/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>166825
>underperforms the S&P by 14%
kek

who is this guy again?

>>166851
>Insulting 60 years of value investing leadership
>judges company by 1 year stock performance.

Top kek, go back to your cryptoshit thread.

>>166851
>underperforms the S&P
>implying this is anything new
Literally the only people who think Buffett has outperformed the S&P consistently are sheep who don't know how to calculate returns correctly.

>>166851

If you weren't a noob you would realize the significance of a year like 2008. The index lost 37% Berkshire only lost 9.6%. That's much more important.

>>166891
Lel Berkshire Hathaway were bankrupt without bailouts. Do some research.

>>166851
>Not realizing that Buffett's returns are limited because he has so much money that he's limited to big, slow moving stocks.
>Not knowing he's crushed the S&P 500 in total anyway.
Into the cryptocurrency threads you go.

>>166970
>not knowing how to calculate returns properly
I think the shitcoin threads are more for you

Two thoughts:

1. I've been pointing out Buffet's recent under-performances since the day /biz/ was created. He's lost in bull markets, and there are more bull markets than bear markets. Also recall that his failures are even worse because the chart doesn't account for the fees he charges.

2. Look at those dead sexy long-term S&P returns, and ponder that you can get those gains for essentially no fees at Vanguard, Yum.

>>166975
Explain.

>>166976
>some thoughts

His letter literally tells people to stop trying to beat the market and buy the S&P indexes

>>166988
He tells that to novices or people who don't have time to spend hours a day researching and reading news and reports about the companies they've invested in.

>>166970
>Not realizing that Buffett's returns are limited because he has so much money that he's limited to big, slow moving stocks.

Horse shit. If he can't make money with ongoing inflows, then he should close his fund. He has a fiduciary duty to his investors to do nothing less.

>166988
>His letter literally tells people to stop trying to beat the market and buy the S&P indexes
I've been saying it too, and I don't charge fees.

>>166970
>Not realizing that Buffett's returns are limited because he has so much money that he's limited to big, slow moving stocks.

Horse shit. If he can't make money with ongoing inflows, then he should close his fund. He has a fiduciary duty to his investors to do nothing less.

>>166988
>His letter literally tells people to stop trying to beat the market and buy the S&P indexes
I've been saying it too, and I don't charge fees.

>>166976
so you want long term sp500 returns, and yet point out buffets underperformance only in bull markets, while neglecting the fact that while there are more bull markets than bears, there are more range bound markets than bull markets?

>>167011
>>167004
Mr. Corporate Lawyer Who I really Respect And Asked Questions To In A Thread A Week Ago And I Know You Remember me, that's not what I'm saying. He can't invest in micro, medium, or small cap stocks (the only ones that really have a chance of going far up) without making them artificially go through the roof, and even then if he bought all shares outstanding in the company he'd have only like 0.1% of his entire portfolio invested in it. This is talked about by nearly everyone and in nearly every Buffett book. So he's limited to large cap stocks which don't move as much as micro, small, or medium caps.

>>167011
I wasn't charged fees to read his letter

>>167036
If he's limited to large-cap stocks, then why can't he keep pace with the index most closely associated with large-cap stocks?

He's obviously picking something other than large-caps, or he's somehow magically picking only the bad large-caps.

Either way, it just proves that stock-picking doesn't work in the long run. (And don't show me Berkshire Hathaway all-time charts unless they're fee adjusted. Failing to account for fees gives any advisor an undeserved boost in their apparent performance.)

The bottom line is that he's paid to deliver results for his clients. He has failed in the job in the last 4 years out 5. That would get most people fired, not deified.

Tfw it's way to late to get on the Berkshire train.

>>167068

there's also the liquidity problem. he has so much money, he has to make sure that the things he wants to get in have enough liquidity so he can get out when he wants. he's not going to go into micro or small or mid caps because it wouldn't provide a good enough return to justify the risk, and he'd actually be losing money since he could make more with only the big+ caps.

>>167068
1. The index was almost completely "irrational exuberance" for the past five years.

2. Failing in the short term doesn't really matter when you've won so long in the long term.

3. The short term doesn't matter to Buffett. He invests for 10, 20, 30, 40, or a lifetime from now, not 5 years.

4. Lel, you don't even know that Berkshire Hathaway doesn't and can't charge fees.

5. Even harder lel, you think that stock-picking can't work for the long run. M8.

6. "Falling behind an irrationally-over pumped bull market of the last 5 years after the worst crash ever proves that long-term stock picking doesn't work."

7. "The bottom line is that he's paid to deliver results for his clients." 20%+ average annually for the last 60 years isn't failing to deliver.

