Sinbius

Generally I agree with that kind of mindset...and in the long term you do great with that... But considering the time we are in I can not help myself but to think that the opportunity value of cash increase...of course if I could diversify in 5-10 extremely attractive bet I would do it... I have basically only 3 positions (one of this is BRK) and some cash...not able to spot other 2 extremely appealing (they have to be great not just good) and non correlated bets... Will be there another time in my life when I would be so confident that the $hit is about to hit the fan...?..I don't think so...so I choose some cash to sleep well... Of course I have in the back of my mind the though that I will regret not putting the rest of my portfolio in brk (I have already a 25% position) ... I think that the probability that we are going to have just a minor recession and inflation will disappear, in no time without some big pain, is very very low. (and BTW even if inflation will disappear fast...doesn't work that it doesn't cause huge damage in its travel...)

Can we have a bottom without having tamed inflation (or being near to tame it)?

The first mistake that always come to my mind when I think about investing is when BRK was around book value (lot of years ago) and I didn't went all in on it...image what a stress/work free investment journey I would have had... And I'm thinking...if opportunity presents itself....will I f$ck up again?

First point he did not have 90% in top ten...he was diversified...first he could not put more than 5% in a company and reading the books he talk a bit about it...when he was around 1400 stocks "just" several hundreds was the main portfolio...a lot of stocks... Second point you make...he could...he explain in his books what was his framework...lots of real case studies...not like Buffett that never ever in his life gave a real example on how he invest...when people ask him how to value a company he tells things like two birds in the bush one in the hand and everybody "wow, such a great insight, you are the best teacher, you really changed my investment journey....what should I tell my kid to do with his life?"....

No because he didn't have a 10 stock portfolio...he had several hundreds... So when Buffett has a big portfolio he is at disadvantage because is harder to find good investments to bet in a concentrated way and when he has a small portfolio he is at disadvantage because other people exploit informational advantage better than him...not convinced^^ Buffett had the advantage because of leverage and a concentrated portfolio...and the returns of Lynch are not by luck because he did not have a concentrated portfolio or some macro/sector play like Cathie Wood...

1:The 29% cagr return is on all the 13 years...in the same period when Buffett got less returns...what's the point that his last few years were mediocre? 2:About Regulation FD...Buffett too got that advantage and got to exploit it better because he wasn't so diversified as Lynch.... another handicap that Lynch had vs Buffett but he got better returns anyways...

I give one example but there are others: Peter Lynch had a 2800% return during his tenure at Magellan (29% cagr), compare this with Buffets 2200% return at Berkshire during the same period, 1977 to 1980. Of course the outperformance of Peter Lynch vs Buffett is even more impressive because Buffett used leverage (insurance float) and was concentrated...Peter Lynch had to invest in thousands of stocks...

Ok...let's try to agree first on definition of best... If you define as best as the one who actively worked to compound for the longest time investing in stocks and bonds you are probably right...but that is not a merit...many people chose to focus also on other things in life and money is not the end...just a tool to reach financial independence... If you define as best as the one that has proved to achieve higher return for at least a decade (or I mean a cycle, bull and bear market included)he is not...not even close...

The point is to weight a bit also macro in your thinking process in selecting stocks... For the average investor playing the investing game is stupid (other that regular buying and index over a long period ...and of course also that is stupid if you are not young and "poor"...) ...

I'm not a macro guy...I don't like looking at macro...I follow Peter Lynch advice mainly..."14 minutes on macro are 12 minutes lost ( or something like that)"...I'm just saying Buffett also look at it...because maybe, just maybe what Ted say counts more of what people think to know about Buffett...

I'm not trying to prove...I have proved, and it is not that difficult, that people idealize too much Buffett and what he says...and that people don't even know (and it is easy to spot if you barely follow him) that he also look at the macro picture...and he accounts for it...

..he doesn't return my phone calls...

I don't prove anything...Ted explicitly say they acted on a macro situation thinking in terms of macro outcome to buy stocks...if you want to have confirmation bias and not consider this data you are welcome...

Pls comment on Ted here I Am Home podcast: Lunch With Warren Buffett, Working for Berkshire Hathaway, and the Future of Investments With Ted Weschler on Apple Podcasts at 45:30.. Come here with a straight face and say it is not a macro call....

Fact are that Ted here I Am Home podcast: Lunch With Warren Buffett, Working for Berkshire Hathaway, and the Future of Investments With Ted Weschler on Apple Podcasts at 45:30....explicitly say that they (we) looked at the russian/ukraine situation and acted on what is a macro call (based on past history on how these things played out in the past)... You can not refuse data...

It is a macro call...if he did on Italy it would be wrong ....only america got those high return on the stock market for so long...

I figured it out...he thinks, like he should, not in terms of margin of safety (that's easy to talk about when talking with people and a very primitive model), but in terms of expected value (if you listen Ted podcast of course he also think in that way ...)...How I know he thinks in that way? Because he is not a retard and he also know insurance... And he totally got it wrong but he totally got it right in the decision process and that's what counts...he made the right choice...

Here it is I Am Home podcast: Lunch With Warren Buffett, Working for Berkshire Hathaway, and the Future of Investments With Ted Weschler on Apple Podcasts at 45:30....Ted explicitly say that they (we) looked at the russian/ukraine situation and acted on what is a macro call (based on past history on how these things played out in the past)... I remember also other stuff where it is clear that they look at macro...not going to find all of them...

Isn't the motto "Don't bet against America" a macro call? he looks at macro...he doesn't try to predict the next half year macro event like he does not try to predict the short term market movement...but he looks at macro...he say it...like when he looks at all the companies he has....if their cost are going up...if inflation is advancing...etc... When covid started he went full macro...in protection mode....

Doesn't Buffett have also some kind of Asperger’s Syndrome?...doesn't look like he has a normal type of focus...his social "strategy"/"attitude" come straight from books... He didn't follow much his family...and normal people (like Peter Lynch for example) at a certain point retire and like spend time in other aspect of life...this mono-focus is a symptom of Asperger’s Syndrome...the repetitive way to eat also and not changing other habits....etc etc...

I don't understand why you look only at Buffett for insight on how to invest...there are way better investors out there and way more willing to teach something... And you know right that he looks at macro? Don't you? like when there was covid (I mean it is still here...I mean at the start)...he got totally paralyzed by fear...while others were greedy buying left and right... he looks and finds for metrics about macro....his GDP/market cap...Ted talk in latest podcast when they sit and talk about inflation and how it will end... Charli Munger too is also sometimes a macro guy...Alibaba is mainly a macro call...even my mum can see it is undervalued based on fundamentals...it is just about to judge the macro risks and tailwinds....

I don't know for other people...for me it matters...or better I look stock by stock... The index is still overvalued...isn't it?

I agree ...things are not falling apart yet...only -20% from the SnP 500 e -30% Nasdaq...still 29 Shiller PE and recession coming....let's start the real party shall we?

I would be surprised if this coming earnings season is not a complete disaster...and the next worse...

I think, and I could be wrong, that most start getting worried not because of words or hypothesis about the future...but because top lines AND margins are getting squeezed...people are getting fired... It is not market stock volatility the "problem" that's a good thing...it is the fundamentals of several businesses and the fundamentals of the economy that are going south...