Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Warren Buffett: "I think [Google] is more likely to be a winner based on their record than probably 95% of what gets merchandised through Wall Street." "The real question with Google and all of its competitors now is they're all laying out hundreds of billions [on capital expenditures]. That's...

kejca's profile picture

Kevin Carpenter

25,042 subscribers

71,169 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat •via X (Twitter)

BildungFinanzenNachrichten & Politik
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

10 Kommentare

Profilbild von Bob
Bobvor 1 Monat

My prediction: Elon Musk (SpaceX, xAI, and Tesla) will ultimately win the AI competition. They have all the necessary pieces in place and the best people working on these projects. Buffett’s bias against Elon Musk will end up costing Berkshire Hathaway shareholders. At age 95, he is deciding to venture outside his circle of competence.

Profilbild von Peter Lake (“world’s anonymous singer songwriter”)
Peter Lake (“world’s anonymous singer songwriter”)vor 1 Monat

Google is perhaps not pushing the outer limits…kind of like Apple repurchasing their shares? Less business risk, but less fun for the luminaries who want to be at the cutting edge. Looking back though it will be hard not to argue that Google was the focal point of all the major talent in the industry. Sort of bell labs-eque

Profilbild von Kuldeep Verma
Kuldeep Vermavor 1 Monat

Google has a strong track record, but AI requires enormous spending.

Profilbild von Aryan Singh
Aryan Singhvor 1 Monat

Buffett is basically pointing out that the AI race is becoming a capital war, not just a software race. That capex is going to separate the companies that can actually monetize AI from the ones just burning money.

Profilbild von NexusMaximus
NexusMaximusvor 1 Monat

Says the Oracle who could have bought $GOOG at $150 but instead bought at $350

Profilbild von paintingcandles
paintingcandlesvor 1 Monat

what would make buffett change his mind on this, is there a capex number that gets too scary?

Profilbild von ೃ⁀➷ sofi ࣪˖
ೃ⁀➷ sofi ࣪˖vor 1 Monat

Past record doesn't protect against overinvestment. At what scale does capital intensity kill the moat?

Profilbild von NextMedia.London
NextMedia.Londonvor 1 Monat

The scale of this investment makes the AI race look very different from simply a software story.

Profilbild von The Value Investor
The Value Investorvor 1 Monat

Scale is becoming a competitive advantage. The capital required for AI infrastructure may ultimately exclude competitors that can't fund the race.

Profilbild von NAYUYU(T ^ T)ノ(喪中RIJI)なゆゆ(T-T)ノ🌈🐕‍🦺。
NAYUYU(T ^ T)ノ(喪中RIJI)なゆゆ(T-T)ノ🌈🐕‍🦺。vor 1 Monat

なるほど(*´꒳`*)ノ💴💹🏙⭐️✨。

Ähnliche Videos

Warren Buffett in 2020: "[Google and Amazon] are the kind of businesses I think about a lot. Charlie thinks about them a lot. You can't help but do it. Those are incredible business stories." Earlier in the interview, he lamented missing out on Google years earlier — but didn't rule out investing in the future. "No, [the door is not closed on Google]. Not at all." And, today, Berkshire now owns $36+ billion of Alphabet/Google.
0:32

Warren Buffett in 2020: "[Google and Amazon] are the kind of businesses I think about a lot. Charlie thinks about them a lot. You can't help but do it. Those are incredible business stories." Earlier in the interview, he lamented missing out on Google years earlier — but didn't rule out investing in the future. "No, [the door is not closed on Google]. Not at all." And, today, Berkshire now owns $36+ billion of Alphabet/Google.

