- He consistently communicated with shareholders of Berkshire in a straight-forward and transparent way in his letters and annual reports. If you read these documents, I believe that you will have a solid understanding of how he built Berkshire.
- He maintained a disciplined approach to investing and managing risk over 60+ years.
- He still lives in the same home he bought when he was 28 years old.
That said, it makes me a little sad that we've read the last of his annual letters.
Its probably worth noting that I mean "enough" in the context of consumption and physical goods. "Enough" wealth doesn't really matter, its only a number in a database or a piece of paper until you spend it.
You can buy a bigger and bigger house car tv stereo whatever, but it will not make you happy.
Well that seems like an assumption! Plenty of people are happier with nicer things. I don't think we need to tell people what should make them happy.
Are they truly happier, in the sense of being more content? Or are they just deriving more temporary pleasure from the hedonic treadmill they're on?
You can probably tell by how long their happiness with their house / car / TV / fill-in-the-blank lasts before they start thinking about trading up to an even nicer fill-in-the-blank.
Buddhist monk Matthieu Ricard wrote a great book on happiness, here's an excerpt I enjoy which talks about the difference between pleasure and happiness, in two parts. [1] [2]
1. https://www.matthieuricard.org/en/pleasure-and-happiness-the...
2. https://www.matthieuricard.org/en/pleasure-and-happiness-the...
Happiness is unsustainable. However, contentment is an attainable goal.
I didn't grow up here—my wife did. Very early on, when I first visited Omaha, she drove me by his place. After three decades or so in California, I retired and we moved back to her hometown. Buffett is still there.
Speak for yourself. There are a lot of aspects to being happy, and having to not want for things certainly helps.
> But you can do that without any money.
Well...
Material things can contribute to happiness, or detract.
Balancing the things we spend our life on, relative to an understanding of what makes us happy, is going to be an idiosyncratic exercise. Assuming that X won't contribute to the happiness of person Y is some deep projection.
There seem to be many kinds of happiness too. Would I remain happy if I lost my house? Yes. I have gone through enough ups and downs to know that. But would I feel as fulfilled? No. I have gone through enough ups and downs to know that.
If a bigger house makes you happy because you have space for your hobbies and you don't need to fight with your family members for space, buy a bigger house.
The whole "money doesn't bring happiness" thing is bullshit unless you are a Buddha.
A mansion in Malibu isn't going to make me happy, because I wouldn't know what the hell to do in Malibu. An upgrade from a 2-bedroom to a 4-bedroom home with a garage so I don't have to smell laser cutter fumes anymore and hack a ventilation system out a bedroom window? That very well might.
Really makes me wonder what drives him. For many people it's the money, but with him it doesn't seem that way. But I haven't read too much about him, so if anyone has insight I'd love to hear about it.
There was a cool fact in there that he sees every price tag as the opportunity cost with compounding interest.
The score keeping aspect makes it interesting, just like playing tennis while keeping score is more interesting than just hitting a ball back and forth across the net without counting.
Warren Buffett wouldn't be where he was if he wasn't obsessed with money. But to your point, that doesn't have to translate to material goods: the bigger house, yachts, etc.
When I was younger I rented furniture from a company called CORT. I happened to notice on the contract or receipt or something, that it was a Berkshire company (I didn't know that before then).
If I were Warren Buffet, I would have been happy to know that someone was a satisfied customer of one of his companies. I got some decent furniture for a few months at a reasonable price.
Just like I'm happy when someone is a satisfied user of my software.
Also, given that he is a billionaire, I do kind of assume that he has paid money to upgrade his home at some point, probably also owns additional homes elsewhere, maybe has done other things with his vast amount of money that normal people don't do, that are still consistent with living at the same address as when he was 28.
He had 3 kids, and a 3500 sq ft house is, IMO, an extremely average size for any decently paid professional where I live with a family that size. It basically looks like something that had everything he needed, and anything beyond that that you so often see in rich people houses is just for show and bling.
