Author Topic: Sorry Warren! Another year of dragging ass...  (Read 10706 times)

KinAlberta

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 365
Re: Sorry Warren! Another year of dragging ass...
« Reply #20 on: May 07, 2018, 01:19:20 PM »
Everyone is talking about how great it is that Buffett is going to win his bet that the hand-picked hedge funds are going to lose to the S&P 500 index, but how about we ask some tough questions around here for once instead of worshipping a fallen god?

Let's face it, folks. Berkshire's 2016 growth in book value per share clocked in at 10.7% vs an S&P 500 that was up 12.7%. It was another year of ass dragging by Uncle Warren, not that we should be so surprised at that anymore. Berkshire has failed to compound book at a rate exceeding the market for four of the past five years.

It is not for Warren Buffett's lack of talent. No, rather it is because the glory of his past success has now become an albatross; he's stuck with a huge amount invested stocks of companies that used to represent the timeless quality of American business. The very best of the best.

The operative words are "used to." Now he owns a big slug of Coke, American Express and Wells Fargo with massive unrealized gains that he can effectively never sell because the deferred tax liability represents an obscene portion of their value. This float is supposedly not a real liability, despite the fact that it has shackled Berkshire with large equity stakes in declining businesses. Some are declining directly, like Coke, while the others have simply been eclipsed by a new breed of companies with zero capital intensity and nearly unlimited growth runways.

Maybe they'll do okay, but is it really any shock he's lagged the market when his internal R&D for understanding these companies failed? It's like in the new Cars 3 movie trailers where Lightning McQueen gets the shit kicked out of him by the new sleek, high tech race cars. My nephews will be so sad, but to me it's a great lesson that unless we constantly improve ourselves, we will become dated before our time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onGynY3EaL4

The fact is that just like Lightning, many of the companies in Berkshire's portfolio are losing relevance in the modern economy, and in a market dominated by tech giants that enjoy economics that were previously not thought possible, they're likely to continue to do so. If anything, the trend will probably accelerate.

I think Buffett probably understands this, which may be part of the reason he's invested in Apple. It's funny to me, to watch so many people criticize him over this. Don't you realize that constant internal R&D is what made him so successful as an investor? Charlie Munger alluded to this recently, and it's obviously true. If he had never gotten beyond that Ben Graham mindset, he'd wouldn't be what he is today. If he never got past his "I don't understand technology" phase, his lessons could be relegated to the dustbin of history as dated and no longer applicable. That'd be a very sad thing to see, for a man who has contributed so much to the field.

What I care about is what Berkshire and Warren Buffett have taught me about human nature and the internalization of wisdom. All of those value guys shit talking Buffett because of his Apple purchase? They're so interesting to see; because they learned from him, and are now using his own teachings to reject him.

I want to touch on this, because I think it's probably the most underdiscussed aspect of investing and the art of learning it, and many other humanities subjects.

The internalization of wisdom can come with some horrendous side effects; in some cases, becoming a better investor actually cuts you off at the knees. I know this from experience, because I used to be a value guy that rejected growth. Out of hand. You're paying 100x EPS for that? You're stupid. Dumb. The history of investing doesn't support it. There will always be a better mousetrap. It'll never grow long enough to justify that value.

All of these beliefs were based on wisdom I internalized from the past. Buffett taught me how to become a business-focused investor, and he says he doesn't understand tech. It must be uninvestable. If my idol can't do it, how can I?

The key insight is that our progress as learners necessarily suffers from path dependency; from the time we are babies, we learn one new thing about the world, and build upon the foundations we were taught previously. But if those foundations are wrong, we are building a defective latticework that may serve to hinder us from future growth, even if it is sufficient enough to provide us with a decent result. Because wisdom is branching, having a defective branch not only stops us from learning positive mental models... the truth is, it can actively create negative ones, which can infect our other ideas.

In a previous thread I discussed how it can be useful to be wrong. If you block yourself off from one style of investing to focus purely on deep value, for instance, there's a pretty good shot you'll become good at that niche. But in doing so, you're foregoing potentially even more profitable situations by refusing to do the mental work required to understand them. Opportunity cost becomes a very real enemy, and errors of omission become more frequent.

The trouble is that this may be unavoidable at the outset. We all learn from each other; there is no one who is successful on this planet who has not built their foundation of wisdom on the ideas or work of others that came before them. It's made us an incredibly versatile and successful species, but it comes with one major downside.

