- 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.
That being said, I find it odd to moralize on moralism. We have way too many people in power that are awful humans and do a bad job and never get punished.
Meanwhile, stealing a car because you are hungry can be the begin of a ruined life.
There is no balance.
(This isn't about buffet, idc, just about your interwoven opinion.)
Instead of seeing the nuance, you’d see everything that comes out of Elon Musk or Israel whoever you’ve managed to convince yourself is that current villain, as bad - without attention to details. More than that - you’d waste your time arguing whether they are “good” or “bad”, instead of focusing on specific actions, which is what society as a whole seems to enjoy seem to gravitate towards, and what increases polarization and reduce proper discourse.
We made a machine that is driven by emotions and rewards short and exaggerated interactions. On the surface it's black and white, but in each such situations there is also nuanced discussions and people that reflect things. I often also carry such moral debates to friends, I assume others do as well. There is at least a portion of nuance. Saying it's always black and white, is black and white thinking itself.
What I would agree with is that groupthink is a problem. People choose sides depending on who or which group said it. Also virtue signalling, as it's often just (unconscious) reputation management and hinders progress.
Moralism can make people see things without nuance (i.e. saying "stealing is bad" with no regard for the context). This must be tempered. But this is not a good reason to throw out the pursuit of shared moral values within society.
When was this ever not the case? And what makes you think that you (or any other human) are somehow morally superior and would do a better job if subject to the same environment and pressures?
The point is that power corrupts, so we try to design decentralized systems wherever possible that don't require absolute power to function (ie. free markets, the internet, etc). Trusting specific human animals to wield authority over us in a non-awful way is not a reliable solution.
> Meanwhile, stealing a car because you are hungry can be the begin of a ruined life.
Sure, but the overwhelming majority of people who steal cars are not starving. And thinking that being poor makes someone morally superior is simply an argumentum ad lazarum, one of the oldest logical fallacies going back to biblical times.
Morals are necessary for humans to live together. We all shape them, we are all entitled to do so, they are inevitable. We encode morals into laws if we deem it necessary. But that doesn't originate from an individual in a functioning democracy. It's a process, not a individual decision. Each individual can decide to stand for it's own morals. A large public backlash is a sign that you acted against public morals, you don't have to agree, but you have to deal with it. That's how a society works if everyone is free to speak and has a tiny bit of power.
> Sure, but the overwhelming majority of people who steal cars are not starving. And thinking that being poor makes someone morally superior is simply an argumentum ad lazarum, one of the oldest logical fallacies going back to biblical times.
I didn't mean any of that, I don't even know how you come up with that conclusion. My example simply expresses that a simple act of theft can ruin a persons life, while powerful people cause much more damage and get away with it.
You may ask yourself, what would X do and why, and that could help you clarify your own views.
If you believe it, then it helps model other areas of life in a way that undoubtably supports the outcome.
For example, not part of Mr Buffets persona (and I believe it!) is staying up until 2am getting wasted and having 5 baby mommas.
And so anyone trying to have even a shadow of Mr. buffets success should probably also avoid doing so, and perhaps do some of what Mr. buffet does instead. Like reading the financial papers.
To give one example.
You can't get much beyond the median if you copy other people, unless you're really lucky. But if you handicap yourself constantly too, good luck even hitting the median.
What does “living” mean in this case? That can mean absolutely nothing. I travel a lot (and probably Buffet too), and tax authorities would have a headache with what should I pay and to whom if I reported it completely to them when and where I am. In the country where I officially live I’m maybe 20-30%. There is no other countries with more. The simple case of 50%+1 days is nowhere near. In Buffet case, it can be even less. 10 years ago I had a different pattern. I wasn’t at home but in the same country (in the case of the US, like a state) at random places like 80-90%. So does Buffet really live there, like properly?
That said, I do, like Buffet, live in a nice house. I’m not depriving myself. But it’s also very approachable by any successful employee of a company (maybe salary of a director or VP of any large company could afford it). It doesn’t represent what I could afford if I wanted to really get into the elite neighborhoods of my city. I don’t really enjoy people in those areas. They tend to always talk about money in one way or another (vacations, private schools, cars, houses, maids, nanny’s, etc). Nothing wrong with it I suppose, just not my jam and not how I want my children raised and not the people I want as my neighbors and peers. I’ve always been much more envious of those unsuspecting rich people that drive clunker cars or live in modest homes and mow their own lawns but then you find out they paid for 16 grand children to go to college or something random like that. That’s the kind of thing I’d rather be known for than the guy with the Ferrari or yacht (even if they weren’t mutually exclusive).