>>167110
BRK may not charge 2/20 hedge fund-style fees, but if you think Berkshire Hathaway advisors, analysts, and management don't get paid -- and that those fees affect returns -- you're insane.

But it's nice that you can so easily dismiss the last five years as "irrational exuberance" and an "irrationally-over pumped bull market." You can obviously predict the market's direction with perfect clarity, which is why you no doubt have millions of dollars in net worth. See you at the club, ol' chap.

>>167199
Respond to the other points, please.

>but if you think Berkshire Hathaway advisors, analysts, and management don't get paid -- and that those fees affect returns -- you're insane.
So? Are they paid by investors in Berkshire and not out of Buffett's or Berkshire's own pocket? Buffett is only paid $100,000 a year for his duties at Berkshire. And even in the worst current state scenario, they're not as bad as hedge fund fees. Also I'm okay paying a little more in fees in order for my money to do 2.5 times better than index funds over 10 or 20 years. But with Berkshire, you don't have to pay fees anyway, so that's pretty irrelevant.

>But it's nice that you can so easily dismiss the last five years as "irrational exuberance" and an "irrationally-over pumped bull market."
Have you not read investment news over the last two years or read up on George Soros' or Jeremy Siegel's opinions at least? Everyone knows the market is overvalued out the ass right now.

I'm not trying to rip on you or anything, you've always seemed like a cool guy, but it really appears as if you got lucky with your money in index funds (as you have) and now somehow think index fund investing is the best investing (even though for some reason you said long-term stock-picking doesn't work), but that you think index fund investing is better than owning shares of Berkshire Hathaway instead, solely based on the rational that because Berkshire Hathaway did slightly less better in the last five years (never mind the other 50 years it's murdered the index funds despite being limited to large cap stocks). You didn't even know that Berkshire doesn't have "clients" and doesn't and can't charge "fees". Come on m8.

>>167238
pls trip

>>167011

>close his fund

wat

>>167199
>he invested in index funds and thinks he's an expert
kek


look at the first page of the report. read carefully.
I'll spell it out for you, it lists Berkshire's change in BV, not the change in the securities it holds. It includes any admin fees

>>167238
It's obvious that you want to worship at the trough of Buffet, and that it gives you some comfort that he demonstrated a strong of successful years in the past. If that makes you happy, its your money to do with as you please.

There is peer-reviewed research on stock-picking. Buffet may not exhibit all the evils of some fund managers, but rest assured he's much more Wall Street than Omaha.

But you don't care about the facts.

Anyone who thinks success in index investing is "lucky" isn't worth debating. Anyone who doesn't understand that an investment corporation pays its advisors salaries isn't worth debating. Anyone who thinks they can predict the direction of tomorrow's market isn't worth debating. You obviously have blind faith in your investment Jesus, and no amount of facts is going to persuade you otherwise.

>>167295
(1/2)
>Not realizing that even though you took your trip off, your ID is the same.

>It's obvious that you want to worship at the trough of Buffet, and that it gives you some comfort that he demonstrated a strong of successful years in the past. If that makes you happy, its your money to do with as you please.
If I'm invested with Joseph Stalin and he's pulling me 20-30% gains per year, I'll worship him over a 10% per year index fund, sure. What's the problem there?

>There is peer-reviewed research on stock-picking.
And? You never followed up on what you were going to say.

>Buffet may not exhibit all the evils of some fund managers, but rest assured he's much more Wall Street than Omaha.
Who cares if some fund managers are "evil" (in what context, anyway?) as long as they're making a fantastic return without hurting people? Also, how is Buffett more Wall Street than Omaha, and of what relevance would it be if he was? He's lived in the same house since he was like 20 and drove a Beetle that he bought at a discount because of hail damage until his wife made him by a different car in like the late 90's.

>But you don't care about the facts.
Yes I do. On the contrary, you don't. That's why you haven't responded to any of my facts I've pointed out and are somehow trying to cloud the facts with emotion like saying Warren Buffett is evil (baseless and irrelevant anyway).

>Anyone who thinks success in index investing is "lucky" isn't worth debating.
You bought in right after the 2008 crash and rode one of the greatest bull markets in history. There would be no other way to justify index funds over Berkshire in any other way, especially in the long term.

>>167295
>>167322
(2/2)
>Anyone who doesn't understand that an investment corporation pays its advisors salaries isn't worth debating.
You haven't put up much of a debate anyway. Are you insinuating that Berkshire is bad because it has to pay its office workers?

>Anyone who thinks they can predict the direction of tomorrow's market isn't worth debating.
I never said I could, I said it was overvalued and the majority of the pros say its extremely overvalued as well. That makes it more likely to heavily correct or crash than if it were undervalued, no?

