james22

If Tech is understandable by anyone, it should be understandable by BRK, yeah? If Tech is where the returns are today, that's the game you have to play. Especially if you believe the "second half of the chessboard" argument. 'It's hard' isn't really a reason to avoid investing. Actually, the more difficult it is should only advantage BRK. They may give up the more sizeable advantage they have over others in spotting durable competitive advantage in other-than-Tech, but so? They should still maintain an advantage in strategizing (index vs basket), timing (market cycle, valuation), position sizing, etc.

LOL

Putin? House of Saud?

Probably, but really just curious - should our take away be that Big Tech is uninvestable? If BRK doesn't/can't, why should we believe we can? Or (as I believe) that we all have our investing preferences.

We wish.

But what was responsible 30 years ago seems irresponsible now. I have avoided technology sectors as an investor because in general I don’t have a solid grasp of what differentiates many technology companies. I don’t know how to spot durable competitive advantage in technology. To get rich, you find businesses with durable competitive advantage and you don’t overpay for them. Technology is based o­n change; and change is really the enemy of the investor. Change is more rapid and unpredictable in technology relative to the broader economy. To me, all technology sectors look like 7-foot hurdles. (2005) He hasn't he learned anything since then? And even if he's learned it's impossible to spot durable competitive advantage, why hasn't he then bought a Tech basket?

Why are we wondering what BRK's insignificant new Banks, Insurance and Finance purchase is? With the exception of Apple, why aren't we wondering why they don't significantly buy Big Tech?

Harvard Business Review estimates that AI could add $13 trillion to the global economy over the next decade. PwC’s estimate is more aggressive: $15.7 trillion by 2030. https://www.mauldineconomics.com/global-macro-update/everyone-is-behind-on-ai

I keep hoping this thread is about a new Stereolab album.

And exactly the wrong thing to do if the 'second half of the chessboard' scenario comes about.

Gotcha.

And because both the investor's income and corporation's profit has already been taxed once.

I find myself relying more and more, for a solution to our problems, on the invisible hand that I tried to eject from public thinking.

Fair enough.

I was one of them (only shifted my MMF to ITT several weeks ago). But most retirees aren't timing. They hold a fixed allocation (60/40) or follow something like Age in Bonds. And anyone holding a Target Retirement fund has a significant bond allocation.

You don't know anyone retired? 1. They usually have a high allocation to bonds (40%+). 2. They count on withdrawing from bonds when the market is down for their expenses.

Did you watch the interview? He answers most of your questions pretty well.

Hypergamy ensures progress.

I think it’s mostly true that things are stagnating compared to the century, or quarter-century before 1970. Some of that is simply because we’ve snagged the low-hanging fruit: You can only invent radio once. But I think there’s more to it than that. In the United States, which drove most of the “golden quarter’s” progress, 1970 marks what scholars of administrative law (like me) call the “regulatory explosion.” Although government expanded a lot during the New Deal under FDR, it wasn’t until 1970, under Richard Nixon, that we saw an explosion of new-type regulations that directly burdened people and progress: The Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, the founding of Occupation Safety and Health Administration, the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, etc. — all things that would have made the most hard-boiled New Dealer blanch. Within a decade or so, Washington was transformed from a sleepy backwater (mocked by John F. Kennedy for its “Southern efficiency and Northern charm”) to a city full of fancy restaurants and expensive houses, a trend that has only continued in the decades since. The explosion of regulations led to an explosion of people to lobby the regulators, and lobbyists need nice restaurants and fancy houses. Maybe it’s just a coincidence that progress suddenly slowed down, but I don’t think so. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/05/12/technological-progress-stagnation-regulatory-explosion-1970s-column/84225066/

A world with internet is more than incrementally different than the world before it.

And luxury beliefs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_belief

I'll guess it'll look like the Middle East today, where vast wealth is held by few and just enough is shared to keep the populace from rebelling.