So you're basically proposing a value investing firm. As someone who has little exposure to trading, it seems to me that if you are taking that sort of approach, you would have much less of an interest in holding cash and bonds because your returns would normalize over longer periods, so 30-50% seems a bit high to me.
Also, Buffet himself said in 1999
"Let me summarize what I've been saying about the stock market: I think it's very hard to come up with a persuasive case that equities will over the next 17 years perform anything like—anything like—they've performed in the past 17. If I had to pick the most probable return, from appreciation and dividends combined, that investors in aggregate—repeat, aggregate—would earn in a world of constant interest rates, 2% inflation, and those ever hurtful frictional costs, it would be 6%!"
I'm not convinced that taking his approach would really be best.
“...all truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
- Schopenhauer
he also said in his 2001 or 2002 letter that the equity markets would be dead and not go up and the next year would be desolate and then they killed it :) its good to be cognizant of troubles the markets are facing but doesnt mean you turn your back to an opportunity
Ok, but Berkshire Hathaway had average gains of 8.5% from 1999-2010, and the DJIA has gone from about 9000 in 1999 to ~11500 today, for about 2.5% gains YOY. So while value investing seems to have done better, it doesn't seem to really get the gains that are really better than putting your money in PE or a quant fund.
“...all truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
- Schopenhauer
sure if you want to point out some very specific survivorship top notch returns for PE and quant funds -- assuming you are big enough of an investor to get some wiggle room into a shop like that -- but equities are made for everyone. what about all the funds that give dismal returns and or blow up as well? besides you cant employ same amt of capital in PE that you can in equities, and equities are definitely much more liquid.. so there are trade offs between the asset classes
Quibusdam ut ex non dolor rerum vitae. Aut debitis similique itaque vitae. Asperiores quia et repellat at voluptas tempore molestiae. Quia sint et ut dolore vel culpa sed.
Est et eaque laboriosam voluptate est laboriosam dolor. Dolor harum incidunt sapiente asperiores numquam. Velit et voluptas expedita. Non iste consequatur cupiditate a consequatur. Sint enim nihil temporibus.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
“...all truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
- Schopenhauer
Want to Vote on this Content?! No WSO Credits?
Sorry, you need to login or sign up in order to vote. As a new user, you get over 200 WSO Credits free,
so you can reward or punish any content you deem worthy right away. See you on the other side!
ALL FEEDBACK IS WELCOME
So you're basically proposing a value investing firm. As someone who has little exposure to trading, it seems to me that if you are taking that sort of approach, you would have much less of an interest in holding cash and bonds because your returns would normalize over longer periods, so 30-50% seems a bit high to me.
Also, Buffet himself said in 1999
"Let me summarize what I've been saying about the stock market: I think it's very hard to come up with a persuasive case that equities will over the next 17 years perform anything like—anything like—they've performed in the past 17. If I had to pick the most probable return, from appreciation and dividends combined, that investors in aggregate—repeat, aggregate—would earn in a world of constant interest rates, 2% inflation, and those ever hurtful frictional costs, it would be 6%!"
I'm not convinced that taking his approach would really be best.
he also said in his 2001 or 2002 letter that the equity markets would be dead and not go up and the next year would be desolate and then they killed it :) its good to be cognizant of troubles the markets are facing but doesnt mean you turn your back to an opportunity
Ok, but Berkshire Hathaway had average gains of 8.5% from 1999-2010, and the DJIA has gone from about 9000 in 1999 to ~11500 today, for about 2.5% gains YOY. So while value investing seems to have done better, it doesn't seem to really get the gains that are really better than putting your money in PE or a quant fund.
sure if you want to point out some very specific survivorship top notch returns for PE and quant funds -- assuming you are big enough of an investor to get some wiggle room into a shop like that -- but equities are made for everyone. what about all the funds that give dismal returns and or blow up as well? besides you cant employ same amt of capital in PE that you can in equities, and equities are definitely much more liquid.. so there are trade offs between the asset classes
Quibusdam ut ex non dolor rerum vitae. Aut debitis similique itaque vitae. Asperiores quia et repellat at voluptas tempore molestiae. Quia sint et ut dolore vel culpa sed.
Est et eaque laboriosam voluptate est laboriosam dolor. Dolor harum incidunt sapiente asperiores numquam. Velit et voluptas expedita. Non iste consequatur cupiditate a consequatur. Sint enim nihil temporibus.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...