[valuearb]

Yea, you don't understand what talent is in this context, and that it's not equally distributed.

There are hundreds of thousands of people who have gotten the same training on valuing companies as Warren Buffett has. But no one comes close to his long term results because the talent of doing an accurate valuation is not as important as the psychological abilities needed to make smart investment decisions, as well as the ability to determine enduring competitive advantages. So few of these talented people actually have remotely the talents of Warren Buffett.

For entrepreneurs just a few of those key talents include recognizing opportunities, the balls to actually quit a job to pursue opportunities, and an innate ability to understand how to find or build significant competitive advantages.

People with those skills won't succeed 100% of the time, but they succeed far more than people who only have one or two of them.

[ThomPete]

Oh I understand what talent is. What you don't seem to understand is that Buffet isn't the rule but the exception. His wealth wasn't something he foresaw but something that happened over a long time. His insight is primarily to invest in the US market overall and everyone who did that have done well for themselves. That could might as well been wrong no one had any idea.

You can read as many books and follow his strategies as much as you want you will never be him and it's not because you can't be as talented as him and that was the point my comment. You can't read your way to success.

[valuearb]

He couldn't have foreseen his wealth? He was predicting it since he was a teenager.

Buffett would have beat any market, any where any time. That's what you don't understand. He didn't succeed because he invested in the US, he did better because he invested in the US. He averaged 40% returns his first 12 years as a professional investor, quadrupling market returns. He's only had a couple down years in over 50 years of investing. How is that luck? His diverse set of skills is the reason.

Again his set of skills is similar to a successful entrepreneurs skills. The average entrepreneur may only succeed 20% of the time, but a skilled entrepreneur clearly succeeds at a far higher rate.

Do you really think that someone ignorant of competitive advantages, budgeting, market research, leadership skills, etc, etc, has the same chances of succeeding as an entrepreneur as someone who is very skilled at all of them?

[ThomPete]

Again I understand perfectly well what you don't seem to understand is that you are taking an anomaly trying to make it a rule.

Many people were predicting they would be rich were wrong. Again survivor bias.

And no he wouldn't have beat it in any market which is also why he didn't really invest in other markets and mostly advice people to do it.

But it doesn't really matter because Buffet is not useful for anything in this discussion which was about whether luck and timing played a crucial and defining role in companies success. Pointing to Buffet or Gates makes absolutely no sense what so ever anyone who invested in the US market the last 50 years would have gotten out on the good side. Just because they didn't made as much as Buffet doesn't change that fact.

You are missing the point entirely because you think that I am saying that luck and timing are the ONLY things that matter.

What I actually said was that out of the talented people there are, luck and timing become the defining factor not superhuman abilities to predict the market. The same reason the VC community in general is doing really bad and even companies like YC are mostly wrong.

There are no secrets to success. They are mostly unique stories not formulas which means they are mostly about luck and timing NOT about talent as there are plenty of talent out there.