Hacker News Reader

Comment by meany | Hacker News Reader

The author uses Buffets essay to justify value investing over index funds, but Buffet is a strong proponent of index funds for non professional investors.

Instead of stock picking, Buffett suggested investing in a low-cost index fund. “I recommend the S&P 500 index fund,” Buffett said, which holds 500 of the largest companies in the U.S., “and have for a long, long time to people.”

He’s even putting 90% of his own estate into index funds.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/02/26/war...

View on HN

> The author uses Buffets essay to justify value investing

Those using Buffet's name should also look at the time and effort Buffet puts in to pick stocks. He sifts through reams of reports, cash flow statements and what not. And to top it up you need deep pockets and emotional wherewithal to not blink when your value investment bets are not doing well.

"Value investment" sounds cool but is not for a typical retail investor. As you rightly pointed out retail investors are best served picking up an index fund or 2-3 mutual funds if they are seeking to diversify.

Interesting. Investing in Berkshire is like investing in a diversified index fund.

Maybe from 10,000 feet. Buffett only invests in certain kinds of companies (those within his "circle of competence"), so you only get so much diversity.

Also, because Berkshire is a conglomerate, businesses which generate large amounts of cash (e.g., insurance float, or businesses that would pay dividends if they were a stand-alone companies) can be used to fund capital-intensive businesses (railroads, energy companies, etc.) without paying taxes to move the money from business A to business B, because they're all owned by the same legal entity. Don't underestimate the power of this effect. It is not possible to achieve with an index fund.

You made me think. The weights of e.g. the SP500 are not ideal then.

Berkshire is in the SP500, but so are Apple, Coca Cola, Amex, BoA, etc. which are Berkshire largest investments. So if Coca Cola has an idiosyncratic hit, then you get hit twice by it: first in your KO holdings, then in your BRK.A holdings.

At the extreme, if there is a company that then invests in Berkshire and so on, you could end up overweighting a lot certain firms. Also, isn't there double counting in terms of the stock market cap?

No. The S&P 500, like most other market-cap-weighted indexes, uses float-adjusted market cap, meaning that they exclude shares owned by other public companies when computing the weightings. So the fact that BRK.A owns shares in other companies in the index is accounted for; you don't get double counting, and so your exposure is not inflated.

You're right on float adjustment. But shares of coke held by Berkshire are still considered part of float.

The S&P considers the shares of Coke held by Berkshire to be excluded from the float. S&P's float adjustment methodology is described here [1]:

"Float adjustment excludes shares that are closely held by control groups, other publicly traded companies, government agencies, or other long-term strategic shareholders."

[1] https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/documents/index-policies/m...

> So if Coca Cola has an idiosyncratic hit, then you get hit twice by it

I think that is neglibile, depending on how big you define a hit. If Burger King gets hit, that will probably effect Coca Cola as the largest supplier (just saying it like that, don't know if they really have that kind of business with each other), too.

There's lots of dependency in the modern world, I don't think it really matters.

edit: If Coca Cola does well, you profit twice. Maybe see it that way... ;-)

It might be if your investment strategy was to allocate equal amounts to each sector, but that's not how most passive funds work. Instead, they allocate based on market-cap weighted basis, which means there's no double-count going on.

What will Buffett not invest in today? He used to have a tight circle of competence, but if you look at his portfolio today, you'll see financials, energy companies (of various types), technology, healthcare, industrials, consumer (staples and discretionary), media, telco. And then his guys invest even wider.

Plus Buffet gets deals that no one else would ever be offered. The benefit is huge signal value from his investment that none of us can provide, and companies pay for that with way better terms. This value gets priced in BH shares and the circle continues.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com