Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 02-14-2012, 06:45 PM   #61
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Koolau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Leeward Oahu
Posts: 3,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevink View Post
Here's an interesting take on the Buffet article that shows you'd have been a whole lot better off with LT bonds than Berkshire Hathaway stock since '99:
A goodly portion of other stocks as well, heh, heh.
__________________

__________________
Ko'olau's Law -

Anything which can be used can be misused. Anything which can be misused will be.
Koolau is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 02-14-2012, 06:48 PM   #62
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,387
If you guys are making longterm investments with that rearward look I wish you much luck.
__________________

__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 05:30 PM   #63
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 463
Making long-term investments with a rearward look is what leads to mistakes like going 100% equities because of their high historic returns. Buffet is flat-out wrong about bonds and Berkshire's performance is lousy compared to such conservative vehicles as Wellesley and Wellington, and is in fact only marginally better than 5 year Treasuries, with far more volatility:

http://crawlingroad.com/blog/2012/02...nguards-funds/
__________________
kevink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 05:47 PM   #64
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Midpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 11,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevink View Post
Making long-term investments with a rearward look is what leads to mistakes like going 100% equities because of their high historic returns. Buffet is flat-out wrong about bonds and Berkshire's performance is lousy compared to such conservative vehicles as Wellesley and Wellington, and is in fact only marginally better than 5 year Treasuries, with far more volatility:

http://crawlingroad.com/blog/2012/02...nguards-funds/
Isn't that interesting, thanks for the link!
__________________
No one agrees with other people's opinions; they merely agree with their own opinions -- expressed by somebody else. Sydney Tremayne
Retired Jun 2011 at age 57

Target AA: 60% equity funds / 35% bond funds / 5% cash
Target WR: Approx 2.5% Approx 20% SI (secure income, SS only)
Midpack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 06:17 PM   #65
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Marco island
Posts: 813
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevink
Making long-term investments with a rearward look is what leads to mistakes like going 100% equities because of their high historic returns. Buffet is flat-out wrong about bonds and Berkshire's performance is lousy compared to such conservative vehicles as Wellesley and Wellington, and is in fact only marginally better than 5 year Treasuries, with far more volatility:

http://crawlingroad.com/blog/2012/02...nguards-funds/
Buffet is a poser. Heck, Zuckerberg is nipping at his heals at only 27. He will be worth a trillion dollars when he is WBs age. Lol
__________________
Gatordoc50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 06:34 PM   #66
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,649
While I have a lot of respect for Buffet and what he accomplished, a lot of it since WWII when our country was going great guns, he doesn't have a crystal ball for the future either. What he does have is enough ammunition ($$) such that he and BRK should be fine.
A good position to be in.
__________________
sheehs1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 07:31 PM   #67
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
wildcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lou-evil
Posts: 2,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevink View Post
Making long-term investments with a rearward look is what leads to mistakes like going 100% equities because of their high historic returns. Buffet is flat-out wrong about bonds and Berkshire's performance is lousy compared to such conservative vehicles as Wellesley and Wellington, and is in fact only marginally better than 5 year Treasuries, with far more volatility:

http://crawlingroad.com/blog/2012/02...nguards-funds/
A comparison using the last 10 yr period eh? Well, that settles it! Buffet is a lousy allocator of capital.
__________________
"These walls are kind of funny. First you hate 'em, then you get used to 'em. Enough time passes, gets so you depend on them"
wildcat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 09:59 PM   #68
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 463
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
A comparison using the last 10 yr period eh? Well, that settles it! Buffet is a lousy allocator of capital.
The numbers speak for themselves, and not just for 10 years. You can have the over-rated Mr. Buffet - I'll take Wellesley's performance over any time period you choose.
__________________
kevink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 10:07 PM   #69
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevink View Post
Making long-term investments with a rearward look is what leads to mistakes like going 100% equities because of their high historic returns. Buffet is flat-out wrong about bonds and Berkshire's performance is lousy compared to such conservative vehicles as Wellesley and Wellington, and is in fact only marginally better than 5 year Treasuries, with far more volatility:

http://crawlingroad.com/blog/2012/02...nguards-funds/
Thanks for posting that - in addition to the blog, he links to a site that provides stock/fund comparisons that include dividends! I have not found that for free, or w/o signing up for some kind of Microsoft account or something.

