Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record

71
24
Favorite

Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record

MarketWatch2021-04-30

Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared CHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway ...

Source Link

Disclaimer: Investing carries risk. This is not financial advice. The above content should not be regarded as an offer, recommendation, or solicitation on acquiring or disposing of any financial products, any associated discussions, comments, or posts by author or other users should not be considered as such either. It is solely for general information purpose only, which does not consider your own investment objectives, financial situations or needs. TTM assumes no responsibility or warranty for the accuracy and completeness of the information, investors should do their own research and may seek professional advice before investing.

Report

Comment（24）

Elgk
·2021-05-03
Hello. Pls like my comments.... Tqtq
Reply
Like
Report
LennartM
·2021-05-02
like and comment pls
Reply
2
Report
Fold Replies
- DukeAlan:
  ?. help comment on my comment pls
  2021-05-02
  Reply
  Report
lavin
·2021-05-02
Ok
Reply
1
Report
pandajojo
·2021-05-02
Comment n like bk.. Thk
Reply
2
Report
Fold Replies
- jastsm:
  ??
  2021-05-02
  Reply
  Report
J7821717
·2021-05-02
??????????
Reply
1
Report
BruceLyy
·2021-05-01
Warren Buffet is still the best Investor, and none can replace him.
Reply
2
Report
Fold Replies
- Shadowrider:
  AGree
  2021-05-02
  Reply
  Report
atf_nato
·2021-05-01
[Tongue]
Reply
2
Report
Fold Replies
- atf_nato:
  Nice
  2021-05-02
  Reply
  Report
- Shadowrider:
  Help to comment
  2021-05-02
  Reply
  Report
Samuel.L
·2021-04-30
Ok
Reply
2
Report
Fold Replies
- Shadowrider:
  Help to comment
  2021-05-02
  Reply
  Report
- Samuel.L:
  Ok
  2021-04-30
  Reply
  Report
Investigater
·2021-04-30
Oh no
Reply
4
Report
Fold Replies
- Jennifer58:
  Times change
  2021-04-30
  Reply
  Report
- Investigater:
  Yeah
  2021-04-30
  Reply
  Report
Jennifer58
·2021-04-30
Things change
Reply
4
Report
Fold Replies
- Investigater:
  Yeah
  2021-04-30
  Reply
  Report
CTLT
·2021-04-30
Good
Reply
2
Report
JiN
·2021-04-30
Interesting
Reply
1
Report
Fold Replies
- jimmylaw:
  yeah
  2021-04-30
  Reply
  Report
BeeL
·2021-04-30
oh well....
Reply
5
Report
Fold Replies
- BeeL:
  ??
  2021-05-01
  Reply
  Report
- derricktang8:
  Hard indeed
  2021-05-01
  Reply
  Report
- TC88:
  hard to interpret
  2021-05-01
  Reply
  Report
ENAHSHANE
·2021-04-30
Can someone like my comment lol
Reply
3
Report
shawly
·2021-04-30
Sheeeeesh.
Reply
1
Report
DCPK
·2021-04-30
In the short run, the stock market is a voting machine; in the long run, it is a weighing machine. Play the long game.
Reply
1
Report
AliceLew
·2021-04-30
Comment
Reply
2
Report
Fold Replies
- AliceLew:
  good
  2021-04-30
  Reply
  Report
- loveStock:
  like it
  2021-04-30
  Reply
  Report
- Investorpw:
  Comment back thxs
  2021-04-30
  Reply
  Report
yl2021
·2021-04-30
Please like & comments. Thanks
Reply
3
Report
Fold Replies
- AliceLew:
  good
  2021-04-30
  Reply
  Report
Zacreon
·2021-04-30
Nice
Reply
Like
Report
AhSon
·2021-04-30
In buffet I believe
Reply
1
Report

Most Discussed

7x24

All

Terms and Conditions·Privacy Policy

Company: TTMF Limited. Tech supported by Xiangshang Yixin.

