Bonds supporters aren't happy with Warren Buffett, as the Oracle of Omaha has let it be publicly known that at the yields offered, along with the growing risk, he isn't interested in buying any bonds. He even went so far as to say "bonds really should come with a warning label."
One of the premiere experts in bonds - Pacific Investment Management Co.'s Bill Gross - in January, raised his holdings in Treasuries to the highest level since summer 2010, rebalancing the portfolio.
continue reading ...
Showing posts with label Warren Buffett. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Warren Buffett. Show all posts
Saturday, June 1, 2013
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Warren Buffett on Opportunities in Europe
Most of us know Warren Buffett has the uncanny ability to see value where others don't, and over the last year, he recently said in an interview with CNBC, that he has been buying equities in Europe.
Before we get into that, another element that is extremely important in the success of Warren Buffett is the way he successfully recognizes the low range of a good entry point. I'm not talking about market timing here, but his understanding of the season of time companies are at bargain rates. In his view, Europe has been in that season of time, and many stocks there remain cheap.
Friday, July 20, 2012
Who Says Warren Buffett Doesn't Like Commodities
Recently Warren Buffett made another shrewd move by investing heavily in a little followed metal - tungsten.
How it came about is IMC International Metalworking, which is 80 percent owned by Buffett's holding company Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK-A), invested $80 million in a South Korean mining project, which effectively gives Berkshire a 25 percent stake in the mine.
The Sangdong Mine, which was the object of the investment, is among the top tungsten producing mines in the world, and used to be the top tungsten producer.
Sangdong is operated by Woulfe Mining Corp. (TXSV: WOF), which was also guaranteed by IMC International Metalworking to buy up 90 percent to 100 percent of all the tungsten produced there.
With China being the top producer in the world and not in any way interested in exporting tungsten, that makes the Sangdong a major tungsten producer outside of China, accounting for about 50 percent of all tungsten produced beyond the Chinese borders.
The mine, which will resume production in 2013, is expected to produce about 7 percent to 10 percent of tungsten globally.
According to Nick Smith, manager of investor relations at Woulfe, he said in an interview with Tungsten Investing News that "Without tungsten, Western manufacturing comes to an end. You are not working with steel without tungsten. There's no global mining unless you have tungsten-tipped drills."
He's referring to the super hard characteristic of tungsten, which is used in multiple mining and manufacturing applications such as mining drill tips and circular electric saws.
One of its more practical and ubiquitous applications has been in the filament of incandescent light bulbs. It makes one wonder with the industrial and military applications if that's the major reason behind eventually eliminating the use of incandescent light bulbs in the United States.
Tungsten is also in high demand in the energy and high tech sectors, making a vital component of many industries.
China now accounts for about 80 percent of all known tungsten resources in the world, and as mentioned, isn't about to export them to aid its competitors. It has quotas on exports to ensure they maintain the supply in that country for its manufacturers.
Demand for tungsten has grown at a steady pace of close to 6 percent for a number of years, and if it continues at that pace, production will have to grow from 68,000 metric tons in 2011 to 96,000 metric tons by 2016.
In just three years the price of tungsten has skyrocketed from $180 a metric ton to about $430 a metric ton as of this writing.
Now you can see why Buffett has entered into the tungsten fray, which will undoubtedly rise in price continually into the future.
Unfortunately, at this time there isn't much in the way for investors to invest in tungsten other than in rare earths companies searching for it or an ETF that offers exposure to the metal. The problem there is it's only a one piece of a pie with many pieces.
How it came about is IMC International Metalworking, which is 80 percent owned by Buffett's holding company Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK-A), invested $80 million in a South Korean mining project, which effectively gives Berkshire a 25 percent stake in the mine.
The Sangdong Mine, which was the object of the investment, is among the top tungsten producing mines in the world, and used to be the top tungsten producer.
Sangdong is operated by Woulfe Mining Corp. (TXSV: WOF), which was also guaranteed by IMC International Metalworking to buy up 90 percent to 100 percent of all the tungsten produced there.
With China being the top producer in the world and not in any way interested in exporting tungsten, that makes the Sangdong a major tungsten producer outside of China, accounting for about 50 percent of all tungsten produced beyond the Chinese borders.
The mine, which will resume production in 2013, is expected to produce about 7 percent to 10 percent of tungsten globally.
According to Nick Smith, manager of investor relations at Woulfe, he said in an interview with Tungsten Investing News that "Without tungsten, Western manufacturing comes to an end. You are not working with steel without tungsten. There's no global mining unless you have tungsten-tipped drills."
