Our ER portfolio is still up 6.4% YTD, but Berkshire Hathaway is up 24% YTD and has grown to 35% of our ER portfolio. We'd be losers without Buffett.
Yet apparently Berkshire Hathaway is a loser even with Buffett. Two researchers have tracked three decades of his stock picks and found that just riding his publicly-filed coattails would have produced returns better than buying & holding BRK. This despite the insurance float and the privately-held companies, which could indicate once again that Berkshire Hathaway is significantly discounted from its intrinsic value. If this study has been done properly I think it'll validate that Buffett has achieved a market-beating performance without coin-flipping benefit.
Following Buffett to profit - International Herald Tribune
"Martin said he and Puthenpurackal initiated their study because they wanted to know whether it was better to purchase the stocks that Buffett was buying or invest in Berkshire. The market- beating returns on copycat investing are based on buying and selling at the end of the month following disclosure over 31 years."
It'll be interesting to see this study when it comes out, hopefully in a publicly-accessible release. It'll be especially interesting to see if their 31-year period starts in 1975 or if it includes 1973-4.
"On average, 73 percent of Berkshire's equity portfolio was in five stocks during the past 31 years, the professors found. Martin said long-term returns show the easiest way to mimic Buffett is to invest in Berkshire. The stock rose at an annual rate of 27.7 percent during the past three decades, he said. "For someone like me, it's better to just buy Berkshire shares," said Martin, who owns Berkshire's Class B shares."
BTW Charlie Munger recently sold two hundred "A" shares. He's more likely to be making a charitable donation than rebalancing, but I suspect future filings will show that Buffett, Simpson, and their four understudies will have been shopping like crazy at this month's blue-light specials. And if I was Wells Fargo I'd be making Omaha phone calls...
Yet apparently Berkshire Hathaway is a loser even with Buffett. Two researchers have tracked three decades of his stock picks and found that just riding his publicly-filed coattails would have produced returns better than buying & holding BRK. This despite the insurance float and the privately-held companies, which could indicate once again that Berkshire Hathaway is significantly discounted from its intrinsic value. If this study has been done properly I think it'll validate that Buffett has achieved a market-beating performance without coin-flipping benefit.
Following Buffett to profit - International Herald Tribune
"Martin said he and Puthenpurackal initiated their study because they wanted to know whether it was better to purchase the stocks that Buffett was buying or invest in Berkshire. The market- beating returns on copycat investing are based on buying and selling at the end of the month following disclosure over 31 years."
It'll be interesting to see this study when it comes out, hopefully in a publicly-accessible release. It'll be especially interesting to see if their 31-year period starts in 1975 or if it includes 1973-4.
"On average, 73 percent of Berkshire's equity portfolio was in five stocks during the past 31 years, the professors found. Martin said long-term returns show the easiest way to mimic Buffett is to invest in Berkshire. The stock rose at an annual rate of 27.7 percent during the past three decades, he said. "For someone like me, it's better to just buy Berkshire shares," said Martin, who owns Berkshire's Class B shares."
BTW Charlie Munger recently sold two hundred "A" shares. He's more likely to be making a charitable donation than rebalancing, but I suspect future filings will show that Buffett, Simpson, and their four understudies will have been shopping like crazy at this month's blue-light specials. And if I was Wells Fargo I'd be making Omaha phone calls...
Last edited:
