Interessante Aussagen gibt es hier: https://www.reddit.com/r/ValueInvesting/comments/oumxlg/warren_buffett_and_assertion_that_he_could_get_a/
The ego of idiots in this subreddit lmao, “easier back then”, that’s probably the same shit musicians from mozarts time said to themselves about being a musician.
People keep forgetting how much easier they have it now: tighter regulations, easier access to information, more stocks to pick from (which ironically is also a disadvantage), and a nearly effortless screening process. Scams like an owner suddenly "watering down" stocks and letter stocks no longer exist. The future is literally now!
Lol the millennials today would have to call... on the phone... a companies investor relations to ask about a report.
Totally agree man. I don’t know why people keep telling it easier back then, when there are wars, diseases, lack of information… it is a different story today but it doesn’t mean it’s more difficult or easier. In fact I think the other way around. Now we have everything things. Even though there is a collision between china and the usa. But hell no, it will never be as intense as of the Cold War, the world wars…
I don't know if it's easier today vs Warren's time but I think the process is much easier with instant trades, online information, screeners, etc all at your disposal. Plus there's millions of dollars buying and selling stocks everyday regardless of it being a good decision or not but provides lots of liquidity. Accounting and audit standards are more strict and provide clarity to investors.
In Reddit wurde auf ein Forum verlinkt, in dem die Aussage mit den 50% drin steht, möglicherweise ist das sogar das Original, auf das sich weitere Quellen berufen.
Also bezogen auf die 50% pro Jahr Rendite, die Buffett schaffen würde.
Das wesentliche Zitat ist das hier:
Question: According to a business week report published in 1999, you were quoted as saying “it's a huge structural advantage not to have a lot of money. I think I could make you 50% a year on $1 million. No, I know I could. I guarantee that.” First, would you say the same thing today? Second, since that statement infers that you would invest in smaller companies, other than investing in small-caps, what else would you do differently?
Yes, I would still say the same thing today. In fact, we are still earning those types of returns on some of our smaller investments. The best decade was the 1950s; I was earning 50% plus returns with small amounts of capital. I could do the same thing today with smaller amounts. It would perhaps even be easier to make that much money in today's environment because information is easier to access.
You have to turn over a lot of rocks to find those little anomalies. You have to find the companies that are off the map - way off the map. You may find local companies that have nothing wrong with them at all. A company that I found, Western Insurance Securities, was trading for $3/share when it was earning $20/share!! I tried to buy up as much of it as possible. No one will tell you about these businesses. You have to find them.
Other examples: Genesee Valley Gas, public utility trading at a P/E of 2, GEICO, Union Street Railway of New Bedford selling at $30 when $100/share is sitting in cash, high yield position in 2002. No one will tell you about these ideas, you have to find them.
The answer is still yes today that you can still earn extraordinary returns on smaller amounts of capital. For example, I wouldn't have had to buy issue after issue of different high yield bonds. Having a lot of money to invest forced Berkshire to buy those that were less attractive. With less capital, I could have put all my money into the most attractive issues and really creamed it.
I know more about business and investing today, but my returns have continued to decline since the 50's. Money gets to be an anchor on performance. At Berkshire's size, there would be no more than 200 common stocks in the world that we could invest in if we were running a mutual fund or some other kind of investment business.