Valuebo

Right, forgot about that reason. Read it a few years ago. Thanks.

Especially considering Munger has said that GOOG has the widdest moat he has ever seen. Maybe they considered regulation risk too?

Everybody is fallible, including Buffett. But I don’t think that passing on AMZN, GOOG or FB is equivalent to making a mistake. Those companies weren’t sure things when they were smaller/cheaper, and putting money into something where the price to owner’s earnings is ridiculously high because the market assumes it will grow and grow is more of a guessing game than investing. Moats used to be way more stable and difficult to overcome. Technology disruption changed that and the likes of Buffett (myself included though much younger) are adapting to this new paradigm of assets-light companies with ever-changing moats. Anyway, I don’t think we will ever see another investor with the capacity to achieve such great results for more than 60 years while maintaining an honest and humble attitude. It really doesn’t matter if he missed the likes of Intel, Wal-mart or Facebook, on the contrary, what’s incredible is that he achieved the impossible even after missing those great companies! I'm not saying those were his mistakes? Are you all purposefully trying to misread my posts? ;) Or are you replying to ScottHall? I'm basically saying the same as you, DanielGMask. Not buying MSFT since the nineties is an example of an error of omission in my opinion. So I have a different view of what his mistakes are than ScottHall. Would be ridiculous to assume there is an investor out there that doesn't make mistakes anyway.

Good of him to own up to this. He has cost shareholders a lot in terms of opportunity cost the past decade, hate to say it but it's true. Outside the GFC Berkshire has done nothing impressive and TBH even considering that opportunity returns have not been that impressive compared to what they should have been with the "world's greatest investor" at the helm. Munger says Buffett keeps getting better with age. I don't see it, honestly. He's still very good but I don't get the impression he or Berkshire have morphed with the times in the way that is sold. It's cool he's trying new things with Apple, maybe he'll get his old groove back sooner or later. I'd say that is a little too negative considering size, market conditions and cash position. Ask Prem Watsa about true opportunity costs... Hell, ask most decent fund managers with a strong value bent. They'll come back in vogue at some point too. Buffett was buying in 08/09 while many were trembling with fear. And he still did some decent deals like you said. That's more than most can say. Nothing mindblowing but he has still kept up with the market and its soaring tech stocks with enormous cash levels. Maybe he got better with age but certain conditions make it very hard to see this. I'd love to see what happens if the S&P500 drops two or three years in a row! Also, selecting Todd and Ted, who both seem to be beating the market, is impressive in itself imo. They are not managing a few hunderd million... So easy to say in hindsight that BRK did poor vs broader market. Maybe one of his biggest mistakes is not buying MSFT a few years back and going after IBM. (With IBM he fell prey to a backwards looking fallacy as someone else put it here. "They have always reinvented themselves thus they will do it again.") But who would have guessed Amazon, Google, Apple, Netflix, Facebook, ... would be where they are today. Five years ago, 99%+ of analysts, investors etc would have called you insane if you dared to predict this outcome. Do you know about many fund managers who got extraordinary outperformance vs the market? In any case, I would have slept better owning 100% BRK than 100% S&P500 in the last 9 years. For the last 20 years, BRK has been a great stock to own in size at certain points in time. Good investors were best to trade around that. Early 2000 and 2011/2012 were two such occasions where the investment case was a no-brainer. Many didn't see it in 2000 and 2011 and I'm sure Mr Market will be blinded once again in the future. I really don't think that's true. I and many others have made very good returns on Facebook, Amazon and Google over the past five years. I sold out of Facebook recently - I will buy back in - held it since 2014 and had 137% gain on the position. Still have AMZN and GOOG. I didn't miss these stocks and a lot of people on these forums think I'm one of the biggest idiots on here. I beat Buffett at growth investing, so did a lot of others on this forum TBH. He owns up to his mistake and there's no shame in making mistakes, but to say that 99% of people couldn't figure those stocks out seems a little silly to me. Maybe I didn't make clear enough what I meant exactly. There is a difference between figuring some of these stocks out and predicting that they would be 5-10 baggers from 2013 levels. I'm not stating that 99% didn't figure these out, I'm saying that most people would have laughed in your face when you would have claimed, for instance, that Netflix would have a $140B market cap in early 2018. 99% seems about right to me, but the number was meant more to make a point. Could be 95%+ just the same. My point is that sentiment was véry different back then and that it was not easy to predict this outcome. If you and others did, you guys are eithers very bright or very lucky. I remember you buying FB a few years back, so congratz! (As an aside: I wouldn't assume the average money manager is on par with the brighest on this forum tbh. Or they might be but have various reasons (career risk etc) not to act on it.) Would love to see if we could find more than a handful of fund managers who have, in the last 9 years, either: 1) trailed the S&P500 with an equal cash balance on average; 2) outperformed the S&P500 with >10b in assets. I'm also very interested to see how these managers will fare from now until after the next stock market slump versus Buffett, Todd and Ted. Somehow I feel I already know the answer. Anyway, I think we both agree that Buffett is still very good but that he made some mistakes. So not really a big difference in opinion. Given the circumstances I just believe these mistakes are understandable and minor. Buffett isn't omniscient.

