Jeff Matthews: What's Still Underappreciated About BRK

[mrvlad0]

Jeff Matthews on What's Still Underappreciated About Berkshire Hathaway

 

http://bit.ly/1fmjJRm

[Guest longinvestor]

Jeff Matthews on What's Still Underappreciated About Berkshire Hathaway

 

http://bit.ly/1fmjJRm

 

Jeff is right, we wake up every morning to one liners from all those pundits; "everyone is wrong", "oh no, that can't be and here's why Buffett..."

[WhoIsWarren]

Ohhhhhhhh God! I thought that was a terrible interview.

 

Highlighting Buffett's record, the guy thinks it's worth comparing WEB's 48-year 20% p.a. record to the capital appreciation only element of the S&P (two-thirds of the S&P's 9% from dividends).  What???? (Ok, I get that to put increasing amounts of capital to work is very hard, so paying dividends makes it easier keep returns up.  But it's not like dividends aren't important and, in the case of the S&P, couldn't be reinvested).

 

But the thrust of his argument is that people underestimate Buffett and Munger.  Hello??!! Sorry to be blunt, but neither of them are going to be around for long!  (Now, if he'd gone on to say that they have created a unique culture that is likely to be sustained, then I would have agreed with him.....).

 

Also, I really felt he belittled Taleb's view that Soros has a better record than Buffett. Disagree, fair enough.  But don't belittle.  Taleb's view has logic; one never knows......

 

Anyway, I just had to vent steam....  :)

[Kraven]

Some interesting points but he was fawning like a 12 year old girl over Justin Bieber.

[Mephistopheles]

 

But the thrust of his argument is that people underestimate Buffett and Munger.  Hello??!! Sorry to be blunt, but neither of them are going to be around for long!  (Now, if he'd gone on to say that they have created a unique culture that is likely to be sustained, then I would have agreed with him.....).

 

They aren't going to be around too much longer, yes.

 

What does that have to do with people underestimating their investing capabilities?

[Guest longinvestor]

 

But the thrust of his argument is that people underestimate Buffett and Munger.  Hello??!! Sorry to be blunt, but neither of them are going to be around for long!  (Now, if he'd gone on to say that they have created a unique culture that is likely to be sustained, then I would have agreed with him.....).

 

They aren't going to be around too much longer, yes.

 

What does that have to do with people underestimating their investing capabilities?

 

Agree. Besides, in what context are we looking at this? As an analyst, message board poster or an investor who has participated in some of that 20% compounding?. If in the last group, Charlie/Warren would mean more than Justin Bieber. More like naming your grandkids Warren or Charlie!

[WhoIsWarren]

 

But the thrust of his argument is that people underestimate Buffett and Munger.  Hello??!! Sorry to be blunt, but neither of them are going to be around for long!  (Now, if he'd gone on to say that they have created a unique culture that is likely to be sustained, then I would have agreed with him.....).

 

They aren't going to be around too much longer, yes.

 

What does that have to do with people underestimating their investing capabilities?

 

Well ok, maybe I jumped the gun.  The title of the interview is "What's Still Underappreciated About BRK", which I take to mean BRK the stock.  And in that context, the interviewee should be thinking about the next 48 years, not the last.

 

If the question is instead referring to what's underappreciated about BRK's track record, well then of course he should talk about how great Warren and Charlie are (i.e. I was too harsh in my earlier comments).

 

Ack, I probably shouldn't have commented.  It's just another opinion.  And as Clint Eastwood said: "Opinions are like assholes -- everyone's got one."