>You obviously have blind faith in your investment Jesus, and no amount of facts is going to persuade you otherwise.
If your index fund investing pulled an equal 20-30% per year annual return over the last 60 years, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Sadly, you're stuck around 6-10% a year on average over the long term, and you try to justify as being better than Berkshire it because Berkshire Hathaway has to pay its 20 workers a salary,of which none comes from Berkshire stock owners. Top lel.

>>167322
>>167338
>If I'm invested with Joseph Stalin and he's pulling me 20-30% gains per year, I'll worship him over a 10% per year index fund, sure. What's the problem there?

The problem is that the research shows that Stalin will eventually underperform the markets. You keep riding that horse, and eventually it'll run you off a cliff.

Is Buffet's last 5 years performance an indication that his "magic run" is done? I don't know. Hes not a traditional advisor, but he's a paid stock picker none the less. The evidence is not in his favor.

>You bought in right after the 2008 crash and rode one of the greatest bull markets in history.
I've been buying index funds since at least 1996, and have been a committed Boglehead since 1998. You're really just full of shit here.

>majority of the pros say its extremely overvalued
They said that at the end of 2012 too. Lots of dummies (you?) dashed to the sidelines. What happened in 2013? 26% market gains. Oops.

There are no "market pros." People in the financial media are entertainers, not psychics. Stop falling for the click-bait.

>you're stuck around 6-10% a year on average over the long term
12% for the market as a whole, thank you very much. Plus at my level of wealth, I have access to private equity, venture capital, and hedge funds. I do just fine, but thanks for your worry.

>Top lel.
Enough said.

>>167383
>The problem is that the research shows that Stalin will eventually underperform the markets.
So what? Nearly every manager or investor has underperformed the market some times. What matters is how much they over-perform, and their average returns are.

>Is Buffet's last 5 years performance an indication that his "magic run" is done? I don't know. Hes not a traditional advisor, but he's a paid stock picker none the less. The evidence is not in his favor.
What about the other 60 years? Having a bad year compared to the index funds, especially when there's an irrational bull market, does not mean that you're bad, losing your edge, or didn't trounce the market in the other verifiable 60 years.

>I've been buying index funds since at least 1996, and have been a committed Boglehead since 1998. You're really just full of shit here.
Cool. Now go look how much more money you'd have had if you were in Berkshire instead, even including the last 5 years.

>They said that at the end of 2012 too. Lots of dummies (you?) dashed to the sidelines.
Doesn't mean it's not true. You're truly an idiot if you think people being weary in an extremely overpriced market are "stupid" for being careful. Better to take a 50% gain and stop than risk it for another 30% gain next year that might turn into an 80% loss. You people only get bragging rights when more irrational people are hog wild and driving overpriced markets even higher and somehow end up not collapsing it, YET.

>12% for the market as a whole, thank you very much. Plus at my level of wealth, I have access to private equity, venture capital, and hedge funds. I do just fine, but thanks for your worry.
Good, 12%. 8% less (go factor in that compounding over twenty years) than Buffett's worst and 18% less than his best in the early days.

>Plus at my level of wealth, I have access to private equity, venture capital, and hedge funds. I do just fine, but thanks for your worry.
Good for you. We weren't debating those avenues.

>>167383
I also think it's quite funny how you've failed to follow up on 19/20 points you get called out on for. Still waiting to hear why Buffett is evil or "more Wall Street than Omaha", or how Berkshire Hathaway is a bad investment because they pay their 20 employees a salary. I'll let you slide on the other 19 you didn't address or were wrong about, but those I just have to hear.

>Not even knowing that Berkshire Hathaway doesn't charge fees.
Good lord I didn't know this was even possible.

The funny thing is, I probably own more Berkshire Hathaway than anyone in this thread. Just looking at the largest fund investors in BRK.B, I see three Vanguard funds that I own in the top 10 holders.

The difference, really, is that I don't put all my eggs in one basket. I get the benefit of BRK's good years, and don't really suffer from their bad years. It's good to be an index investor.

>>167457
>The funny thing is, I probably own more Berkshire Hathaway than anyone in this thread.
So you argue pointless and untrue assertions as to why it's a bad investment yet you own it? That's funny.

>The difference, really, is that I don't put all my eggs in one basket. I get the benefit of BRK's good years, and don't really suffer from their bad years.
You're obviously not as bright as I gave you credit for in earlier threads. You also bring up the "diversification" argument (despite it being irrelevant and making you more like the index funds) on top of arguing that Berkshire should outperform index funds (which you don't get by being highly diversified).