Kevin Carpenter

13,896 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Warren Buffett literally gave a 9-minute masterclass on what makes a business worth owning, inside the interview where he explains why he broke his own rule on technology. Eight things he teaches: 1. A good business is not one that grows. It is one that earns high returns on capital for a long time. His words: "something that you can expect to earn high returns on capital over a long period of time." Growth without returns on capital is just a bigger version of the same problem. 2. Measure it against doing nothing. Buffett points out he can put huge amounts of money into government bonds and collect payments every year with no risk. So a good business has to earn a lot more than treasuries, and be expected to keep doing it. If your business does not clear the riskless rate by a wide margin, the capital has a better home. 3. The gap between similar-looking businesses is enormous. Most banks earn 13 or 14 percent on capital. Ask anyone to guess American Express and they say something similar. It earns 30 percent plus, and Buffett is clear it "does not incur more risk in doing so than the banks that earn 13 or 14 percent." Same industry, more than double the return, no extra risk taken. 4. Charlie Munger's test: the cash has to be real. Munger pounded the idea that a business was not good just because it was doing sexy things. It had to be earning real cash, be able to pay that cash out if it wanted, and better yet be able to put it back to work inside the business. A company that earns high returns but cannot redeploy the money is worth less than one that can. 5. Time is the multiplier, so duration is the thing to protect. Buffett says a long period of time "gets to be very important because it doubles later on to the very big numbers." One great year is noise. The rate is what compounds. 6. When the facts change, retire the rule. Buffett spent decades known for not buying technology, and said so himself. His explanation for buying now is that the business changed: Google and its competitors are "laying out hundreds of billions," they are big capital spenders, and that is real money. When they were asset-light he passed and the market loved them. Now that they spend heavily, shareholders like them less and he thinks they are more likely to win. He did not change his test. He noticed the business had moved into the category his test rewards. 7. Nobody is measuring the thing that matters. Buffett says he cannot recall a report on Wall Street that gets into the internal rates of return a business is actually earning, and calls the fixation on next quarter ridiculous. He rates Alphabet ahead of 90 or 95 percent of what gets merchandised through Wall Street, on the record rather than the story. If your own reporting tracks growth and headcount but not return on capital, you are measuring what is easy. 8. Every wonderful business gets attacked, so ask how long it stays wonderful. In 1958 he helped start Data Documents, after IBM was forced by an antitrust settlement to divest half the capacity of its best business. That advantage ran out after 10 or 15 years, and he knew some of the people who caused it to run out. His closing line is the whole lesson: "It's not a question of whether it was wonderful yesterday. The question is, how long is it going to be wonderful?" The move for an operator: run the test on your own business this quarter. What return are you earning on the capital in it, how does that compare to doing nothing, and what would have to be true for that return to survive the next ten years. Warren Buffett with Becky Quick, CNBC Squawk Box, July 2026.
9:00

Warren Buffett literally gave a 9-minute masterclass on what makes a business worth owning, inside the interview where he explains why he broke his own rule on technology. Eight things he teaches: 1. A good business is not one that grows. It is one that earns high returns on capital for a long time. His words: "something that you can expect to earn high returns on capital over a long period of time." Growth without returns on capital is just a bigger version of the same problem. 2. Measure it against doing nothing. Buffett points out he can put huge amounts of money into government bonds and collect payments every year with no risk. So a good business has to earn a lot more than treasuries, and be expected to keep doing it. If your business does not clear the riskless rate by a wide margin, the capital has a better home. 3. The gap between similar-looking businesses is enormous. Most banks earn 13 or 14 percent on capital. Ask anyone to guess American Express and they say something similar. It earns 30 percent plus, and Buffett is clear it "does not incur more risk in doing so than the banks that earn 13 or 14 percent." Same industry, more than double the return, no extra risk taken. 4. Charlie Munger's test: the cash has to be real. Munger pounded the idea that a business was not good just because it was doing sexy things. It had to be earning real cash, be able to pay that cash out if it wanted, and better yet be able to put it back to work inside the business. A company that earns high returns but cannot redeploy the money is worth less than one that can. 5. Time is the multiplier, so duration is the thing to protect. Buffett says a long period of time "gets to be very important because it doubles later on to the very big numbers." One great year is noise. The rate is what compounds. 6. When the facts change, retire the rule. Buffett spent decades known for not buying technology, and said so himself. His explanation for buying now is that the business changed: Google and its competitors are "laying out hundreds of billions," they are big capital spenders, and that is real money. When they were asset-light he passed and the market loved them. Now that they spend heavily, shareholders like them less and he thinks they are more likely to win. He did not change his test. He noticed the business had moved into the category his test rewards. 7. Nobody is measuring the thing that matters. Buffett says he cannot recall a report on Wall Street that gets into the internal rates of return a business is actually earning, and calls the fixation on next quarter ridiculous. He rates Alphabet ahead of 90 or 95 percent of what gets merchandised through Wall Street, on the record rather than the story. If your own reporting tracks growth and headcount but not return on capital, you are measuring what is easy. 8. Every wonderful business gets attacked, so ask how long it stays wonderful. In 1958 he helped start Data Documents, after IBM was forced by an antitrust settlement to divest half the capacity of its best business. That advantage ran out after 10 or 15 years, and he knew some of the people who caused it to run out. His closing line is the whole lesson: "It's not a question of whether it was wonderful yesterday. The question is, how long is it going to be wonderful?" The move for an operator: run the test on your own business this quarter. What return are you earning on the capital in it, how does that compare to doing nothing, and what would have to be true for that return to survive the next ten years. Warren Buffett with Becky Quick, CNBC Squawk Box, July 2026.