It also stands in contrast to the other celebrities and business leaders featured on that site. If they had a ranking ordered by size/value ascending, I wonder what number he would be. I still suspect it'd be near the top.
That's the moral though. He didn't need it so he didn't do it. Whereas so many others with so much less do so much more.
But it is quite possible to be a kind of lazy where even 10-20x current wealth, people would live where they currently live. American neighborhoods are reasonable that way. It is just primary home and they would holiday/vacation wherever.
Perhaps the best thing Buffet has managed to do is to live long. Most of compounding magic begins at ages 60-65, a time where most investors start to die out.
Second best thing he did was to start/acquire a insurance firm. The 'float' helps them to run a kind of in house index fund on other peoples money, without having to pay TERs/Fees. Thats basically no effort bogle style compounding. Even if you end with a situation where you have to return ALL the premiums collected, you still get to keep the returns.
Other wise everything else is just fairly normal, if you are sitting in front of charts for long, its impossible to miss something that's going up on a weekly timeframe for long periods of time. You just pyramid upwards and wait, patiently.
The real issue is waiting doesn't work too well for most people as you start to die out after 60.
It's the soda and the shakes and the fries that'll getcha.
America threw off a king and founded a republic. Equality is a founding value and one we still respect. A rich man keeping his habits despite his wealth, and doing so next to the rest of us, is a role model for other up and comers.
(The Romans had a similar thing about pastoral farmers. Every culture has its myth, and we like it when those in power try to live up to it.)
But:
It’s 42 minutes by foot one way, which is on the longer end for most people. About half of it is pleasantly walkable, the rest looking like no trees and along a busy street.
… For probably six months out of the year, the rest being too uncomfortably hot or windy/cold for most people.
And he’s probably wearing a suit and leather shoes every day, so you risk wet/muddy shoes, road salt, or dripping in sweat or rain. Mess up your hair with a hat in the winter.
And if you are going anywhere after, you’ll need a car anyway. The rest of Omaha is not walkable and quite hilly.
And he’s old, quite old. He’s been old for decades. Some people can do 3.6mi/day in their 50s-80s but most will not.
And his time value in literally among the… top ten in the world or so? And has been for decades?
I say all this as a relatively extreme walking advocate: for most people in some locales (including most of America), it just doesn’t make sense, and this criticism is very silly.
He’s Warren Buffet, so he could make this work if he wanted to. He could insist everyone come to him at his home while he wears pajamas.
But it’s not unreasonable to drive this commute.
And you can get a decent breakfast at McDonald’s too :D
Buddy you're fighting against 3000 years of dilution. Let people have their word
For many people, stopping by McDonalds inspires guilt, and not just because it’s a bad nutritional choice, but rather because that’s how thin the margins are. I still remember all of these things about my 20s. Now, a couple decades later and by no means super-wealthy, I will happily ignore grocery prices, pay for specialist care and sort of just eyeball my checking account every week or so to make sure I don’t need to shuffle something around.
Not dogging anyone who wants to enjoy the “simple” things in life, and I’m probably one of the more pro-billionaire people on this site (which is hilarious given what this site is really about), but I think most of us are out of touch with what the average American experiences. Midnight Taco Bell runs are an escape for those folks as much as they are a guilty pleasure. I’m happy that for me they can just be the latter.
We expect the ultra-wealthy to eat at the French Laundry in California, to have chauffeurs, to live in New York penthouses…
The internet citizen is so often convinced that everyone with a high net worth is crooked, cheated to get where they are at, and would be even more morally corrupt if only they weren't so undeserving as to be incompetent of the ways to do so.
So often the ambitious can believe that to succeed one must perform ultra sexy acts of innovation multiplied by inhuman hours of naive young team members. This pressure can drive us to be impatient, reckless, and unscrupulous.
