Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Warren Buffett's Annual Letter to Berkshire Hathaway Shareholders [pdf]

berkshirehathaway.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 324 posts

Re: Warren Buffett's Annual Letter to Berkshire Hathaway Shareholders [pdf]

#261

Post by skybrian »

p4db wrote: post #95
differentView wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the worst he's done?

I do not know what the worst is that he has done. For sure he and his business partners tried to strongarm the german city / community of Egelsbach to sell it's airport (Germany's largest small airplane airport, near Frankfurt/Main) to him. The aim was to expand the airport, at the expense of the inhabitants. The upside would have been 1-10 jobs, the downside a lot of noise and reduced price of property and life qual…

It sounds like NetJets bought 80% of shares in the airport [1]. Who did they buy it from? (I assume they were willing to sell?)

[1] http://www.juve.de/nachrichten/deals/2009/05/net-jets-uebern...

Translated: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://...

Re: Warren Buffett's Annual Letter to Berkshire Hathaway Shareholders [pdf]

#262

Post by tptacek »

wbl wrote: post #257
tptacek wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're now litigating the literal definition of a prop trading firm. Nobody is arguing that you shouldn't start a prop trading firm. The argument is that you shouldn't invest in hedge funds, because passive investment funds outperform them. If you want to make money in active investment, join or form a prop firm. The broader point would be, the market can probably function based on passive investment and inputs from…

No, join or start a hedge fund and take the fees from the investors. That's how you make money actively trading.

The whole point of this particular branch of the thread is that hedge funds underperform passive investors.

Re: Warren Buffett's Annual Letter to Berkshire Hathaway Shareholders [pdf]

#263

Post by perseusprime11 »

Buffet is so modest and humble. It comes through in this comment: "A few, however – these are serious blunders I made in my job of capital allocation – produce very poor returns. In most cases, I was wrong when I originally sized up the economic characteristics of these companies or the industries in which they operate, and we are now paying the price for my misjudgments. In a couple of instances, I stumbled in assessing either the fidelity or ability of incumbent managers or ones I later put in place. I will commit more errors; you can count on that. Fortunately, Charlie – never bashful – is around to say “no” to my worst ideas."

Re: Warren Buffett's Annual Letter to Berkshire Hathaway Shareholders [pdf]

#264

Post by tptacek »

gizmo wrote: post #259
tptacek wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're now litigating the literal definition of a prop trading firm. Nobody is arguing that you shouldn't start a prop trading firm. The argument is that you shouldn't invest in hedge funds, because passive investment funds outperform them. If you want to make money in active investment, join or form a prop firm. The broader point would be, the market can probably function based on passive investment and inputs from…

I literally made this point earlier. I even used the word literally to indicate I meant it literally. > Nobody is arguing that you shouldn't start a prop trading firm. I disagree. People are absolutely arguing that nobody should start a prop firm because you can't beat the market. That the prop funds that succeed are just those that have gotten lucky in the short term. That everybody should put their money in index f…

Like I said, I wasn't say you were wrong, I was saying that you and your interlocutors were talking past each other. It can simultaneously be true that active investors can "beat the market" and that retail and institutional investors shouldn't invest in actively-managed funds.

The place I think we got hung up here is on the notion of "nobody investing in", because obviously a person who starts or joins a prop trading firm is in a sense investing in that firm.

Re: Warren Buffett's Annual Letter to Berkshire Hathaway Shareholders [pdf]

#265

Post by akhilcacharya »

dsacco wrote: post #17

There's one particular passage I'd like to point out, on page 5: Our efforts to materially increase the normalized earnings of Berkshire will be aided – as they have been throughout our managerial tenure – by America’s economic dynamism. One word sums up our country’s achievements: miraculous. From a standing start 240 years ago – a span of time less than triple my days on earth – Americans have combined human ingenu…

>Normally the flavors I do observe are hyper-nationalistic and filled with bravado, while the tone here is lauding yet reserved.