Andrej Drats

31,661 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

JOHN SOLOMON: If Iran stays in its current position, it's not a deal the President's gonna take, and he doesn't have to. We're the victors. Iran hasn't won anything in this military conflict. The only thing it won, it was a big bruising from our military. ---That's the game they're playing. The question is, can they hold out longer than their wells start exploding? And I think that that game, while it stretched it out for a few weeks, right now Iran is at near capacity. They're gonna start to have to cap wells that are gonna cost them hundreds of billions of dollars and as many as 10 years to get back online. They can't afford that. I think President Trump wins in a game of chicken with a few more missiles thrown around probably gets Iran's attention in a bigger way than it is right now.
5:58

JOHN SOLOMON: If Iran stays in its current position, it's not a deal the President's gonna take, and he doesn't have to. We're the victors. Iran hasn't won anything in this military conflict. The only thing it won, it was a big bruising from our military. ---That's the game they're playing. The question is, can they hold out longer than their wells start exploding? And I think that that game, while it stretched it out for a few weeks, right now Iran is at near capacity. They're gonna start to have to cap wells that are gonna cost them hundreds of billions of dollars and as many as 10 years to get back online. They can't afford that. I think President Trump wins in a game of chicken with a few more missiles thrown around probably gets Iran's attention in a bigger way than it is right now.

Bannon’s WarRoom

13,660 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

🚨Former BlackRock fund manager Ed Dowd says "China is hoarding copper," which "indicates [it] might be getting ready for war" Dowd paints a GRIM picture of China, noting that its real estate market is "a disaster" and that it's "in a deflationary death spiral because of [its] demographics" "just because they're hoarding doesn't mean the war is imminent. It just means that they're... getting ready for something" "[But] as their economy continues to crumble, they're having the problem of consumers that are doing well... not spending—their saving and hoarding" "[and] there's going to be a lot of unemployed Chinese as we roll forward" This clip of Dowd (Edward Dowd) is taken from an interview with CapitalCosm (CapitalCosm) posted to YouTube on July 14, 2026. ----------------Partial transcription of clip-------------- "We think China is hoarding copper. China is taking— they're buying real assets. They keep printing money to the tune of 10% a year, and they're converting a lot of their trade surpluses into real assets. So they're hoarding. "Look, if you're going to hoard copper, that indicates you might be getting ready for war as well. So there seems to be a hoarding issue going on there. It's not an indication that things are really well in the economy. They continue to just buy and stockpile. "You know, look, just because they're hoarding doesn't mean the war is imminent. It just means that they're just— they're getting ready for something, and they're buying real assets. "One of the biggest problems we have with China is they're 47% of the global money supply. People don't know that... But they have very low velocity of money. That's why— and they're in a deflationary death spiral because of their demographics. So what they're doing with their money, in aggregate, is buying real assets. "And... I think our velocity of money is 1.5. China's I think is point .4 or .6. Much lower than ours. That's why, that's why you're not seeing any inflation in China. In fact, it's the opposite. The savings rate in China is exploding. There's no safety net there. "And as their economy continues to crumble, they're having, they're having the problem of the consumers that are doing well are not spending, their saving and hoarding. "[And the real estate market is] a disaster. But what held them up, the disaster started in 2021, but they had a bunch of long-lived projects that— so construction had only rolled 20%, whereas land, new permitting was down 70, 80%. So that's now starting to roll. "We saw construction year over year go negative in Q1 of this year. So those projects are now rolling off, and all they care about is employment, so there's going to be a lot of unemployed Chinese as we roll forward."
3:03