Email：uservice@ttm.financial

{"i18n":{"language":"en_US"},"data":{"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1141661204?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","thumbnail":"","is_english":true,"pubTime":"2021-04-30 19:13","share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","id":"1141661204","market":"us","top_or_hot":-1,"title":"Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record","media":"MarketWatch","content":"<div>\n<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2\">Source Link</a>\n\n</div>\n","source":"lsy1603348471595","html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nHere’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-04-30 19:13 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2\">Source Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","isBrief":false,"type":0,"news_type":1,"symbol":"BRK.A","symbol_name":"伯克希尔","start_time":0,"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2","article_id":"1141661204","we_media_id":null,"thumbnails":[],"rights":null,"url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1141661204","pubTimestamp":1619781225,"sourceInfo":{"source_id":"lsy1603348471595","name":"MarketWatch"},"weMediaInfo":null,"summary":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will","collect":0,"end_time":0,"defaultTopTitle":"marketwatch.com","property":[],"viewcount":null,"language":"en","relate_stocks":{"BRK.A":"伯克希尔","BRK.B":"伯克希尔B"},"translate_title":"以下是如何最好地解读沃伦巴菲特最近令人失望的业绩记录","themeId":null,"isJumpTheme":false,"ttsUrl":null,"symbols_score_info":{"BRK.A":0.9,"BRK.B":0.9},"content_text":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?\nHe isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.\nWhat we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.\nIn 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.\nNotwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.\nRead Howard Gold:Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era\nBuffett’s sale of airline stocks\nMany are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&P 500.\nBut this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”\nI submit that he was right.\nWho knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.\nMichael Brush in May 2000:Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks\nBlaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.\nIt’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)\nIf so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.\nThis is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”\nWarren Buffett versus Jim Simons\nAnother revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&P 500’s total return.\nEven better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.\nCornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.\nBut when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.\nRead:Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures\nBuffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.\nIt’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.\nTo be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.\nBut, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.","kind":null,"is_publish_news":true,"is_publish_highlight":true,"is_publish_live":false,"is_publish_wemedia":null,"editions":null,"column":"","sentiment":"0","news_tag":"","news_rank":0,"symbols":[],"gpt_button":1},"commentList":[{"id":108917043,"gmtCreate":1619986822282,"gmtModify":1704336922352,"author":{"id":"3582942802538500","authorId":"3582942802538500","name":"Elgk","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f4e8020d7d7938b137783287f1ce6264","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3582942802538500","idStr":"3582942802538500"},"htmlText":"Hello. Pls like my comments.... Tqtq","listText":"Hello. Pls like my comments.... Tqtq","text":"Hello. Pls like my comments.... Tqtq","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/108917043","repostId":1141661204,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1141661204","pubTimestamp":1619781225,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1141661204?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-04-30 19:13","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1141661204","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will","content":"<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&amp;P 500 has disappeared<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2ed7f6d43dfa3141494477101ba5581d\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"413\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p>\n<p>CHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?</p>\n<p>He isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.</p>\n<p>What we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.</p>\n<p>In 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.</p>\n<p>Notwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&amp;P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.</p>\n<p><b>Read Howard Gold:</b>Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era</p>\n<p>Buffett’s sale of airline stocks</p>\n<p>Many are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>But this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”</p>\n<p>I submit that he was right.</p>\n<p>Who knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.</p>\n<p><b>Michael Brush in May 2000:</b>Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks</p>\n<p>Blaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.</p>\n<p>It’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&amp;P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)</p>\n<p>If so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.</p>\n<p>This is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”</p>\n<p>Warren Buffett versus Jim Simons</p>\n<p>Another revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&amp;P 500’s total return.</p>\n<p>Even better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.</p>\n<p>Cornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.</p>\n<p>But when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.</p>\n<p><b>Read:</b>Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures</p>\n<p>Buffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.</p>\n<p>It’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.</p>\n<p>To be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.</p>\n<p>But, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nHere’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-04-30 19:13 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BRK.B":"伯克希尔B","BRK.A":"伯克希尔"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1141661204","content_text":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?\nHe isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.\nWhat we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.\nIn 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.\nNotwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.\nRead Howard Gold:Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era\nBuffett’s sale of airline stocks\nMany are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&P 500.\nBut this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”\nI submit that he was right.\nWho knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.\nMichael Brush in May 2000:Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks\nBlaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.\nIt’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)\nIf so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.\nThis is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”\nWarren Buffett versus Jim Simons\nAnother revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&P 500’s total return.\nEven better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.\nCornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.\nBut when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.\nRead:Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures\nBuffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.\nIt’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.\nTo be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.\nBut, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":108078382,"gmtCreate":1619968346346,"gmtModify":1704336863581,"author":{"id":"3576017931077934","authorId":"3576017931077934","name":"LennartM","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2b888cf8f0c645e538df3ec026d3db37","vip":1,"crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3576017931077934","idStr":"3576017931077934"},"htmlText":"like and comment pls","listText":"like and comment pls","text":"like and comment pls","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/108078382","repostId":1141661204,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1141661204","pubTimestamp":1619781225,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1141661204?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-04-30 19:13","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1141661204","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will","content":"<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&amp;P 500 has disappeared<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2ed7f6d43dfa3141494477101ba5581d\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"413\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p>\n<p>CHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?</p>\n<p>He isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.</p>\n<p>What we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.</p>\n<p>In 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.</p>\n<p>Notwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&amp;P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.</p>\n<p><b>Read Howard Gold:</b>Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era</p>\n<p>Buffett’s sale of airline stocks</p>\n<p>Many are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>But this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”</p>\n<p>I submit that he was right.</p>\n<p>Who knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.</p>\n<p><b>Michael Brush in May 2000:</b>Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks</p>\n<p>Blaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.</p>\n<p>It’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&amp;P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)</p>\n<p>If so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.</p>\n<p>This is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”</p>\n<p>Warren Buffett versus Jim Simons</p>\n<p>Another revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&amp;P 500’s total return.</p>\n<p>Even better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.</p>\n<p>Cornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.</p>\n<p>But when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.</p>\n<p><b>Read:</b>Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures</p>\n<p>Buffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.</p>\n<p>It’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.</p>\n<p>To be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.</p>\n<p>But, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nHere’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-04-30 19:13 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BRK.B":"伯克希尔B","BRK.A":"伯克希尔"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1141661204","content_text":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?\nHe isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.\nWhat we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.\nIn 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.\nNotwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.\nRead Howard Gold:Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era\nBuffett’s sale of airline stocks\nMany are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&P 500.\nBut this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”\nI submit that he was right.\nWho knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.\nMichael Brush in May 2000:Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks\nBlaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.\nIt’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)\nIf so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.\nThis is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”\nWarren Buffett versus Jim Simons\nAnother revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&P 500’s total return.\nEven better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.\nCornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.\nBut when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.\nRead:Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures\nBuffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.\nIt’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.\nTo be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.\nBut, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":4201072,"gmtCreate":1619970751308,"gmtModify":1680786645957,"authorId":3578446470950082,"author":{"id":3578446470950082,"idStr":"3578446470950082","authorId":3578446470950082,"name":"DukeAlan","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5d8e6962022e3365333d669221455dd6","vip":1,"crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":108078382,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"?. help comment on my comment pls","text":"?. help comment on my comment pls","html":"?. help comment on my comment pls"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":108036337,"gmtCreate":1619958146829,"gmtModify":1704336769718,"author":{"id":"3574887882529371","authorId":"3574887882529371","name":"lavin","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3574887882529371","idStr":"3574887882529371"},"htmlText":"Ok","listText":"Ok","text":"Ok","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/108036337","repostId":1141661204,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1141661204","pubTimestamp":1619781225,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1141661204?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-04-30 19:13","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1141661204","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will","content":"<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&amp;P 500 has disappeared<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2ed7f6d43dfa3141494477101ba5581d\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"413\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p>\n<p>CHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?</p>\n<p>He isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.</p>\n<p>What we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.</p>\n<p>In 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.</p>\n<p>Notwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&amp;P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.</p>\n<p><b>Read Howard Gold:</b>Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era</p>\n<p>Buffett’s sale of airline stocks</p>\n<p>Many are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>But this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”</p>\n<p>I submit that he was right.</p>\n<p>Who knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.</p>\n<p><b>Michael Brush in May 2000:</b>Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks</p>\n<p>Blaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.</p>\n<p>It’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&amp;P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)</p>\n<p>If so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.</p>\n<p>This is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”</p>\n<p>Warren Buffett versus Jim Simons</p>\n<p>Another revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&amp;P 500’s total return.</p>\n<p>Even better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.</p>\n<p>Cornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.</p>\n<p>But when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.</p>\n<p><b>Read:</b>Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures</p>\n<p>Buffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.</p>\n<p>It’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.