When we look at most startup CEOs who make it big, we say "don't try to emulate them" because we know they took huge risks and rolled at least a few good numbers. A person can emulate Warren Buffet. It's just patient and prudent, avoiding self-deception for decades. Yet it is excruciating. If not for Warren Buffet, so many would say, "It's not worth it" or "It will never work because you'll slip up."
Being at least an anecdote that being honest and right can work out in the long run is a herculean counterweight against the vast traps of cynicism that can lead many to defeat themselves before they even try. It's tough to keep going or commit to that path, especially as your options keep going up. Few else tried because it takes an entire lifetime. Making it work saved a lot of people from a lot of imprudent choices and will continue to save more. That is heroic.
Also his bets on GEICO were probably a little impatient, reckless, and unscrupulous, but that's fine.
He is one of the finest businessmen to study and certainly one of the more moral billionaires.
But I agree with the person suggesting not diluting the word.
Combined that with his "frugal" and "creature of habit" reputations, that might explain is morning routine.
Pretty sure Mr Buffet mostly eats salads.
If you can afford to eat McDonald's nobody cares (well it's not healthy either but that's a different matter that doesn't really have to do with being poor or not)
You can't budget your way out of being poor. Most actually poor people (as opposed to people who have a substance abuse problem) I know have a very good grasp of their budget as they are constantly shifting money around figuring out which bills they have to pay and which bills they can put off.
You get out of being poor by getting more money. Period. Nothing else works.
Yes, more money doesn't guarantee you get out of being poor, and we all know people who got a windfall and then were worse off than before.
However, insufficient money absolutely does guarantee that you will be poor indefinitely.
You can absolutely reconsolidate and budget your way out of debt, though. Or budget your way to having a savings account when you're earning the median income.
While you can't budget your way out of being poor if you have a very low income you absolutely can keep yourself poor by not budgeting no matter how much you make
I don't know why you seem to take offense with a simple suggestion that will help reduce how much you spend
There are people who make six figures who are in debt because they overspend and food is often one of the biggest factors in that
Those people aren't "poor". They aren't worried about eating or staying warm.
"Poor" is when you are deciding between fixing the car you need for work and whether or not you will have electricity the last 4 days of the month. You don't fix that with "clever budgeting".
But yes obviously there are levels to it however regardless if you are buying overpriced fast food when you could be cooking at home for much cheaper that's not good for anybody especially if you don't make a lot of money... So what's your point other than trying to argue over the definition of poor?
If you don't have an emergency fund and your car breaks down and then you have to get into debt to fix it and then you have to spend more paying interest on that debt and you get stuck in a cycle... Compare that to reducing your expenses by not buying fast food and building up an emergency fund and not getting stuck in that situation to begin with
Because people make political decisions about programs that support the "poor" and the definition matters.
In particular, if a program supports the "poor" and winds up handing money to someone who is making $100K, there are a lot of people who will scream about that and attempt to cut off all support for all poor people.
This was the whole the point behind the racist "welfare queens" dog whistles, for example.
I know multiple folks who did this. Poor people aren’t mentally deficient. (Often they’re sturdier than those of us who grew up comfortably enough.)
> unexpected expenses and cost of living increases destroy your budget a lot more than McDonald’s
This is correct. But it’s true for most Americans when we consider medical debt.
Budgeting and analyzing spending and risk is still sensible.
For family? Not really
In fact he had his main residence in Switzerland and was filthy rich which is a bit of a hard swallow especially in Sweden, a country still very much affected by the "Law of Jante".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante
A reporter that was doing a documentary about his wealth asked him once directly when stepping out of his old Volvo and Kamprad kinda lost it; it was a big kerfuffle at the time on the telly.
For those paying attention it was really revealing about the true nature of the man (let me add he was a young Nazi back in the day).
Most people came to his defense like the red-blooded capitalist gentleman commenting above about Buffet being a 100% American.