PerfCharts - StockCharts.com - Free Charts

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevink View Post
The numbers speak for themselves, and not just for 10 years. You can have the over-rated Mr. Buffet - I'll take Wellesley's performance over any time period you choose.
Well, those charts only go back ~ 13 years. When I go back to 1/12/1990 on yahoo, and use their 'adjusted prices' on the history page, I would have wanted to be with BRK-A over Wellesly. Going forward, who knows? My guess is the next ten years will be more like the past ten years than to the decade of the 90's. But that guess is worth nothin' to nobody, JMO.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 09:51 AM   #70
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,290
Heck, my boss had talked about this site and I just did not look at it that closely...

As for what to pick, heck, Exxon has beat Berkshire over the last 9 years (or 3302 days)... I do not see how to get 13 years...
__________________
Texas Proud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 11:10 AM   #71
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
over the last 9 years (or 3302 days)... I do not see how to get 13 years...

I wondered the same thing - Those must be trading days? Look at the dates, it goes back to JAN 1999. So, roughly 5 days x 50 weeks/year (after ~ 10 holidays) = 250 days/year, 3302/250 ~ 13.2 years.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 11:26 AM   #72
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
I wondered the same thing - Those must be trading days? Look at the dates, it goes back to JAN 1999. So, roughly 5 days x 50 weeks/year (after ~ 10 holidays) = 250 days/year, 3302/250 ~ 13.2 years.

-ERD50
Yep, that makes sense... thanks.
__________________
Texas Proud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 11:52 AM   #73
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
wildcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lou-evil
Posts: 2,025
First, I don't really think its an apples-apples comparison using a stock vs a stock/bond mutual fund but if you're fine with it so be it.

BRK had some fantastic returns in the 70s/80s so excluding those decades is really selling it short. Performance has lagged a bit as the market has become more expensive and as BRK become a bigger company w/a bigger float to manage. Buffet has to make very good HUGE deals. Given that I'd expect BRK to behave more like the S&P with a modest chance of outperforming it.

I don't have time to check the yearly returns of BRK & calculations but from a site that maintained an annual tally of BRK's ROR it showed 22.39% from end of yr '67 through end of yr '09. If you are happy with Wellesely and the like that's fine as all of those are good funds but I don't know many people who would say they would pass on BRK ownership over the same time period which is essentially saying you're okay with less money. Personally, I like more money & I don't know many who would say otherwise.
__________________
"These walls are kind of funny. First you hate 'em, then you get used to 'em. Enough time passes, gets so you depend on them"
wildcat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 12:16 PM   #74
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
First, I don't really think its an apples-apples comparison using a stock vs a stock/bond mutual fund but if you're fine with it so be it.

BRK had some fantastic returns in the 70s/80s so excluding those decades is really selling it short. Performance has lagged a bit as the market has become more expensive and as BRK become a bigger company w/a bigger float to manage. Buffet has to make very good HUGE deals. Given that I'd expect BRK to behave more like the S&P with a modest chance of outperforming it.

I don't have time to check the yearly returns of BRK & calculations but from a site that maintained an annual tally of BRK's ROR it showed 22.39% from end of yr '67 through end of yr '09. If you are happy with Wellesely and the like that's fine as all of those are good funds but I don't know many people who would say they would pass on BRK ownership over the same time period which is essentially saying you're okay with less money. Personally, I like more money & I don't know many who would say otherwise.

The problem, just like any investing, is that past performance does not assure future performance....

Looking at the few stocks I did, BRK did not perform nearly as well over the last 10 or so years as other stocks... so someone who invested 10 years ago would have been better investing somewhere else (XOM as an example)...