He's referring to the super hard characteristic of tungsten, which is used in multiple mining and manufacturing applications such as mining drill tips and circular electric saws.
One of its more practical and ubiquitous applications has been in the filament of incandescent light bulbs. It makes one wonder with the industrial and military applications if that's the major reason behind eventually eliminating the use of incandescent light bulbs in the United States.
Tungsten is also in high demand in the energy and high tech sectors, making a vital component of many industries.
China now accounts for about 80 percent of all known tungsten resources in the world, and as mentioned, isn't about to export them to aid its competitors. It has quotas on exports to ensure they maintain the supply in that country for its manufacturers.
Demand for tungsten has grown at a steady pace of close to 6 percent for a number of years, and if it continues at that pace, production will have to grow from 68,000 metric tons in 2011 to 96,000 metric tons by 2016.
In just three years the price of tungsten has skyrocketed from $180 a metric ton to about $430 a metric ton as of this writing.
Now you can see why Buffett has entered into the tungsten fray, which will undoubtedly rise in price continually into the future.
Unfortunately, at this time there isn't much in the way for investors to invest in tungsten other than in rare earths companies searching for it or an ETF that offers exposure to the metal. The problem there is it's only a one piece of a pie with many pieces.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Warren Buffett Finally Admits US Economy Weak
After months of data showing the U.S. economy is stagnant, Warren Buffett finally has admitted the economy of the country is "more or less flat," during an interview on CNBC.
Buffett has been a cheerleader for Obama and his failed economic policies, not willing to say it was in major trouble in an apparent nod towards not wanting to make Obama look bad in a reelection year.
Trying to salvage something positive out of the acknowledgement for Obama and the American economy, Buffett added there has been a boost in the residential housing sector, although saying it "doesn't amount to a whole lot yet, but it's getting better." That's basically a meaningless and irrelevant comment and observation.
Buffett has been trying to spin the idea that economic growth in the U.S. would pick up once the residential housing market began to recover. That hasn't happened at all.
Talking on the euro zone, Buffett noted it is falling apart economically very quickly, citing the last six weeks in particular. Taking the longer outlook, he said he believes the region will work out its issues, but it could take up to a decade before it happens.
Buffett also said he doesn't believe the euro zone will be what its creators had originally envisioned in the next ten years, and isn't certain the euro will survive as a currency.
Going back to his cheerleader role, Buffett asserted that in spite of the weaker American economy, it's doing better than the other major economies around the world. I guess he doesn't follow the growth rate of China, even when it's slightly slowing down in growth. It's still growing at a far more rapid pace than the American economy.
Finally, Buffet implied he has no idea which direction the economy is going, and said "to some extent" is awaiting until things become clearer.
Buffett has been a cheerleader for Obama and his failed economic policies, not willing to say it was in major trouble in an apparent nod towards not wanting to make Obama look bad in a reelection year.
Trying to salvage something positive out of the acknowledgement for Obama and the American economy, Buffett added there has been a boost in the residential housing sector, although saying it "doesn't amount to a whole lot yet, but it's getting better." That's basically a meaningless and irrelevant comment and observation.
Buffett has been trying to spin the idea that economic growth in the U.S. would pick up once the residential housing market began to recover. That hasn't happened at all.
Talking on the euro zone, Buffett noted it is falling apart economically very quickly, citing the last six weeks in particular. Taking the longer outlook, he said he believes the region will work out its issues, but it could take up to a decade before it happens.
Buffett also said he doesn't believe the euro zone will be what its creators had originally envisioned in the next ten years, and isn't certain the euro will survive as a currency.
Going back to his cheerleader role, Buffett asserted that in spite of the weaker American economy, it's doing better than the other major economies around the world. I guess he doesn't follow the growth rate of China, even when it's slightly slowing down in growth. It's still growing at a far more rapid pace than the American economy.
Finally, Buffet implied he has no idea which direction the economy is going, and said "to some extent" is awaiting until things become clearer.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Warren Buffett Losing it? Attacks Tea Party over "Anger"
When you think of Warren Buffett, the first thought that usually comes to mind is one of the greatest investors of all time, with the trained ability to be able to consume economic data in a way that he can make extremely accurate projections of how a company will perform over the long term; something a small handful of people have the skill to do. And Buffett is among the elite in history.
Buffett's problem is in his later years he has increasingly emerged as a big government backer, and as committed to Keynesianism as anyone around, and uses his popularity to justify outrageous spending, especially by his man Obama.
