Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK/A) invested $23.9 billion in the third quarter, the most in at least 15 years, as he accelerated stock purchases and broadened the portfolio beyond consumer and financial-company holdings.
Reply to @brbrock: Remember when people thought Bruce Berkowitz was infallible (wasn't that long ago.)? People also worshiped Heebner mightly. I think Buffett's issue is that Berkshire needs to step a bit further into modern day, especially with many of the subsidiary companies.
I recognize Warren Buffett is definitely not infallible. However, his company is essentially a closed-end fund. He is not subject to redemptions due to unsatisfactory periods so he does have advantage in terms of staying power on somewhat illiquid assets. But he is doing what he preaches. He invests money when there is fear in the market and there are good discounts available.
And I agree with everything you say. I don't need things to get better before I reinvest. I just want to be able to see some sort of scenario that would lead to growth. I currently don't see it. Investing just because things are bad doesn't seem like a sound philosophy. Or because Buffet is. Speaking of Berkowitz. I believe I saw FAIRX is down to 9.5 Billion. What was it as it's peak?
Reply to @brbrock: There's the philosophy that you want to invest when things are bad and cheap rather than waiting until things are good and expensive. Things aren't quite that simple, but that's the belief.
Some of the most prescient aphorisms come from anonymous sources. One of my favorites from an investing perspective is “If you can’t take the sting, don’t reach for the honey”. This saying was extracted from Mark Skausen’s 2011 book titled “The Maxims of Wall Street”.
Warren Buffett has forever been a super-investor who has no fear when reaching for the honey. Buffett has suffered the bee’s sting, but relatively infrequently. He and his investors have profited substantially by adhering to the conservative investment policies originally outlined by Benjamin Graham.
As Graham wisely observed: “Investments should be based not on optimism but arithmetic”. Buffett does not sport a perfect investment record, but the only person who does has never invested whatsoever; he never reached for the honey.
I seriously believe that each of us, at one point or another, had money managed by Mr. Buffett. Countless mutual funds have holdings in his operations. Although we may take issue with some of his decisions (I surely do), we indirectly benefit from his market acumen.
Will Buffett generate future returns at the rates produced in the past? Given the current environment I suspect that to be a highly unlikely scenario. Some performance erosion is a better guesstimate. But I would not challenge Buffett. He is a champion super-investor until he is dethroned.
Will that happen soon? Nobody knows. As Warren Buffett himself famously said “If past history was all there was to the investment game, the richest people would be librarians.” Or perhaps chartist would populate the richest cohort. That hasn’t happened.
And economists are no better at projecting the future then are financial wizards. The forecasting records of both groups are dismal.
Newton announced three laws of motion. They are: (1) Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it, (2) The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma, and (3) For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Laws (1) and (3) are most frequently quoted.
Economists have jokingly proposed two equivalents (1) For every economist, there exists an equal and opposite economist, and (2) They’re both wrong.
Winston Churchill added to the humor by observing that “If you put two economists in a room, you get two opinions, unless one of them is Lord Keynes, in which case you get three opinions.”
Maybe, just maybe, John Bogle had it right all along; simply stay the course. Be brave guys.
My posting purpose was to contribute just a little fun to this discussion line while introducing some useful investment guidelines. I hope I succeeded.
Comments
Some of the most prescient aphorisms come from anonymous sources. One of my favorites from an investing perspective is “If you can’t take the sting, don’t reach for the honey”. This saying was extracted from Mark Skausen’s 2011 book titled “The Maxims of Wall Street”.
Warren Buffett has forever been a super-investor who has no fear when reaching for the honey. Buffett has suffered the bee’s sting, but relatively infrequently. He and his investors have profited substantially by adhering to the conservative investment policies originally outlined by Benjamin Graham.
As Graham wisely observed: “Investments should be based not on optimism but arithmetic”. Buffett does not sport a perfect investment record, but the only person who does has never invested whatsoever; he never reached for the honey.
I seriously believe that each of us, at one point or another, had money managed by Mr. Buffett. Countless mutual funds have holdings in his operations. Although we may take issue with some of his decisions (I surely do), we indirectly benefit from his market acumen.
Will Buffett generate future returns at the rates produced in the past? Given the current environment I suspect that to be a highly unlikely scenario. Some performance erosion is a better guesstimate. But I would not challenge Buffett. He is a champion super-investor until he is dethroned.
Will that happen soon? Nobody knows. As Warren Buffett himself famously said “If past history was all there was to the investment game, the richest people would be librarians.” Or perhaps chartist would populate the richest cohort. That hasn’t happened.
And economists are no better at projecting the future then are financial wizards. The forecasting records of both groups are dismal.
Newton announced three laws of motion. They are: (1) Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it, (2) The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma, and (3) For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Laws (1) and (3) are most frequently quoted.
Economists have jokingly proposed two equivalents (1) For every economist, there exists an equal and opposite economist, and (2) They’re both wrong.
Winston Churchill added to the humor by observing that “If you put two economists in a room, you get two opinions, unless one of them is Lord Keynes, in which case you get three opinions.”
Maybe, just maybe, John Bogle had it right all along; simply stay the course. Be brave guys.
My posting purpose was to contribute just a little fun to this discussion line while introducing some useful investment guidelines. I hope I succeeded.
Best Regards.