🚨Former BlackRock fund manager Ed Dowd says "China is hoarding copper," which "indicates [it] might be getting ready for war" Dowd paints a GRIM picture of China, noting that its real estate market is "a disaster" and that it's "in a deflationary death spiral because of [its] demographics" "just because they're hoarding doesn't mean the war is imminent. It just means that they're... getting ready for something" "[But] as their economy continues to crumble, they're having the problem of consumers that are doing well... not spending—their saving and hoarding" "[and] there's going to be a lot of unemployed Chinese as we roll forward" This clip of Dowd (Edward Dowd) is taken from an interview with CapitalCosm (CapitalCosm) posted to YouTube on July 14, 2026. ----------------Partial transcription of clip-------------- "We think China is hoarding copper. China is taking— they're buying real assets. They keep printing money to the tune of 10% a year, and they're converting a lot of their trade surpluses into real assets. So they're hoarding. "Look, if you're going to hoard copper, that indicates you might be getting ready for war as well. So there seems to be a hoarding issue going on there. It's not an indication that things are really well in the economy. They continue to just buy and stockpile. "You know, look, just because they're hoarding doesn't mean the war is imminent. It just means that they're just— they're getting ready for something, and they're buying real assets. "One of the biggest problems we have with China is they're 47% of the global money supply. People don't know that... But they have very low velocity of money. That's why— and they're in a deflationary death spiral because of their demographics. So what they're doing with their money, in aggregate, is buying real assets. "And... I think our velocity of money is 1.5. China's I think is point .4 or .6. Much lower than ours. That's why, that's why you're not seeing any inflation in China. In fact, it's the opposite. The savings rate in China is exploding. There's no safety net there. "And as their economy continues to crumble, they're having, they're having the problem of the consumers that are doing well are not spending, their saving and hoarding. "[And the real estate market is] a disaster. But what held them up, the disaster started in 2021, but they had a bunch of long-lived projects that— so construction had only rolled 20%, whereas land, new permitting was down 70, 80%. So that's now starting to roll. "We saw construction year over year go negative in Q1 of this year. So those projects are now rolling off, and all they care about is employment, so there's going to be a lot of unemployed Chinese as we roll forward."

Sense Receptor

15,991 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Trump: We're taking in trillions, not billions, trillions and trillions of dollars from other countries … Now they're paying a lot of money and they're paying hundreds of billions of dollars… But I think there's also a possibility that we're taking in so much money that we may very well make a dividend to the people of America.
1:00

Trump: We're taking in trillions, not billions, trillions and trillions of dollars from other countries … Now they're paying a lot of money and they're paying hundreds of billions of dollars… But I think there's also a possibility that we're taking in so much money that we may very well make a dividend to the people of America.

