Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by mettamage 1938 days ago
Investing and poker have some fun commonalities. One that I want to focus one in this particular case is: always play the game you know well and know how you're going to win it [nuances, 0]

In Poker: find the fish, understand why they're fish and exploit it [example, 1].

In investing: find underpriced assets, understand why they're underpriced and exploit it [examples, 2, 3].

From this perspective, Buffett doesn't understand how price movement works in tech companies.

And that's ok.

[0] You can't win everything of course, but if you're going to play a losing game by default then you're basically buying information. Once you have enough information, then it's all about execution. I daresay that Warren Buffett has enough information on a particular method of successful investing. That's all he needs, so he needs to focus on games that he knows how to win.

[1] E.g. through math/theory or math/data -- if you can get your hands on it -- (random player vs tight aggressive player)

[2] E.g. through math/theory or math/data (population will grow to 11 Billion --> economic productivity will therefore grow because bigger global work force --> world economy will grow in the long-term)

[3] Buffett's famous example is of course his own brand of value investing. The central thesis of value investing is: if a company is going to close shop, the scrap value of that company will be higher than the market cap of that company. There's a lot more to it, but that's the gist of it. One nuance, for example, is that you then try to pick the companies that are the most severely underpriced, have amazing management and a solid competitive domination strategy (e.g. crazy brand recognition or a certain asset that has a really high barrier of entry).

4 comments

>From this perspective, Buffett doesn't understand how price movement works in tech companies.

For someone who allegedly doesn't understand that the recent $89bn gain on Apple stock is nice going. Luck perhaps?

Incidentally he's also talked about poker as a model for investing. After telling the Mr Market story in the 1987 letter he goes on:

>But, like Cinderella at the ball, you must heed one warning or everything will turn into pumpkins and mice: Mr. Market is there to serve you, not to guide you. It is his pocketbook, not his wisdom, that you will find useful. If he shows up some day in a particularly foolish mood, you are free to either ignore him or to take advantage of him, but it will be disastrous if you fall under his influence. Indeed, if you aren't certain that you understand and can value your business far better than Mr. Market, you don't belong in the game. As they say in poker, "If you've been in the game 30 minutes and you don't know who the patsy is, you're the patsy."

> For someone who allegedly doesn't understand that the recent $89bn gain on Apple stock is nice going. Luck perhaps

From an investor point of view, you can't categorize companies as one label. You can categorize companies as tags. This is because every perspective that allows you to give you an edge and make money in a fairly reliable manner is a valid perspective.

Apple can be seen as a consumer/physical product company. Warren knows a lot about consumer behavior and branding. If he finds from that perspective that Apple is underpriced, then he can still make a bet while having a limited understanding of the technology by simply saying: a laptop is a laptop, it allows you to do laptop things (i.e. they're interchangeable), but Apple has an amazing brand like Coca Cola.

Of course, this isn't fully true (e.g. Windows enables different things than Apple in some cases like gaming) but combining it with superior knowledge in branding, it's good enough to make a bet.

> The central thesis of value investing is: if a company is going to close shop, the scrap value of that company will be higher than the market cap of that company. There's a lot more to it, but that's the gist of it.

There's enough "more to it", to make this statement incorrect.

You're describing Graham's style of value investing, Buffet's style is significantly different.

In fact the term "value investing" has now a very loose definition, since so many different styles are grouped under this term.

I'd say this is the most appropriate definition: "Investment is most intelligent when it is most businesslike" (straight from the Intelligent Investor).

In other terms, any type of investing that's not based on speculation is value investing.

Your point 3, a la Graham-Dodd, is how Buffett started. But later he realized that did not scale when you own businesses forever instead of trading them. Buying a whole dollar for 50 cents is great if you can quickly sell it for 75. Not so much if you hold it forever and it does not grow. So basically acquiring Berkshire Hathaway the textile maker on the cheap was an investment mistake that he acknowledged in his annual letters.

Price movement is not relevant if your stated goal is to hold the business and earn an income from its operations. Technology eventually becomes obsolete or commoditized.

Obligatory Buffett paraphase: there are no called strikes in investing (ie if you choose not to swing at an opportunity, that then turns out to be good, nobody penalizes you)

As much of Berkshire's success has been based on limiting losses as pushing successes. "Buffett declines to invest in company" is a less sexy headline than "Buffett buys large stake in X" though.

Maybe Buffett's old. Maybe Berkshire is played out. Maybe they miscalled the pandemic churn. Or maybe the market is just so screwed up now that they're declining to swing.

I believe Berkshire has always been a macro-trend company? If we're looking for someone who traded in and out of pandemic dips and bubbles, that's very much not-Berkshire.

Buffett has always said he ignores the macro stuff and just focuses on acquiring great businesses.

He did dump airline stocks at the start of the pandemic on the basis that their business wasn't going to do great for a while.