LR1400

Good point! I would wager a large sum that there are very very few people on this site that are not in that 120 IQ and above. I just don't think the "average" person is interested enough or capable enough to research and pursue these ideas, so they probably aren't even on here. Your 100 IQ guy isn't considering these things, he/she probably isn't even investing.

Yes, it's called IQ testing and it's one of the best/most robust findings in the science of psychology. You realise, of course, that basically every elite sports team in the world, in every possible sport, test their players regularly (in ways that are quantifiable) to measure their progress and/or take stock of possible recruits? From what I gather most testing is also highly standardised and not even attempted to be kept secret (i.e. people pretty much agree on what makes players athletic). Why do you think they do that? Their idea of sunday afternoon fun? I must say it's a bit surprising to me that you don't think valuation is an exercise that lends itself to quantification. To each his own, I guess. Didn't say valuation wasn't quantifiable. "they are like valuation to me....a spectrum, a range. Not precise." - valuation is not precisely quantifiable. Hell, Warren and Charlie, the tow people we are talking about, say the EXACT same thing. Re. Atheticism. Yeah sports teams test runs, jumps, etc. That still doesn't say who is the more "athletic". No one can agree on that. One guy runs a 4.5 40, and has a vert of 38" Next guy runs 4.45 40, and has a vert of 34.5" Both clearly athletic and elite. But who's more "athletic"...? No one can say.

Intelligence is extremely easy to quantify.....ok. I believe it can be quantified to a degree, definitively....no. People can’t even agree to a definition of athleticism, much less quantify it. To some people it’s speed and jumping, others stamina, still others acceleration and deceleration (aka changing direction/agility). For others it’s a combination of the above. Even considering a combination of those “athletic” components, how much of each makes one more “athletic” than the other. They are like valuation to me....a spectrum, a range. Not precise. For intelligence and athleticism, I know it when I see it and when I don’t.

Sorry, but what a stupid question. Impossible to quantify. Who's more athletic.....MJ or Lebron, Kobe or Shaq, Antonio Brown or Julio Jones....

I just saw where Fairfax purchased some Fluor shares, not a lot though. I just visited Fluor's office in Sugar Land. All I heard from the people I talked to was doom and gloom. The company has little true US backlog and they are down to 1000 people from over 3000 in past times. I wouldn't buy this company at 41 p/e. I just don't see the value there. They are a good company but I just can't see the value at this price.

Started in 401k in early 2000’s Roth IRA later Individual stocks around 2010. I’ve made some good one choices when kind of coat tailing/understanding the dynamics of an industry (maybe not the company 100%). First individual stock I bought was Exxon. Saw the massive dip in the energy sector and decided to purchase many of those “cigar butts” and they continue to be loses of course. Everything else I own has done well, so far.....gold miners, financials. I keep the portfolio highly concentrated mainly because I feel I need to know quite a bit about the business before buying. Time and opportunity has kept it concentrated and small. I have thought about transitioning to primarily a cigar butt/Schloss style portfolio including international. I have more net worth in real estate now. I like that sector for seemingly more consistent returns, for the ability to use long term debt, etc. Should’ve started earlier.

In other news Hugh Hefner died. Nice gibe

Just makes you want to buy an index and ride it. What fun is that though. I read recently that there's a manager that advises buying the lows of the s&p500. Does anyone know what manager that is?

Kudos to him for the introspection. Though I'm not comparing them to Whitney directly, Munger and Buffett both ultimately didn't enjoy managing other people's money either. It sounds fun but I imagine for you guys that do it as your day job, it can be a tough one. Most businesses are.

So is it confirmed that he took money out of his house and invested it in Berkshire? I'd never heard that before.

Re. Buffett, didn't he advertise in newspapers that he was looking to buy businesses? That is sales and marketing and he was doing it in a time when it wasn't normal to buy an ad like that. He also wrote articles for fortune, etc. He's a sales machine and like you said ALL business is about sales. You're selling when you look for investors, you're selling when you talk to a broker about real estate, etc. And Buffett was selling when he presented to local Omaha investors. He's selling when he's at his annual meeting, on tv.....as you noted. You need a little bit of track record or something to sell though. That's a given.

I feel like I just read my own post! You reference people that only a handful of us have referenced on this site.

Are you in the US? Yes.

A huge benefit of real estate is the ability to get long debt. Without the debt it's not a great investment usually. In apartments you can often get non-recourse. If you feel you want to get out of it quickly you need to have the proper exit plan for it.

Thanks!

So, what is the best place to find a synopsis of companies A to Z? I believe Buffett used Moody's....? Where can hear be found today in a similar format?

He said he didn't know how to operate them. I saved the article, will post it shortly.

This is what I tell my wife everyday!

Buffett didn't buy singer family homes because: 1. He would need to buy a tremendous amount of them. 2. They are a little harder to operate unless you can buy enough in close enough areas to gain the scale benefits that apartments have. Real estate in the form of leasing out doors for rent meets Buffett's criteria of: 1. An existing business, usually with cash flows that meet his return requirements. 2. Reasonably conservative 3. Durable in the since that someone will always need a place to live. You may not have crazy branding that a KO or Neste has but you have barriers to entry if you buy below the replacement cost. Often times building permits per door are as expensive as the purchase per door of an existing building. Real estate that consists of new construction is akin to stock speculation.

I like real estate because of the ability to use leverage. You can take modest savings, throw in a partner and buy a large enough building for someone to manage for you. You can upgrade one that may need it and then raise rents which will add to your equity as well as the reduction of debt per year. You're buying an existing business. Getting 15% return on equity is pretty doable. The leverage matches the asset as well. In most cases, for major people it's easier to find a partner for real estate investment versus partners to start an investment fund for stocks

I stand corrected. I cannot find where Walter had reached a billion and despite his amazing compound returns, I don't think he could get there. I don't know what his initial personal investment into his partnership was. So, it looks like you can get to the 100's of millions net worth range with substantial diversification, like a Christopher Browne. I personally prefer less diversification, but when most on here talk about diversification we aren't even close to discussing what the average "know nothing investor" thinks is diversification. The average investor is going to be in stocks, bonds, gold, all sorts of bullshit and they won't even know why. Everyone on here is usually trying to decide whether 10 or 50 is diversified enough. Most of that is personality driven I believe.

Very true. They do tailor to different audiences and question specifics. I should've noted that as well. I wouldn't even call in contradicting themselves as much as speaking to the speaking question/scenario/audience. It's similar to the debt thing with Warren. He always says not to use it but he will. People have to be smart and think through all aspects. When he says no or little debt he means for the consumer or highly/over leveraged business that can't support that model. Really common sense. Regarding Schloss, my understanding is Walter died with more net worth than Munger will. Not a dick measuring contest, but I wanted to point out that variations of the same strategy can make you just as rich.

I love Munger and his wisdom, however, I'm not sold on his lack of diversification viewpoint. It makes sense that a few big ideas creates the majority of wealth but like others pointed out BRK is significantly diversified as is Liu Li. Also Schloss was highly diversified and seems to have created even more wealth. Many of the other super investors seem to be more diversified as well.

Love Klarman but I can't ever recall reading anything positive from him. He seems to be all doom and gloom.

Maybe, but this is how he's wired. I would imagine he continues this to this day. He likes to make money.