</p>\n<p>To be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.</p>\n<p>But, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nHere’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-04-30 19:13 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BRK.B":"伯克希尔B","BRK.A":"伯克希尔"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1141661204","content_text":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?\nHe isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.\nWhat we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.\nIn 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.\nNotwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.\nRead Howard Gold:Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era\nBuffett’s sale of airline stocks\nMany are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&P 500.\nBut this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”\nI submit that he was right.\nWho knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.\nMichael Brush in May 2000:Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks\nBlaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.\nIt’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)\nIf so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.\nThis is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”\nWarren Buffett versus Jim Simons\nAnother revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&P 500’s total return.\nEven better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.\nCornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.\nBut when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.\nRead:Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures\nBuffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.\nIt’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.\nTo be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.\nBut, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":101707690,"gmtCreate":1619939168410,"gmtModify":1704336613647,"author":{"id":"3578965435978206","authorId":"3578965435978206","name":"pandajojo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/7efe44a2514d987c5a8b342b85d6f229","vip":1,"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3578965435978206","idStr":"3578965435978206"},"htmlText":"Comment n like bk.. Thk","listText":"Comment n like bk.. Thk","text":"Comment n like bk.. Thk","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/101707690","repostId":1141661204,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1141661204","pubTimestamp":1619781225,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1141661204?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-04-30 19:13","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1141661204","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will","content":"<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&amp;P 500 has disappeared<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2ed7f6d43dfa3141494477101ba5581d\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"413\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p>\n<p>CHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?</p>\n<p>He isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.</p>\n<p>What we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.</p>\n<p>In 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.</p>\n<p>Notwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&amp;P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.</p>\n<p><b>Read Howard Gold:</b>Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era</p>\n<p>Buffett’s sale of airline stocks</p>\n<p>Many are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>But this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”</p>\n<p>I submit that he was right.</p>\n<p>Who knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.</p>\n<p><b>Michael Brush in May 2000:</b>Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks</p>\n<p>Blaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.</p>\n<p>It’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&amp;P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)</p>\n<p>If so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.</p>\n<p>This is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”</p>\n<p>Warren Buffett versus Jim Simons</p>\n<p>Another revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&amp;P 500’s total return.</p>\n<p>Even better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.</p>\n<p>Cornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.</p>\n<p>But when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.</p>\n<p><b>Read:</b>Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures</p>\n<p>Buffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.</p>\n<p>It’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.</p>\n<p>To be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.</p>\n<p>But, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nHere’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-04-30 19:13 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BRK.B":"伯克希尔B","BRK.A":"伯克希尔"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1141661204","content_text":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?\nHe isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.\nWhat we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.\nIn 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.\nNotwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.\nRead Howard Gold:Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era\nBuffett’s sale of airline stocks\nMany are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&P 500.\nBut this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”\nI submit that he was right.\nWho knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.\nMichael Brush in May 2000:Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks\nBlaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.\nIt’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)\nIf so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.\nThis is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”\nWarren Buffett versus Jim Simons\nAnother revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&P 500’s total return.\nEven better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.\nCornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.\nBut when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.\nRead:Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures\nBuffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.\nIt’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.\nTo be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.\nBut, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":4199874,"gmtCreate":1619954036919,"gmtModify":1680786628546,"authorId":3566625666991378,"author":{"id":3566625666991378,"idStr":"3566625666991378","authorId":3566625666991378,"name":"jastsm","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/788c247e8da6b8b77693cdcfee1b68eb","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":101707690,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"??","text":"??","html":"??"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":101561601,"gmtCreate":1619923514003,"gmtModify":1704336404663,"author":{"id":"3582854091383813","authorId":"3582854091383813","name":"J7821717","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/af3e42db26d8c0bcd55e8b1c86a6f8ac","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3582854091383813","idStr":"3582854091383813"},"htmlText":"??????????","listText":"??????????","text":"??????????","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/101561601","repostId":1141661204,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1141661204","pubTimestamp":1619781225,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1141661204?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-04-30 19:13","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1141661204","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will","content":"<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&amp;P 500 has disappeared<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2ed7f6d43dfa3141494477101ba5581d\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"413\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p>\n<p>CHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?</p>\n<p>He isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.</p>\n<p>What we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.</p>\n<p>In 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.</p>\n<p>Notwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&amp;P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.</p>\n<p><b>Read Howard Gold:</b>Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era</p>\n<p>Buffett’s sale of airline stocks</p>\n<p>Many are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>But this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”</p>\n<p>I submit that he was right.</p>\n<p>Who knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.</p>\n<p><b>Michael Brush in May 2000:</b>Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks</p>\n<p>Blaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.</p>\n<p>It’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&amp;P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)</p>\n<p>If so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.</p>\n<p>This is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”</p>\n<p>Warren Buffett versus Jim Simons</p>\n<p>Another revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&amp;P 500’s total return.</p>\n<p>Even better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.</p>\n<p>Cornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.</p>\n<p>But when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.</p>\n<p><b>Read:</b>Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures</p>\n<p>Buffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.</p>\n<p>It’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.</p>\n<p>To be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.</p>\n<p>But, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nHere’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-04-30 19:13 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BRK.B":"伯克希尔B","BRK.A":"伯克希尔"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1141661204","content_text":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?\nHe isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.\nWhat we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.\nIn 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.\nNotwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.\nRead Howard Gold:Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era\nBuffett’s sale of airline stocks\nMany are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&P 500.\nBut this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”\nI submit that he was right.\nWho knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.\nMichael Brush in May 2000:Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks\nBlaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.\nIt’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)\nIf so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.\nThis is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”\nWarren Buffett versus Jim Simons\nAnother revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&P 500’s total return.\nEven better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.\nCornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.\nBut when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.\nRead:Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures\nBuffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.\nIt’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.\nTo be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.\nBut, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":101968348,"gmtCreate":1619837683284,"gmtModify":1704335583463,"author":{"id":"3581945658596754","authorId":"3581945658596754","name":"BruceLyy","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f6ddb500d252a42653a15b13d42f82ae","vip":1,"hat":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b073a07f77dbe6b3bec6b12311fde6bd","crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":1,"authorIdStr":"3581945658596754","idStr":"3581945658596754"},"htmlText":"Warren Buffet is still the best Investor, and none can replace him.","listText":"Warren Buffet is still the best Investor, and none can replace him.","text":"Warren Buffet is still the best Investor, and none can replace him.","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/101968348","repostId":1141661204,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1141661204","pubTimestamp":1619781225,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1141661204?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-04-30 19:13","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1141661204","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will","content":"<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&amp;P 500 has disappeared<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2ed7f6d43dfa3141494477101ba5581d\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"413\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p>\n<p>CHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?</p>\n<p>He isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.</p>\n<p>What we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.</p>\n<p>In 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.</p>\n<p>Notwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&amp;P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.</p>\n<p><b>Read Howard Gold:</b>Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era</p>\n<p>Buffett’s sale of airline stocks</p>\n<p>Many are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>But this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”</p>\n<p>I submit that he was right.</p>\n<p>Who knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.</p>\n<p><b>Michael Brush in May 2000:</b>Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks</p>\n<p>Blaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.</p>\n<p>It’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&amp;P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)</p>\n<p>If so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.</p>\n<p>This is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”</p>\n<p>Warren Buffett versus Jim Simons</p>\n<p>Another revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&amp;P 500’s total return.</p>\n<p>Even better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.</p>\n<p>Cornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.</p>\n<p>But when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.</p>\n<p><b>Read:</b>Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures</p>\n<p>Buffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.</p>\n<p>It’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.</p>\n<p>To be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.</p>\n<p>But, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nHere’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-04-30 19:13 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BRK.B":"伯克希尔B","BRK.A":"伯克希尔"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1141661204","content_text":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?\nHe isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.\nWhat we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.\nIn 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.\nNotwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.\nRead Howard Gold:Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era\nBuffett’s sale of airline stocks\nMany are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&P 500.\nBut this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”\nI submit that he was right.\nWho knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.\nMichael Brush in May 2000:Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks\nBlaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.\nIt’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)\nIf so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.