Good of him to own up to this. He has cost shareholders a lot in terms of opportunity cost the past decade, hate to say it but it's true. Outside the GFC Berkshire has done nothing impressive and TBH even considering that opportunity returns have not been that impressive compared to what they should have been with the "world's greatest investor" at the helm. Munger says Buffett keeps getting better with age. I don't see it, honestly. He's still very good but I don't get the impression he or Berkshire have morphed with the times in the way that is sold. It's cool he's trying new things with Apple, maybe he'll get his old groove back sooner or later. I'd say that is a little too negative considering size, market conditions and cash position. Ask Prem Watsa about true opportunity costs... Hell, ask most decent fund managers with a strong value bent. They'll come back in vogue at some point too. Buffett was buying in 08/09 while many were trembling with fear. And he still did some decent deals like you said. That's more than most can say. Nothing mindblowing but he has still kept up with the market and its soaring tech stocks with enormous cash levels. Maybe he got better with age but certain conditions make it very hard to see this. I'd love to see what happens if the S&P500 drops two or three years in a row! Also, selecting Todd and Ted, who both seem to be beating the market, is impressive in itself imo. They are not managing a few hunderd million... So easy to say in hindsight that BRK did poor vs broader market. Maybe one of his biggest mistakes is not buying MSFT a few years back and going after IBM. (With IBM he fell prey to a backwards looking fallacy as someone else put it here. "They have always reinvented themselves thus they will do it again.") But who would have guessed Amazon, Google, Apple, Netflix, Facebook, ... would be where they are today. Five years ago, 99%+ of analysts, investors etc would have called you insane if you dared to predict this outcome. Do you know about many fund managers who got extraordinary outperformance vs the market? In any case, I would have slept better owning 100% BRK than 100% S&P500 in the last 9 years. For the last 20 years, BRK has been a great stock to own in size at certain points in time. Good investors were best to trade around that. Early 2000 and 2011/2012 were two such occasions where the investment case was a no-brainer. Many didn't see it in 2000 and 2011 and I'm sure Mr Market will be blinded once again in the future.

On mobile you can still read everything.

Thanks Jurgis. I've had this on my book shelf for a few years. Your recommendation will prevent me from buying 5 new books before I read this one! ;)

I bought some ATU.V as well. We must have been most of the volume from the buy side since not much traded. Probably! :D How are your positions sized in oil? GXE position for me is far larger than ppr, IPO and atu but I might add if they stay ignored. They will likely fly under the radar for some time. Or they could double overnight, who knows!

IPO.TO, ATU.V, RIG leaps otm (speculative), TOO and more GXE. Went on a buying spree this week after selling some of my CRC options last week. Was getting trouble sleeping well. :D Bought more PPR, ATU and IPO with CRC call winnings.

there seems to be this sort of trend lately in many books. repeat what others have said in more defining game changing works somehow do a lot of podcast interviews and publicity type things. drive book sales Most investment books are derivative too. I think it's just a symptom of being well read. When you start out on your learning journey, everything seems fresh and original. When you've been reading about investing/psychology/etc for a decade or two, everything starts to seem similar. I guess if everything was groundbreaking, it wouldn't be so notable to find true groundbreaking work... Well said!

Wow, nice work. Thanks for the effort and sharing this. I don't know whether the most recommended books are necessarily the best however. On the other hand, I've read 17 out of the first 20 books. ;D On a seperate note, I don't believe how many people still seem to believe 'Think and Grow Rich' is worth their time. It's the predecessor of 'The Secret', which is even worse. The things that aren't bat shit crazy or overly simplistic are simply too redundant to write about. In that regard, not surprised to see Tony Robbins and Mohnish Pabrai believe it is great...