And, BRK has gotten big... big means it is hard to beat the market... so why not just buy the market... IOW, as a new investor buying today, where do you want to put your money In BRK or somewhere else...
__________________
Texas Proud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 01:03 PM   #75
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,361
That's the fundamental issue here. A mostly stock investment under-performed bonds during one of the greatest bull markets in bonds in history?

Shocking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
First, I don't really think its an apples-apples comparison using a stock vs a stock/bond mutual fund but if you're fine with it so be it.
__________________
Hamlet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 01:12 PM   #76
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,361
It appears to me that Berkshire has outperformed the S&P 500 over the last 10 years.

XOM has done better still.

As a shareholder of both, I hope the outperformance continues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
The problem, just like any investing, is that past performance does not assure future performance....

Looking at the few stocks I did, BRK did not perform nearly as well over the last 10 or so years as other stocks... so someone who invested 10 years ago would have been better investing somewhere else (XOM as an example)...

And, BRK has gotten big... big means it is hard to beat the market... so why not just buy the market... IOW, as a new investor buying today, where do you want to put your money In BRK or somewhere else...
__________________
Hamlet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 01:50 PM   #77
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet View Post
It appears to me that Berkshire has outperformed the S&P 500 over the last 10 years.

XOM has done better still.

As a shareholder of both, I hope the outperformance continues.

This site is pretty neat... I did BRK vs SPY and it appears that they are about the same from about June of 2002 to today... sliding the date shows ups and downs for both...

So, the extra gain was in the first 4 months of the decade... sliding the date show both ups and downs, but if you had bought in June 2002 it would not make a difference...


Can someone show me that this chart included dividends? I have looked and can not find a reference that these charts do include dividends... and if they are considered reinvested or not...
__________________
Texas Proud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 01:57 PM   #78
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
Can someone show me that this chart included dividends? I have looked and can not find a reference that these charts do include dividends... and if they are considered reinvested or not...
Not sure about re-investing (though I'd assume so, but confidence factor is low) - but I did compare the GNMA fund VFIIX charts on yahoo and that site, and yahoo shows about flat (NAV only), and that site showed a steady increase (from divs ~ 4%). Yahoo historical adjusted tables (no chart) assumes re-investing, so you could run some math on that versus the chart to verify it. (and report back if you do, please).

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2012, 04:53 PM   #79
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
wildcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lou-evil
Posts: 2,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
The problem, just like any investing, is that past performance does not assure future performance....

Looking at the few stocks I did, BRK did not perform nearly as well over the last 10 or so years as other stocks... so someone who invested 10 years ago would have been better investing somewhere else (XOM as an example)...

And, BRK has gotten big... big means it is hard to beat the market... so why not just buy the market... IOW, as a new investor buying today, where do you want to put your money In BRK or somewhere else...
Well, I agree. I wasn't trying to sell everyone here on the BRK idea going fwd. The one poster was trying to tell us he (?) would have rather been in Wellesley over BRK any period of time referring to historical returns. I just I'd chime in and post the returns Buffet has managed to produce over the life of BRK. I think his returns via BRK are impressive by any measure although only here can you find people calling 20ish% annualized returns over several decades overrated.

If Buffet wasn't so old and was willing to manage a few million privately from the people here on the board, I'd say put your money there
__________________

__________________
"These walls are kind of funny. First you hate 'em, then you get used to 'em. Enough time passes, gets so you depend on them"
wildcat is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bonds in taxable accounts coalcracker FIRE and Money 7 02-05-2012 01:01 PM
What to do with bonds (funds) now? DoingHomework FIRE and Money 23 01-27-2012 03:48 PM
EE Bonds vs. I Bonds daystar FIRE and Money 1 01-08-2012 12:45 PM
Warren Buffett to keep it "All in the Family"? REWahoo FIRE and Money 23 12-12-2011 02:03 PM
If there is deflation, how does that affect bonds? 67walkon FIRE and Money 8 08-10-2011 09:42 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:00 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.