The older generation still swallow the farce hook, line and sinker. For the rest of us it's pretty clear it was a well thought-out facade to placate the plebeians to sell more cheap furniture.
He remained a Nazi member well into the 1950s, which I find truly bizzare.
On a tangent I also found this recently about Le Corbusier:
---
Research from the last decade, primarily from a series of books published in 2015 and released correspondence, has confirmed that the influential modernist architect Le Corbusier was a fascist and antisemite with ties to the Nazi-collaborationist Vichy regime in France.
--
He wanted to build this in Stockholm in 1933:
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xXwAtQqkN6c/XM3Brj-ZkuI/AAAAAAAAv...
Buffet had an active and direct role in making this happen. He supported and advocated for monopoly, and profited from it.
He lived a lavish life that included opulent mansions and private jets, and used his resources to deftly drive a media narrative of himself as a regular guy, with apparent success as your post demonstrates.
Or are you saying the general environment of high finance supports this?
No doubt he had more money than he needed but if this is referring to his preference for coka-cola and apple stock / any stocks with the ability to set their own prices because of market dominance, I feel like that’s not a totally fair criticism.
https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/warren-buffett-americas-f...
And this bit is tripe: “Buffett is the avatar of monopoly. This is a guy whose investments philosophy is literally that of a monopolist. I mean, he invented this sort of term, the economic ‘moat,’ that if you build a moat around your business, then it's going to be successful. I mean, this is the language of building monopoly power.”
Seeking moats isn’t monopolistic. It’s inherent to competition.
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/180675/trump-the-ar...
THAT SAID...
My uncle (he's 98) had a passing acquaintance with Buffett during their overlap at Penn, and in the one econ class they shared, he remarked having heard Buffett say in almost salivating eagerness as he rubbed his hands that if only there could be another Great Depression, he would make a killing. The dude has value investing in his DNA beyond anything else, I truly believe. But he's argued for changing complex and unfair taxation, and always been a good citizen as far as I can tell. I think if all of Wall Street were like him, the world would be a much better place.
Edit: Some people seem to be misunderstanding me. I'm saying if he thought taxation was unequal or thought wealth inequality was a problem, he could have used his wealth specifically to fight against billionaires like himself, not just give money towards generic charitable causes.
Because the money isn’t being spent on your pet issue it’s being mis-spent?
Do you have evidence he didn’t try? He’s been a prolific (albeit measured) donor to candidates who have pushed for this [1].
From what I can tell, Buffett enjoyed making money. He outsourced his philanthropy to Bill & Melinda Gates. Their focus has tended to be global poverty.
[1] https://www.opensecrets.org/search?order=desc&q=warren+buffe...
You want another billionaire to create a super PAC?
He turned 95 years old on August 30. He was 75 when he began giving away his fortune, announcing plans in June 2006 to give away the bulk of his wealth to five foundations, primarily the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. He changed his will in 2024, designating 99.5% of his remaining fortune after his death to a charitable trust overseen by his three children and also announcing in June 2024 that donations to the Gates Foundation would cease upon his death.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/buffett-kin...
if you want to know what his kids are up to.
Banks do not store their deposits in a cash vault. They loan it out (except for a reserve percentage), and charge interest on the loan. That's how they make money. That's why they offer free checking - so they can loan your money out and charge interest. They will even pay you to deposit your money, so they can loan it out and make money on it.
Wealthy people know how to make money, which means putting the money to productive use creating goods and services that people want. If that money is confiscated from them, there's that much less money creating goods and services people want.
Life imitates art, I suppose.
The idea that humans have destroyed the planet is quite silly.
Is this Stockholm Syndrome?
Buffett didn’t get, for example, a small loan of a million dollars to start. He’s been working at this longer than probably anyone what will ever read this comment has been alive.
He doesn’t care about the money in the sense I feel you’re implying.
Nobody is perfect, and holding anyone to that standard sets an impossible threshold.
I don’t know how familiar you are with Warren Buffett, but I would encourage you to dig into his Wikipedia page at least, however accurate we think that is these days.
Buffett started with 1.2 million dollars (105K in 1956) in investments from his family, i.e. his aunt, sister, and father in law.
It is very nearly impossible to get rich without starting with a huge chunk of money, Buffett is no exception.
Warren buffet did good and he came up with a winning strategy. Momentum was ultimately his friend and what drove his success. When ETFs are great today and their popularity largely because of Warren, I think a lot of what's increasingly becoming obviously wrong with the markets ties back to the original strategy behind ETFs.
There's no more self selection or focus on fundamentals. All pensions are now exposed and regular contributors to the markets, so winner and losing picking doesn't really exist in the same way and performance is no longer tied to reality. I dread what that means as populations stagnant since it puts some risk on future pensions and their somewhat ponzi-esque structure.
All the pessimistic rants aside - it's insane to refer me to a billionaire's wiki as an attempt to get to know them. I largely look at people based on how they might treat family, friends, strangers, etc. In that regard, I'm mixed.
Happy New Year to you too.
He's not exactly curing cancer but i could think of a lot more underhanded ways to make billions. I think he is above average ethically relative to his billionaire peers.
I dislike plastic pollution as much as you do, but your elected representatives have more responsibility here than Buffett.
Does Coca Cola make plastic bottles? I thought their whole deal is they sell syrup to local bottlers.
I don't know to what extent Buffet does it. Nor does our current quasi-fascist society where the government is highly embedded with industry and regulating who is the winner and who is the loser and then taxing/inflating the working class to make sure they stay afloat.
But in the idealistic version of America, it is supposed to be a place where becoming a billionaire means you are not just producing billions of profit for yourself, but billions of value for others. That every deal, both sides are better off. This is what we aspire to, the whole ideal towards voluntary trade and capitalism as a method a tide that rises almost all boats and at the very least doesn't involve sinking another boat lower.
Idk how that can be considered a “life centered around greed”
In any case, I hope Warren can experience not working at all in the few years he likely has left after being alive for over 1/3 of his country's existence!
Respect.
Of course, no one knows the future so who knows if this will continue.
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/asset-correlations#analy...
Sort of like holding boring dividend stocks without the dividend.
I'm generally overly conservative, so this is somewhat of a middle ground. Along the lines of the best diet is the one you can consistently stick with, not necessarily the most theoretically optimal one. Same goes with investing for me.
I intellectually understand it's likely a worse bet than just dumping 100% into VTI or whatnot, but investing isn't simply a mathematical game - at least in my case.
> A tidal wave has been rolling through this country sweeping away everyone who follows the safe socially sanctioned wisdom about investing.
Agreed. I'd be retired now if I would have been able to shake the conventional wisdom in this area and just YOLO'ed it.
Moment of fame stretched over 60 year of clipping coupons off of that initial fame.
The thing that made it possible was that he was content with his performance and never tried to one up himself. He kept his fame and market interest in him simmering over six decades inatead burning out in one bright flash.
I know one anecdote is not data, but his investment in BYD all the way back in 2008 does counter that viewpoint somewhat - his investment success in the BYD case isn’t from other investors following him in, it’s from him identifying BYD as a successful company far before any other major investors did.
There is and it’s found in float, leverage and low-volatility assets [1].
If you look at what he does, that becomes clear. If you only pay attention to how people talk about him on the internet, you’ll be misled into seeing trend following.
[1] https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w19681/w196...
That sure does trivialize him. If that was your goal, you nailed it.
I personally don’t think that’s a fair take, but I’ve no interest in trying to change your mind.
Pretty much. I'm always interested what's left once I reject te ususal narratives that people keep repeating to each other. I find this kind of excercise insightful and satisfying.