Acyn

2,485,890 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

"Wall Street didn't like crypto for the same reason I didn't, until they realized they can make money off of it. Now Wall Street's making a fortune and all their customers are going broke" Peter Schiff on why Wall Street loves crypto now and who's paying for it "Wall Street didn't like crypto until they realized they can make money off of it. Once they started making money, they loved it. They're making a ton of fees on the ETFs. But you know who they made the most money from? Saylor and Strategy. All these ATM sales of Strategy stock, all the issuing of these securities, Wall Street got so much in banking fees" "Look at David Bailey's Nakamoto, it's now down like 99%, but the banks made a lot of money bringing it public. The investors got killed. The average Bitcoin ETF buyer has lost money" "Wall Street's making a fortune off it. They're booking all the bets, raking in everything. But the investors are losing. They lost on Trump coin, they lost on the meme coin. Wall Street is making money, and all their customers are going broke"
1:20

"Wall Street didn't like crypto for the same reason I didn't, until they realized they can make money off of it. Now Wall Street's making a fortune and all their customers are going broke" Peter Schiff on why Wall Street loves crypto now and who's paying for it "Wall Street didn't like crypto until they realized they can make money off of it. Once they started making money, they loved it. They're making a ton of fees on the ETFs. But you know who they made the most money from? Saylor and Strategy. All these ATM sales of Strategy stock, all the issuing of these securities, Wall Street got so much in banking fees" "Look at David Bailey's Nakamoto, it's now down like 99%, but the banks made a lot of money bringing it public. The investors got killed. The average Bitcoin ETF buyer has lost money" "Wall Street's making a fortune off it. They're booking all the bets, raking in everything. But the investors are losing. They lost on Trump coin, they lost on the meme coin. Wall Street is making money, and all their customers are going broke"

The Wolf Of All Streets

52,457 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

The White House President Donald J. Trump - "We've taken in hundreds of billions of dollars... and so, I say, 'What happens to all of the money that we took in?' It wasn't discussed. Wouldn't you think they would've put one sentence in there saying keep the money or don't keep the money?"
1:02

The White House President Donald J. Trump - "We've taken in hundreds of billions of dollars... and so, I say, 'What happens to all of the money that we took in?' It wasn't discussed. Wouldn't you think they would've put one sentence in there saying keep the money or don't keep the money?"

liten drage

81,463 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Ben Thompson on why Google and Amazon are Nvidia's biggest competitors, and what they're doing about it: "Google and Amazon aren't selling their chips on differentiation. They're selling chips as commodities. Nvidia's the one selling the differentiation. So that's Nvidia's biggest problem, because what's the number one advantage that the hyperscalers have? Lower cost of capital. It's a capital fight. They have a lower cost of capital than the neoclouds do. Intel is a good example here. AMD cleaned them out in hyperscaler sales, because the hyperscalers put in the effort to get stuff working on AMD versus Intel. Because they're buying at such scale, the investment to do that is worth it. The part of Intel's business that never floundered was selling to government and selling to enterprises, because they don't have the resources of a hyperscaler. That's why Nvidia talks about selling to sovereign clouds, that's why they talk about selling to enterprises. They want to get into markets where they're not going to be balancing this chip versus that chip. The hyperscalers have always been the threat to Nvidia for that reason, because they're actually bigger."
1:29

Ben Thompson on why Google and Amazon are Nvidia's biggest competitors, and what they're doing about it: "Google and Amazon aren't selling their chips on differentiation. They're selling chips as commodities. Nvidia's the one selling the differentiation. So that's Nvidia's biggest problem, because what's the number one advantage that the hyperscalers have? Lower cost of capital. It's a capital fight. They have a lower cost of capital than the neoclouds do. Intel is a good example here. AMD cleaned them out in hyperscaler sales, because the hyperscalers put in the effort to get stuff working on AMD versus Intel. Because they're buying at such scale, the investment to do that is worth it. The part of Intel's business that never floundered was selling to government and selling to enterprises, because they don't have the resources of a hyperscaler. That's why Nvidia talks about selling to sovereign clouds, that's why they talk about selling to enterprises. They want to get into markets where they're not going to be balancing this chip versus that chip. The hyperscalers have always been the threat to Nvidia for that reason, because they're actually bigger."