The downside is that we don't always just absorb the wisdom of our teachers, but their defects too. Instead of letting Buffett teach us just about the business and investing techniques that have worked for him over the years, we might also pick up his aversion to tech & growth stocks more generally. And through social conditioning, over time that can become the accepted standard for being a value investor in forums just like this one. I like to call these Second Order Traits, because we pick them up by accident through learning from our predecessors and colleagues.

Smart people and thought leaders don't only have good ideas, or good traits; at the end of the day, their shit stinks too. By mimicking them, and by studying them, we can learn much about the world. Intergenerational transfer of wisdom has been a boon for society. But while we internalize what made those thought leaders successful, we can inadvertently internalize their mistakes that kept them from becoming as successful as they could have been.

The trouble with Second Order Traits is that they're hard to get rid of, once you have them. Path dependence being what it is, what we learn often ends up leading to the next subject we learn. I got hired as a junior investing analyst for an investing newsletter publisher, and because of that, ended up learning about marketing & copywriting in particular. Path dependence; learning about investing led to learning about marketing.

So it can be hard to go back and look at what we've learned, at what has been so successful for us... and admit that we're wrong, and that there are alternative, better paths. For years I refused tech stocks out of hand. It took some long and hard thinking, and direct and indirect guidance from investors who already made the transition, for me to get over that bias. I started investing in my own account in early 2008; it wasn't until 2014 that I really allowed myself to abandon this Second Order Trait.

It was so hard, because guys like Ben Graham and Warren Buffett helped inspire me to become an investor. They had taught me things that made me a lot of money, it felt like I was turning my back on them and my beliefs. But, because wisdom is branching, it opened me up to a whole new world of investments and I'm glad now that I bit the bullet and rejected that part of the value dogma.

I describe myself now as a hybrid investor, because I don't shy away from pretty much anything. I've read textbooks on bankruptcy law, stuff from Peter Thiel, Marc Andreessen and other Silicon Valley boys, and all of the classic value tomes. That's not to say that I'm without fault; I fuck up all the time. ALL THE TIME. And it'd be absurd for me to claim I've internalized all of the lessons these people have to offer just because I've read their shit.

But that's part of the system. When you do constant R&D on your investing style, you will fuck up. It's a cost of doing business, but net-net it has been very rewarding. That's why I think it's odd when people ask me why I'm always changing my style up, when what I have works for me. The reason what I have works for me is because I do change my style up and make investments in styles I'm not familiar with.

One of the biggest benefits of having a diversified portfolio is that it allows you to do more internal R&D on your investing process without betting the farm. If you have 20 positions of 5% each, it's not that big of a deal if you take a 100% loss on a few, because your winners are likely to make up for it. As a result, I actively look for unusual situations; no one stock is likely to make or break my returns at 31 positions, but the mental models I pick up from trying out so many different styles are likely to be useful. Some ideas lead to each other (FB led to GOOG for me) and it's a much broader universe to learn from.

Being a concentrated investor gives you more leverage to your favorite ideas. Being a diversified investor gives you more leverage to learning new investment styles without a lot of risk. You can do this without heavy diversification but the way my mind works, it's best for me to have a brokerage account that I can look at at the end of the day. It's real; those are the decisions I made, staring in my face every morning.

Path dependence in learning is a very real thing we should be aware of. All the time, we're picking up bad habits that are embedded inside good ones. And over time, unless we can cut out that cancer, those habits will stunt our growth.

I'm going to be straight with you. I don't really care about Berkshire or its ass dragging ways. It's a single digit percentage of my portfolio. Intrinsic value per share probably is growing at or above the market return, despite book. But it was useful for framing, and since when have I let facts get in the way of a good story?

Quote
Everyone is talking about how great it is that Buffett is going to win his bet that the hand-picked hedge funds are going to lose to the S&P 500 index, but how about we ask some tough questions around here for once instead of worshipping a fallen god?

Scott, hereís a tough question. What has been in your portfolio (key contributors) over say the past 15 years? I think itís important to include the last downturn because if not for the good fortune of government bailouts and FedReserve market meddling portfolio design and cash on hand matters most in downturns.