While in every working thing there's myriad of significant details, the main engine of operation is usually just one usually quite straightforward thing. I like making attempts at recognizing those main things. I'm sometimes wrong but even when I am I find satisfaction that I tried instead just repeating some selection of what other people said.
Now there are few of these and it is hard to do.
I don't know enough to know whether it is right or wrong. but I think that is what I read.
Although it doesn't seem that way, there are lot of companies that have become large recently, it is best time ever historically for companies to be able to grow large quickly much more so than 50 years ago in the early days of BH.
There are 1000+ unicorns today, about 50 of the fortune 500 are founded > 2000, a large number of companies that have chosen to remain private with revenues in excess of >$10B like Stripe or SpaceX etc
While it is true that lot of the action has been in sectors BH has never been comfortable holding large assets in such as SaaS, new fin-tech(i.e. crypto etc), or gig econ(Airbnb/Uber etc), social media(tiktok et al.) etc, that doesn't mean the principles are no longer needed or there aren't opportunities to take stake in these now mature companies and drive value.
That said, the turnaround 'mission' you mention about still happens, but is more associated with private equity than Berkshire.
Over the long run the latter is a better and more scalable strategy.
Not a significant miss relative to the portfolio. But a significant miss relative to holding cash.
How Buffett did it?
https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/https://www.thea...
tldr; he was leveraged with good stocks
The rest is insurance.
Respect to the man for running an operation for 60 years. That's a helluva feat that deserves a lot of admiration.
Still surprised at HN's glazing of someone whose life's mission was to make a number go up and to the right via insurance packages.
Bill Gates also initially dismissed him, thinking he had nothing to learn.
General Electric also tried to "make a number go up" and effed up the insurance part despite having Buffett as a model and putting 10,000 people through their custom management training facility every year.
Raise a glass to the man and read his letters.
I will retire right away if I had 10 millions. Maybe 50 millions if I was younger than 40.
And, anyways, I think you say this now, but if you were to get those 10 millions you would probably change your tune. A lot of people would find some other project to dedicate their energy. Especially the kind of people that make stuff happen.
That doesn't sound very positive to me. Perhaps OP has a point
but I could get a home near a major airport like 10 mins from SFO, and so with working out and eating consuming 4 hours and sleeping 6 hours a day and 2 hour of spouse time. I legit have 12 hours a day to work everyday. I could easily do that in a sustainable manner 6 days a week, and spending Sunday relaxing by helping out in my parent's farm and then relaxing in the evening before going back to work next week.
Seems like an ideal life for me. The only difference from today is the extra 3 hours I spend in traffic and an average 1 hour daily in running errands. And extra work on Saturday like fetching groceries, looking after my home, fixing stuff etc.
If I get money, I could save that 4 hour of my life and dedicate it to working on something I really like.
You need a lot less than 40m$ to get a house 10 minutes from SFO, Daly City or outer neighborhoods in SF have homes for less than a million for sale right now
Don’t apply the morality of a worker to a top capitalist
I’d wager you can say this about most jobs. The anomaly is butt-in-seats office jobs.
The work/retirement dichotomy is such a weird and peculiar artifact of the 1950s US middle-class nuclear-family milieu.
That's gone.
For the rest of us, it's just...live your life, until you don't.
(viz. Below the fold: "Buffett remains as chair...")
He worked for 60 years because he liked doing it, and as he became more successful, the job just getting more pleasant for him.
I cannot speak for him but from reading his annual reports and various writings and listening to the occasional interview, it seems that he enjoyed working much more than anything he would do while being retired.
You can call this great american work ethic, and that is part of it, but the other part of it is that when you are the boss you can kind of remove most unpleasant parts of your job and leave only the parts that are the most fun and interesting for you.
So likely at least 8x your pre-tax salary (like 11 or 12x post tax) is gone right off the bat as soon as you retire. So if you are retiring before age 40 basically all of your wealth will vaporize as soon as the mother of your children realizes they can basically take the entire wealth through a mixture of divorce, child support, and alimony and they must act fast before the imputed income calculation drops.
It's not hard for me to understand why people keep working even if I'm not and don't want to be that way. There are so many reasons, I'll list a few, some work just as well even for people who are working despite having "enough", whatever that means. Some people just really like having a job, or think of it as a moral duty (and themselves as doing good by fulfilling that obligation), or some get their self-worth from having a job, or some like being occupied by work when they know that without it they'd just rot. Some like the social company. Many actually like their work a lot more than they dislike it and pay above some threshold is just "nice". If you're particularly good at your job, too, there's a lot of joy in doing things you're good at, no matter what kind of job it is. Some have expensive tastes or have made expensive compromises or have fallen on expensive bad luck that all can need ongoing funding. Some want to make or support things and need capital to do so. Some just see life as a game, and money going up is their source of happiness and sign of winning. There's all sorts of minds and preferences in this world.
I my employer didn't pay me, I'd stop working on their projects. But in the meantime, I enjoy my profession (at least most of the time) and get paid. If I had enough money then I'd stop working on what my management wants and work on stuff that I want to work on. And I have to imagine that at this point, Buffet is also doing whatever he wants to.
Not my cup of tea (and Die with Zero book explains the common sense on this) but I get why though. There is tons of status attached to it, lots of people don’t know what to do with themselves, a lot of identity ( especially in US) attached to the work.
You could argue he was retired and just continuing his hobby.
To some people, their careers are interesting in and of itself, beyond money.
This applies to many professions: scientists, CEOs, writers, painters.
I like travel, I like relaxing at home. But I don't know if it's what I'd want to do all the time. I like having some pull, driving me towards a greater goal.
It was that quest for more that made them even get to that 10 or 50 million you talk about.
If they didn't have that personality for more, they likely would have stopped way sooner.
I personally realized that I got bored of solo sized projects. It’s a lot more fun working with other really smart, motivated people.
Being in charge of Berkshire hathaway is a very powerful and respected, revered, envied, coveted, admired. Retired is just retired. As folksy as he presented I suspect Buffet very much enjoyed weilding that power which he could not likely ever get elsewhere.
For folks with the ability to make truckloads of money and then give it away to good causes, that is going to be the best choice v trying to add value in the world to make themselves feel better.
Imagine if I said "there are so many more worthwhile things to do than painting" if some famous artist retired.
Some people just love what they do. In addition to people loving what they do, there are also people who don't like to do nothing: travelling, reading, sipping pina coladas in the pool in Florida, painting, playing videogames all day long etc. is not for everyone.
And there are even people who fit both: they love what they do and they have moreover absolutely no interest in retiring and "doing nothing".
EDIT: also some people are action junkies that must be working. A friend of mine is working a full-time regular job and is also a voluntary firefighter, responding to emergencies during week-ends etc. He doesn't do it for the little additional money it brings: he does it because he loves to be helpful.
We all have pleasure and suffering along the same couple of orders of magnitude.
In geological timespans, none of the fun you had will matter. Even a year from now, your memories are just wistful nostalgia (perhaps a psychological detriment!) And that's if your brain architecture is even set up to recall senses and events well (not everyone can).
My view is that the intellectual pursuit is more fulfilling than a world simulating traversal of novel experiences. Those neurons will turn to dust soon anyway, and it'll be like it never even happened. Why spend so much time fretting over it?
Spend time with family, but trying to rack up on restaurants and things and places and visits - meh, it's just simulation and squirts of neurotransmitters. Ephemeral. They leave no trace. It all fades to emptiness.
I'm not saying be completely stoic. But don't overdose on pleasure and thrill and novelty. Over indexing that way cuts down on impact.
Building never stops, even when you do. Laying a foundation shapes human behavior at scale. Leads to more shoulders being stood upon. Higher order effects.
Every single person I admire made an impact.
