What markets can teach us about conviction, caution and timing

By Carel Nolte

There is a familiar rhythm in markets. People say one thing, then they do another. Sometimes that gap is hypocrisy. More often, it is strategy.

JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon spent years warning about the risks of cryptocurrencies, famously calling Bitcoin “a fraud” at one point. Yet JPMorgan Chase built blockchain infrastructure, launched its own digital coin for institutional use, and continues to expand its presence in digital assets.

Warren Buffett avoided technology stocks for decades, citing valuation and complexity concerns. Then, when the business case became undeniable, Berkshire Hathaway built one of the largest positions in Apple Inc..

Even Elon Musk has warned about the existential risks of artificial intelligence while simultaneously building AI capability into Tesla and launching ventures like xAI.

Closer to home, local businesswoman Magda Wierzycka once challenged the ETF industry publicly, arguing that many products were expensive and misaligned with investor needs. The industry pushed back. Then she acquired the db X-trackers business from Deutsche Bank and built a dominant position in international ETFs locally.

Years later, the pattern looks familiar again. She recently announced plans to launch an AI venture capital fund after publicly questioning whether AI adds value to humanity.

Say one thing, build another. It is tempting to call that contradiction. But in markets, it is often something more deliberate.

Some of the most successful investors and operators have built careers on being publicly cautious while privately positioning for upside. This is not confusion; it is tension. And that tension can be useful.

Public scepticism creates space and tempers hype, while leaving room to manoeuvre. Private action captures opportunity. The key distinction is this: what people say shapes sentiment; what they do shapes outcomes. Markets run on capital allocation, not commentary.

Wierzycka’s ETF move was not about winning an argument with the industry. It was about owning a distribution channel and scaling access to global markets.

Her AI positioning may follow the same logic. Raise the right questions and highlight the risks, but still build exposure to the upside. Because if AI does become foundational, the cost of being completely absent is far higher than the discomfort of being early.

The other path: building in public

There is another approach to the markets – one that is less guarded, less sequenced and more experimental. Instead of waiting for certainty, they place smaller, earlier bets. They build products. They test ideas. They learn in the open. This is the path taken by platforms like EasyEquities and EasyETFs.

South Africa’s first AI-focused actively managed ETF, EASYAI, launched in October 2024 – not after consensus formed, but while the debate was still messy. More recently, the IVYAI fund followed, expanding access further.

This is not about being right from the start. It is about shortening the feedback loop: Try. Learn. Adjust. Repeat.

This approach is not reckless. It relies on a different kind of discipline that requires:

• position sizing rather than all-in bets
• diversification across themes and timelines
• accessibility, allowing investors to participate with small amounts
• constant iteration based on what works and what does not

It accepts that some ideas will fail. But it also recognises that missing entire shifts can be far more costly than getting a few bets wrong.

Two ways to play the same game

What emerges is not a right versus wrong debate. It is two distinct styles of engaging with change.

The first:

• question the narrative
• build quietly
• scale once conviction is high

The second:

• engage early
• experiment openly
• evolve in real time

Both can work. In fact, both have worked. The difference lies in timing, visibility, and tolerance for uncertainty.

For investors, the lesson is not to choose sides blindly. It is to pay attention to alignment. Are words and actions moving in the same direction over time? Is there a clear strategy behind the apparent contradiction? Is risk being managed, or simply avoided? Because in fast-moving environments – especially with something like AI – certainty rarely arrives before opportunity.

The quiet truth

There is a line running through all of this: The loudest voices are not always the most committed. The strongest signals are rarely in the headlines. They are in the capital flows, product launches, partnerships and the things being built when no one is watching too closely.

Magda Wierzycka’s track record suggests she understands that well.

So do others, in different ways. Some sail quietly before the storm. Others leave the harbour early and adjust course as they go. Both are trying to reach the same destination. The question is how comfortable you are with the journey.