As for Gods. If I knew God existed and that it created the universe, I think Iíd worship it even if it hadnít done much since.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2018, 01:23:22 PM by KinAlberta »


ScottHall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
Re: Sorry Warren! Another year of dragging ass...
« Reply #21 on: May 07, 2018, 04:14:27 PM »
Everyone is talking about how great it is that Buffett is going to win his bet that the hand-picked hedge funds are going to lose to the S&P 500 index, but how about we ask some tough questions around here for once instead of worshipping a fallen god?

Let's face it, folks. Berkshire's 2016 growth in book value per share clocked in at 10.7% vs an S&P 500 that was up 12.7%. It was another year of ass dragging by Uncle Warren, not that we should be so surprised at that anymore. Berkshire has failed to compound book at a rate exceeding the market for four of the past five years.

It is not for Warren Buffett's lack of talent. No, rather it is because the glory of his past success has now become an albatross; he's stuck with a huge amount invested stocks of companies that used to represent the timeless quality of American business. The very best of the best.

The operative words are "used to." Now he owns a big slug of Coke, American Express and Wells Fargo with massive unrealized gains that he can effectively never sell because the deferred tax liability represents an obscene portion of their value. This float is supposedly not a real liability, despite the fact that it has shackled Berkshire with large equity stakes in declining businesses. Some are declining directly, like Coke, while the others have simply been eclipsed by a new breed of companies with zero capital intensity and nearly unlimited growth runways.

Maybe they'll do okay, but is it really any shock he's lagged the market when his internal R&D for understanding these companies failed? It's like in the new Cars 3 movie trailers where Lightning McQueen gets the shit kicked out of him by the new sleek, high tech race cars. My nephews will be so sad, but to me it's a great lesson that unless we constantly improve ourselves, we will become dated before our time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onGynY3EaL4

The fact is that just like Lightning, many of the companies in Berkshire's portfolio are losing relevance in the modern economy, and in a market dominated by tech giants that enjoy economics that were previously not thought possible, they're likely to continue to do so. If anything, the trend will probably accelerate.

I think Buffett probably understands this, which may be part of the reason he's invested in Apple. It's funny to me, to watch so many people criticize him over this. Don't you realize that constant internal R&D is what made him so successful as an investor? Charlie Munger alluded to this recently, and it's obviously true. If he had never gotten beyond that Ben Graham mindset, he'd wouldn't be what he is today. If he never got past his "I don't understand technology" phase, his lessons could be relegated to the dustbin of history as dated and no longer applicable. That'd be a very sad thing to see, for a man who has contributed so much to the field.

What I care about is what Berkshire and Warren Buffett have taught me about human nature and the internalization of wisdom. All of those value guys shit talking Buffett because of his Apple purchase? They're so interesting to see; because they learned from him, and are now using his own teachings to reject him.

I want to touch on this, because I think it's probably the most underdiscussed aspect of investing and the art of learning it, and many other humanities subjects.

The internalization of wisdom can come with some horrendous side effects; in some cases, becoming a better investor actually cuts you off at the knees. I know this from experience, because I used to be a value guy that rejected growth. Out of hand. You're paying 100x EPS for that? You're stupid. Dumb. The history of investing doesn't support it. There will always be a better mousetrap. It'll never grow long enough to justify that value.

All of these beliefs were based on wisdom I internalized from the past. Buffett taught me how to become a business-focused investor, and he says he doesn't understand tech. It must be uninvestable. If my idol can't do it, how can I?

The key insight is that our progress as learners necessarily suffers from path dependency; from the time we are babies, we learn one new thing about the world, and build upon the foundations we were taught previously. But if those foundations are wrong, we are building a defective latticework that may serve to hinder us from future growth, even if it is sufficient enough to provide us with a decent result. Because wisdom is branching, having a defective branch not only stops us from learning positive mental models... the truth is, it can actively create negative ones, which can infect our other ideas.

In a previous thread I discussed how it can be useful to be wrong. If you block yourself off from one style of investing to focus purely on deep value, for instance, there's a pretty good shot you'll become good at that niche. But in doing so, you're foregoing potentially even more profitable situations by refusing to do the mental work required to understand them. Opportunity cost becomes a very real enemy, and errors of omission become more frequent.

The trouble is that this may be unavoidable at the outset. We all learn from each other; there is no one who is successful on this planet who has not built their foundation of wisdom on the ideas or work of others that came before them. It's made us an incredibly versatile and successful species, but it comes with one major downside.

