Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Buffettology -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tomato who wrote (821)	12/27/1998 7:47:00 PM
From: Shane M	Respond to of 4691

Tomato, I was just curious so I ran the following scenario. Start with $10,000 and make 25% a year for 30 years on it. No taxes calculated. This would be a Buffett-esqe performance by most people's standards, but still this would "only" <g> get you a little more than $8 million pre tax at the end of the time period. Clearly there could be alot of good investors out there that would never show up on the Forbes list. Not arguing with you on this point at all, but we should probably not look to net worth as equivalent to investing excellence. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think WEB made alot of his money by starting an investment fund and guaranteeing a certain return, like 6%, that was structured so that if he returned over this level, he got to keep as profit a portion (like 25%) of the excess? I think in the Buffettology book it even has the contract written up to show the details. Pretty cool idea that paid off handsomely, but this is not exactly making all of his money off of investments in the sense that you or I make money off of investments. He's making money off of his successful utilization of other people's money. This was his form of leverage. Shane.

To: Tomato who wrote (821)	12/27/1998 8:11:00 PM
From: Michael Burry	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4691

So the premise of this thread is that Buffett is the world's greatest investor. It is a thread for people to discuss how he picks stocks and stocks he might possibly like, and actions taken by Berkshire. One may expect the thread to die down during the greatest market top since the early 70's. But it is really not the place to say "focus on the next Microsoft because I say so and I have a better record than Buffett over the last 30 years, and besides, look at all the fun you're missing because the bat's on your shoulder." I haven't found a Buffett-like stock that I want to buy since the thread started. Still, I find discussion re: the merits of pure speculation and short-term trading just as inappropriate to this thread as discussing how finding the next Microsoft is the road to riches. BTW, Buffett underwent a very severe recession in the early 70's and he DID NOT lose money (many traders did). I do not practice Buffett-like investing to exclusion, but I don't discuss my other methods here. It's not hard to restrain myself. It is very easy to start other threads to discuss these very different, non-Buffett like methods. I'll start them if you'd like. Part of the beauty of SI is that people respect thread rules and boundaries. The best threads are pure of subject. Good investing, Mike

To: Tomato who wrote (821)	12/27/1998 8:46:00 PM
From: cfimx	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4691

Tom, If you look at my posts, I think you'll find that I haven't attacked him personally though I have asked some pointed questions in a way he may find offensive. I find it offensive that they aren't addressed.<G> You're dead wrong about Rogers. If you look back, you will find that he made a killing in defense electronics, a killing shorting Avon at the top. He called the 87 top, shorting all the brokers in the process. He has been long US treasurys, and utilities, and made a fortune investing in countries you only know from Rand McNally.<G> This year, he was short brokers, money center banks, and the ruble. He has also shorted Nike,Reebok, and UAM with precision. He has been retired for years, and is now embarking on a three year "blind" excursion to parts unkown with a cute young woman. And you aren't.<G> Suggest you read The New Money Masters and The Tao Jones Averages. As for Chuzz, I think this guy can take care of himself. Though I wouldn't categorize him as a master of the UNDERSTATEMENT, he IS rich, he knows everything about growth investing AND buffet style investing, AND rocket science-finance, and boring old value investing. Shoot, This guy's smart enough to run the kind of hedge funds WEB will be buying at pennies on the $$. I bet he's handsome as all get out, and has a.... Well, I better stop while I still have a logon!!

To: Tomato who wrote (821)	12/27/1998 9:01:00 PM
From: cfimx	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4691

Tom, I am not saying Soros use of leverage is illegal. Only that it amplifies his returns. Buffet uses leverage (still does!) too but not in the way another poster described. Can you think how Buffet has used a ton of leverage over the years in a creative way? Look at Train's The Money Masters and read about his still standing bet to any Technician. That will tell you truly how much it is worth. Zippo. Come to think of it, isn't Schwager the one who does the infomercials about some option trading system? Or is that Bernstein? Can't remember. What else has he written? Run Tom don't walk away from this guys ideas!! You'll have more to invest in Berkshire, or Baby B like me! People have to care to challenge the findings Tom! I care, but not enough to go prove him wrong. Nobody has time to check the facts! A guy who makes 700% a year trading might do that two years in a row. Then he would lOSE 95% of his capital the next year. Traders don't get rich Tom, they start Web sites (street.com) and make their brokers rich, who make it coming and going. Don't sell the Forbes 400 short Tom. If there were a trader who got really rich from trading, they would sniff him out through the grapevine and he would be FEATURED in Forbes. Much like if they caught Bigfoot. You'd definitely hear about it on 2020! PS: I call you Tom for short. No insult intended!!!

To: Tomato who wrote (821)	12/27/1998 9:53:00 PM
From: James Clarke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4691

We're losing focus here. The ad hominum attacks should stop now - I'll second that. I've crossed that line before a few times too and always regretted that I couldn't kill the message later. This Chuzzlewit guy is putting a lot of time into these posts, and I for one, have learned something from him. I'm not sure I want this thread to continue in this form though. But stop blaming him - we're the ones baiting him. And is Buffett the greatest investor of all time? What standard might we use for that? How about how much money you have less how much you started with. By that standard, WEB is in a league with only Bill Gates. I think any other standard is silly. Actually I think the whole debate is silly. Debating whether Buffett is a better investor than Soros just doesn't strike me as productive. We can learn a lot from both of them - they think in such different ways, their thoughts are on paper for all of us to read, and they are unquestionably the best at the game as they choose to play it. Did anybody happen to notice the discussion of Berkshire Hathaway in Barrons today? How could the market be so temporarily inefficient on such a visible stock? There are all kinds of reasons, but the lesson should be to laugh at anybody who tells you that the market is efficient. It might be reasonably efficient 99% of the time, but then your challenge is to find that other 1%. When it happens, it happens so fast though. That was a 10-15% freeby, but its gone three days later. Jim