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: jhg_in_kc who wrote (896)	1/2/1999 5:50:00 PM
From: Michael Burry	Respond to of 4691

The idea behind Buffettology is that the brand name represents a barrier to entry that results in a certain degree of market power. This market power would therefore allow sustained super-normal return on equity. If the end result is not a high ROE which has been sustained and is proven to be durable over many years, then the brand name is worthless. Obviously, the ease with which Borders, Barnes and Noble, and Amazon.com encroach upon each other indicates virtually no barrier to entry, and no sustainable brand name edge. Hence, the names are being given a much higher valuation than is appropriate. This appears to be due to individuals like you who say: "I think your methodology needs modifying: lesser time to have a track record, a smaller or even no margin of safety in some instances when a company is outstanding, etc. examination of future projected earnings, etc." That is just about the most ridiculous and unseasoned remark I have seen in quite a while. Michael Burry

To: jhg_in_kc who wrote (896)	1/2/1999 6:20:00 PM
From: James Clarke	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4691

jhg, I congratulate you on your returns in the last year and I would recommend you to put them in a bank account before you lose them. Have you ever read Buffett? Do you have any comprehension of what a margin of safety is? Do you understand what the mathematics of a triple digit high-PE ratio imply for long term returns? I have enjoyed engaging with you on a discussion of Dell, which could very well be a Buffett company. I learned a lot from that - most of which was from your friend Chuzzlewit. But your last post shows me that I am wasting my and everybody else's time on this thread with somebody who has absolutely no comprehension of what Buffetology, or investing itself, is about. Buffett has written his entire strategy out for us to learn from, but you think you can do better than that. I will look forward to hearing ten years how you did. Until then you've got a lot of reading to do or you should find somebody else on this thread naive enough to think you're here, like the rest of us, to learn something from others. This is not censorship, continue posting, but I am just not interested anymore. Jim

To: jhg_in_kc who wrote (896)	1/2/1999 6:45:00 PM
From: Wright Sullivan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4691

jhg- I usually stay out of the mudslinging, but you are suffering from 20/20 hindsight, to put it politely. You ask: "What is it about?" [Buffetology]: Have you bothered to read the book? And have you studied Buffett at all? Does he only speak of brand names? No, Buffett sees the value of great brands, but they are far from the only toll bridges out there. If it were as simple as picking brands, then Buffett would be just another Warren. Your success with a few great tech stocks has made you brash and rude. I'm glad you had a good 1998. I did too, and I wasn't anywhere near Dell, AOL, etc. I had AMZN on my watch list a couple years ago, but it never had any margin of safety, not then, not now. Does passing up AMZN (or AOL per your post) make a me a lousy investor??? NO! Of course not. (actually, plenty of other things are there to make me a lousy investor, but we won't go there...) There is nothing wrong with failure in investing as long as you can look back and say that your methodology made sense, that your logic was sound. Failure is good in the sense that it forces you to look closely at your decisions: Did I move too fast? Too slow? Was I patient enough? When I was SURE, did I follow my convictions with enough cash? And success begets the toughest question of all: Was I really smart or did I get lucky? Was my "smart move" repeatable in other times, other fields? (If not, why bother staying in the game?) If you completely turn over your methodology with each passing fad, you are just another follower, another lamb waiting to be led to the slaughter. On the other hand, one must adjust his methodology over time or he is not learning. The key is to base it on sound logic. What really galls me about your post is that it takes aim at people who are willing to look at their past decisions and lay out the good, the bad, and the ugly results of those decisions. It takes a bit of moxie for a person to look back at what made them NOT buy a stock (AOL), and what they would do differently. James said that he missed AOL when it was sitting under his nose a couple years back, but that, while he wouldn't buy it now because of price, he'd buy it at the right price. For that piece of introspection, you bait him and spit on his methodology, which incidentally is quite sound. It is foolish to think that because you have ridden one big kahuna wave you are a master of the universe. I missed AOL. I missed a lot of stuff. I am looking forward to missing a lot more "obvious" stuff next year. But so long as I know exactly why I bought what I bought, I think I'll be more comfortable than if I just follow the obvious trends. Getting back to Buffettology: The part that you are missing is all about price. It is not often noted, but Warren Buffet is much like a human financial calculator. And while I don't pretend to know all about Warren, I do know that PRICE is a critical factor in his decisions. I have read many of James Clarke's posts. PRICE is a critical factor in James' decisions. He follows Graham's 2 biggest rules: #1: Don't lose your principal. #2: See rule #1. I have read many of jhg_in_kc's posts. PRICE is rarely mentioned, except in hindsight. Guess who I think makes more sense? For what it's worth, jhg, I am long on TLAB, long on BRKA, as well as long on many value stocks. So I understand something about your world of tech-growth, Buffett, and value. I just don't appreciate or respect the way you present your methodology. To all: Sorry to vent here; The recent discussions regarding AOL and DELL have generally been good useful discourse, even as related to why they might NOT be Buffett stocks (beyond the obvious fact that they are techs). Thanks and a good 1999 to all.