The downside is that we don't always just absorb the wisdom of our teachers, but their defects too. Instead of letting Buffett teach us just about the business and investing techniques that have worked for him over the years, we might also pick up his aversion to tech & growth stocks more generally. And through social conditioning, over time that can become the accepted standard for being a value investor in forums just like this one. I like to call these Second Order Traits, because we pick them up by accident through learning from our predecessors and colleagues.

Smart people and thought leaders don't only have good ideas, or good traits; at the end of the day, their shit stinks too. By mimicking them, and by studying them, we can learn much about the world. Intergenerational transfer of wisdom has been a boon for society. But while we internalize what made those thought leaders successful, we can inadvertently internalize their mistakes that kept them from becoming as successful as they could have been.

The trouble with Second Order Traits is that they're hard to get rid of, once you have them. Path dependence being what it is, what we learn often ends up leading to the next subject we learn. I got hired as a junior investing analyst for an investing newsletter publisher, and because of that, ended up learning about marketing & copywriting in particular. Path dependence; learning about investing led to learning about marketing.

So it can be hard to go back and look at what we've learned, at what has been so successful for us... and admit that we're wrong, and that there are alternative, better paths. For years I refused tech stocks out of hand. It took some long and hard thinking, and direct and indirect guidance from investors who already made the transition, for me to get over that bias. I started investing in my own account in early 2008; it wasn't until 2014 that I really allowed myself to abandon this Second Order Trait.

It was so hard, because guys like Ben Graham and Warren Buffett helped inspire me to become an investor. They had taught me things that made me a lot of money, it felt like I was turning my back on them and my beliefs. But, because wisdom is branching, it opened me up to a whole new world of investments and I'm glad now that I bit the bullet and rejected that part of the value dogma.

I describe myself now as a hybrid investor, because I don't shy away from pretty much anything. I've read textbooks on bankruptcy law, stuff from Peter Thiel, Marc Andreessen and other Silicon Valley boys, and all of the classic value tomes. That's not to say that I'm without fault; I fuck up all the time. ALL THE TIME. And it'd be absurd for me to claim I've internalized all of the lessons these people have to offer just because I've read their shit.

But that's part of the system. When you do constant R&D on your investing style, you will fuck up. It's a cost of doing business, but net-net it has been very rewarding. That's why I think it's odd when people ask me why I'm always changing my style up, when what I have works for me. The reason what I have works for me is because I do change my style up and make investments in styles I'm not familiar with.

One of the biggest benefits of having a diversified portfolio is that it allows you to do more internal R&D on your investing process without betting the farm. If you have 20 positions of 5% each, it's not that big of a deal if you take a 100% loss on a few, because your winners are likely to make up for it. As a result, I actively look for unusual situations; no one stock is likely to make or break my returns at 31 positions, but the mental models I pick up from trying out so many different styles are likely to be useful. Some ideas lead to each other (FB led to GOOG for me) and it's a much broader universe to learn from.

Being a concentrated investor gives you more leverage to your favorite ideas. Being a diversified investor gives you more leverage to learning new investment styles without a lot of risk. You can do this without heavy diversification but the way my mind works, it's best for me to have a brokerage account that I can look at at the end of the day. It's real; those are the decisions I made, staring in my face every morning.

Path dependence in learning is a very real thing we should be aware of. All the time, we're picking up bad habits that are embedded inside good ones. And over time, unless we can cut out that cancer, those habits will stunt our growth.

I'm going to be straight with you. I don't really care about Berkshire or its ass dragging ways. It's a single digit percentage of my portfolio. Intrinsic value per share probably is growing at or above the market return, despite book. But it was useful for framing, and since when have I let facts get in the way of a good story?

Quote
Everyone is talking about how great it is that Buffett is going to win his bet that the hand-picked hedge funds are going to lose to the S&P 500 index, but how about we ask some tough questions around here for once instead of worshipping a fallen god?

Scott, hereís a tough question. What has been in your portfolio (key contributors) over say the past 15 years? I think itís important to include the last downturn because if not for the good fortune of government bailouts and FedReserve market meddling portfolio design and cash on hand matters most in downturns.

As for Gods. If I knew God existed and that it created the universe, I think Iíd worship it even if it hadnít done much since.


Well, I didn't start investing until age 16 so I can't give you a 15 year view.

Early on I was heavy into value, I started investing in early 2007, heading into the crash. I was running a concentrated portfolio and actually ended up making it through totally unscathed - and made quite a bit of money. My big investment at the time was GGP, the profits of which I used to finance a trip to England. Then my next big investment was Samson Oil & Gas, which was a triple in about a year.

