Unz评论•另类媒体选择$
美国主流媒体大都排除了有趣,重要和有争议的观点
 博客浏览Eamonn Fingleton档案
为什么《纽约时报》对沃伦·巴菲特有误:他没有过山
通过电子邮件将此页面发送给其他人

 记住我的信息



=>

书签 全部切换总目录添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B
显示评论下一个新评论下一个新回复了解更多
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
同意不同意谢谢LOL轮唱
这些按钮可将您的公开协议,异议,感谢,LOL或巨魔与所选注释一起注册。 仅对最近使用“记住我的信息”复选框保存姓名和电子邮件的频繁评论者可用,并且在任何八个小时的时间内也只能使用三次。
忽略评论者 关注评论者
搜寻文字 区分大小写  确切的词  包括评论
列表 书签

如果 “纽约时报” is to be believed, Warren Buffett has lost his magic touch. In recent years his Berkshire Hathaway has supposedly turned in a sub-par performance, and investors would be better off switching to a plain index fund.

So at least says Salil Mehta, who was quoted approvingly and at length in yesterday’s 文章. Described as “an independent statistician with deep experience in Washington and on Wall Street,” Mehta formerly served as director of analytics in the Treasury Department for America’s $700 billion troubled asset relief program.

may be in awe of Mehta but I’m not. Unless I’ve missed something, Mehta’s 分析 provides no support for the ‘s heading, “The Oracle of Omaha, Lately Looking a Bit Ordinary.”

Mehta is vague about what he is measuring but it would appear that his only complaint is that Berkshire’s 股价 has underperformed in recent years. Mehta cites in particular the last five years. Measured from end-2008 to end-2013 Berkshire’s share price was up a mere 84 percent, whereas the S & P 500 index was up 104 percent. That might be a useful criticism if the underperformance reflected disappointment with Berkshire’s fundamentals. In reality, Berkshire’s profit performance was an absolute stand-out: earnings per A-share rocketed from $3,224 to $11,850 – an increase of 268 percent. Even after stripping out one-time effects from the realization of capital gains and losses, underlying earnings were up 149.9 percent – a far better performance than the S & P. It is important to understand that earnings is the most appropriate measure of Buffett’s performance. This is because so much of the business consists of wholly owned subsidiaries or at least of stakes in outside companies that are so large that they are accounted for on an equity basis.

Essentially if Mehta has a complaint, it is about market irrationality: the real culprit is surely Mr. Market, an allegorical figure invented by the famous investment author Benjamin Graham and often cited by Warren Buffett. In Graham’s rendering, Mr. Market is a manic-depressive who sometimes pays far too much for your shares and sometimes will sell you shares at a huge discount. The job of an intelligent investor is to take advantage of Mr. Market’s wild mood swings. The evidence is that Mr. Market placed a higher valuation multiple on Berkshire’s earnings five years ago than today. But nothing in the real world justified his change of mind and no useful conclusions can be drawn from his idiotic flip-flopping.

Buffett’s stock-picking continues to outsmart Mr. Market — and by a wide margin. It is important to understand that, in Buffett’s own words, Berkshire’s intrinsic value “far exceeds” its stated book and the difference has ”widened considerably in recent years.”

立即订购

Like everyone else, Buffett does make an occasional mistake, of course, but few of his decisions over the years have shown any evidence of declining powers. By his own admission his worst mistake was an investment in a shoe company as far back as 1993. More recently he came to regret a major investment in Conoco at a time of high oil prices. To be set such mistakes, he has scored a massive success with Wells Fargo, which is now his biggest holding. Meanwhile Coca-Cola, now his second biggest, continues to justify the confidence he placed in it when he first bought in as far back as 1988.

At 83, the Sage of Omaha still has many more years ahead of him as one of the greatest investors in history.

(从重新发布 “福布斯” 经作者或代表的许可)
 
• 类别: 经济学 •标签: 沃伦·巴菲特 
当前评论者
说:

发表评论-对超过两周的文章发表评论,将在质量和语气上进行更严格的判断


 记得 我的信息为什么?
 电子邮件回复我的评论
$
提交的评论已被许可给 Unz评论 并可以由后者自行决定在其他地方重新发布
在翻译模式下禁用评论
通过RSS订阅此评论主题 通过RSS订阅所有Eamonn Fingleton评论