>It's good to be an index investor.
It's even better to be a Berkshire investor.

>>167457
You argue irreverently, pointlessly, inconsistently, and illogically against Berkshire Hathaway, fail to at all address any counters and massive holes pointed out in your arguments, and it turns out you even own Berkshire Hathaway stock WHILE not knowing Berkshire doesn't charge fees. I think the only thing you can do at this point is pretend you were trolling. If you really are a corporate lawyer as you have claimed in the past, I would not be surprised at all if every client you've ever had has committed suicide or is penniless after your representation.

>>167295
>>167295
>>167295
And you spell Buffett as Buffet both times you have referenced him by name. Into the medical waste you go.

>>167242
Why would you want people to trip...

People need to stop tripping. Especially, >>167199
He's a complete nobody but acts like he really knows what he's talking about when evidenced by this thread that he's an idiot when it comes to stocks.

>>167914
>he's an idiot when it comes to stocks

hehe

>>167199
If you're so smart how come you're not a billionaire and he is?
Checkmate tripfag

>>167957
>Is a literal millionaire
>hangs out all day on 4chan
go buy some whores with all that money you loser

>>167957
Lel. You have a $500,000 a year income and are also a corporate lawyer, and you invested after a crash and rode the bull market back up with index funds. So impressive. There are crane operators who have done that but just didn't have the job or income you did. Look through the rest of this thread and you can see how smart you really are.

>>168093
>>168097
That tripfag has helped more people over the last 2 weeks than your worthless asses.

>>168115
By recommending index funds from Vanguard. A lot of help. Have you even read through his posts in this thread?

I like the fact that Buffett's fanboys in this thread are casually ignoring the fact that without the 2008 bailouts (of which Buffett lobbied very hard for), Berkshire Hathaway was finished. So basically the people in this thread hero worshipping the man, had their money stolen to keep him in business. And instead of being upset about this blatant theft of taxpayer money, you approve of it and celebrate the thief. Pretty embarrassing.

I honestly don't know if Apple fanboys are more misguided about Steve Jobs or Berkshire Hathaway fanboys are more misguided about Warren Buffett. It's certainly a cult. Enjoy living in your bubble.

>>168166
so you're saying Buffett saved the economy?

or do you think the bailout shouldn't have occurred? (lel)

>>168182
>you're saying Buffett saved the economy
Are you braindead? I'm saying without the bailouts, Berkshire Hathaway would be bankrupt. What kind of a "great investor" needs taxpayer money to keep him afloat?

I'm outta here. It's actually pointless having discussions with you guys.

>>168188
>I'm saying without the bailouts, Berkshire Hathaway would be bankrupt.
No it wouldn't. It would have been heavily damaged but it wouldn't be bankrupt. Are you retarded? Maybe 1/4 of his portfolio would have been reduced by 75% or so. Even if it was bankrupt, he could start out again since his knowledge and experience is still retained. It actually would have been better that way because then he could not be handicapped by so much money and then be able to get into smaller stocks and get higher returns. Buffett is a known Keynesian, however, that is irrelevant to his success and returns. That's something for political debate.

>>168216
>it would have been better if he DID go bankrupt because that way he have less capital :D :D
You are actually retarded.

As for him not going bankrupt: aside from the fact that he had huge holdings in businesses which all got DIRECT taxpayer money, the actual knock on effect of no bailouts would have meant his other holdings would have gone under. This is called the domino effect. This "investing legend" was basically 100% long into the biggest crash of the past 50 years and he's a great investor? lol, no.

So yes, he would have been bankrupt. Accept the fact that your investing guru needed to beg for the money of regular workers in order to stay in business.

I'm actually going now.

>>168255
I meant it would be good if his portfolio was largely reduced so he could benefit from the higher gains of smaller stocks (see here >>167036)

His largest holdings (>70% of his portfolio) have almost always been KO, PG, WMT, WFC, COP, IBM, and AXP. You're saying all of those would have been bankrupt if not for the bailout?

>I'm actually going now.
Now you're not. You're sitting there hotheaded over how wrong you are and you're either going to pretend you went away to your TV dinners or reply back in anger, showing that you didn't really go.

OP here
>come back
>see this thread
Even though there is a lot of bitch fighting, I'm so happy to see actual discussion that isn't cryptoshilling or "how do I turn X amount of dollars into Y amounts of dollars in Z time frame".

>>168272
That's 70% of his investing portfolio. Not his actual companies worth.

>>168730
His company is his investing portfolio though.

>>168689
Not bitch fighting. Just setting facts straight against someone who I've learned to be a fraud.