Investing = WORK

[Valuebo]

Olmsted,

Sometimes you just don't know what you don't know.

 

I have been thinking about this as well.. I think it comes down to the "business eye".. Klarman said that he thinks Buffett is a better investor than he since buffett has a better eye for businesses. He has the ability to see these things coming before others, and he stays within that competence circle. Think about it, his biggest mistake was buying BRK when he was young, he would probably not do that mistake today. A college student asked him how he manage to do a back-on-the envelope valuation in 5 minutes, buffett responded: "well its 50 years of preparation and 5 min of valuation. So I think it comes down to the exponential learning curve and the skills and abilities to get higher up on that curve. Munger has said that people wont believe how much Warren is reading.

 

Best,

 

I was already planning on starting a discussion on the subject of reading (and thus obtaining knowledge) and I believe this post from Anders (topic: "selling related question") functions as a great introduction. As I am currently halfway in reading 'The Snowball', after reading 'Buffett' by Lowenstein earlier this year, I am becoming more and more aware of the insane amounts of reading that are necessary to become (only somewhat) knowledgeable about business and investing.

 

I'm currently rereading some chapters of 'Security Analysis' and my conclusion is that so far, after two years as a complete novice, I'm absolutely nowhere yet in terms of truly understanding businesses. I'm only 23 and just graduated, but by that age Buffett had read more than I probably will by the time I'm 50! I love learning and sitting still for hours by myself so I enjoy myself, but reality has really hit me hard lately.  :)

 

Any insights people want to share? How much do you read? What do you read percentage wise (books, reports, company fillings, industry magazines, ...)? Do you focus on specific industries to become an expert or do you try to achieve knowledge in general business and outstanding analytical skills? Etc. etc.

 

In my whole life, I have known no wise people (over a broad subject area) who didn’t read all the time – none, zero. You’d be amazed at how much Warren [buffett] reads – and how much I read. My children laugh at me. They think I’m a book with a couple of legs sticking out.

Charlie Munger

 

I'm not a book with legs yet... But I'm doing my best!

 

 

Tom

 

 

 

[writser]

A very interesting topic. Isn't there a rule of thumb stating that you need at least 10.000 hours to master something? I think the same holds for investing.

 

I also think reading is not enough. You need "deliberate practice" (http://www.amazon.com/Talent-Overrated-World-Class-Performers-EverybodyElse/dp/1591842247), in other words, besides reading a lot you also have to do the hard stuff: building spreadsheets to valuate companies, follow hundred's of companies, monitor share prices, discuss stuff with other investors, analyze what went wrong in past trades, build checklists, etc. Stuff that actually requires effort.

 

For me investing is mostly "a hobby", I put much more time in my work, which at the time is a far better investment for me. But this way I will probably never get results like Buffett, Klarman or Einhorn. These guys have put enormous amounts of effort (and hours) in investing from a very young age. It's like competing with Tiger Woods in golf.

 

An example, I thought the short thesis on GMCR by David Einhorn was very impressive. It was much more thorough than anything else I have ever seen or read about the company. This guy probably knows more about coffee cups than 99.99% of all other investors. The required research involved took months. Not only reading annual reports, but also getting up to speed with the industry, visiting stores, doing market research etc. etc. But the most impressive thing is that, before he found GMCR, he probably did the exact same thing for 20 other companies. If you are reasonably smart and you are willing to put that much effort in it for decades, I'm sure you will become a master investor. But only 1 in a billion people are crazy enough about investing to do that.

 

I read "Confidence game" about Ackman and "Fooling some people all of the time" by Einhorn and the most impressive thing about both cases was for me how hard these guys work. They made enough to never have to work again, yet they risk the reputation of their families, get threatened, criticized in the media and they cannot stop. It's an obsession!

[Kraven]

A very interesting topic. Isn't there a rule of thumb stating that you need at least 10.000 hours to master something? I think the same holds for investing.

 

I also think reading is not enough. You need "deliberate practice" (http://www.amazon.com/Talent-Overrated-World-Class-Performers-EverybodyElse/dp/1591842247), in other words, besides reading a lot you also have to do the hard stuff: building spreadsheets to valuate companies, follow hundred's of companies, monitor share prices, discuss stuff with other investors, analyze what went wrong in past trades, build checklists, etc. Stuff that actually requires effort.

 

Yes, the general assumption is that 10,000 hours is needed to master something.  It's not a true line in the sand, but when they have determined how much time went into allowing experts to become experts it usually comes out to some very large number and 10,000 hours works as a proxy for that.

