Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by calsy 1868 days ago
If they could undoubtedly make a profit, why haven't they done so. What investment firm would miss making a profit on a sure thing?
3 comments

Buffett and Berkshire in fact have a long history of intentionally not always seeking the maximization of profit. Read Lowenstein's Buffett: The Making of an American Capitalist for several examples.

Berkshire is not an "investment firm" (although that may have been an accurate description 40 or 50 years ago). And they operate almost solely by the dictate of Buffett, not by theroetical shareholder demand for optimizing for max profit. That means they operate by parameters that Buffett deems prudent. Berkshire for example could have been deep into the supposed sure thing of the real-estate bubble circa 2005, instead they were one of the few mega corporations on the planet almost entirely insulated from it (so much so they were the ones doing the bailing out of other large corporations). That philosophy is the same reason why Berkshire might choose to pass on a supposed sure thing in crypto today: they don't like the risk; others may see a sure thing, they're skeptical (for better or worse).

One that has a long and storied history of only investing their money in productive assets. Buffet doesn’t even buy gold.
Buffett isn't entirely adverse to metals such as gold, the reason he doesn't buy gold is he doesn't think it's often undervalued.

His history with silver for example:

"Warren Buffett made an unusual move in 1997 when he bought 111 million ounces, or nearly 3,500 tons, of silver. The famed investor's purchase helped make Thomas Kaplan a billionaire."

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/warren-buffe...

https://seekingalpha.com/article/376711-evidence-that-warren...

Legacy. Do you really think they're only worried about profits at this point?