It makes me wonder if the years he spend building his legacy will crumble from these last years of his life, as America rises up against the things he's supporting and backing.
Recently he made the incredible statement that Americans should quit being angry at the government, and get over it. That was a direct attack on the tea party movement, no matter how it is spun later.
After all, while the majority of Americans are already fed up with the Obama administration and their destructive policies, the tea party is the outlet of that frustration, and for Buffett to outright attack them and their anger, goes beyond his pay grade, as some politician said not that long ago.
Buffett said, "...it is not helpful to have people as unhappy as they are about what’s going on in Washington.”
As Buffett has aged, he doesn't seem as coherent as he was in his youth, and he can make what appears to be contradictory statements about the same issue.
For example, he says we shouldn't be angry, but then says things like this: “The truth is we’re running a federal deficit that’s 9 percent of gross domestic product. That’s stimulative as all get out. It’s more stimulative than any policy we’ve followed since World War II.”
He also recently stated we're still in a recession, something we've continue to say here at Commodity Surge.
So the government is stimulating beyond imagination, stealing from the future of our children and grandchildren, saying they're ready to do it again via the Federal Reserve, but we need to just relax and let the government do what it wants no matter how destructive it is.
Respected or not, Buffett is just another Obama backer who drank the Kool Aid and in a state of being mesmerized, throws away a lot of what he would have opposed in the past.
In reality, it seems Buffett has been afraid of the government because he understands the monopoly it holds, and how it extends beyond its mandate.
That's why if you ever read his Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE:BRK-A) quarterly reports, you'll see he never attacks the outrageous taxes corporations and individuals have to endure from the government, as he knows it'll cost him and his company when he becomes a target.
Also remember that Buffett has stated more than once in the past that he prefers monopolies in the business world, and it seems by extension, he likes how the government can be played to take advantage of their monopoly in a way to advantage Berkshire Hathaway.
In the end, I think Buffett's legacy is going to suffer for his attempt to prop up Obama and his policies, which is doubtful he would put up with from any executive in his numerous companies.
Buffett isn't stupid by any stretch of the imagination, but he abandoned the ways of his father Howard Buffett long ago, who was a champion of limited government and free markets.
It would have better for Buffett if he would have stuck to what he was best at doing, and not venture into politics, which has now stained his reputation, and brought out against the mainstream of American thinking.
Maybe people should starting thinking of boycotting his companies to show them what they think about his words and actions.
If you're not convinced the directly attacked the Tea Party, you don't see what he actually said. The public anger is being expressed through the Tea party movement, and his attempt to strip the anger away from the movement is a direct attack against it, because the healthy anger is driving the vermin out of office; both Democrats and Republicans.
This is evidently too much for even Warren Buffett to put up with, and he couldn't just leave it alone like he should have.
Buffett's problem is in his later years he has increasingly emerged as a big government backer, and as committed to Keynesianism as anyone around, and uses his popularity to justify outrageous spending, especially by his man Obama.
It makes me wonder if the years he spend building his legacy will crumble from these last years of his life, as America rises up against the things he's supporting and backing.
Recently he made the incredible statement that Americans should quit being angry at the government, and get over it. That was a direct attack on the tea party movement, no matter how it is spun later.
After all, while the majority of Americans are already fed up with the Obama administration and their destructive policies, the tea party is the outlet of that frustration, and for Buffett to outright attack them and their anger, goes beyond his pay grade, as some politician said not that long ago.
Buffett said, "...it is not helpful to have people as unhappy as they are about what’s going on in Washington.”
As Buffett has aged, he doesn't seem as coherent as he was in his youth, and he can make what appears to be contradictory statements about the same issue.
For example, he says we shouldn't be angry, but then says things like this: “The truth is we’re running a federal deficit that’s 9 percent of gross domestic product. That’s stimulative as all get out. It’s more stimulative than any policy we’ve followed since World War II.”
He also recently stated we're still in a recession, something we've continue to say here at Commodity Surge.
So the government is stimulating beyond imagination, stealing from the future of our children and grandchildren, saying they're ready to do it again via the Federal Reserve, but we need to just relax and let the government do what it wants no matter how destructive it is.
Respected or not, Buffett is just another Obama backer who drank the Kool Aid and in a state of being mesmerized, throws away a lot of what he would have opposed in the past.
In reality, it seems Buffett has been afraid of the government because he understands the monopoly it holds, and how it extends beyond its mandate.