 

Note too that "deliberate practice" is a broader concept than some make it out to be.  Deliberate practice as it is truly defined is more or less impossible in the investment context.  It requires a specific course of action determined by a coach/teacher/mentor with immediate feedback, etc.  So, for example, Tiger Woods might practice putting from 3 feet over and over again.  He has a coach with him watching his movements.  He gets immediate feedback not from whether he made each put but from the coach talking to him.  This type of thing isn't really possible in the investing world.  No one is sitting with you designing a course of study.  There isn't immediate feedback.  Etc, etc. 

 

But that doesn't mean we can't broaden the definition of deliberate practice and make it work.  The author in the book recognizes that sometimes one designs their own study and has to provide their own feedback.  Also developing a large base of knowledge becomes part of it.  So in this context simply reading, investing, discussing investments, etc all becomes part of one's 10,000 hours in my view.  It's not one thing or another, it's all of it. 

 

Where I think people make mistakes in this area is doing things like blind evaluations.  It doesn't hurt anything, but I don't believe it actually provides the practice that people think it does.  Since nothing is actually analyzed blindly, how does it help to practice blindly?  One could argue that practicing valuation techniques is important and that I can't argue with.  However, I think we would all recognize that a proper valuation has to take into account more than just the numbers on the page.  As a Grahamite, I do tend to place much more emphasis than most on the numbers, but even then, what multiple would you use, as an example?  If I look at 2 companies that have pretty much identical numbers, but find out one is a steel company and one is a service oriented company, do I use the same multiple?

 

In any case, I think that everyone simple does the best they can.  Don't fret over the fact that Buffett was able to spend so much time reading every book in the library by the time he was 2.  You're not going to be Buffett ever.  You're not going to be Munger ever.  Either will I or any of us.  The funny thing is that the best course of action is to be yourself, but it takes time to figure out what that is.  Interestingly as I think Burry pointed out if copying Buffett is so great how come there aren't a bunch of little Buffetts running around?

[giofranchi]

I'm only 23 and just graduated, but by that age Buffett had read more than I probably will by the time I'm 50! I love learning and sitting still for hours by myself so I enjoy myself, but reality has really hit me hard lately.  :)

 

Any insights people want to share? How much do you read? What do you read percentage wise (books, reports, company fillings, industry magazines, ...)? Do you focus on specific industries to become an expert or do you try to achieve knowledge in general business and outstanding analytical skills? Etc. etc.

 

Tom,

you are very young, and I don’t have any doubt that by the age of 50 you will have accumulated an incredible amount of knowledge!

 

Of course, I read everything I can find about the companies I am interested in. I read commentaries by money managers I admire. I read a lot of history and biographies, I think it was Howard Marks who said: At the beginning of my career I had the chance to ask Mr. Munger three things that would help me improve my investment skills, and he answered: “read history, read history, read history”. I also read about economics in general, both micro and macro. Finally, I really love to read about psychology.

 

Something I would suggest is to use audiobooks extensively: it is an incredible “competitive advantage” over Mr. Buffett! Thanks to the audiobook format, now I can read in just a few days books that once took me weeks to finish. And I can do that in parts of the day I couldn’t devote to reading before!

 

giofranchi

[SouthernYankee]

+1 on the audiobooks!

[oddballstocks]

Here's a different out of the box perspective, why not compete with people who have less experience?

 

I'm guessing most real world business owners don't have 10,000 hours of valuation experience or read value investing books constantly yet they acquire and build successful enterprises constantly.  In the private market it's much more rare to find a true bargain, most businesses are fair priced.  Why is that?

 

So there's this strange paradox, in a market where most of the buyers and sellers know less about business prices are more efficient.  A lot of people might disagree with my statement that these people know less about business, but it's true.  Most entrepreneurs know a ton about their product or niche, but not about general business things like capital structure, or acquisitions, or just how to run a business best, they know their product and that's it.

[oddballstocks]

 

In any case, I think that everyone simple does the best they can.  Don't fret over the fact that Buffett was able to spend so much time reading every book in the library by the time he was 2.  You're not going to be Buffett ever.  You're not going to be Munger ever.  Either will I or any of us.  The funny thing is that the best course of action is to be yourself, but it takes time to figure out what that is.  Interestingly as I think Burry pointed out if copying Buffett is so great how come there aren't a bunch of little Buffetts running around?