\nThis is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”\nWarren Buffett versus Jim Simons\nAnother revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&P 500’s total return.\nEven better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.\nCornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.\nBut when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.\nRead:Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures\nBuffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.\nIt’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.\nTo be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.\nBut, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":4194397,"gmtCreate":1619912133256,"gmtModify":1680786544352,"authorId":3582060513966213,"author":{"id":3582060513966213,"idStr":"3582060513966213","authorId":3582060513966213,"name":"Shadowrider","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5a097dc665f46a3e5b535d2fd63e682b","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":101968348,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"AGree","text":"AGree","html":"AGree"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":103754097,"gmtCreate":1619826475319,"gmtModify":1704335340777,"author":{"id":"3570914862018043","authorId":"3570914862018043","name":"atf_nato","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/feb6626b5797e1473cb517200064728c","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":1,"authorIdStr":"3570914862018043","idStr":"3570914862018043"},"htmlText":"[Tongue]&nbsp;","listText":"[Tongue]&nbsp;","text":"[Tongue]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/103754097","repostId":1141661204,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1141661204","pubTimestamp":1619781225,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1141661204?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-04-30 19:13","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1141661204","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will","content":"<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&amp;P 500 has disappeared<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2ed7f6d43dfa3141494477101ba5581d\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"413\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p>\n<p>CHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?</p>\n<p>He isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.</p>\n<p>What we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.</p>\n<p>In 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.</p>\n<p>Notwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&amp;P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.</p>\n<p><b>Read Howard Gold:</b>Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era</p>\n<p>Buffett’s sale of airline stocks</p>\n<p>Many are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>But this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”</p>\n<p>I submit that he was right.</p>\n<p>Who knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.</p>\n<p><b>Michael Brush in May 2000:</b>Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks</p>\n<p>Blaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.</p>\n<p>It’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&amp;P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)</p>\n<p>If so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.</p>\n<p>This is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”</p>\n<p>Warren Buffett versus Jim Simons</p>\n<p>Another revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&amp;P 500’s total return.</p>\n<p>Even better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.</p>\n<p>Cornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.</p>\n<p>But when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.</p>\n<p><b>Read:</b>Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures</p>\n<p>Buffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.</p>\n<p>It’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.</p>\n<p>To be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.</p>\n<p>But, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nHere’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-04-30 19:13 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BRK.B":"伯克希尔B","BRK.A":"伯克希尔"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1141661204","content_text":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?\nHe isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.\nWhat we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.\nIn 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.\nNotwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.\nRead Howard Gold:Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era\nBuffett’s sale of airline stocks\nMany are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&P 500.\nBut this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”\nI submit that he was right.\nWho knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.\nMichael Brush in May 2000:Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks\nBlaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.\nIt’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)\nIf so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.\nThis is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”\nWarren Buffett versus Jim Simons\nAnother revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&P 500’s total return.\nEven better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.\nCornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.\nBut when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.\nRead:Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures\nBuffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.\nIt’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.\nTo be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.\nBut, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":4194791,"gmtCreate":1619914739235,"gmtModify":1680786550781,"authorId":3570914862018043,"author":{"id":3570914862018043,"idStr":"3570914862018043","authorId":3570914862018043,"name":"atf_nato","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/feb6626b5797e1473cb517200064728c","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":1,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":103754097,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Nice","text":"Nice","html":"Nice"},{"id":4194406,"gmtCreate":1619912165969,"gmtModify":1680786548211,"authorId":3582060513966213,"author":{"id":3582060513966213,"idStr":"3582060513966213","authorId":3582060513966213,"name":"Shadowrider","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5a097dc665f46a3e5b535d2fd63e682b","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":103754097,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Help to comment","text":"Help to comment","html":"Help to comment"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":103225145,"gmtCreate":1619789541687,"gmtModify":1704272387721,"author":{"id":"3563577781679506","authorId":"3563577781679506","name":"Samuel.L","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/1186b61f5b04203ae75a2949bd647713","vip":1,"crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3563577781679506","idStr":"3563577781679506"},"htmlText":"Ok","listText":"Ok","text":"Ok","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/103225145","repostId":1141661204,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1141661204","pubTimestamp":1619781225,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1141661204?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-04-30 19:13","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1141661204","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will","content":"<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&amp;P 500 has disappeared<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2ed7f6d43dfa3141494477101ba5581d\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"413\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p>\n<p>CHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?</p>\n<p>He isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.</p>\n<p>What we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.</p>\n<p>In 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.</p>\n<p>Notwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&amp;P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.</p>\n<p><b>Read Howard Gold:</b>Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era</p>\n<p>Buffett’s sale of airline stocks</p>\n<p>Many are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>But this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”</p>\n<p>I submit that he was right.</p>\n<p>Who knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.</p>\n<p><b>Michael Brush in May 2000:</b>Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks</p>\n<p>Blaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.</p>\n<p>It’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&amp;P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)</p>\n<p>If so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.</p>\n<p>This is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”</p>\n<p>Warren Buffett versus Jim Simons</p>\n<p>Another revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&amp;P 500’s total return.</p>\n<p>Even better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.</p>\n<p>Cornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.</p>\n<p>But when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.</p>\n<p><b>Read:</b>Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures</p>\n<p>Buffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.</p>\n<p>It’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.</p>\n<p>To be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.</p>\n<p>But, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nHere’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-04-30 19:13 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BRK.B":"伯克希尔B","BRK.A":"伯克希尔"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1141661204","content_text":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?\nHe isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.\nWhat we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.\nIn 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.\nNotwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.\nRead Howard Gold:Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era\nBuffett’s sale of airline stocks\nMany are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&P 500.\nBut this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”\nI submit that he was right.\nWho knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.\nMichael Brush in May 2000:Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks\nBlaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.\nIt’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)\nIf so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.\nThis is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”\nWarren Buffett versus Jim Simons\nAnother revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&P 500’s total return.\nEven better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.\nCornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.\nBut when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.\nRead:Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures\nBuffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.\nIt’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.\nTo be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.\nBut, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":4194402,"gmtCreate":1619912145157,"gmtModify":1680786544489,"authorId":3582060513966213,"author":{"id":3582060513966213,"idStr":"3582060513966213","authorId":3582060513966213,"name":"Shadowrider","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5a097dc665f46a3e5b535d2fd63e682b","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":103225145,"type":1,"supId":4182943,"prevId":0,"content":"Help to comment ","text":"Help to comment ","html":"Help to comment "},{"id":4182943,"gmtCreate":1619789550225,"gmtModify":1680786366585,"authorId":3563577781679506,"author":{"id":3563577781679506,"idStr":"3563577781679506","authorId":3563577781679506,"name":"Samuel.L","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/1186b61f5b04203ae75a2949bd647713","vip":1,"crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":103225145,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Ok","text":"Ok","html":"Ok"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":103235586,"gmtCreate":1619785597345,"gmtModify":1704272332599,"author":{"id":"3571011001777364","authorId":"3571011001777364","name":"Investigater","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6cc9755a32715757af2686d3467dc2be","vip":1,"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3571011001777364","idStr":"3571011001777364"},"htmlText":"Oh no","listText":"Oh no","text":"Oh no","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/103235586","repostId":1141661204,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1141661204","pubTimestamp":1619781225,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1141661204?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-04-30 19:13","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1141661204","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will","content":"<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&amp;P 500 has disappeared<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2ed7f6d43dfa3141494477101ba5581d\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"413\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p>\n<p>CHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?</p>\n<p>He isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.</p>\n<p>What we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.</p>\n<p>In 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.</p>\n<p>Notwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&amp;P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.</p>\n<p><b>Read Howard Gold:</b>Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era</p>\n<p>Buffett’s sale of airline stocks</p>\n<p>Many are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>But this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”</p>\n<p>I submit that he was right.</p>\n<p>Who knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.</p>\n<p><b>Michael Brush in May 2000:</b>Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks</p>\n<p>Blaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.</p>\n<p>It’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&amp;P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)</p>\n<p>If so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.</p>\n<p>This is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”</p>\n<p>Warren Buffett versus Jim Simons</p>\n<p>Another revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&amp;P 500’s total return.</p>\n<p>Even better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.</p>\n<p>Cornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.</p>\n<p>But when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.</p>\n<p><b>Read:</b>Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures</p>\n<p>Buffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.</p>\n<p>It’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.</p>\n<p>To be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.</p>\n<p>But, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nHere’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-04-30 19:13 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BRK.B":"伯克希尔B","BRK.A":"伯克希尔"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1141661204","content_text":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?\nHe isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.\nWhat we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.\nIn 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.\nNotwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.\nRead Howard Gold:Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era\nBuffett’s sale of airline stocks\nMany are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&P 500.