Patrick OShaughnessy

38,037 Aufrufe • vor 27 Tagen

You think #TrumpSmellsBad ? Here's something about D.C. that really smells bad. Have you ever wondered how all these Politicians go in making $40,000/yr, and 4 yrs later they're worth $380 Million? This is how. This is money flow. That's the name of the game. Each one of these paths passes through some politician, on the way to its destination, and more than likely there are kickbacks.
1:01

You think #TrumpSmellsBad ? Here's something about D.C. that really smells bad. Have you ever wondered how all these Politicians go in making $40,000/yr, and 4 yrs later they're worth $380 Million? This is how. This is money flow. That's the name of the game. Each one of these paths passes through some politician, on the way to its destination, and more than likely there are kickbacks.

GaltiFACT®

18,422 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Warren Buffett: "When I say a very good business, I mean something that you can expect to earn high returns on capital over a long period of time." "I could put huge amounts of money into government bonds and get $20-30-40 billion a year in terms of payments from them. So a good business is one that earns a lot more — and has prospects of continuing to earn a lot more — than the returns on essentially risk-less investments."
0:49

Warren Buffett: "When I say a very good business, I mean something that you can expect to earn high returns on capital over a long period of time." "I could put huge amounts of money into government bonds and get $20-30-40 billion a year in terms of payments from them. So a good business is one that earns a lot more — and has prospects of continuing to earn a lot more — than the returns on essentially risk-less investments."

Kevin Carpenter

82,288 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Having too much money is a real problem. Warren Buffett sits on $400B with almost nowhere to put it but Treasuries. The bigger the pile, the harder it is to earn a real return on all of it. The small investor edge nobody talks about. Where would you park $400B?
0:27

Having too much money is a real problem. Warren Buffett sits on $400B with almost nowhere to put it but Treasuries. The bigger the pile, the harder it is to earn a real return on all of it. The small investor edge nobody talks about. Where would you park $400B?

Jake Claver, QFOP

33,132 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

We've seen the hyperscalers pour a ton of money into capital. They're buying land, they're buying a ton of equipment, they're hiring construction contractors all over the world, and this is to the tune of a trillion dollars of CapEx or more next year.
0:43

We've seen the hyperscalers pour a ton of money into capital. They're buying land, they're buying a ton of equipment, they're hiring construction contractors all over the world, and this is to the tune of a trillion dollars of CapEx or more next year.

SemiAnalysis

33,102 Aufrufe • vor 23 Tagen

Warren Buffett: "When I say a very good business, I mean something that you can expect to earn high returns on capital over a long period of time." "I can put huge amounts of money into government bonds and get $20-30-40 billion a year, in terms of payments from them. So a good business is one that earns — and has prospects of continuing to earn — a lot more than the returns on essentially risk-less investments." (CNBC || 2026)
0:49

Warren Buffett: "When I say a very good business, I mean something that you can expect to earn high returns on capital over a long period of time." "I can put huge amounts of money into government bonds and get $20-30-40 billion a year, in terms of payments from them. So a good business is one that earns — and has prospects of continuing to earn — a lot more than the returns on essentially risk-less investments." (CNBC || 2026)