 

Kraven gets it, know yourself, figure out who you are and what works best for you.  I love the Burry quote, where are the mini Buffetts?  There are a lot of mini Grahams though…food for thought.

[Uccmal]

Oddball and Kraven have covered Buffett pretty well.  He had real life business experience, read alot, and created his own path.  If reading was all that was involved, there would be alot more billionaires.

 

I draw alot from my past and present real jobs to understand how businesses make money.  Believe me, that thins the crowd of value stocks down to a handful pretty quickly.  Munger cheated, or was smart, by hitching his cart to Buffett.  We never would have heard of him, otherwise.

[Kraven]

Munger cheated, or was smart, by hitching his cart to Buffett.  We never would have heard of him, otherwise.

 

This is exactly right.  I am sure a lot of the diehards will be offended by this statement as if it was preordained that Munger be in the pantheon of value investing gods.  Munger was simply a very very smart guy who knew a good horse to ride in on.  I think people forget he was a lawyer making a few extra bucks (or more than a few) on the side doing real estate deals.  While I am sure he would have always become wealthy, perhaps very wealthy, he would just have been one of many.  Buffett is so special because there is really only one of him.  Well, two, if you ask Biglari, but that's another discussion.

[giofranchi]

I'm guessing most real world business owners don't have 10,000 hours of valuation experience or read value investing books constantly yet they acquire and build successful enterprises constantly.  In the private market it's much more rare to find a true bargain, most businesses are fair priced.  Why is that?

 

Very true oddballstocks,

I work every day with a lot of real estate developers and most of them are as ignorant as it gets! Though, it is much harder to find a true bargain in the real estate market than in the stock market. I think the answer lies in how the stock market is conceived and organized: the stock market enables anyone who cares to express his judgment about the worth of a company to do so, every second of the trading day. A lot of different opinions, many times ill-informed opinions, are freely expressed without running too much risk. The result is that the worth of a business seems to vary many times during a single trading session… and the stock market can be psychologically very tiring! If restricted to only those endowed with the right temperament, the stock market would be as efficient as the private market or the real estate market. Instead, being open to anyone, mispricings happen quite often.

Of course, this is obvious, but it is also the reason that enables experienced money managers to keep rotating their funds from one undervalued stock to the other.

 

giofranchi

[txlaw]

Munger cheated, or was smart, by hitching his cart to Buffett.  We never would have heard of him, otherwise.

 

This is exactly right.  I am sure a lot of the diehards will be offended by this statement as if it was preordained that Munger be in the pantheon of value investing gods.  Munger was simply a very very smart guy who knew a good horse to ride in on.  I think people forget he was a lawyer making a few extra bucks (or more than a few) on the side doing real estate deals.  While I am sure he would have always become wealthy, perhaps very wealthy, he would just have been one of many.  Buffett is so special because there is really only one of him.  Well, two, if you ask Biglari, but that's another discussion.

 

I disagree.  Munger is an extraordinary fellow, and the only reason he was able to hitch his cart to WEB's horse is because of his singularity.  I doubt WEB would have allowed that for anyone else.  Maybe Gates if he had met him back then (although Gates didn't need WEB's help becoming wealthy). 

 

Having said that, I do agree that we would never have heard of Munger if he hadn't met WEB.  It was being in the right place at the right time (which is true of WEB as well) that gave him the opportunity to be the guy that a lot of us admire today.

[txlaw]

I would modify the premise of this thread slightly.  I would say that being a Superinvestor = WORK.  Or being an Outstanding Investor = WORK.

 

Because if all you're interested in is building wealth over time in a manner that beats the indexes, you can simply gain the knowledge required to have a fundamental understanding of investing and then implement a method of buying high quality, easy to understand companies at reasonable prices, and then holding over the long run.  This can easily become a basket method of investing. 

 

Or you could just buy BRK or FFH, and you're very likely to beat the S&P over time unless you're putting money into them when they are very overvalued (which never seems to be the case).

 

Then you can spend all the time that would have gone to becoming an outstanding investor on other things, which could be increasing the value of your own intangible assets (which allows you generate more earnings from labor), spending more time with family, a favorite hobby, or whatever.

 

But if you want to trounce the averages, then it's gonna take a lot of reading for sure, at least if you're investing in the public capital markets.  (Note that you don't have to put money into the capital markets to be an investor.)  I read a lot, and it takes up entirely too much of my time in the week, since I have a job where I don't get to read what I want to read.  But I enjoy reading the stuff I do, so that's the way it will be for now.