I'm not my genes that I was built from or the genes that I might pass down. I'm the ideas and deeds of a short life that hopefully left lasting impact and caused second order effects.
Build what? The next big ad serving platform? The next mass surveillance platform? New ways to squeeze money out of people? You’re right we all die so nothing matters, why would what you build matter more than the relationships you make, the good feelings you create? Build, but build art. Build something that will change peoples minds, make them feel good, make them want to change the world.
Do not conflate building something to make some guy richer, as just as or more important than spending time with family or creating true art.
I wonder how much is due to the market becoming more efficient, vs Berkshire's size / market impact?
During that period he did some different things which some of his personal money like buying stock in Dae Han Flour Mills, a Korean flour miller that was like 2 times earnings in 2003 but was probably too small a position to make sense for Berkshire. (https://www.netnethunter.com/warren-buffett-cheap-stock-pick...)
S&P500 total return over the same period: about 39,054% (390x gain)
$1 in BRK would be $55k today. $1 in S&P500 would be $390 today. Therefore, following the hypothetical 99% drop, 1% of Berkshire return would be $550, still well above the S&P500's $390.
"he grew Berkshire from a struggling New England textile mill that he starting buying up for $7.60 a share in 1962"
I plan to buy some BRK stock. I’m sure it will be a good investment. But also, somewhat sentimentally, just to own a part of a financial masterpiece.
He also seemed a bit more aware of how much power money can translate into, and it seems he kind of stuck to "being rich" rather than shooting for "rich and also politically powerful" (although I'm sure there are probably a few exceptions).
Compare his investment in the Washington Post with Bezos'. Buffett actually made money off it, and kept his hands off the direction of the paper. We all saw how much Bezos started leaning on it - which has had the effect of shedding subscribers as no one trusts it any more, and it's not attracting new readers of... the Fox News persuasion I guess we can call it.
It also seems he mostly stuck to what he knows in terms of kind of boring investments rather than flashy rockets and other showy things.
And of course he's been good with giving his money away and convincing others to do likewise.
With Musk, doge, and the handling of important programs like USAID, that bar has been set remarkably low.
* His shareholders include many Americans. The cash pile is concentrated as far as corporate governance is concerned, but lots of people own a piece of it in their retirement accounts. (Often indirectly via index funds.)
* Many employees work for businesses owned by Berkshire Hathaway. I'd guess they're pretty stable businesses, not about to get bought out and shut down? Maybe decent places to work? (Not sure about the railroad, though.)
* Many people are customers of these businesses. Mostly a good thing?
Admittedly there are lots of Americans that don't participate in that, though.
Don’t worship buffet, but study him. The Acquired podcast on him is a great jumping off point.
Warren Buffett's final shareholder letter [pdf]
He was a damned fine investor, a very good eye for a bargain (that would later turn into a goldmine).
I get that people have opinions on that, but I'm not too fussed about the player, when it's the game that they should be focussed on.
Buffett and Munger were both great teachers and entertainers.
Arguably the entire market is heavily overvalued now, though, so while his strategies are probably no longer optimal, they'll probably continue to work out well enough at least until the next big correction.
Ben Graham
The public stuff, sure, in the short term. The wholly-owned stuff, however, is pure private equity: their cash flows should cash flow irrespective of financing conditions.
But I don't know what we can do about it when government has been captured by people with vested interests in not fixing anything.
It feels like things have to get bad enough to get people to actually rise up. Not like, revolution or anything, but real protest (and enough political awakening to understand that they are being fed culture war bullshit to distract them from the class war they should be waging).
They're sophisticated government contractors. They've insulated themselves from the wiles of the market.
Please don’t do this.
> what Warren Buffett's strategy is, and it said buying undervalued companies and holding for a long time
No. It’s cheap leverage applied to low-volatility assets bought for a fair price [1]. (Munger got him off the ‘cigarette butt’ strategy of buying on the cheap.)
[1] https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w19681/w196...