Kevin Carpenter

28,002 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Warren Buffett just warned that some of the biggest names in AI might collapse soon. And he said it while revealing he had personally put $31 billion into one of them... Google, Microsoft, and Amazon are now laying out hundreds of billions in capex to stay in the AI race. Buffett called that real money, the kind that was never required back when software was cheap to run. He said these companies have no choice but to keep spending at this scale, because none of them can afford to be the one that blinks. In his own words, they are "playing a game they don't want to play." But the one AI company Buffett actually bought is Google. Berkshire now holds a stake worth more than $31 billion, and for weeks Wall Street assumed the credit belonged to Greg Abel, who took over as CEO in January and ran the position up on his watch. But Buffett admitted he "initiated" the investment. He usually never reveals who makes a call. The Google position already sits behind only Apple and American Express in Berkshire's stock portfolio, and last month Berkshire bought $10 billion of it directly from the company in a private placement. Then he undercut his own trade. When asked why he chose Alphabet over the rest of the Mag 7, Buffett said he does not even like it as much as four or five other businesses Berkshire already owns. He bought it the way he buys anything, as a good company available at a fair price. For years he waved off the Apple question by calling it a consumer company. This time he let the AI label on Google stand, and bought it anyway. Buffett also said the vast majority of what Wall Street pushes, on the order of 90 to 95%, is merchandising, because Wall Street only cares whether it can sell you something. He said he cannot remember the last research report that dug into the actual returns a business earns. Everyone fixates on next quarter instead. He also brought up IBM, which owned its market for decades until a rival offered its customers a better deal and its best business cracked. He brought up A&P, the biggest retailer in America in the 1930s, a company he said held a commanding position that later vanished completely. Buffett was describing the AI leaders as much as anyone: The most dominant company on Earth today is not promised to be dominant in ten years. So the most famous technology skeptic in investing put $31 billion into the AI trade and at the same time warned that the companies leading it are stuck in a war with no exit. What does Buffett see coming that the rest of the market doesn't?
4:03

Warren Buffett just warned that some of the biggest names in AI might collapse soon. And he said it while revealing he had personally put $31 billion into one of them... Google, Microsoft, and Amazon are now laying out hundreds of billions in capex to stay in the AI race. Buffett called that real money, the kind that was never required back when software was cheap to run. He said these companies have no choice but to keep spending at this scale, because none of them can afford to be the one that blinks. In his own words, they are "playing a game they don't want to play." But the one AI company Buffett actually bought is Google. Berkshire now holds a stake worth more than $31 billion, and for weeks Wall Street assumed the credit belonged to Greg Abel, who took over as CEO in January and ran the position up on his watch. But Buffett admitted he "initiated" the investment. He usually never reveals who makes a call. The Google position already sits behind only Apple and American Express in Berkshire's stock portfolio, and last month Berkshire bought $10 billion of it directly from the company in a private placement. Then he undercut his own trade. When asked why he chose Alphabet over the rest of the Mag 7, Buffett said he does not even like it as much as four or five other businesses Berkshire already owns. He bought it the way he buys anything, as a good company available at a fair price. For years he waved off the Apple question by calling it a consumer company. This time he let the AI label on Google stand, and bought it anyway. Buffett also said the vast majority of what Wall Street pushes, on the order of 90 to 95%, is merchandising, because Wall Street only cares whether it can sell you something. He said he cannot remember the last research report that dug into the actual returns a business earns. Everyone fixates on next quarter instead. He also brought up IBM, which owned its market for decades until a rival offered its customers a better deal and its best business cracked. He brought up A&P, the biggest retailer in America in the 1930s, a company he said held a commanding position that later vanished completely. Buffett was describing the AI leaders as much as anyone: The most dominant company on Earth today is not promised to be dominant in ten years. So the most famous technology skeptic in investing put $31 billion into the AI trade and at the same time warned that the companies leading it are stuck in a war with no exit. What does Buffett see coming that the rest of the market doesn't?

Ricardo

230,573 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Trump: “I've cut hundreds of thousands of jobs…What happened is the people I cut are now working in the private sector, and they probably hated me when they lost their job, and now they love me. They're making twice the money.”
0:31

Trump: “I've cut hundreds of thousands of jobs…What happened is the people I cut are now working in the private sector, and they probably hated me when they lost their job, and now they love me. They're making twice the money.”

The Bulwark

46,567 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Charging fees to move money is the old game and that game is dead You can now build businesses on top of money flows That's the new game
1:13

Charging fees to move money is the old game and that game is dead You can now build businesses on top of money flows That's the new game

Adeniyi.sui

44,531 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten