Berkshire Hathaway - thoughts?

tebbins

adindas said:

tebbins said:

adindas said:

Comparison of BARK-A, SMT.L, S&P500 how they perform and and draw your conclusion. Warren Buffet beat the market a few decades ago before many high growth stocks emerge.

In the last few month since December last year value beat growth stock. But wait until the situation is back to normal, inflation is under control, no more uncertainty I very much doubt if BARK-A could ever beat the market in the next decade.

Firstly it's BRK.A, and that's only if you have enough money lying around to afford a house, otherwise it's BRK.B.
What normal?

It is sometimes astonishing me that some people talking a lot about the stock markets and still do not know that you do not need money lying around to afford a house, to get BRK.A. This is what happen you do not keep updating your knowledge.

Also that BRK.A literally has similar holding with BRK.B, it is only that share price is different, but could be converted, So their performance in percentage will be the same. So whatever you plot if you plot together with S&P500, SMT.L you will get similar result with the above plot as they are in percentage.

Here I print that again with BRK-B? Are they different ?

tebbins said:

Berkshire has been around in its current form since 1965, what conclusions are you drawing from a 5-year snapshot of its history compared with what has done well with the benefit of hindsight?
When has there ever been no uncertainty?
When was it normal for "growth" to beat the index over sustained periods? - it simply doesn't.
There have always been "growth" stocks, growth didn't emerge out of the internet, before the FAANGs there were other growth stocks.

The discussion about Value vs Growth has been going on for years and and there a lot of experts on their fields outthere have been discussion it.  So certainly we do not want to start another debate as this will become never ending debate. We believe want we want to believe.

...  A single Berkshire Hathaway A share costs $484,340 USD, SMT is a UK based high conviction investment trust, the S&P is a partly subjective index of the largest 500 listed companies based in the US. The A and B shares are shares classes of the same company so by definition "the holdings" will be the same, it's the same company.
My question was what point are you trying to make with a chart showing a 5 year snapshot of the share prices of those three particular securities.
This is all publicly, readily available information.

sebtomato

Prism said:

sebtomato said:

aroominyork said:

	1 year	3 years	5 years	10 years
Berkshire Hathaway	20%	52%	99%	408%
North America	6%	45%	80%	280%
Global	-1%	32%	54%	175%

47% in Apple and most of the rest in Bank of America, Coca-Cola, American Express and Kraft Heinz is conviction investing on steroids, but they seem to know what they are doing.

Warren Buffet has advised people to get an S&P500 tracker instead of Berkshire Hathaway shares, so his confidence that the good past performance will be repeated in the future is low.

What he said was that the majority of people should get an S&P 500 tracker. He does not follow that advice himself of course and as it happens Berkshire shares have outperformed the S&P 500 from when he gave this advice. Most people are not good investors - he, however is.

Not sure what your point is. Yes, he is a very good investor, and the OP, you or me are surely not.

Don't take it personally: on the basis that most active funds get beaten by passive, tracking funds, most fund managers are not great investors either.

masonic

tebbins said:

adindas said:

tebbins said:

adindas said:

Comparison of BARK-A, SMT.L, S&P500 how they perform and and draw your conclusion. Warren Buffet beat the market a few decades ago before many high growth stocks emerge.

In the last few month since December last year value beat growth stock. But wait until the situation is back to normal, inflation is under control, no more uncertainty I very much doubt if BARK-A could ever beat the market in the next decade.

Firstly it's BRK.A, and that's only if you have enough money lying around to afford a house, otherwise it's BRK.B.
What normal?

It is sometimes astonishing me that some people talking a lot about the stock markets and still do not know that you do not need money lying around to afford a house, to get BRK.A. This is what happen you do not keep updating your knowledge.

...  A single Berkshire Hathaway A share costs $484,340 USD

Presumably adindas is referring to the ability to buy fractional shares on some platforms. However, I'm not sure if push came to shove (provider fails and administrators come in and try to divvy up client assets) that one would be able to assert one's claim to the fractional share as robustly as someone who held whole shares. It is unlikely that trading in fractional shares will result in the platform holding a whole number of shares, so the underlying asset being held is presumably some form of derivative.

aroominyork

adindas said:

I do not know about you but I do have understanding the current stock market and I could say that confidently as I have been following closely. I have posts regarding the stock market, market crashed, interest  rate, bear market, etc. on other threads and I have not seen your contribution regarding these topics.

Correct.

adindas said:

It is sometimes astonishing me that some people talking a lot about the stock markets and still do not know that you do not need money lying around to afford a house, to get BRK.A. This is what happen you do not keep updating your knowledge.

Yup, that's what people tend to do on a forum about investing.

Prism

sebtomato said:

Prism said:

sebtomato said:

aroominyork said:

	1 year	3 years	5 years	10 years
Berkshire Hathaway	20%	52%	99%	408%
North America	6%	45%	80%	280%
Global	-1%	32%	54%	175%

47% in Apple and most of the rest in Bank of America, Coca-Cola, American Express and Kraft Heinz is conviction investing on steroids, but they seem to know what they are doing.

Warren Buffet has advised people to get an S&P500 tracker instead of Berkshire Hathaway shares, so his confidence that the good past performance will be repeated in the future is low.

What he said was that the majority of people should get an S&P 500 tracker. He does not follow that advice himself of course and as it happens Berkshire shares have outperformed the S&P 500 from when he gave this advice. Most people are not good investors - he, however is.

Not sure what your point is. Yes, he is a very good investor, and the OP, you or me are surely not.

Don't take it personally: on the basis that most active funds get beaten by passive, tracking funds, most fund managers are not great investors either.

You seem to suggest that he was not confident that the past performance of Berkshire would not be repeated. I imagine he is very confident that it will be over time - else why do it. I would say that most active managers are confident in that too, although as you point out, very few of them are able to achieve that. Not impossible though to select the better ones.

sebtomato

Prism said:

sebtomato said:

Prism said:

sebtomato said:

aroominyork said:

	1 year	3 years	5 years	10 years
Berkshire Hathaway	20%	52%	99%	408%
North America	6%	45%	80%	280%
Global	-1%	32%	54%	175%

47% in Apple and most of the rest in Bank of America, Coca-Cola, American Express and Kraft Heinz is conviction investing on steroids, but they seem to know what they are doing.

Warren Buffet has advised people to get an S&P500 tracker instead of Berkshire Hathaway shares, so his confidence that the good past performance will be repeated in the future is low.

What he said was that the majority of people should get an S&P 500 tracker. He does not follow that advice himself of course and as it happens Berkshire shares have outperformed the S&P 500 from when he gave this advice. Most people are not good investors - he, however is.

Not sure what your point is. Yes, he is a very good investor, and the OP, you or me are surely not.

Don't take it personally: on the basis that most active funds get beaten by passive, tracking funds, most fund managers are not great investors either.

You seem to suggest that he was not confident that the past performance of Berkshire would not be repeated. I imagine he is very confident that it will be over time - else why do it. I would say that most active managers are confident in that too, although as you point out, very few of them are able to achieve that. Not impossible though to select the better ones.

Who are the better ones then? Warren Buffet (who just said the stock market in the last 2 years has been a casino, and advising people to buy S&P500 trackers)? Woodford? 

At the end of the day, betting on a fund manager is random and usually based on past performance, so people are better off buying trackers and save on paying large fees to those managers (who still get paid, whether their funds goes up or down).

masonic

sebtomato said:

Prism said:

sebtomato said:

Prism said:

sebtomato said:

aroominyork said:

	1 year	3 years	5 years	10 years
Berkshire Hathaway	20%	52%	99%	408%
North America	6%	45%	80%	280%
Global	-1%	32%	54%	175%

47% in Apple and most of the rest in Bank of America, Coca-Cola, American Express and Kraft Heinz is conviction investing on steroids, but they seem to know what they are doing.

Warren Buffet has advised people to get an S&P500 tracker instead of Berkshire Hathaway shares, so his confidence that the good past performance will be repeated in the future is low.

What he said was that the majority of people should get an S&P 500 tracker. He does not follow that advice himself of course and as it happens Berkshire shares have outperformed the S&P 500 from when he gave this advice. Most people are not good investors - he, however is.

Not sure what your point is. Yes, he is a very good investor, and the OP, you or me are surely not.

Don't take it personally: on the basis that most active funds get beaten by passive, tracking funds, most fund managers are not great investors either.

You seem to suggest that he was not confident that the past performance of Berkshire would not be repeated. I imagine he is very confident that it will be over time - else why do it. I would say that most active managers are confident in that too, although as you point out, very few of them are able to achieve that. Not impossible though to select the better ones.

Who are the better ones then? Warren Buffet (who just said the stock market in the last 2 years has been a casino, and advising people to buy S&P500 trackers)? Woodford? 

At the end of the day, betting on a fund manager is random and usually based on past performance, so people are better off buying trackers and save on paying large fees to those managers (who still get paid, whether their funds goes up or down).

There are a number of low cost active funds, which have fees that are comparable with trackers. Where an active manager is taking a long term buy and hold approach and ongoing charges are low, then a sufficiently large fund is not going to have much of a drag on performance from active management. Virtually everyone makes active decisions when constructing their portfolio (anyone who includes asset classes other than 100% equities, or within their equities holds anything other than an all-world index fund, such as having home bias, including smaller companies / private equity etc). Active management isn't just about beating the index, and it doesn't necessarily mean high cost.

Prism

sebtomato said:

Prism said:

sebtomato said:

Prism said:

sebtomato said:

aroominyork said:

	1 year	3 years	5 years	10 years
Berkshire Hathaway	20%	52%	99%	408%
North America	6%	45%	80%	280%
Global	-1%	32%	54%	175%

47% in Apple and most of the rest in Bank of America, Coca-Cola, American Express and Kraft Heinz is conviction investing on steroids, but they seem to know what they are doing.

Warren Buffet has advised people to get an S&P500 tracker instead of Berkshire Hathaway shares, so his confidence that the good past performance will be repeated in the future is low.

What he said was that the majority of people should get an S&P 500 tracker. He does not follow that advice himself of course and as it happens Berkshire shares have outperformed the S&P 500 from when he gave this advice. Most people are not good investors - he, however is.

Not sure what your point is. Yes, he is a very good investor, and the OP, you or me are surely not.

Don't take it personally: on the basis that most active funds get beaten by passive, tracking funds, most fund managers are not great investors either.

You seem to suggest that he was not confident that the past performance of Berkshire would not be repeated. I imagine he is very confident that it will be over time - else why do it. I would say that most active managers are confident in that too, although as you point out, very few of them are able to achieve that. Not impossible though to select the better ones.

Who are the better ones then? Warren Buffet (who just said the stock market in the last 2 years has been a casino, and advising people to buy S&P500 trackers)? Woodford? 

At the end of the day, betting on a fund manager is random and usually based on past performance, so people are better off buying trackers and save on paying large fees to those managers (who still get paid, whether their funds goes up or down).

Rather than drag this into a generic active vs passive fund discussion lets stick with Warren Buffet. Will Berkshire perform better than the general market going forwards? Also will it do so with lower volatility as it avoids the more frothy areas of the market and also is made up of private and fully owned companies in addition to the public market holdings? I believe in both cases it will. They have proved over many years that they are great investors in companies and along the way have influenced many others to become better investors. 

If you gave me a choice between an S&P 500 tracker and Berkshire shares I would choose Berkshire shares every time. Regardless, I don't actually use either as I prefer a more global portfolio.

sebtomato

Prism said:

sebtomato said:

Prism said:

sebtomato said:

Prism said:

sebtomato said:

aroominyork said:

	1 year	3 years	5 years	10 years
Berkshire Hathaway	20%	52%	99%	408%
North America	6%	45%	80%	280%
Global	-1%	32%	54%	175%

47% in Apple and most of the rest in Bank of America, Coca-Cola, American Express and Kraft Heinz is conviction investing on steroids, but they seem to know what they are doing.

Warren Buffet has advised people to get an S&P500 tracker instead of Berkshire Hathaway shares, so his confidence that the good past performance will be repeated in the future is low.