[Liberty]

A very interesting topic. Isn't there a rule of thumb stating that you need at least 10.000 hours to master something? I think the same holds for investing.

 

I also think reading is not enough. You need "deliberate practice" (http://www.amazon.com/Talent-Overrated-World-Class-Performers-EverybodyElse/dp/1591842247), in other words, besides reading a lot you also have to do the hard stuff: building spreadsheets to valuate companies, follow hundred's of companies, monitor share prices, discuss stuff with other investors, analyze what went wrong in past trades, build checklists, etc. Stuff that actually requires effort.

 

For me investing is mostly "a hobby", I put much more time in my work, which at the time is a far better investment for me. But this way I will probably never get results like Buffett, Klarman or Einhorn. These guys have put enormous amounts of effort (and hours) in investing from a very young age. It's like competing with Tiger Woods in golf.

 

An example, I thought the short thesis on GMCR by David Einhorn was very impressive. It was much more thorough than anything else I have ever seen or read about the company. This guy probably knows more about coffee cups than 99.99% of all other investors. The required research involved took months. Not only reading annual reports, but also getting up to speed with the industry, visiting stores, doing market research etc. etc. But the most impressive thing is that, before he found GMCR, he probably did the exact same thing for 20 other companies. If you are reasonably smart and you are willing to put that much effort in it for decades, I'm sure you will become a master investor. But only 1 in a billion people are crazy enough about investing to do that.

 

I read "Confidence game" about Ackman and "Fooling some people all of the time" by Einhorn and the most impressive thing about both cases was for me how hard these guys work. They made enough to never have to work again, yet they risk the reputation of their families, get threatened, criticized in the media and they cannot stop. It's an obsession!

 

I just want to say, this was an excellent post. Thanks writser!

[racemize]

Where I think people make mistakes in this area is doing things like blind evaluations.  It doesn't hurt anything, but I don't believe it actually provides the practice that people think it does.  Since nothing is actually analyzed blindly, how does it help to practice blindly?  One could argue that practicing valuation techniques is important and that I can't argue with.  However, I think we would all recognize that a proper valuation has to take into account more than just the numbers on the page.  As a Grahamite, I do tend to place much more emphasis than most on the numbers, but even then, what multiple would you use, as an example?  If I look at 2 companies that have pretty much identical numbers, but find out one is a steel company and one is a service oriented company, do I use the same multiple?

 

So, I understand what you are saying, but the blind evaluation can be much more than just using the numbers.  For example, I've been doing the blind evaluations to focus on numbers and try to figure out something about the company based on the numbers alone.  Additionally, I think it is interesting to try to get a sense of what the numbers say and augment that with the qualitative.  For example, if I'm way off on my price with respect to the market, what does that mean?  Taking gamestop in the last blind evaluation, it meant that the qualitative aspects drove down the price because of its outlook.  Similarly, something like coke gets a higher valuation than what the numbers indicate (although maybe not at this point).  Thus, you get feedback loops and can learn from that feedback.  I think this is close to deliberate practice, in fact. 

 

I guess I would agree with you if there was no extra step after learning who the company was, e.g., comparing the numbers valuation to market and determining why there was a difference, seeing if the type of company could be identified, determining red flags and seeing if they could have been spotted using just the numbers, etc. 

 

Speaking of which, I need to get another one up...

 

[MrB]

I would modify the premise of this thread slightly.  I would say that being a Superinvestor = WORK.  Or being an Outstanding Investor = WORK.

 

.....

A very interesting topic. Isn't there a rule of thumb stating that you need at least 10.000 hours to master something? I think the same holds for investing.

 

I also think reading is not enough. You need "deliberate practice" (http://www.amazon.com/Talent-Overrated-World-Class-Performers-EverybodyElse/dp/1591842247), in other words, besides reading a lot you also have to do the hard stuff: building spreadsheets to valuate companies, follow hundred's of companies, monitor share prices, discuss stuff with other investors, analyze what went wrong in past trades, build checklists, etc. Stuff that actually requires effort.

 

For me investing is mostly "a hobby", I put much more time in my work, which at the time is a far better investment for me. But this way I will probably never get results like Buffett, Klarman or Einhorn. These guys have put enormous amounts of effort (and hours) in investing from a very young age. It's like competing with Tiger Woods in golf.

 

An example, I thought the short thesis on GMCR by David Einhorn was very impressive. It was much more thorough than anything else I have ever seen or read about the company. This guy probably knows more about coffee cups than 99.99% of all other investors. The required research involved took months. Not only reading annual reports, but also getting up to speed with the industry, visiting stores, doing market research etc. etc. But the most impressive thing is that, before he found GMCR, he probably did the exact same thing for 20 other companies. If you are reasonably smart and you are willing to put that much effort in it for decades, I'm sure you will become a master investor. But only 1 in a billion people are crazy enough about investing to do that.

 

I read "Confidence game" about Ackman and "Fooling some people all of the time" by Einhorn and the most impressive thing about both cases was for me how hard these guys work. They made enough to never have to work again, yet they risk the reputation of their families, get threatened, criticized in the media and they cannot stop. It's an obsession!

 

I just want to say, this was an excellent post. Thanks writser!

 

Then you can spend all the time that would have gone to becoming an outstanding investor on other things, which could be increasing the value of your own intangible assets (which allows you generate more earnings from labor), spending more time with family, a favorite hobby, or whatever.

 

But if you want to trounce the averages, then it's gonna take a lot of reading for sure, at least if you're investing in the public capital markets.  (Note that you don't have to put money into the capital markets to be an investor.)  I read a lot, and it takes up entirely too much of my time in the week, since I have a job where I don't get to read what I want to read.  But I enjoy reading the stuff I do, so that's the way it will be for now.

 

Depends what you mean by trouncing the indices. 85% of professionals do not beat the market and less than 1% beat it by 3 percentage points or more.

 

Writser...Not saying it applies to you, but I don't think one can call it work. It is fun, not work and who would not want to be obsessed with having this much fun. I always say that I'm not scared to go up against people with more brains than me, because that accounts for the most of them. I'm not scared to go up against the person that started out with more resources and better connections or that was born in the right country/city etc compared to me, because that once again accounts for the most of them. However, the person that does scare me is the one that is more passionate about investment than me, because he/she is having fun while I'm "working" and when it comes to fun v work it is no competition. I'm playing around with words, but I think you will catch my drift.

 

To invert. Why would anybody spend even 5 min doing something they do not feel absolutely destined to do?

Life is too short!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Especially when it comes to investment, because I can think of nothing more boring than a 10k to the average person. That is why the average market participant get such poor results, because what he/she really should be doing is too damn boring and what is exciting to the average investor is exactly what lands them in trouble.

If anyone reading this feels it applies then honestly man. Get a life. Put all your money in an index fund or hand your money to one of those weirdos that's been put on God's green earth for one reason only. To read 100 10k's, pick up the phone and place and order and then repeat. 

 

Go for your passion!

[txlaw]

I would modify the premise of this thread slightly.  I would say that being a Superinvestor = WORK.  Or being an Outstanding Investor = WORK.

 

.....

A very interesting topic. Isn't there a rule of thumb stating that you need at least 10.000 hours to master something? I think the same holds for investing.

 

I also think reading is not enough. You need "deliberate practice" (http://www.amazon.com/Talent-Overrated-World-Class-Performers-EverybodyElse/dp/1591842247), in other words, besides reading a lot you also have to do the hard stuff: building spreadsheets to valuate companies, follow hundred's of companies, monitor share prices, discuss stuff with other investors, analyze what went wrong in past trades, build checklists, etc. Stuff that actually requires effort.

 

For me investing is mostly "a hobby", I put much more time in my work, which at the time is a far better investment for me. But this way I will probably never get results like Buffett, Klarman or Einhorn. These guys have put enormous amounts of effort (and hours) in investing from a very young age. It's like competing with Tiger Woods in golf.

 

An example, I thought the short thesis on GMCR by David Einhorn was very impressive. It was much more thorough than anything else I have ever seen or read about the company. This guy probably knows more about coffee cups than 99.99% of all other investors. The required research involved took months. Not only reading annual reports, but also getting up to speed with the industry, visiting stores, doing market research etc. etc. But the most impressive thing is that, before he found GMCR, he probably did the exact same thing for 20 other companies. If you are reasonably smart and you are willing to put that much effort in it for decades, I'm sure you will become a master investor. But only 1 in a billion people are crazy enough about investing to do that.

 

I read "Confidence game" about Ackman and "Fooling some people all of the time" by Einhorn and the most impressive thing about both cases was for me how hard these guys work. They made enough to never have to work again, yet they risk the reputation of their families, get threatened, criticized in the media and they cannot stop. It's an obsession!

 

I just want to say, this was an excellent post. Thanks writser!

 

Then you can spend all the time that would have gone to becoming an outstanding investor on other things, which could be increasing the value of your own intangible assets (which allows you generate more earnings from labor), spending more time with family, a favorite hobby, or whatever.

 

But if you want to trounce the averages, then it's gonna take a lot of reading for sure, at least if you're investing in the public capital markets.  (Note that you don't have to put money into the capital markets to be an investor.)  I read a lot, and it takes up entirely too much of my time in the week, since I have a job where I don't get to read what I want to read.  But I enjoy reading the stuff I do, so that's the way it will be for now.

 

Depends what you mean by trouncing the indices. 85% of professionals do not beat the market and less than 1% beat it by 3 percentage points or more.

 

True. Reading a lot is necessary but not sufficient to trounce the indices. 

 

Pretty crazy that less than 1% of professionals beat the indices by 300 basis points or more.  I gotta wonder what those guys would do if the market for investment professional services were efficient.  And that figure you cite probably doesn't even take into consideration the fact that investors underperform their investment advisors/managers because of poor decisions they make with regards to putting in and taking out funds from investment vehicles.

[mysticdrew]

Do you guys count reading forums posts here, value investing blogs, articles at gurufocus, etc as "reading" ?

[Guest rimm_never_sleeps]

i think successful investing is more nature than nurture. you have to think a certain way. and you're usually born with it or conditioned for it at a very young age. yes you still need to develop your foundation. But I think it's a profession, maybe like sales, that you can do better than okay simply because you think a certain way or were born with a certain skill set. I'll admit that I don't work as hard as I should or could. in fact what I do end up doing doesn't feel like work. but still manage to beat the indexes. of course my sample size may be too small and I could be in for a rude awakening. :)

[Kraven]

Do you guys count reading forums posts here, value investing blogs, articles at gurufocus, etc as "reading" ?

 

Only Seeking Alpha since the quality of the articles there is unquestionably superior to anything one can find elsewhere.  I believe that if alive now Graham would probably be posting there as well, it's that good.

[oddballstocks]

Do you guys count reading forums posts here, value investing blogs, articles at gurufocus, etc as "reading" ?

 

Only Seeking Alpha since the quality of the articles there is unquestionably superior to anything one can find elsewhere.  I believe that if alive now Graham would probably be posting there as well, it's that good.

 

I think Yahoo message boards as well.  There are some top notch investors on Yahoo, people who claim they've had stocks go up 10,000% in just a few days.  Buffett's got nothing on these guys..

[LC]

Do you guys count reading forums posts here, value investing blogs, articles at gurufocus, etc as "reading" ?

 

Only Seeking Alpha since the quality of the articles there is unquestionably superior to anything one can find elsewhere.  I believe that if alive now Graham would probably be posting there as well, it's that good.

 

I think Yahoo message boards as well.  There are some top notch investors on Yahoo, people who claim they've had stocks go up 10,000% in just a few days.  Buffett's got nothing on these guys..

 

Thanks for the laugh  ;D

[Liberty]

I guess my wife would probably describe me as a book with legs. I've structured my whole life and work to have as much unstructured time as possible - kind of like Buffett, except I did it because it fits with my personality, I only learned later that it's what he also did - to pursue whatever interests I have, and that includes reading lots of books on various topics.

 

To me having all that unstructured time available is the key to getting better at investing. If I had a busy schedule and constantly had to fit investing-related reading into holes, it probably wouldn't work as well.

 

It also gives me a lot of time to post here, as my post count can attest... Sorry guys :)

[jeffmori7]

Liberty, what do you do for a living? I like reading a lot, but you managed to organize your life to read a hell lot more than anybody I know!

[DCG]

I guess my wife would probably describe me as a book with legs. I've structured my whole life and work to have as much unstructured time as possible - kind of like Buffett, except I did it because it fits with my personality, I only learned later that it's what he also did - to pursue whatever interests I have, and that includes reading lots of books on various topics.

 

To me having all that unstructured time available is the key to getting better at investing. If I had a busy schedule and constantly had to fit investing-related reading into holes, it probably wouldn't work as well.

 

It also gives me a lot of time to post here, as my post count can attest... Sorry guys :)

 

I take it you don't have any kids.

[DCG]

I think Yahoo message boards as well.  There are some top notch investors on Yahoo, people who claim they've had stocks go up 10,000% in just a few days.  Buffett's got nothing on these guys..

 

;D