Re:Compounding Knowledge
by robnagler on Wednesday February 06, 2019 @10:52AM
(#19096075)
People have been saying Buffet is a lucky outlier for decades. Is his success in the following decades survivorship bias or a valid ex post facto test of success? If you believed in Buffett's investment philosophy in the 1980s based on decades of results, and had a thousand bucks to buy a Berkshire A share, would it have been a lucky pick?
I didn't believe you could beat the market until about 2000, and I'm happy I started investing in Berkshire then. If I had bought Apple instead, it would have been a lucky pick imho. I think of investing in Berkshire to be based on ex post facto results, not survivorship bias.
A decade ago I did an analysis of the top 25 on the Forbes list[1], and the TL;DR is that they 1) inherited their wealth, 2) had bet on a single company, or 3) been a value investor. Nobody in the top 25 is a "trader" or "quant" (e.g. Paulson or Soros). That analysis is still true, btw.
I didn't believe you could beat the market until about 2000, and I'm happy I started investing in Berkshire then. If I had bought Apple instead, it would have been a lucky pick imho. I think of investing in Berkshire to be based on ex post facto results, not survivorship bias.
A decade ago I did an analysis of the top 25 on the Forbes list[1], and the TL;DR is that they 1) inherited their wealth, 2) had bet on a single company, or 3) been a value investor. Nobody in the top 25 is a "trader" or "quant" (e.g. Paulson or Soros). That analysis is still true, btw.
[1] https://www.robnagler.com/2009/06/13/Objectively-Rich.html