james22

Great example.

That's the thing. If you aren't at 28% Tech like the market, you are really making a bet against it.

I'm actually OK with the weighting, thinking their wealth will likely buy innovation. I would rather the 40% included Google, Meta, and Amazon. But Large Growth (VIGAX) which does, excludes the small tech companies and hoped for "Dell Effect."

In general, bonds add little or no value to the portfolio of ordinary long-term investors https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/20231122350/dump-your-bonds-this-new-research-says

I'm 20% Vanguard's Tech fund (VITAX). Because I don't know any better.

Thank you Parsad, and this site too.

The issue isn't the issue. The issue is always the revolution.

By prioritizing security and stability – through surveillance, control, and coercion – over economic dynamism, China’s leaders are abandoning some of the policies and principles that underpinned the country’s “economic miracle.” Unless they change course, the entire global economy will suffer. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/china-growth-slowdown-driven-largely-by-policy-under-xi-jinping-by-takatoshi-ito-2023-11

My vote.

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.