\nBut this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”\nI submit that he was right.\nWho knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.\nMichael Brush in May 2000:Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks\nBlaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.\nIt’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)\nIf so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.\nThis is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”\nWarren Buffett versus Jim Simons\nAnother revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&P 500’s total return.\nEven better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.\nCornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.\nBut when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.\nRead:Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures\nBuffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.\nIt’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.\nTo be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.\nBut, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":4182492,"gmtCreate":1619785628145,"gmtModify":1680786358970,"authorId":3577529300728738,"author":{"id":3577529300728738,"idStr":"3577529300728738","authorId":3577529300728738,"name":"Jennifer58","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9a014efda004b6cc112e5d7968adf52f","vip":1,"crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":103235586,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Times <u>change</u>","text":"Times <u>change</u>","html":"Times <u>change</u>"},{"id":4182504,"gmtCreate":1619785680415,"gmtModify":1680786358427,"authorId":3571011001777364,"author":{"id":3571011001777364,"idStr":"3571011001777364","authorId":3571011001777364,"name":"Investigater","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6cc9755a32715757af2686d3467dc2be","vip":1,"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":103235586,"type":1,"supId":4182492,"prevId":0,"content":"Yeah","text":"Yeah","html":"Yeah"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":103236925,"gmtCreate":1619785424467,"gmtModify":1704272328471,"author":{"id":"3577529300728738","authorId":"3577529300728738","name":"Jennifer58","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9a014efda004b6cc112e5d7968adf52f","vip":1,"crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3577529300728738","idStr":"3577529300728738"},"htmlText":"Things change","listText":"Things change","text":"Things change","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/103236925","repostId":1141661204,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1141661204","pubTimestamp":1619781225,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1141661204?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-04-30 19:13","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1141661204","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will","content":"<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&amp;P 500 has disappeared<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2ed7f6d43dfa3141494477101ba5581d\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"413\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p>\n<p>CHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?</p>\n<p>He isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.</p>\n<p>What we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.</p>\n<p>In 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.</p>\n<p>Notwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&amp;P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.</p>\n<p><b>Read Howard Gold:</b>Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era</p>\n<p>Buffett’s sale of airline stocks</p>\n<p>Many are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>But this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”</p>\n<p>I submit that he was right.</p>\n<p>Who knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.</p>\n<p><b>Michael Brush in May 2000:</b>Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks</p>\n<p>Blaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.</p>\n<p>It’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&amp;P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)</p>\n<p>If so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.</p>\n<p>This is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”</p>\n<p>Warren Buffett versus Jim Simons</p>\n<p>Another revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&amp;P 500’s total return.</p>\n<p>Even better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.</p>\n<p>Cornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.</p>\n<p>But when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.</p>\n<p><b>Read:</b>Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures</p>\n<p>Buffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.</p>\n<p>It’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.</p>\n<p>To be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.</p>\n<p>But, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nHere’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-04-30 19:13 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BRK.B":"伯克希尔B","BRK.A":"伯克希尔"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1141661204","content_text":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?\nHe isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.\nWhat we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.\nIn 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.\nNotwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.\nRead Howard Gold:Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era\nBuffett’s sale of airline stocks\nMany are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&P 500.\nBut this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”\nI submit that he was right.\nWho knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.\nMichael Brush in May 2000:Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks\nBlaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.\nIt’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)\nIf so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.\nThis is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”\nWarren Buffett versus Jim Simons\nAnother revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&P 500’s total return.\nEven better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.\nCornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.\nBut when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.\nRead:Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures\nBuffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.\nIt’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.\nTo be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.\nBut, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":4182506,"gmtCreate":1619785686938,"gmtModify":1680786360291,"authorId":3571011001777364,"author":{"id":3571011001777364,"idStr":"3571011001777364","authorId":3571011001777364,"name":"Investigater","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6cc9755a32715757af2686d3467dc2be","vip":1,"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":103236925,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Yeah","text":"Yeah","html":"Yeah"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":103230904,"gmtCreate":1619785097508,"gmtModify":1704272321200,"author":{"id":"3575034880210493","authorId":"3575034880210493","name":"CTLT","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/7281d38ef945e595e240f73b0b57e538","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3575034880210493","idStr":"3575034880210493"},"htmlText":"Good&nbsp;","listText":"Good&nbsp;","text":"Good","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/103230904","repostId":1141661204,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1141661204","pubTimestamp":1619781225,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1141661204?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-04-30 19:13","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1141661204","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will","content":"<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&amp;P 500 has disappeared<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2ed7f6d43dfa3141494477101ba5581d\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"413\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p>\n<p>CHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?</p>\n<p>He isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.</p>\n<p>What we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.</p>\n<p>In 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.</p>\n<p>Notwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&amp;P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.</p>\n<p><b>Read Howard Gold:</b>Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era</p>\n<p>Buffett’s sale of airline stocks</p>\n<p>Many are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>But this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”</p>\n<p>I submit that he was right.</p>\n<p>Who knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.</p>\n<p><b>Michael Brush in May 2000:</b>Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks</p>\n<p>Blaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.</p>\n<p>It’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&amp;P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)</p>\n<p>If so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.</p>\n<p>This is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”</p>\n<p>Warren Buffett versus Jim Simons</p>\n<p>Another revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&amp;P 500’s total return.</p>\n<p>Even better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.</p>\n<p>Cornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.</p>\n<p>But when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.</p>\n<p><b>Read:</b>Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures</p>\n<p>Buffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.</p>\n<p>It’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.</p>\n<p>To be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.</p>\n<p>But, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nHere’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-04-30 19:13 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BRK.B":"伯克希尔B","BRK.A":"伯克希尔"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1141661204","content_text":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?\nHe isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.\nWhat we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.\nIn 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.\nNotwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.\nRead Howard Gold:Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era\nBuffett’s sale of airline stocks\nMany are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&P 500.\nBut this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”\nI submit that he was right.\nWho knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.\nMichael Brush in May 2000:Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks\nBlaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.\nIt’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)\nIf so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.\nThis is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”\nWarren Buffett versus Jim Simons\nAnother revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&P 500’s total return.\nEven better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.\nCornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.\nBut when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.\nRead:Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures\nBuffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.\nIt’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.\nTo be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.\nBut, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":103296792,"gmtCreate":1619784786916,"gmtModify":1704272314912,"author":{"id":"3575777871652447","authorId":"3575777871652447","name":"JiN","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/7297d7a7fde3aa0a80ec893d2806a728","vip":1,"crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3575777871652447","idStr":"3575777871652447"},"htmlText":"Interesting","listText":"Interesting","text":"Interesting","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/103296792","repostId":1141661204,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1141661204","pubTimestamp":1619781225,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1141661204?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-04-30 19:13","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1141661204","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will","content":"<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&amp;P 500 has disappeared<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2ed7f6d43dfa3141494477101ba5581d\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"413\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p>\n<p>CHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?</p>\n<p>He isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.</p>\n<p>What we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.</p>\n<p>In 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.</p>\n<p>Notwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&amp;P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.</p>\n<p><b>Read Howard Gold:</b>Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era</p>\n<p>Buffett’s sale of airline stocks</p>\n<p>Many are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>But this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”</p>\n<p>I submit that he was right.</p>\n<p>Who knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.</p>\n<p><b>Michael Brush in May 2000:</b>Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks</p>\n<p>Blaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.</p>\n<p>It’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&amp;P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)</p>\n<p>If so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.</p>\n<p>This is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”</p>\n<p>Warren Buffett versus Jim Simons</p>\n<p>Another revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&amp;P 500’s total return.</p>\n<p>Even better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.</p>\n<p>Cornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.</p>\n<p>But when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.</p>\n<p><b>Read:</b>Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures</p>\n<p>Buffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.</p>\n<p>It’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.</p>\n<p>To be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.</p>\n<p>But, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nHere’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-04-30 19:13 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BRK.B":"伯克希尔B","BRK.A":"伯克希尔"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1141661204","content_text":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?\nHe isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.\nWhat we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.\nIn 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.\nNotwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.\nRead Howard Gold:Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era\nBuffett’s sale of airline stocks\nMany are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&P 500.\nBut this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”\nI submit that he was right.\nWho knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.\nMichael Brush in May 2000:Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks\nBlaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.\nIt’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)\nIf so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.\nThis is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”\nWarren Buffett versus Jim Simons\nAnother revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&P 500’s total return.