Black Edge
@BlackEdgeFund • 209,146 subscribers
Official X account for Black Edge, a leading source for all things markets and investing. Email us: [email protected]
Shorts
Videos
Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger didn't avoid real estate because they thought it was a bad asset class They stayed away because they believed they had no durable advantage in it. When asked why real estate had never become a significant part of Berkshire Hathaway's portfolio, Buffett pointed to two reasons: an unfavorable tax structure and the absence of a competitive edge. He explained that Berkshire, as a C corporation, faces an extra layer of corporate taxation on real estate income, putting it at a disadvantage against REITs, partnerships, and S corporations. As Buffett put it: "Real estate tends to be a very lousy investment for people who are taxed under subchapter C." Beyond taxes, Buffett argued that developed real estate is usually priced efficiently. Unlike public stocks, where Berkshire believes it can identify mispriced businesses, most commercial real estate transactions involve buyers and sellers who have access to similar information. According to Buffett, the best opportunities arise only when markets become highly inefficient — such as during the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) era in the early 1990s, when distressed assets, forced sellers, and scarce financing created widespread mispricing. Looking back, Buffett admitted Berkshire wasn't fully prepared to capitalize on those conditions and believed they missed an opportunity to earn substantial returns. He also recalled that one of the few major real estate deals Berkshire seriously pursued was the Irvine Company in the late 1970s, though the acquisition ultimately went to a group organized by Mobil Oil. Reflecting on his partnership with Charlie Munger, Buffett joked that Munger would often spend several minutes arguing against a deal—and the more passionate the objections, the more Buffett suspected Charlie actually liked it. Source: Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting (2003) Q&A
Black Edge19,891 次观看 • 3 天前
Warren Buffett explains why great investing isn't about comparing every new opportunity to your greatest success. At a Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, a shareholder asked why several major Berkshire investments were structured so differently. Goldman Sachs received $5 billion at 10% plus warrants. General Electric got similar terms. Dow Chemical's deal came with an 8.5% convertible structure. Mars/Wrigley paid 11.45%, while Swiss Re paid 12%. Why weren't the deals priced the same? Buffett's answer was simple. Each investment was made at a different point in time, under different market conditions, with different alternatives available. As he explained: "Our opportunity costs were different in every single one of those five transactions." The deciding factor wasn't the company itself. It was what Berkshire could have done with its capital at that specific moment. Buffett also acknowledged that capital allocation is never perfect. "We could have done a much better, I could have done a much better job of allocating our money." And with characteristic humility, he added: "We not only don't have perfect foresight, sometimes it's pretty, it's pretty bad." When Buffett evaluates an investment, he doesn't compare it to decisions he made years earlier. He compares it to the alternatives available today. Discussing Berkshire's investment in Swiss Re, he said: "I was thinking about what else I could do with $2.7 billion dollars. And that, that's the way all the decisions are made." Every investment passes through the same filter: What opportunities exist right now? What is the best use of capital today? Which option offers the most attractive balance of risk and reward? Past wins don't factor into the decision. As Buffett put it, previous deals "don't really make any difference." That leads to one of the biggest mistakes he believes investors make. "One of the errors people make in business, and sometimes it can be a huge error, is that they try and measure every deal against the best deal that they've ever made." The problem is psychological. Once people anchor themselves to their greatest investment, acquisition, or trade, every future opportunity can seem disappointing by comparison. Instead of making solid decisions, they wait endlessly for another perfect one. Eventually, they stop acting altogether. Buffett warns that by doing so, "they, in effect, sometimes they take themselves out of the game." His philosophy is far more practical. "The goal is not to make a better deal than you've ever made before; the goal is to make a satisfactory deal. It's the best deal that you can make at the time." Investing isn't about constantly setting new personal records. It's about allocating capital intelligently based on the information and opportunities available today. In Buffett's view, there's only one rational way to judge a decision: Did you make the best choice you could with what you knew at the time? As he concludes: "There's no other rational way to make deals." Source: Berkshire Hathaway Annual Shareholders Meeting (2009) – Warren Buffett & Charlie Munger Q&A
Black Edge12,029 次观看 • 4 天前
Bill Gates on what Warren Buffett's calendar taught him about time: Bill Gates built his career packing every minute. As he recalls it: "I had every minute packed and I thought that was the only way you could do things." Then Buffett showed him his calendar, and it changed how Gates thought about time entirely. Buffett's calendar looked nothing like that. Whole days sat blank. Flipping through it, Gates notes: "he has days that there's nothing on." One stretch was almost comically empty. As Gates describes it: "this is the week of April of which there are only three entries for a week." One of those rare entries was simply to file tax, prompting Buffett to joke, "Yeah, there'll be four maybe by April." Asked what the lesson was, Buffett explains: "that you control your time and that sitting and thinking may be a much higher priority than a normal CEO who, you know, there's all this demand and you feel like you need to go and see all these people. It's not a proxy of your seriousness that you filled every minute in your schedule." Then he gets to the part that reframes time as the scarcest asset of all: "And people are going to want your time. It's the only thing you can't buy. I mean, I can buy anything I want basically, but I can't buy time." He closes with this: "And so to have time is the most precious thing you can have. I better be careful with it. There's no way I will be able to buy more time."