Modern society is too narrow minded about what wealth means. To most people it means fancy watches, cars, homes, etc. To me wealth is about time and freedom. I can pick up the tab at dinner for a group of 12. I can afford to keep my 1972 Schwinn bicycle in tip top shape or my grandfather's jacket mended when it breaks. I can afford to rent forever if I want. I'll never work a job I don't like, I can just quit. I feel more wealthy this way than if I owned 3 lambos and had to work to make ends meet.
For one, I like to have a connection with the place I live and the physical objects I use like my car and home- the fact that they are old things I fixed up and maintain myself gives me a sense of place, connection, and pride- just buying something expensive that someone else prepared for me would feel infantalizing and unsatisfying. I enjoy deeply understanding and being part of the history of the objects and tools I use, in a way that can’t be purchased.
Also, I think a lot of consumerism and conspicuous consumption comes from a sad and depressing place of anxiety that you aren’t good enough to make friends or find romantic partners without doing this. Many people don’t directly want or enjoy conspicuously expensive things, but are hoping it leads to social status or approval. But this inevitably means resigning yourself to essentially buying the company of people that don’t actually like you. At the extreme end you see some famously wealthy people so anxious about not being perceived as wealthy enough that they glue tacky fake plastic gold on everything they own because they’re afraid of looking poorer than billionaires. That type of narcissism is not a happy way to live, and will turn off the kind of people that would have built a genuine emotional connection with you.
> I don’t want other people seeing me as flaunting wealth
Lmao.
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.
Does this ultimately come down to Taste?
It is hard to judge what is enough. While a Civic is a perfectly good car, it certainly isn't the safest, nor does it have the best riding experience. Once you get into attention to details, what is "enough" often means mediocre.
I want "good enough" from a crazy perfectionist. Like Steve Jobs' Apple.
So what was the point of him living a frugal, simple lifestyle? I would argue that its just something he was used to and found joy in, and thats ok. Some people like that. Others might want to use their money to unlock new experiences that come with it. Thats ok too.
My girlfriend years ago thought it was incredible and amusing that I was working a fancy tech job and drove this old car around. We are now happily married.
These days, I could buy a Bentley with cash. But I don't need one.
Warren Buffet's example is an inspiration that should be followed by more people who go into debt buying crap they can't afford with money they don't have in order to look rich.
Besides, I am not wholly convinced that improved safety tech is a replacement for the type of safety first engineering used in every tiny detail of those old cars, that mitigate certain types of accidents and injury that won’t be addressed in crash testing.
Many old cars have excellent rewards visibility without needing any camera- no camera will compare to a first generation Porsche Boxster with the top down for example, where you can directly see behind you by looking back. Volvo wagons are great like that also.
I also, as a rule never back anywhere that I haven’t seen directly just a few seconds before. I always back into parking places so I can see them facing forwards and not back up when starting out, and if I do need to back up when starting out I walk behind the car and look around first and then immediately get in and back up.
Tech really won’t help you here- safe driving requires looking where your vehicle is going with your own eyes. The field of view of a backup camera is insufficient- even if you have one, it’s usually better to be looking directly behind you and not use it. I see cars with backup cameras and sonar hit each other in parking lots all the time, because they thought the camera was a replacement for looking and situational awareness.
By your logic, we should all drive gigantic monster trucks. Lunacy.
Also, I already have a mom who worries about me. She likes the car. I don't need to be mothered by a stranger on the internet thank you.
Personally, I buy new, and keep putting my car payment into a savings account once it is paid off. If I can't afford to put that money into savings, I can't afford a new car payment. I'm only allowed to do non-routine repairs from those funds. It's amazing how much you don't want to crack into that for a car once it grows to a few thousand. It's the most powerful visual impact of savings I've come across.
Car payments have a way of disappearing into an upgraded lifestyle when you don't have to make them, and then they come out of savings when you take a loan for the car.