\nEven better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.\nCornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.\nBut when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.\nRead:Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures\nBuffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.\nIt’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.\nTo be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.\nBut, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":4183545,"gmtCreate":1619792611835,"gmtModify":1680786378711,"authorId":3570772304712620,"author":{"id":3570772304712620,"idStr":"3570772304712620","authorId":3570772304712620,"name":"jimmylaw","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f6c847ae11f03f4682632e6fa4016040","vip":1,"currentWearingBadge":{"badgeId":"7a9f168ff73447fe856ed6c938b61789-1","templateUuid":"7a9f168ff73447fe856ed6c938b61789","name":"Knowledgeable Investor","description":"Traded more than 10 stocks","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e74cc24115c4fbae6154ec1b1041bf47","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d48265cbfd97c57f9048db29f22227b0","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/76c6d6898b073c77e1c537ebe9ac1c57","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":1,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.21","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1102},"crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":1,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":103296792,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"<u>yeah</u>","text":"<u>yeah</u>","html":"<u>yeah</u>"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":103296578,"gmtCreate":1619784771194,"gmtModify":1704272314585,"author":{"id":"3569409177654344","authorId":"3569409177654344","name":"BeeL","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/04fd117193f398e58143bed822f34e05","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3569409177654344","idStr":"3569409177654344"},"htmlText":"oh well....","listText":"oh well....","text":"oh well....","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":5,"commentSize":3,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/103296578","repostId":1141661204,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1141661204","pubTimestamp":1619781225,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1141661204?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-04-30 19:13","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1141661204","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will","content":"<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&amp;P 500 has disappeared<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2ed7f6d43dfa3141494477101ba5581d\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"413\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p>\n<p>CHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?</p>\n<p>He isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.</p>\n<p>What we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.</p>\n<p>In 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.</p>\n<p>Notwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&amp;P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.</p>\n<p><b>Read Howard Gold:</b>Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era</p>\n<p>Buffett’s sale of airline stocks</p>\n<p>Many are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>But this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”</p>\n<p>I submit that he was right.</p>\n<p>Who knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.</p>\n<p><b>Michael Brush in May 2000:</b>Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks</p>\n<p>Blaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.</p>\n<p>It’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&amp;P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)</p>\n<p>If so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.</p>\n<p>This is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”</p>\n<p>Warren Buffett versus Jim Simons</p>\n<p>Another revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&amp;P 500’s total return.</p>\n<p>Even better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.</p>\n<p>Cornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.</p>\n<p>But when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.</p>\n<p><b>Read:</b>Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures</p>\n<p>Buffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.</p>\n<p>It’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.</p>\n<p>To be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.</p>\n<p>But, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nHere’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-04-30 19:13 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BRK.B":"伯克希尔B","BRK.A":"伯克希尔"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1141661204","content_text":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?\nHe isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.\nWhat we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.\nIn 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.\nNotwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.\nRead Howard Gold:Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era\nBuffett’s sale of airline stocks\nMany are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&P 500.\nBut this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”\nI submit that he was right.\nWho knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.\nMichael Brush in May 2000:Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks\nBlaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.\nIt’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)\nIf so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.\nThis is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”\nWarren Buffett versus Jim Simons\nAnother revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&P 500’s total return.\nEven better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.\nCornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.\nBut when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.\nRead:Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures\nBuffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.\nIt’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.\nTo be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.\nBut, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":4190113,"gmtCreate":1619846007821,"gmtModify":1680786480938,"authorId":3569409177654344,"author":{"id":3569409177654344,"idStr":"3569409177654344","authorId":3569409177654344,"name":"BeeL","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/04fd117193f398e58143bed822f34e05","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":103296578,"type":1,"supId":4185898,"prevId":0,"content":"??","text":"??","html":"??"},{"id":4188108,"gmtCreate":1619834519246,"gmtModify":1680786445719,"authorId":3574190927831420,"author":{"id":3574190927831420,"idStr":"3574190927831420","authorId":3574190927831420,"name":"derricktang8","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3e84745b3ca82eead5bdd9e7c4316a3a","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":103296578,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Hard indeed","text":"Hard indeed","html":"Hard indeed"},{"id":4185898,"gmtCreate":1619822247448,"gmtModify":1680786409127,"authorId":3569493945217915,"author":{"id":3569493945217915,"idStr":"3569493945217915","authorId":3569493945217915,"name":"TC88","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ea49250ec06f06d5c0a8d65dbd1900ef","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":103296578,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"hard to interpret","text":"hard to interpret","html":"hard to interpret"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":103298484,"gmtCreate":1619784696948,"gmtModify":1704272313755,"author":{"id":"3570938778601887","authorId":"3570938778601887","name":"ENAHSHANE","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4826b7f9114514b02002820348f8e822","vip":1,"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3570938778601887","idStr":"3570938778601887"},"htmlText":"Can someone like my comment lol","listText":"Can someone like my comment lol","text":"Can someone like my comment lol","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/103298484","repostId":1141661204,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1141661204","pubTimestamp":1619781225,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1141661204?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-04-30 19:13","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1141661204","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will","content":"<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&amp;P 500 has disappeared<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2ed7f6d43dfa3141494477101ba5581d\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"413\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p>\n<p>CHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?</p>\n<p>He isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.</p>\n<p>What we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.</p>\n<p>In 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.</p>\n<p>Notwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&amp;P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.</p>\n<p><b>Read Howard Gold:</b>Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era</p>\n<p>Buffett’s sale of airline stocks</p>\n<p>Many are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>But this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”</p>\n<p>I submit that he was right.</p>\n<p>Who knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.</p>\n<p><b>Michael Brush in May 2000:</b>Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks</p>\n<p>Blaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.</p>\n<p>It’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&amp;P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)</p>\n<p>If so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.</p>\n<p>This is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”</p>\n<p>Warren Buffett versus Jim Simons</p>\n<p>Another revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&amp;P 500’s total return.</p>\n<p>Even better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.</p>\n<p>Cornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.</p>\n<p>But when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.</p>\n<p><b>Read:</b>Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures</p>\n<p>Buffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.</p>\n<p>It’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.</p>\n<p>To be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.</p>\n<p>But, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nHere’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-04-30 19:13 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BRK.B":"伯克希尔B","BRK.A":"伯克希尔"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1141661204","content_text":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?\nHe isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.\nWhat we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.\nIn 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.\nNotwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.\nRead Howard Gold:Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era\nBuffett’s sale of airline stocks\nMany are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&P 500.\nBut this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”\nI submit that he was right.\nWho knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.\nMichael Brush in May 2000:Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks\nBlaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.\nIt’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)\nIf so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.\nThis is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”\nWarren Buffett versus Jim Simons\nAnother revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&P 500’s total return.\nEven better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.\nCornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.\nBut when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.\nRead:Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures\nBuffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.\nIt’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.\nTo be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.\nBut, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":103298346,"gmtCreate":1619784630185,"gmtModify":1704272312258,"author":{"id":"3582874918159872","authorId":"3582874918159872","name":"shawly","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3c8eb3b082b239696453090b86a13e43","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3582874918159872","idStr":"3582874918159872"},"htmlText":"Sheeeeesh.&nbsp;","listText":"Sheeeeesh.&nbsp;","text":"Sheeeeesh.","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/103298346","repostId":1141661204,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1141661204","pubTimestamp":1619781225,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1141661204?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-04-30 19:13","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1141661204","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will","content":"<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&amp;P 500 has disappeared<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2ed7f6d43dfa3141494477101ba5581d\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"413\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p>\n<p>CHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?</p>\n<p>He isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.</p>\n<p>What we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.</p>\n<p>In 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.</p>\n<p>Notwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&amp;P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.</p>\n<p><b>Read Howard Gold:</b>Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era</p>\n<p>Buffett’s sale of airline stocks</p>\n<p>Many are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>But this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”</p>\n<p>I submit that he was right.</p>\n<p>Who knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.</p>\n<p><b>Michael Brush in May 2000:</b>Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks</p>\n<p>Blaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.</p>\n<p>It’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&amp;P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)</p>\n<p>If so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.</p>\n<p>This is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”</p>\n<p>Warren Buffett versus Jim Simons</p>\n<p>Another revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&amp;P 500’s total return.</p>\n<p>Even better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.</p>\n<p>Cornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.</p>\n<p>But when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.</p>\n<p><b>Read:</b>Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures</p>\n<p>Buffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.</p>\n<p>It’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.</p>\n<p>To be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.</p>\n<p>But, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nHere’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-04-30 19:13 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BRK.B":"伯克希尔B","BRK.A":"伯克希尔"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1141661204","content_text":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?\nHe isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.\nWhat we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.\nIn 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.\nNotwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.\nRead Howard Gold:Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era\nBuffett’s sale of airline stocks\nMany are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&P 500.