Black Edge123,922 次观看 • 1 个月前
Dave Ramsey to a 17-year-old with $5K invested and $1,500/month income: "Don't get too fancy." Sterling called into The Ramsey Show with what sounds like a dream problem for a teenager. He's 17. He owns a $1,000 car outright. He has $5,000 in a Roth IRA and is contributing $500 a month. He makes around $1,500 a month working as an HVAC cleaner while finishing high school full-time. His college tuition is already covered because his dad works at a university. His question: Should he open an index fund and start investing more aggressively, or save up for a house? Dave's answer pushed back against the instinct most young investors have, which is to maximize every dollar into the market as early as possible. "I would not try to get too fancy. I'm just going to park it as an insurance policy to make sure that if something goes sideways on the free part of the college, you can still finish." His reasoning came down to protecting the bigger asset, which isn't the portfolio. It's Sterling himself: "It's more important for you as especially sharp and as much of an ambition and much of a go-getter as you are to complete school and to complete it debt-free. That is more valuable than any amount of money you will ever make on a mutual fund in terms of the actual math. In other words, you will be more valuable by many times more than this money will make in a mutual fund." The investment, Dave said, was his secondary concern. The primary concern was making sure Sterling had a backup if the free tuition fell through. Worst case if it does? "You have, I don't know, 30 or 40 or $50,000 when you graduate. Oh, darn." Jade Warshaw built on the point with something young investors rarely hear: "Between 17 and 22 years old, there's a lot of transition. There's a lot of change. You have no clue kind of what life is going to bring you. And so, you're not going to not become wealthy if you start really kind of hardcore investing at 22 versus 17 if that makes sense." Her case for keeping cash accessible was practical. Moving for a job. Buying a ring. Covering the gap between graduation and a first paycheck. Liquidity buys optionality in the years where your life shape is still forming. The synthesis from both hosts: Investing early matters, but not at the expense of the runway you need to make good decisions in your highest-transition years. Once life settles after college, then go hardcore.
Black Edge105,783 次观看 • 2 个月前
Warren Buffett on why he chose bonds over stocks during the financial crisis: A shareholder asked Buffett why, during the 2009 crisis, he leaned toward debt instruments rather than equity. Specifically, why he invested $300 million in Harley-Davidson at 15% interest instead of buying the stock at $12 (which later traded at $33). Buffett's answer reveals his core investment philosophy: "I don't know whether Harley-Davidson equity is worth 33 or 20 or 45. I just have no view on that. I kind of like a business where your customers tattoo your name on their chest or something, but figuring out the economic value of that, you know, I'm not sure even going on questioning those guys I'd learn much from them." But what he did know was enough: "I do know, or I thought I knew, and I think I'm right, that A: Harley-Davidson was not going out of business, and B: 15% was going to look pretty damned attractive." The lesson is about decision difficulty. Buffett deliberately chose the simpler question: "I knew enough to lend them money. I didn't know enough to buy the equity. And that's frequently the case... I'll go with a simple decision." In other words, he didn't need to predict whether the motorcycle market would shrink or margins would get squeezed. He only needed to answer one question: are they going to go broke or not? Charlie Munger added another dimension to the answer, pointing to their responsibility as fiduciaries: "After all, we are a fiduciary for a lot of people, including people with permanent injuries, etc. And to some extent we are constrained by how aggressively we buy stocks versus something else." Munger also offered a broader insight for investors: "Very often when you're looking at a distressed situation and buy the bonds, you should have bought the stock. So I think you're looking in a promising area." Buffett tied it back to a principle Ben Graham wrote about in 1934: "In the analysis of senior securities, the junior securities usually do better, but you may sleep better with the senior securities." And this is where his philosophy crystallises. Berkshire has $60 billion of insurance liabilities extending out 50 years or more: "We would never have all of our money in stocks. We might have very significant amounts, but we are running this place so that it can stand anything." The payoff for that conservatism came during the crisis itself: "A couple years ago we felt very good about where that philosophy left us. We actually could do things at a time when most people were paralyzed, and we'll keep running it that way."
Black Edge76,530 次观看 • 1 个月前
Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger on why rich parents shouldn't blame their kids for lacking drive: At a Berkshire meeting, Sumit Maharra from Kashmir, India, asks Buffett a sharp question: If you live in a rich society, it's hard to get your kids to work hard because they simply don't need to. So how would you incentivize a child to compete against the hungry, highly motivated kids from emerging markets? Buffett's answer starts with what not to do: "I think certainly that if you are very rich and you bring up your kids to think that they are more important in society or that they have some special privilege simply because they came out of the right womb, that's just a terrible mistake." He points to Munger as proof it can be done well, noting that Charlie raised eight children he knows quite well, and none of them carry that sense of entitlement. Then comes his warning about the outcome: "If you really are going to raise your kids to think that other people should do all the work for them and that they will be entitled to sit around and fan themselves for the rest of their lives, you will probably not get a good result." Buffett adds a piece of counterintuitive advice. The goal isn't to push kids to surpass you at your own game: "The one thing I don't think you want to give them an incentive to do is try and outdo their parents at what their parents happen to be good at. I don't think that makes sense, whether you're a professional athlete or a rich person or whatever it may be." And here's the line that flips the entire question back on the parent: "If you're rich and your kids turn out to have no incentives, I don't think you should point at them; I think you should probably point at yourself." Munger takes it even further, accepting that some incentives are simply lost the moment you raise a child in affluence: "I don't think you can raise children in an affluent family and have them love working 60 hours a week in the hot sun digging fence post holes or something; that's not going to work. So, to some extent, you are destroying certain kinds of incentives, and my advice to you is to lose your fight as gracefully as you can." But Munger doesn't see wealth as the real variable. What matters is genuine interest: "The kids that really get interested in something will work no matter how rich they are, but it's rare to have an avid-like intensity of interest."
Black Edge53,605 次观看 • 1 个月前
A caller asks Dave Ramsey what to do with required minimum distributions from his 401k that he doesn't need. His gut tells him to invest in gold. Dave's response is immediate and emphatic: "No, no, no, no, we don't put anything in gold." His reasoning starts with the math. "Gold is much more volatile. If you look at the price of gold on a chart, it's way up and way down, much more than the stock market is. It is a lot riskier, and it does not yield a good net return; the average annual rate of return on gold sucks." But Dave doesn't stop at performance. He wants to explain "why" gold underperforms. And this is where the conversation gets interesting. "Gold is a commodity; it's a rock that is yellow." He explains that commodities, whether barrels of oil, precious metals, or corn, are all traded 100% based on people's perception of shortage. If the perception is that there's too much of it, the price goes down. Compare that to a real investment: "An investment that creates revenue is a company that's running and making a profit, like Home Depot, Microsoft, or Apple. Their stock goes up because they are creating revenue. Gold, corn, and oil do not create revenue; they only trade based on scarcity and the psychology of the marketplace, greed and fear." In other words, when gold prices rise, the gold itself hasn't become more valuable. Dave puts it plainly: "If a whole bunch of people rush towards gold, it creates a shortage and the price goes up, but the gold did not become more valuable, just more people were chasing fewer bars." He extends the logic to income-producing real estate, which is priced based on the income it creates, not because it's a "golden rock." And he takes a swipe at diamonds while he's at it: "Diamonds are not necessarily a girl's best friend; that is a marketing slogan. Diamonds do not go up in value; there is no actual investment return on them." Then Dave addresses the headlines designed to scare people into gold, stories about the dollar being threatened by China, Russia, or Brazil: "You can't run to gold because there is nothing magical about it." His geopolitical take is sharp: "While Russia and Brazil are large landmasses, they are not large economies. Texas has a larger gross domestic production than Brazil; Texas is a bigger economy. These countries are going to have to do business with the '800-pound gorilla,' and we do business in dollars, so they are still going to be at our mercy." His advice to the caller? Pull the required distribution out of the 401k as the law demands, and move it into good mutual funds in the process.
Black Edge83,185 次观看 • 2 个月前
