballard. A friend was very bullish on this stock and saw some big gains up to about the year 2000. Then the bottom dropped out. I think its share price today is a fraction of what it was in 1998. I’m glad I passed and stuck with Vanguard Total Stock Market Index.

Free Newsletter

SHARE