What he said was that the majority of people should get an S&P 500 tracker. He does not follow that advice himself of course and as it happens Berkshire shares have outperformed the S&P 500 from when he gave this advice. Most people are not good investors - he, however is.

Not sure what your point is. Yes, he is a very good investor, and the OP, you or me are surely not.

Don't take it personally: on the basis that most active funds get beaten by passive, tracking funds, most fund managers are not great investors either.

You seem to suggest that he was not confident that the past performance of Berkshire would not be repeated. I imagine he is very confident that it will be over time - else why do it. I would say that most active managers are confident in that too, although as you point out, very few of them are able to achieve that. Not impossible though to select the better ones.

Who are the better ones then? Warren Buffet (who just said the stock market in the last 2 years has been a casino, and advising people to buy S&P500 trackers)? Woodford? 

At the end of the day, betting on a fund manager is random and usually based on past performance, so people are better off buying trackers and save on paying large fees to those managers (who still get paid, whether their funds goes up or down).

Rather than drag this into a generic active vs passive fund discussion lets stick with Warren Buffet. Will Berkshire perform better than the general market going forwards? Also will it do so with lower volatility as it avoids the more frothy areas of the market and also is made up of private and fully owned companies in addition to the public market holdings? I believe in both cases it will. They have proved over many years that they are great investors in companies and along the way have influenced many others to become better investors. 

If you gave me a choice between an S&P 500 tracker and Berkshire shares I would choose Berkshire shares every time. Regardless, I don't actually use either as I prefer a more global portfolio.

So what are the better funds/fund manager? First, people say there are many fund managers that can beat a S&P500 tracker, and those are "easy to identify".

But then, when we ask for some more specific answers, nothing...

Thrugelmir

sebtomato said:

Prism said:

sebtomato said:

Prism said:

sebtomato said:

Prism said:

sebtomato said:

aroominyork said:

	1 year	3 years	5 years	10 years
Berkshire Hathaway	20%	52%	99%	408%
North America	6%	45%	80%	280%
Global	-1%	32%	54%	175%

47% in Apple and most of the rest in Bank of America, Coca-Cola, American Express and Kraft Heinz is conviction investing on steroids, but they seem to know what they are doing.

Warren Buffet has advised people to get an S&P500 tracker instead of Berkshire Hathaway shares, so his confidence that the good past performance will be repeated in the future is low.

What he said was that the majority of people should get an S&P 500 tracker. He does not follow that advice himself of course and as it happens Berkshire shares have outperformed the S&P 500 from when he gave this advice. Most people are not good investors - he, however is.

Not sure what your point is. Yes, he is a very good investor, and the OP, you or me are surely not.

Don't take it personally: on the basis that most active funds get beaten by passive, tracking funds, most fund managers are not great investors either.

You seem to suggest that he was not confident that the past performance of Berkshire would not be repeated. I imagine he is very confident that it will be over time - else why do it. I would say that most active managers are confident in that too, although as you point out, very few of them are able to achieve that. Not impossible though to select the better ones.

Who are the better ones then? Warren Buffet (who just said the stock market in the last 2 years has been a casino, and advising people to buy S&P500 trackers)? Woodford? 

At the end of the day, betting on a fund manager is random and usually based on past performance, so people are better off buying trackers and save on paying large fees to those managers (who still get paid, whether their funds goes up or down).

Rather than drag this into a generic active vs passive fund discussion lets stick with Warren Buffet. Will Berkshire perform better than the general market going forwards? Also will it do so with lower volatility as it avoids the more frothy areas of the market and also is made up of private and fully owned companies in addition to the public market holdings? I believe in both cases it will. They have proved over many years that they are great investors in companies and along the way have influenced many others to become better investors. 

If you gave me a choice between an S&P 500 tracker and Berkshire shares I would choose Berkshire shares every time. Regardless, I don't actually use either as I prefer a more global portfolio.

So what are the better funds/fund manager? First, people say there are many fund managers that can beat a S&P500 tracker, and those are "easy to identify".

But then, when we ask for some more specific answers, nothing...

Then perhaps what's required is a comprehensive understanding of the performance of the SP500 over the past 3 decades. Rather than treating it as some Holy Grail.