I sold it, fortunately, as now it trades for pennies a share.

I got hired at a company then and my views about investing drastically shifted once I did. I moved to diversification and also a heavier growth component of the portfolio, with longer holding periods. That's where I'm at now. I recently took a massive gain on FB but am back in now based on board member rec.

My current largest percentage winners are AMZN, W, FSBW, MKL, NVR, MAR, CAOX. I have 33 stocks; the 16th best one is LSXMK which is up 40%. My worst stock right now is PDER, down 17% from purchase (but a lot more considering opportunity cost).

Hope that helps.

« Last Edit: May 07, 2018, 05:05:34 PM by ScottHall »
You can no longer follow me on Twitter!

AzCactus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 568
Re: Sorry Warren! Another year of dragging ass...
« Reply #22 on: May 11, 2018, 03:13:00 PM »
I own a little Berkshire and have obviously learned a bit from him, but to the extent Morningstar is correct...It seems like he has underperformed the market on 3, 5, and 10 year period.  Over a 15 year period he has outperformed by 36 bps.  Does this just seem subpar to anyone other than me?  I get he's a great investor, but the fact that he HAS made billions and billions doesn't necessitate that he'll beat the market moving forward. 

Am I missing something here folks?

cubsfan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 831
Re: Sorry Warren! Another year of dragging ass...
« Reply #23 on: May 11, 2018, 03:42:42 PM »
What you might be missing is if you believe that Berkshire is undervalued relative to today's market.

I believe it is - and that is what is important. From this point, what matters is the forward return possibilities of
Berkshire vs, say, the S&P 500.


CorpRaider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2026
    • The Corpraider
Re: Sorry Warren! Another year of dragging ass...
« Reply #24 on: May 12, 2018, 05:38:09 PM »
This thread reminds me of SuperMoney when the Hedge Fund guy was like "you have to bring in some kids to trade this trash."   

John Hjorth

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1950
Re: Sorry Warren! Another year of dragging ass...
« Reply #25 on: May 13, 2018, 09:09:57 AM »
I own a little Berkshire and have obviously learned a bit from him, but to the extent Morningstar is correct...It seems like he has underperformed the market on 3, 5, and 10 year period.  Over a 15 year period he has outperformed by 36 bps.  Does this just seem subpar to anyone other than me?  I get he's a great investor, but the fact that he HAS made billions and billions doesn't necessitate that he'll beat the market moving forward. 

Am I missing something here folks?
What you might be missing is if you believe that Berkshire is undervalued relative to today's market.

I believe it is - and that is what is important. From this point, what matters is the forward return possibilities of Berkshire vs, say, the S&P 500.

I agree with cubsfan here, AZCactus,

Some numbers for the last ten years:

Year - Cash YE [incl. T-Bills] - Equity YE:

2007 -   44,329 - 120,733
2008 -   25,539 - 109,267
2009 -   30,558 - 135,785
2010 -   38,227 - 162,934
2011 -   37,299 - 164,850
2012 -   46,992 - 187,647
2013 -   48,186 - 221,890
2014 -   60,033 - 240,170
2015 -   67,161 - 255,550
2016 -   86,370 - 282,070
2017 - 115,954 - 348,296 [2017 tax cut effect [net] +28,200]

Average shares outstanding YE2007 : 1,545,751 [A eq.]
Average shares outstanding YE2017 : 1,644,615 [A eq.]

I will call the equity progress outstanding, based on cash levels [including T-Bills] held during that period, even taking the tax cut effect into consideration.

- - - o 0 o - - -

Christopher Bloomstran from Semper Augustus Investments Group LLC has estimated of YE2017 intrisic value of Berskhire at about 250 for the B-share in February 2018. [There are three client letters from him during the last three years partly about valuation of Berkshire, that are worth your time and attention.]

Based on this valuation alone, getting Berkshire today around 200 for the B provides a discount to intrinsic value of 20 percent. We have seen other fellow board members buying recently around 190, making it even better. It's not a steal, but to me it may be considered a good deal in this market environment, ref. cubsfan's post above.

- - - o 0 o - - -

Furthermore, personally, I think Mr. Bloomstran's Berkshire valuation is conservative - not extremely conservative, though - but to some extent.