\nBut this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”\nI submit that he was right.\nWho knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.\nMichael Brush in May 2000:Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks\nBlaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.\nIt’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)\nIf so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.\nThis is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”\nWarren Buffett versus Jim Simons\nAnother revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&P 500’s total return.\nEven better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.\nCornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.\nBut when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.\nRead:Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures\nBuffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.\nIt’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.\nTo be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.\nBut, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":103205026,"gmtCreate":1619783835565,"gmtModify":1704272302643,"author":{"id":"3581897041099826","authorId":"3581897041099826","name":"DCPK","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/272901da7739a33f5be5bf5d07d28663","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3581897041099826","idStr":"3581897041099826"},"htmlText":"In the short run, the stock market is a voting machine; in the long run, it is a weighing machine. Play the long game.","listText":"In the short run, the stock market is a voting machine; in the long run, it is a weighing machine. Play the long game.","text":"In the short run, the stock market is a voting machine; in the long run, it is a weighing machine. Play the long game.","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/103205026","repostId":1141661204,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1141661204","pubTimestamp":1619781225,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1141661204?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-04-30 19:13","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1141661204","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will","content":"<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&amp;P 500 has disappeared<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2ed7f6d43dfa3141494477101ba5581d\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"413\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p>\n<p>CHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?</p>\n<p>He isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.</p>\n<p>What we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.</p>\n<p>In 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.</p>\n<p>Notwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&amp;P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.</p>\n<p><b>Read Howard Gold:</b>Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era</p>\n<p>Buffett’s sale of airline stocks</p>\n<p>Many are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>But this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”</p>\n<p>I submit that he was right.</p>\n<p>Who knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.</p>\n<p><b>Michael Brush in May 2000:</b>Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks</p>\n<p>Blaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.</p>\n<p>It’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&amp;P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)</p>\n<p>If so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.</p>\n<p>This is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”</p>\n<p>Warren Buffett versus Jim Simons</p>\n<p>Another revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&amp;P 500’s total return.</p>\n<p>Even better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.</p>\n<p>Cornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.</p>\n<p>But when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.</p>\n<p><b>Read:</b>Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures</p>\n<p>Buffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.</p>\n<p>It’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.</p>\n<p>To be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.</p>\n<p>But, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nHere’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-04-30 19:13 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BRK.B":"伯克希尔B","BRK.A":"伯克希尔"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1141661204","content_text":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?\nHe isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.\nWhat we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.\nIn 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.\nNotwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.\nRead Howard Gold:Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era\nBuffett’s sale of airline stocks\nMany are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&P 500.\nBut this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”\nI submit that he was right.\nWho knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.\nMichael Brush in May 2000:Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks\nBlaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.\nIt’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)\nIf so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.\nThis is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”\nWarren Buffett versus Jim Simons\nAnother revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&P 500’s total return.\nEven better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.\nCornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.\nBut when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.\nRead:Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures\nBuffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.\nIt’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.\nTo be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.\nBut, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":103202718,"gmtCreate":1619783799534,"gmtModify":1704272302150,"author":{"id":"3581500477720390","authorId":"3581500477720390","name":"AliceLew","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0ceebb9941a060852ffc8d83298ef96c","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3581500477720390","idStr":"3581500477720390"},"htmlText":"Comment","listText":"Comment","text":"Comment","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":3,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/103202718","repostId":1141661204,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1141661204","pubTimestamp":1619781225,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1141661204?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-04-30 19:13","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1141661204","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will","content":"<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&amp;P 500 has disappeared<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2ed7f6d43dfa3141494477101ba5581d\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"413\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p>\n<p>CHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?</p>\n<p>He isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.</p>\n<p>What we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.</p>\n<p>In 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.</p>\n<p>Notwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&amp;P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.</p>\n<p><b>Read Howard Gold:</b>Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era</p>\n<p>Buffett’s sale of airline stocks</p>\n<p>Many are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>But this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”</p>\n<p>I submit that he was right.</p>\n<p>Who knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.</p>\n<p><b>Michael Brush in May 2000:</b>Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks</p>\n<p>Blaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.</p>\n<p>It’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&amp;P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)</p>\n<p>If so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.</p>\n<p>This is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”</p>\n<p>Warren Buffett versus Jim Simons</p>\n<p>Another revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&amp;P 500’s total return.</p>\n<p>Even better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.</p>\n<p>Cornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.</p>\n<p>But when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.</p>\n<p><b>Read:</b>Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures</p>\n<p>Buffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.</p>\n<p>It’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.</p>\n<p>To be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.</p>\n<p>But, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nHere’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-04-30 19:13 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BRK.B":"伯克希尔B","BRK.A":"伯克希尔"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1141661204","content_text":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?\nHe isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.\nWhat we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.\nIn 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.\nNotwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.\nRead Howard Gold:Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era\nBuffett’s sale of airline stocks\nMany are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&P 500.\nBut this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”\nI submit that he was right.\nWho knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.\nMichael Brush in May 2000:Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks\nBlaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.\nIt’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)\nIf so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.\nThis is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”\nWarren Buffett versus Jim Simons\nAnother revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&P 500’s total return.\nEven better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.\nCornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.\nBut when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.\nRead:Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures\nBuffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.\nIt’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.\nTo be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.\nBut, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":4182830,"gmtCreate":1619788424593,"gmtModify":1680786361183,"authorId":3581500477720390,"author":{"id":3581500477720390,"idStr":"3581500477720390","authorId":3581500477720390,"name":"AliceLew","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0ceebb9941a060852ffc8d83298ef96c","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":103202718,"type":1,"supId":4182302,"prevId":0,"content":"<u>good</u>","text":"<u>good</u>","html":"<u>good</u>"},{"id":4182277,"gmtCreate":1619783931172,"gmtModify":1680786356783,"authorId":3580591204893031,"author":{"id":3580591204893031,"idStr":"3580591204893031","authorId":3580591204893031,"name":"loveStock","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/590287b5643bcb579b372484178c7591","vip":1,"crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":103202718,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"like it","text":"like it","html":"like it"},{"id":4182302,"gmtCreate":1619784131462,"gmtModify":1680786353166,"authorId":3564887540980880,"author":{"id":3564887540980880,"idStr":"3564887540980880","authorId":3564887540980880,"name":"Investorpw","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d1dd948dbb16b3bc2aece70dc8351fa9","vip":1,"crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":1,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":103202718,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Comment back thxs","text":"Comment back thxs","html":"Comment back thxs"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":103675500,"gmtCreate":1619782935400,"gmtModify":1704272287339,"author":{"id":"3576231438371359","authorId":"3576231438371359","name":"yl2021","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9130003d93212acf586123bc8fe8a1e0","vip":1,"crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3576231438371359","idStr":"3576231438371359"},"htmlText":"Please like &amp; comments. Thanks","listText":"Please like &amp; comments. Thanks","text":"Please like & comments. Thanks","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/103675500","repostId":1141661204,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1141661204","pubTimestamp":1619781225,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1141661204?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-04-30 19:13","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1141661204","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will","content":"<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&amp;P 500 has disappeared<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2ed7f6d43dfa3141494477101ba5581d\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"413\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p>\n<p>CHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?</p>\n<p>He isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.</p>\n<p>What we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.</p>\n<p>In 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.</p>\n<p>Notwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&amp;P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.</p>\n<p><b>Read Howard Gold:</b>Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era</p>\n<p>Buffett’s sale of airline stocks</p>\n<p>Many are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>But this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”</p>\n<p>I submit that he was right.</p>\n<p>Who knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.</p>\n<p><b>Michael Brush in May 2000:</b>Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks</p>\n<p>Blaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.</p>\n<p>It’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&amp;P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)</p>\n<p>If so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.</p>\n<p>This is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”</p>\n<p>Warren Buffett versus Jim Simons</p>\n<p>Another revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&amp;P 500’s total return.</p>\n<p>Even better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.</p>\n<p>Cornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.</p>\n<p>But when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.</p>\n<p><b>Read:</b>Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures</p>\n<p>Buffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.</p>\n<p>It’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.</p>\n<p>To be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.</p>\n<p>But, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nHere’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-04-30 19:13 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BRK.B":"伯克希尔B","BRK.A":"伯克希尔"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1141661204","content_text":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?\nHe isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.\nWhat we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.\nIn 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.\nNotwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.\nRead Howard Gold:Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era\nBuffett’s sale of airline stocks\nMany are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&P 500.\nBut this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”\nI submit that he was right.\nWho knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.\nMichael Brush in May 2000:Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks\nBlaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.\nIt’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)\nIf so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.\nThis is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”\nWarren Buffett versus Jim Simons\nAnother revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&P 500’s total return.\nEven better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.\nCornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.\nBut when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.\nRead:Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures\nBuffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.\nIt’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.\nTo be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.\nBut, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":4182269,"gmtCreate":1619783791793,"gmtModify":1680786356342,"authorId":3581500477720390,"author":{"id":3581500477720390,"idStr":"3581500477720390","authorId":3581500477720390,"name":"AliceLew","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0ceebb9941a060852ffc8d83298ef96c","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":103675500,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"<u>good</u>","text":"<u>good</u>","html":"<u>good</u>"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":103673794,"gmtCreate":1619782411318,"gmtModify":1704272280357,"author":{"id":"3582871530437187","authorId":"3582871530437187","name":"Zacreon","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3582871530437187","idStr":"3582871530437187"},"htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/103673794","repostId":1141661204,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1141661204","pubTimestamp":1619781225,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1141661204?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-04-30 19:13","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1141661204","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will","content":"<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&amp;P 500 has disappeared<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2ed7f6d43dfa3141494477101ba5581d\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"413\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p>\n<p>CHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?</p>\n<p>He isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.</p>\n<p>What we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.</p>\n<p>In 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.</p>\n<p>Notwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&amp;P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.</p>\n<p><b>Read Howard Gold:</b>Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era</p>\n<p>Buffett’s sale of airline stocks</p>\n<p>Many are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>But this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”</p>\n<p>I submit that he was right.</p>\n<p>Who knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.</p>\n<p><b>Michael Brush in May 2000:</b>Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks</p>\n<p>Blaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.</p>\n<p>It’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&amp;P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)</p>\n<p>If so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.</p>\n<p>This is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”</p>\n<p>Warren Buffett versus Jim Simons</p>\n<p>Another revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&amp;P 500’s total return.</p>\n<p>Even better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.</p>\n<p>Cornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.</p>\n<p>But when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.</p>\n<p><b>Read:</b>Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures</p>\n<p>Buffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.</p>\n<p>It’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.</p>\n<p>To be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.</p>\n<p>But, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nHere’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-04-30 19:13 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BRK.B":"伯克希尔B","BRK.A":"伯克希尔"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1141661204","content_text":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?\nHe isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.\nWhat we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.\nIn 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.\nNotwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.\nRead Howard Gold:Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era\nBuffett’s sale of airline stocks\nMany are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&P 500.\nBut this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”\nI submit that he was right.\nWho knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.\nMichael Brush in May 2000:Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks\nBlaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.\nIt’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)\nIf so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.\nThis is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”\nWarren Buffett versus Jim Simons\nAnother revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&P 500’s total return.\nEven better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.\nCornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.\nBut when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.\nRead:Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures\nBuffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.\nIt’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.\nTo be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.\nBut, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":103673483,"gmtCreate":1619782394842,"gmtModify":1704272280194,"author":{"id":"3562559237461627","authorId":"3562559237461627","name":"AhSon","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/93b572e6d31fbbe91fbc1aeca083aee9","vip":1,"crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3562559237461627","idStr":"3562559237461627"},"htmlText":"In buffet I believe&nbsp;","listText":"In buffet I believe&nbsp;","text":"In buffet I believe","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/103673483","repostId":1141661204,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1141661204","pubTimestamp":1619781225,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1141661204?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-04-30 19:13","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1141661204","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will","content":"<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&amp;P 500 has disappeared<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2ed7f6d43dfa3141494477101ba5581d\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"413\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p>\n<p>CHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?</p>\n<p>He isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.</p>\n<p>What we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&amp;P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.</p>\n<p>In 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.</p>\n<p>Notwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&amp;P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.</p>\n<p><b>Read Howard Gold:</b>Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era</p>\n<p>Buffett’s sale of airline stocks</p>\n<p>Many are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&amp;P 500.</p>\n<p>But this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”</p>\n<p>I submit that he was right.</p>\n<p>Who knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.</p>\n<p><b>Michael Brush in May 2000:</b>Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks</p>\n<p>Blaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.</p>\n<p>It’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&amp;P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)</p>\n<p>If so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.</p>\n<p>This is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”</p>\n<p>Warren Buffett versus Jim Simons</p>\n<p>Another revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&amp;P 500’s total return.</p>\n<p>Even better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.</p>\n<p>Cornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.</p>\n<p>But when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.</p>\n<p><b>Read:</b>Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures</p>\n<p>Buffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.</p>\n<p>It’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.</p>\n<p>To be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.</p>\n<p>But, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Here’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nHere’s how to best interpret Warren Buffett’s disappointing recent track record\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-04-30 19:13 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BRK.B":"伯克希尔B","BRK.A":"伯克希尔"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-to-best-interpret-warren-buffetts-disappointing-recent-track-record-11619732931?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1141661204","content_text":"Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year edge over the S&P 500 has disappeared\nCHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Will Warren Buffett address his disappointing recent performance at this weekend’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting?\nHe isn’t saying, and I received no response from the company’s press office when I asked if he plans to address the topic.\nWhat we do know is that he has lagged the stock market, over not just a year or two but over longer periods as well. Consider the extent to which Berkshire Hathaway’s stockBRK.A,+1.68%BRK.B,+1.70%has outperformed the S&P 500SPX,+0.68%over the trailing 15 years. This outperformance — or alpha — has been steadily declining over the last four decades.\nIn 1979, for example, the first year for which a trailing 15-year track record existed, Berkshire Hathaway’s trailing 15-year alpha stood at over 15 annualized percentage points. By the turn of the century, it was only half as large. And by the end of last year it had slipped into negative territory.\nNotwithstanding this decline, however, Buffett’s lifetime record is still outstanding. Since 1965, Berkshire Hathaway stock has beaten the S&P 500 on a total-return basis by an annualized margin of 18.3% to 10.2%. What this means: His performance prior to the last 15 year was so impressive that even after incorporating the more recent period, he still comes out way ahead.\nRead Howard Gold:Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era\nBuffett’s sale of airline stocks\nMany are advancing an explanation for his recent disappointing performance that I think is unfair: That Buffett has lost his touch, as evidenced by his decision to sell his airline holdings a year ago during some of the darkest early days of the pandemic. Since last year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, when he announced the sale, the airline stocks he sold have gained more than 100%, on average, more than doubling the return of the S&P 500.\nBut this narrative relies on a considerable amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Buffett’s rationale for selling, as he said in last year’s meeting, was that “there are certain industries, and unfortunately, I think that the airline industry, among others, that are really hurt by a forced shutdown by events that are far beyond our control.”\nI submit that he was right.\nWho knew at the time whether the vaccines then in development would be successful? One of Buffett’s investment principles, which previously has served him well, is to never invest in a business you cannot understand. And, notwithstanding what some may be saying now, no one at the time knew whether an effective vaccine would be developed in time to save the airlines from bankruptcy.\nMichael Brush in May 2000:Here’s why Warren Buffett made a huge mistake selling his airline stocks\nBlaming Buffett for his sell decision is akin to blaming someone in a casino for failing to know which of myriad slot machines would soon hit the jackpot.\nIt’s helpful to think of this in terms of probabilities. Imagine for purposes of discussion that 60% of the time, Buffett is able to pick companies that will outperform the S&P 500 and that his average holding period is 10 years. (I have no idea whether these assumptions are accurate, but they strike me as plausible.)\nIf so, Buffett would need to invest for many decades—well more than 100 years, in fact—before the statistical odds of beating the overall market become nearly certain.\nThis is just another way of saying that over shorter time horizons, luck plays an outsized role in explaining returns. This is important to keep in mind, since our minds are hard-wired to discount the role luck may play—leading us to instead concoct narratives to explain what’s going on. That’s a mistake, Dartmouth professor Ken French once told me: “Statistical noise—luck in other words—is always the first possibility to consider.”\nWarren Buffett versus Jim Simons\nAnother revealing comparison is to Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons, whose Medallion Fund has outperformed even Berkshire Hathaway during the period in which both have existed.Brad Cornell, a professor emeritus at UCLA, reportsthat Simons’ fund produced a 39.2% annualized return (after fees) between 1988 and 2018, in comparison to a return of “just” 15.5% for Berkshire Hathaway and 10.0% for the S&P 500’s total return.\nEven better, the Medallion Fund’s returns have been incredibly consistent. Cornell reports that the fund has had only one losing year in three decades: 1989, when its net-of-fees return was minus 3.2%.\nCornell reports that the odds of success of any of Medallion Fund’s individual trades have been just 50.75%–considerably less than the 60% I assumed in my hypothetical Berkshire Hathaway example and only slightly higher than 50%.\nBut when coupled with high-frequency trading, those apparently modest odds are enough to produce a highly profitable strategy. Medallion’s “strategy involved constantly opening and covering thousands of short-term positions, both long and short… Taken over millions of trades that [50.75%] percentage allowed the firm to make billions,” Cornell wrote.\nRead:Turn yourself into a better investor by learning from hedge-fund star Jim Simons’s successes and failures\nBuffett, in contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from high-frequency trading. That’s why it takes so many more years for Buffett’s odds of success to translate into consistently outperforming the market.\nIt’s also worth pointing out that Simons early on recognized that there is a limit to how much money could be managed, according to the Medallion Fund’s strategy. The fund is not open to outside investors, for example. Buffett, in contrast, has made his strategy available to all. In fact, there are some who believe that, had Berkshire Hathaway remained as small as the Medallion Fund, Buffett’s recent performance would be far better.\nTo be sure, Buffett’s personality is such that he is unlikely to blame just bad luck for his recent disappointing performance. Even when it’s true, many think that the explanation is in poor taste, akin to not taking responsibility. So it will be interesting to see if he is asked this weekend about his negative 15-year alpha and, if so, what he says about it.\nBut, regardless, don’t underestimate the role that luck—randomness, in other words—has really played.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"}],"hasMoreComments":true,"newsSizeData":{"likeSize":71,"commentSize":24,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false}}