He used this same logic when endorsing Hillary Clinton for President.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq_0un5CPSo

Re: Warren Buffett's Annual Letter to Berkshire Hathaway Shareholders [pdf]

#266

Post by MomentarySanity »

baursak wrote: post #222
MomentarySanity wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think slavery was the main, or even a large driver of industrial growth, you need to explain the extreme lack of industry in places where slavery was common versus places where there was no slavery. E.g., New England versus the Carolinas, etc.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cro...

Northern manufacturing bought cotton from slave plantations, yes. As did British mills.

However, you'll note that in the absence of southern cotton during the Civil War, these textile mills did not shut down or become unprofitable, they switched to alternate sources of cotton.

Re: Warren Buffett's Annual Letter to Berkshire Hathaway Shareholders [pdf]

#267

Post by euyyn »

austenallred wrote: post #235
chickenfries wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but that's a pipe dream so why not study history instead?

The question at hand is "Does the American system create massive amounts of wealth?" The comment essentially claimed it only did so because of slavery. I argue that isn't true. If the American system only works as a result of slavery then it should be discounted. If not, however, it should be understood and replicated where possible. And we should all study history regardless.

No, the comment didn't claim that. Rather that it didn't start from scratch in a barren land, instead it started by abusing those people for advantage.

Re: Warren Buffett's Annual Letter to Berkshire Hathaway Shareholders [pdf]

#268

Post by ssalazar »

nycdatasci wrote: post #128
logicallee wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America is worth way more than $90 trillion. He's valuing it like a buyer :) As a quick back-of-envelope check: American GDP in 2016 was $18.86 tn. The son of a bitch wants it at a 4.7 trailing multiple, after a relatively slow-growth year. All that praise - and then a 4.8x multiple. Now I know how he butters up his acquisition targets :) EDIT: I am getting downvoted, but I am keeping this. You guys don't realize tha…

From: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/z1.pdf "The net worth of households and nonprofits rose to $90.2 trillion during the third quarter of 2016."

So? That doesn't evidently include business assets let alone future growth.

Re: Warren Buffett's Annual Letter to Berkshire Hathaway Shareholders [pdf]

#269

Post by nickbauman »

hueving wrote: post #94
nickbauman wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slavery was less efficient than a market economy and a free labor pool. Consider the Irish who built the Erie Canal. They were paid mostly in rum and they died off so quickly the bosses didn't care because a fresh crop of Irish workers walked off the boat the following week. Slaves had to be fed and housed and nominally cared for. After all, they cost money and you didn't want to throw away your investment. The slave…

>let's face it: those who like to hide behind "states rights", it all comes back to "states rights to buy and have slaves" This is an idiotic strawman. That's the equivalent of saying that people who think countries in the European Union should be mostly free to implement their own laws are pro slavery. Smaller localized government control vs one rule for everyone has little to do with slavery. There is no reason tha…

Yes you're misunderstanding the point. It refers to southern US states who claimed states rights when seceding from the Union in the American Civil War.

Re: Warren Buffett's Annual Letter to Berkshire Hathaway Shareholders [pdf]

#270

Post by beams_of_light »

mythrwy wrote: post #208
ajmurmann wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this situation you are probably right. However, it's very problematic as a general statement. There are too many atrocities committed by violent majorities against powerless minorities that come to mind. This blanket statement gets into victim shaming really quick.

Agreed. Atrocities have happened and will most likely happen again with innocent victims. But even with violent majorities there is usually a justification of the behavior that somehow involves something the minority party is doing (or not doing) that justifies the action. Not that this makes it any more morally palatable (or true) from an objective viewpoint but the division may exist to be seized upon. I'd also arg…

As much as I despise Trump, I agree. I'd prefer HN remain relatively non-political. The minute it starts to resemble anything like the default front page of reddit, I'm going to be looking for the next HN.
Post reply on HN