Honda Civic may be the ultimate car for that. I bought a pickup 8 years ago that I hope will be a 20 year car. Buy something with a reputation for 200k+ miles.
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 which one it is, 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...
It's not a bout moralizing but recognizing how the reward centres of the human brain work:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill
I would recommend the recently published book The Art of Spending Money by Morgan Housel, or check out the interviews he's done in recent months on it:
* https://collabfund.com/blog/my-new-book-the-art-of-spending-...
It's not about being frugal or cheap or spendy, but on recognizing human psychology and what actually brings most people happiness. See also the 85-year Harvard study on the topic:
* https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11575524/
* https://the-good-life-book.com
* https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/04/over-nearly-8...
> The data showed the happiness gap between wealthy and middle-income participants was wider than between middle- and low-income participants.
And the apparent reason:
> He said: “A greater feeling of control over life can explain about 75% of the association between money and happiness. So I think a big part of what’s happening is that, when people have more money, they have more control over their lives. More freedom to live the life they want to live.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/18/mone...
There’s many other research that corroborates this view. After some point increasing income didn’t increase life satisfaction. Usually somewhere in the low upper-middle class region.
That's the common assumption that this research repudiates.
> These findings are counter to a widely covered 2010 study that found happiness rises with income, but plateaus at around $75,000.
He studied much richer people:
> Killingsworth also used data from the ultra-wealthy (people with a median net worth between $3m and $7.9m), which is often lacking and difficult to obtain.
> The data showed the happiness gap between wealthy and middle-income participants was wider than between middle- and low-income participants.
> His study also found wealthy individuals were “substantially and statistically significantly happier than people earning over $500,000 each year”.
The biggest thing anyone can do in their life is figure out exactly what makes them happy, and spend their money there. Don't let society tell you. People on this site likely care about computers and spend a disproportionate amount of their money on them, and that's ok. I don't care about cars or TVs, but I care about experiences and comfort so will spend money on travel and upgraded plane tickets.
I also care about agency, so tend to save money rather than spend. I want the freedom it provides more than what it can buy - typically.
They are happier… for a limited time and then want 'more':
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill
'Upgrading' things can lead down a road where problems arise:
Maybe if the basic needs on the average person were taken care of then random displays of extravagant wealth would be acceptable. But when something as simple as getting a rotten tooth extracted or a filling on a front tooth is too much "luxury" for many working class citizens, it is a complete misallocation of society's resources.
Before you go on about how saying it's "good" or "not good" is a value judgement that I'm not entitled to make -- you're damn right it is, and I'll do what I want.
Happiness is unsustainable. However, contentment is an attainable goal.
So no, not only 6 weeks
n=1. For the general population:
You are now unable to get joy from a TV smaller than the largest one you've ever bought. Many people are unable to get joy from a car costing under 10k, let alone 2k.
The things you own end up owning you.
You seem very sure about what does and doesn't make other people happy!
Speak for yourself. There are a lot of aspects to being happy, and having to not want for things certainly helps.
I even experience this with food. If I am on a strict diet for 2 weeks and then have a "cheat" meal, a previously normal meal feels like a satisfying feast.
If I splurge on food for 2 weeks, even 3/4th a pizza doesn't satisfy. I just want the other 1/4th.
It is really why we have so much wealth as a society but so much discontent. It is like believing there is some amount of alcohol that would satisfy the alcoholic. It just grows the desire for more while contentment is harder and harder to achieve.
I am pretty sure this is just a property of the dopaminergic system.
> 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.
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.
Happiness is binary. You're either happy with where you are or where you're heading or you're not.
It sounds to me like you haven’t rode a bike in a long time. I recommend you try it and get back to me.
When I got my first bike as a kid, a cheap "mountain bike" with 24" wheels that probably weighed more than my current road bike, I was at maximum happiness. I was not at only 40% happiness because it didn't have a carbon frame or a Di2 groupset from the future. I was at 100.
Later when I got my first road bike I was at 100% happiness again. But nothing can make me happier than I was with that first, heavy bicycle-shaped object. It might equal it but it's impossible to surpass.
Hard disagree here.
Ask a 4 person family stuffed into a one bedroom condo if buying a larger 3 bedroom home would make them happier, I'd imagine to 99.99999% of them the answer is yes.
I upgraded my road bike 2 years ago from an entry level one to a nice racing bike and each weekend I ride a 100km route, that sure as heck makes me happier than riding the old slower and heavier bike.
We just took our extended family on a vacation for a week. Money sure as heck made us happier in that instance.
It is true that cash can't fix all issues in life but any one who says money can't make you happy is either lying or doesn't have money.
Run a simple thought experiment in your head. If you woke up tomorrow under crushing credit card and medical debt and it was suddenly paid off, would that make you happier?
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.
As someone who upgraded from a 2 bedroom flat to a 3 bedroom house with a garage, I concur. Having a place to store my bikes and other “dirty” tools that’s not inside was such an improvement to my quality of life that I tell people to always look for a half decent garage when they buy. Especially if they also like cycling!
YouTube has plenty of videos of people calling in with hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars a year in income and somehow they are still broke and in debt. Live below your means, save the excess income into an investment portfolio, keep doing that until you have enough money to live off the interest. Don't even think about buying a Rolex until you have so much money coming in from interest that you don't even know what else to do with it. Even then, remember that the Rolex, like anything else, requires maintenance, but that if you make someone else happy, they can take care of themselves.
Holding powerful people and institutions to account for the morality of their actions can and has been a powerful force for good.
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.
Buffet seems to be on top. Eric Schmidts condo is also worth a look.
A touch of humbleness creates sympathy with people that cope with reality.
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.
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.
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.
That is so few people.
So, so, few people.
Rough lookup says less than 150,000 people in the US, or 0.044% of the US population.
That’s not far off the current median home sales price in San Francisco and easily the median home price in many, many upper middle class neighborhoods across the country.
How many households in the US can afford a $1.5m home? Assuming they need $400k then we can see that that’s a 95th percentile household income in the US, which translates to about 6 million of the US’s total 135 million households.
Redfin has data showing about 8 million homes are worth $1 million plus, so 5 to 6 million households at the $1.5m mark seems about right as an estimate - or put another way - about 5% of US households could afford Warren Buffets home (but maybe not on a 95th percentile income in Omaha, Nebraska).
https://www.redfin.com/news/million-dollar-homes-increasing/
https://www.statista.com/chart/32925/annual-income-required-...
Absolutely, but let's also not do the opposite. Being poor does not make one morally superior either.
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.
His personal life is much more complicated though - impossible to know if he was happy or not, but for sure it was not usual.
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.
If he believed in them as an investor he helped build the companies.
He took Berkshire Hathaway, a struggling textile company, and transformed it into one of the largest and most successful conglomerates in history.
You can see this behaviour in online multiplayer games that have a currency aspect --- some people will spend almost as quickly as they earn, while others will save some and buy items as they can afford, and then there are those who will just keep saving and saving, rarely buying.
There was a cool fact in there that he sees every price tag as the opportunity cost with compounding interest.
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.
How often did he ever deliver "bad news"?
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.
Percentage-wise, few wealthy investors are dying out at ages of 60-65. In the US, males that make it to age 60 have a life expectancy of 81-82. But that's across all men - life expectancy is strongly correlated with wealth in the US, so a man in the top 1% could very reasonably expect to live to very late 80s/90s.
Nevermind that Buffet was still fabulously rich when he was 60, so none of your logic makes any sense to me.
Compounding is a function of time. More time you are alive, more you see in that time. This follows from definition of compounding itself.
Buffet does this better. He basically takes the float from insurance business(Geico) and invests in the index his company manages. This basically sets you up for a long compounding cycle. Translation- You are basically investing in the US economy.
Apart from this there are some base businesses in an economy that's under long term multi year climb. Now anybody who is staring at stock charts(weekly) will tell you eventually you do learn to 'Pyramid upwards' on stocks that are clear winners. Lots of literature has been written on this.
All said and done, you can be rest assured there only at best 10 such stocks in any economy. Once you find them, you do periodic audit if the companies are holding up good and just keep putting in money as time passes.
I don't remember where- but I remember reading, Fidelity found out the most profitable accounts belonged to people who were dead. That says two things. 1) You have to hold stocks for long periods of time, like really long periods of time(Index, and some of its constituents that are carrying most of the freight) . Most people won't make it. 2) Live long enough.
Quite literally once you gain the skills to pick stock. Next single biggest skill you can master is to be healthy and live long. These things take lots of time to work.
The "index funds and live long" advice is sensible precisely because even the average savvy investor isn't likely to time value investments as well as Warren Buffet did.
You need to study index carefully, like pick each stock and study it. You will see Buffet isn't exactly investing outside the index, his investments come from inside the index.
You are not looking for needle in a haystack here. More like a thick loaf from a pound of bread. If you squint enough, you find them.
Which is extremely important. It's important to call out highly immoral behavior and lifestyles. Being a billionaire by itself is highly immoral. These people sleep like babies while people starve to death.
> He consistently communicated with shareholders of Berkshire in a straight-forward and transparent way in his letters and annual reports.
We praising for the bare minimum now?
The global median income is $2,760 annually. You sleep like a baby making likely 10-100X that, all while people are starving to death.
What are you doing to help the starving poor with your vast wealth? Are you not also morally bankrupt yourself, using your own logic?
While you're joining the current bolshevik revival that the populist left is trying to spin up, I just hope you remember the kulaks (the land-owning peasants) and many of the Serednyaks (the middle class peasants) also got murdered in the revolution. I'd keep any claims of moral superiority to myself if I were you.
Also, you still haven't explained how you're morally superior by being in the top 10% of global earners vs. the top .01%, while people are starving. Using your logic about how you think the world works, you've clearly gamed the system to take more for yourself.
Billionaires are subject to the exact same tax laws as you. What you're likely referring to is the discrepancy in taxation of capital gains vs. income and the use of debt to borrow against assets.
But you then have to contend with the fact pretty much every successful country in the world taxes capital less than income at a certain point. And nobody taxes debt. Why? Because it incentivizes risk taking and investment in businesses (a value multiplier) vs. the non-scalable activity of selling your hours as an employee past a certain point.
What you perceive as "immoral" activity (investment and entrepreneurship) is the risk-taking that makes the economy function and grow, which benefits everyone.
Even your perceived socialist utopia, the Nordics (where I live) taxes capital gains less than income. I think you may want to investigate whether this is a Chestertons fence before loudly shouting about remaking the world on an emotional impulse and calling me a bootlicker.
> "I am not retarded enough to compare my income to a billionaire gaming the system"
> I am not retarded enough to compare my income to a billionaire gaming the system
Means:
> Billionaires make their money by gaming the system
Serious reading comprehension issue.
Good for him. Big savings right there. Buying/selling/moving house can cost a fortune.
SF and NYC are the only two places in the US where rent control makes any sense whatsoever. And it's to solve a problem that was largely created... by rent control.
Once you start you can't stop.
Amazing for Grandma to pay $500/mo to live alone in a 2b Manhattan where she raised her family.
Terrible for the young families try to find their own 2b bedroom to start their family.
[0] - higher paying, emotionally rewarding, etc.
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.
Honestly I struggle to understand the desire of folks earning an income to wish the best for folks who have literally never struggled in their lives. This hero worship of billionaires is bizarre in the extreme. Warren Buffet earned his billions on investments from friends and family that the vast, vast majority of people have zero access to. But people keep acting as if he is some sort of genius because he was able to grow an equivalent of $1MM in investments from friends and family at a time when basically every single fucking industry in the country was growing at crazy rates. Capital begets capital. Wake me up when someone actually comes from rags and doesn't just try to weave that into their propaganda.
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.
He has plausible narratives for his success and that was enough to manufacture fame out of his initial random success. And the fame carried him for decades.
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.
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.
And by all accounts, that investment was suggested by his son. He famously said that he didn't understand technology enough to invest in it.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/14/warren-buffetts-berkshire-ha...
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.)
Easily stated by someone who was not a slave. Equality had fuck all to do with the founding of this country. Some people were *literaly* slaves. You *literally* could not vote unless you were a male land owner. Fuck this nonsense propaganda. Every bit of freedom in this country had to be fought for against this country and against the majority of white men. And we are still far, far from equal. Not until the vote of a Californian for President is equal in weight to someone from Wyoming. Not until the systemic structural advantage for white men in rural areas is eliminated. It's just such fucking bullshit to preach equality when our entire history has been a counter example.
p.s. Because this probably matters to you, this is said by a non-white son of immigrants.
If anything those perspectives need to be reunited rather than ignoring one for the other.
The history of humanity is filled with horrors and humans have done the worst to other humans but it is also true that nowhere in history has humanity been, on average, safer.
For that we have to thank all of those who believed in something better and made actual efforts to make a difference
I am not saying categorization is bad, nor even that yours was unreasonable, but let's not forget the purpose of categories: Not having to think about difference, complexities
You would have done better to address and/or counter their points
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
Of course I look both ways but I still cross the street.
I've watched people (friends included) who have let fear so overcome them that they frankly miss out on life. Won't travel, nervous about even leaving their home…
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.
(yet)
But I agree with the person suggesting not diluting the word.
Most of a person's potential life expectancy is pre-determined.
We've got people drinking 600 calorie frappucinos before they touch a bite of food.
It's the soda and the shakes and the fries that'll getcha.
Then again Buffett apparently did it for 6 decades. But he also only had to drive a few minutes to work and probably had a mostly stress free life. You can eat all the healthy veg you want but if your day is punctuated by a dreadful commute and generally filled with stress, that's what will get you.
The sugar in the McBurger is nothing like the amount in a coke or a shake.
And no, McBurgers are not addictive. I don't want more than one or two a month.
Combined that with his "frugal" and "creature of habit" reputations, that might explain is morning routine.
I refuse to believe that his lifestyle was what was on display.
He lived in the same house for 60 years, sure, but his private jets kept getting upgraded. Good for him, but I find the frugality theater very off putting.
Like the way Munger would promote reading but Andrew Carnegie built 2500 libraries. They would view building libraries as an opportunity cost and waste of capital.
"Ah shucks, I wish people like me would pay a lot more in taxes" but of course these guys didn't spend a dime on actual lobbying to make that happen. Again, that would be seen as a giant opportunity cost and waste of capital. They wouldn't want to go outside their "circle of competence" into something like politics or policy. How convenient.
I think the only way to have this image of a saintly grandpa when actually an absolute cut throat , money obsessed, richest person of all time is to believe your own bullshit.
https://sentinel-aviation.com/blog/warren-buffett-nicknamed-...
Instead of spending hours of his life negotiating RE purchases, maintaining his properties, cutting checks to plumbers, doing renovations, etc. (that I hear many other billionaires do), he was practical with his (luxury) purchases focusing on time saving (living near work, fast food, private jet) and the experience (luxury vacation).
If you don't appreciate that, I think you're missing the point of his frugality.
Much lower than the chance it's just marketing.
You don't have to believe anything, but the many people who spent the most time with him have reported on this extensively.
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.
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.
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.
Oh no please broaden your mindset. This is not a healthy way to look at wealth inequality in 2025. Being poor can happen for arbitrary reasons, and the impact can vary greatly across countries and continents. E.g if you get and recover from cancer in Europe you will be OK financially, while being ruined in America.
This is an extreme example, but the point is not to weigh individual examples but rather to recognize that you as an individual don't understand the circumstances that create or alleviate poverty, because entire government branches are dedicated to doing this and haven't figured it out.
Bottom line poverty is bad news for everyone, there's money to be made solving poverty. It's not a trivial problem to solve.
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
Pretty sure Mr Buffet mostly eats salads.
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...
Mesopotamia, Egypt, China, Greece, Rome, Spain, France, Britain, pre-Columbian Mexico and India would like a word with you after class.
Although per-person adjusted income is really high compared to many parts of the world, day-to-day lifestyle is hardly comparable to "Home Alone" or Wolf of Wall Street themes.
But yes, each era had prosperous countries trying to attract talent obviously. From Egypt to Persians then Rome and even Ottomans too. Later on France/Britain during industrialization.
That being said, McDonald did know how to do business. I’ve found myself there several times because their spaces are well located and they invested well in their interior that it made it a good place to grab a coffee alone, with a laptop or for a random meet.
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.
Personally, I am terrible at timing so I just buy stocks and let them stew for years.
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.
They can buy stock, but B-H doesn't pay dividends. So the only way to make money with its stock is to flip it to someone who's willing to pay more.
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.
Bill Gates however was born rich and had powerful, well-connected parents and grandparents.
Obviously Bill did better with those tools than most people would, but would it have been possible if he started as an average kid with an average amount of money? He wouldn't have gone to a prestigious school with nice computers (or any computers), or have been able to fail at traf-o-data and keep going, for example.
His mom was on the board of a charity which included the CEO of IBM, which is how IBM got involved with Microsoft. Microsoft wouldn't be Microsoft without that deal, or without Mary Gates, or the money that facilitates all these kinds of things.
The older I get, the more I believe that "you can start with nothing and make it" is essentially a lie told to the working class to keep them from cannibalizing the rich (via taxation).
Yes. Remember Woz had no money and no computer and still wrote Apple Basic. He wrote it in a notebook and hand-assembled it. An 8 bit Basic can be written in about 2K bytes.
I designed and built a 6800 computer in 1978, and wrote the software for it all in asm (the result was a VT-100 terminal workalike). I did have an assembler available which certainly made me more productive, but it was still small enough to do by hand. There were only 40 instructions or so in the 6800, and after a while one inadvertently had them memorized. You could hand assemble them as fast as you could write. In those days I wrote code asm in pencil in a spiral notebook.
What made Gates & Allen special was not their families, but their ability to see the opportunity that everyone else missed. When the MITS computer was the front page on Popular Science magazine, Allen saw it and ran to Gates exclaiming that this was the opportunity they were looking for, and they needed to get to work on it immediately.
IBM gave Gary Kildall the opportunity first. Gary whiffed the deal, and then IBM went to Gates. Gary Kildall did not have a wealthy background, and he became quite wealthy off of CP/M.
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.
I'm far less of a risk taker than he is, and have consequently not made big scores like Musk.
Some disagree with your assessment(!)
> but Musk is
I'm going to reserve judgement on that because the media lens is pretty distorting. He's not afraid to stand up to bullies, and I've seen that interpreted as assholishness.
Steve Jobs also had a reputation as an asshole. A couple of my friends had encounters with him, and I asked is he really an asshole? Both confidently said yes. !!
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”
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://sentinel-aviation.com/blog/warren-buffett-nicknamed-...
But I get your point. I'm happy to make billionaires illegal by taxing them back to being millionaires, but to try and hoist Warren Buffet up as the problem ignores the much, much worst offenders out there.
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/180675/trump-the-ar...
How Buffett did it?
https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/https://www.thea...
tldr; he was leveraged with good stocks
you may consider a simple example for yourself:
Portfolio $100,000.00 $60k into US Tbills, (3, 5, 10y) $40k into SP500 cash $40k into Sp500 on margin
$140k exposure For the portfolio to be wiped out, you would need to have a 50% drawdown in the sp500 which hasn't happened in 90 years, and that assumes in a crash your tbill face value wont soar due to rate cuts
I will retire right away if I had 10 millions. Maybe 50 millions if I was younger than 40.
And, anyways, I think you say this now, but if you were to get those 10 millions you would probably change your tune. A lot of people would find some other project to dedicate their energy. Especially the kind of people that make stuff happen.
That doesn't sound very positive to me. Perhaps OP has a point
but I could get a home near a major airport like 10 mins from SFO, and so with working out and eating consuming 4 hours and sleeping 6 hours a day and 2 hour of spouse time. I legit have 12 hours a day to work everyday. I could easily do that in a sustainable manner 6 days a week, and spending Sunday relaxing by helping out in my parent's farm and then relaxing in the evening before going back to work next week.
Seems like an ideal life for me. The only difference from today is the extra 3 hours I spend in traffic and an average 1 hour daily in running errands. And extra work on Saturday like fetching groceries, looking after my home, fixing stuff etc.
If I get money, I could save that 4 hour of my life and dedicate it to working on something I really like.
You need a lot less than 40m$ 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.
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.
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...")
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.
You could argue he was retired and just continuing his hobby.
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.
I can design and build anything. If I didn't have to do it for work, I'd be making my own evil projects.
You can't take the country out of this boy it turns out...
To some people, their careers are interesting in and of itself, beyond money.
This applies to many professions: scientists, CEOs, writers, painters.
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.
I personally realized that I got bored of solo sized projects. It’s a lot more fun working with other really smart, motivated people.
- you enjoy it AND
- you do not have a "boss" telling you what to do AND
- it makes you more "popular" because the World you live in associate a higher number with your "value" in society
Why would you even stop? It's not about having enough to survive.
— Voltaire
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.
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.
> For folks with the ability to make truckloads of money
Make it? Like actually invent and build stuff? Or just harvest money from others because you have the capital?
Imagine if I said "there are so many more worthwhile things to do than painting" if some famous artist retired.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not a significant miss relative to the portfolio. But a significant miss relative to holding cash.
He drinks lot of Coke, I doubt he exercises much yet he is still alive at 95 and some would say reasonably healthy at that age.
remember this was a guy picking stocks in the middle of nowhere - Omaha Nebraska using just Newspapers, Annual Reports and a phone. With the power of conviction.
not internet like we have to do or "A.I" - yet he built the largest conglomerate known to man
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.
Don’t worship buffet, but study him. The Acquired podcast on him is a great jumping off point.
* 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.
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.
This ignores the enabling and empowering effect of those actions. You wouldn’t have many companies without banks to loan money for capital investment. How could a new but better product make headway without some form of marketing? In our world, Physical workers need some help to get their products made.
It’s like saying the goal keeper, midfield, and defense aren’t valuable since only the striker scores the goal.
Elsewhere in the comments someone links BuffettsAlpha.pdf This explains that they used a 1.6-to-1 leverage refers to the estimate of the average amount of borrowed capital Warren Buffett uses to magnify the returns. This level of leverage means that for every $1.00 of equity, Buffett manages approximately $1.60 in total assets. It explains why Berkshire experiences high volatility (roughly 25%) despite investing in relatively stable, low-risk businesses. A significant portion of this leverage—estimated at 36% of liabilities—comes from insurance float. This is essentially a "loan" that costs Berkshire an average of only 2.2% annually, which is more than 3 percentage points below the average T-bill rate.
So why does this matter? Unlike many investors who might face forced liquidations during market downturns, Buffett's unique access to stable, low-cost financing allows him to maintain this leverage even during significant drawdowns.
So yes, he chose the right "cronies" because during inevitable downturn the money was still there to be used to run these low risk stable business.
Do people idolise him? No need to debate that but power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Why did he continue to live a simple life while he has pledged that 99.5% of his wealth will go to philanthropic causes either during his lifetime or at the time of his death.
So I do think you "got that right", however you may have missed that he started with a factory that makes things, invested in a way that survived adversity, and then plans to deliver on the principle that his wealth belongs to society rather than to a "family empire."
I do wonder how you or I would handle running a business. To me that work does not sound easy.
I think all of the hardest times in my management career have been dealing with investors/owners etc. 'Professional Investors' and PE have been some of the worst, because they tend to be extremely opinionated, whilst simultaneously demonstrating their contempt for the people doing the actual job, and their naivety in how things are actually done. Perhaps that has made me jaded. I never had the same problems with staff, customers and suppliers.
How would you know how difficult his job is? It's not easy to run a company, let alone a hugely successful one responsible for a vast amount of assets.
> Never made anything, just leant money to companies that weren't as rich as him and his cronies, to get a share of profits for doing nothing.
Providing capital to companies helps them grow which in turn helps add value to an economy. And it's not even like it's easy to lend money because this is an inherently risky process so requires a lot of hard work and intelligence to perform sustainably.
I'm curious as to why you're so judgemental of him and presumably by logical extension of your arguments: capitalism in general.
Not particularly him. It annoys me that people go on about how amazing it is that certain people can do their job for so long. Yet his job is not hard on his body, like a labourer. It doesn't carry the same pressure as a business owner who has remortgaged his house and must succeed. If BH went bankrupt, I'm sure it would be embarrassing, but he would still be rich, housed and be able to eat. I am honestly suspicious why these people can't let go and let someone else have a go
Dang, I hope you don't mind me explaining myself a bit? It was meant to explain my earlier comment, since you obviously found it rather bitter
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
Do you have more information about that? That sounds impossible for a publicly traded company.
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.
"he grew Berkshire from a struggling New England textile mill that he starting buying up for $7.60 a share in 1962"
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...