Will look into it. Appreciated!

Any special insights in the BRY earnings report? Been eyeing this for a while.

Yes, Sapiens is the best book I read in 2018 so far. Will read Homo Deus soon as well. I will reread Sapiens within the next two years. Also liked Influence, Priceless and man's search for meaning YTD. Priceless not really recommended maybe if you already read Kahneman's book.

When basic needs are met, all extra's are a luxury and should be weighted against other options. For example, I think everyone can agree that replacing a 10 year old kitchen is generally a luxury and not a necessity. If you think about a home as something where money is no issue, you should think about a lot of expenses in that way. Yet many people cut other expenses fiercly to spend as much as possible on their home. Research has shown over and over that we adapt very quickly (a matter of weeks) to newfound wealth or poverity. But somehow many believe throwing more money into your home is a great investment to raise your medium and long term hapiness level. Even if that was the case, you have to weigh it against other 'hapiness raising investments'. We are renting and paying the equivalent of a 2.4% rental yield gross. Rental price locked in for another 7 years but we are free to get out at any time. We are the first renters, no previous inhabitants as it is newly built. House in perfect condition. If we want to buy something like it, we have to pay a 7% tax, other costs and a yearly recurring tax, dropping the yield considerably. Over time you incur costs as an owner. We do not have to fear rising interest rates or liquidity problems. Risk free rate is 1% in Belgium. If it doubles, many are fucked investment wise and I could profit from it if I decided to buy. I have to put in insane assumptions in the NY Times calculator to make buying the better option. So who really has the intangible benefit in a lopsided housing market where owning a home is viewed as Valhalla? I'm sure the situation is not as extreme in other countries. But that is part of my point: If you don't look at the financial side of your home; you risk making mistakes. And you can't just assume past performance will continue ad infinitum. Absolute thinking is stupid.

http://www.gbm.scotiabank.com/scpt/gbm/scotiaeconomics63/pipeline_approval_delays_2018-02-20.pdf Insane!

Try searching through Google with "site:...".

Also want to point out that a VXO above 40 has historically been a great buy signal (max fear). We might see that sooner than most expect.

Found this on the hilarious subreddit r/bitcoin. Catchy! If this continues, I wonder whether we will see a suicide spike for males in the age group 18-35 in the western world? Big believers that experience their first crash after obtaining considerable paper wealth? Yeah, that is going to sting. Probably feels worse than for those multi-millionaires in 2008 who merely lost half of their fortune and would have been able to recuperate over time, and felt that was enough to jump out the window of a Wall Street skycraper. Below age 25, you generally shouldn't expect too much rationality from male adults...

Why would anyone ever look at it from another point than "what it has grown to"? You still risk the same amount, regardless of where the wealth initially came from or what amount you invested versus your total wealth. Depending on where money comes from (income, inheritance, investment returns, bonus, windfalls, etc.) people tend to invest differently. This is completely irrational behavior. I do it too of course but try to be at least aware of it. And if you decide to hold your current positions, you are effectively making the decision to buy them now at current prices. Ask yourself if you would hold the same positions if you were to start over with a new portfolio. Specifically ask yourself this: If I were to restart with 100% in cash and the same knowledge, would I invest 40-45% in crypto's today? More power to you if you would. Just make sure that it is a conscious decision.

The divergence of the currency pair vs the PPP index was very high during 2016 and early 2017 and sooner or later that gap needed to close at least a bit. I personally don't ever worry about currencies as a European investor. Currently I hold stocks in Canada, USA, Hong Kong, Australia and Europe. If I'm not mistaken, over very long time periods the impact of currency fluctuations on results is minimal. In any case I simply think it is good diversification too.

I like his commodity picks! ;)

NAL.to is up 83% since this post. I wonder what's going on? Is a much more valuable company with $60+ oil. Many are but some haven't budged at all. Perfectly efficient markets!

That's what I thought about 2017... Not me. Divergence between stocks, fundamentals and oil prices has become much higher. But I have been long GXE for some time now as well. ;)

GXE and other cheap oil stocks. Set to outperform at current prices and to do extremely well with higher prices.