First, it's about valuation of insurance float. Our fellow board member rb did a plendid post about it last year and did some numbers gymnastics, thereby sharing his thoughts about it.

You find rb's post here.

Please take a close look at the formula provided by rb, especially with regard to the Berkshire tax rate, that is supposed to be materially lower going forward. So the discount you have to apply to the Berkshire insurance float will go up. Just try mentally to put this at about 10 percent of book value.

[The tax rate reported by Berkshire for 2018Q1 is to me still a mystery, though, also ref. a comment by globalfinancepartners in the General News topic.]

Second, one could argue to put a discount to deferred taxes, too, that at YE2017 are stated at USD 56,182 M, of which USD 24,251 M are related to unrealized investment gains on the listed stock portfolio, and USD 26,651 M are related to property, plant & equipment. I have no numbers gymnastics to refer to here - but it's pretty evident at least to me, that a material part of these deferred taxes wont surface as actual taxes payable any time soon. The only risk related to valuation of this liabily is political, which turned out to be a huge upside in 2017.

- - - o 0 o - - -

So, without taking valuation of deferred taxes into consideration, and applying Mr. Bloomstran's valutions, and rb's valuation of Berkshire insurance float, we have seen fellow board members recently pick up Berkshire stock at about 190, meaning buying at a discount to intrisic value of [100 - [190 / [[250 + [10% of 250]] * 100%]] ~ 31%. [My emphasis: <-!]

- - - o 0 o - - -

Third, there are accounting conventions effects on Berkshire intangibles. The income statements and the balance sheets does not represent true economic earnings and values because of those. ... No, I won't go there, because I can't quantify it with any degree of precision ...
« Last Edit: May 13, 2018, 09:36:53 AM by John Hjorth »
ĒIn the race of excellence Ö there is no finish line.Ē
-HH Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates and Ruler of Dubai

voyager

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: Sorry Warren! Another year of dragging ass...
« Reply #26 on: May 13, 2018, 10:47:28 AM »
I own a little Berkshire and have obviously learned a bit from him, but to the extent Morningstar is correct...It seems like he has underperformed the market on 3, 5, and 10 year period.  Over a 15 year period he has outperformed by 36 bps.  Does this just seem subpar to anyone other than me?  I get he's a great investor, but the fact that he HAS made billions and billions doesn't necessitate that he'll beat the market moving forward. 

Am I missing something here folks?

I suspect that what we might be missing here is that Warren has other priorities than beating the market. 

In order to deploy large amounts of capital in private businesses, Berkshire has to continue to have its pristine reputation.  Warren has stated many times that the likes of Coke, Amex, and Wells Fargo are permanent holdings.  If he were to sell them, that may impact his reputation.  Kraft Heinz hasn't done too well, and Warren won't sell that because of the potential damage it could do to his relationship with 3G.  That's almost half of Berkshire's portfolio that is off the table to be sold.

Liberty

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10247
  • twitter.com/libertyRPF
    • twitter.com/libertyRPF
Re: Sorry Warren! Another year of dragging ass...
« Reply #27 on: May 14, 2018, 07:36:28 AM »
At this size and without a huge engine of organic growth (like FB/AMZN/GOOG), beating the market will be hard, but I think risk is also much lower than with the market, so keeping up with the market while providing better sleep at night looks pretty much like a win on a risk-adjusted basis.
"Most haystacks don't even have a needle." |  I'm on Twitter  | Interesting podcast on sleep science

tombgrt

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1903
Re: Sorry Warren! Another year of dragging ass...
« Reply #28 on: May 14, 2018, 07:51:49 AM »
At this size and without a huge engine of organic growth (like FB/AMZN/GOOG), beating the market will be hard, but I think risk is also much lower than with the market, so keeping up with the market while providing better sleep at night looks pretty much like a win on a risk-adjusted basis.

Correct. I wouldn't sleep well putting 100% of my assets in the S&P500 currently. Would have no issues with BRK.

John Hjorth

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1950
Re: Sorry Warren! Another year of dragging ass...
« Reply #29 on: May 14, 2018, 07:57:41 AM »
Well said, Liberty & tom,

I know for a fact [expressed directly in writing], that this company is just too boring for some fellow board members, while others, even very experienced investors here on CoBF like to have their a**es dragged by this behemoth. [ : - ) ]
ĒIn the race of excellence Ö there is no finish line.Ē
-HH Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates and Ruler of Dubai