That's why if you ever read his Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE:BRK-A) quarterly reports, you'll see he never attacks the outrageous taxes corporations and individuals have to endure from the government, as he knows it'll cost him and his company when he becomes a target.
Also remember that Buffett has stated more than once in the past that he prefers monopolies in the business world, and it seems by extension, he likes how the government can be played to take advantage of their monopoly in a way to advantage Berkshire Hathaway.
In the end, I think Buffett's legacy is going to suffer for his attempt to prop up Obama and his policies, which is doubtful he would put up with from any executive in his numerous companies.
Buffett isn't stupid by any stretch of the imagination, but he abandoned the ways of his father Howard Buffett long ago, who was a champion of limited government and free markets.
It would have better for Buffett if he would have stuck to what he was best at doing, and not venture into politics, which has now stained his reputation, and brought out against the mainstream of American thinking.
Maybe people should starting thinking of boycotting his companies to show them what they think about his words and actions.
If you're not convinced the directly attacked the Tea Party, you don't see what he actually said. The public anger is being expressed through the Tea party movement, and his attempt to strip the anger away from the movement is a direct attack against it, because the healthy anger is driving the vermin out of office; both Democrats and Republicans.
This is evidently too much for even Warren Buffett to put up with, and he couldn't just leave it alone like he should have.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Warren Buffett: Still in a Recession, Will be "for Awhile"
It was good to hear Warren Buffett admit we are still in a recession, and that we're not going to get out of if "for awhile."
Many analysts and commentators have been slapped down by Buffett's comments, as they have taken any positive bit of economic news and spun it into a real recovery.
Buffett noted at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad owned by Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE:BRK-A), that they were only back to 61 percent of capacity from before the recession, and that is their best performer.
He added that it is probably performing better than the vast majority of businesses in the U.S. at this time, giving somewhat of a loose measure as to where things are at.
Responding to the assertion the recession was over last year by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Buffett rightly laughed, saying "they define it differently" then he does.
His definition of the recession is this: "I define it, I think we're in a recession until real per capita GDP gets back up to where it was before. That is not the way the National Bureau of Economic Research measures it. But I will tell you that to any, on any common sense definition, the average American is below where he was before, or his family, in terms of real income, GDP. We're still in a recession. And, and we're not gonna be out of it for awhile..."
Unfortunately, Buffett continues to adhere to his Keynesianism economic theory, saying the stimulus from the government was the right thing to do, even with the devastation it will cause our children and grandchildren, as well as us.
Buffett said, "And, and basically, the government did the right thing in terms of getting the economy going again."
Amazing that he can be so right concerning the economy and so wrong concerning the outright failed stimulus from the Obama Administration.
Many analysts and commentators have been slapped down by Buffett's comments, as they have taken any positive bit of economic news and spun it into a real recovery.
Buffett noted at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad owned by Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE:BRK-A), that they were only back to 61 percent of capacity from before the recession, and that is their best performer.
He added that it is probably performing better than the vast majority of businesses in the U.S. at this time, giving somewhat of a loose measure as to where things are at.
Responding to the assertion the recession was over last year by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Buffett rightly laughed, saying "they define it differently" then he does.
His definition of the recession is this: "I define it, I think we're in a recession until real per capita GDP gets back up to where it was before. That is not the way the National Bureau of Economic Research measures it. But I will tell you that to any, on any common sense definition, the average American is below where he was before, or his family, in terms of real income, GDP. We're still in a recession. And, and we're not gonna be out of it for awhile..."
Unfortunately, Buffett continues to adhere to his Keynesianism economic theory, saying the stimulus from the government was the right thing to do, even with the devastation it will cause our children and grandchildren, as well as us.
Buffett said, "And, and basically, the government did the right thing in terms of getting the economy going again."
Amazing that he can be so right concerning the economy and so wrong concerning the outright failed stimulus from the Obama Administration.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Berkshire (NYSE:BRK-A), Buffet, Acquiring Rest of Wesco Financial (NYSE:WSC) Shares
Wesco Financial (NYSE:WSC) Shares soared on the news Warren Buffett, via Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE:BRK-A), would be acquiring the remaining shares in the company they don't own, according to an SEC filing.
The remaining amount of the shares not owned by Berkshire were 19.9 percent.
Terms of the deal proposed by Berkshire t Wesco were for an "+exchange for Berkshire Class B shares and/or cash valued at the book value per share of Wesco as of a time reasonably contemporaneous with the closing of such a transaction."
Berkshire is attempting to structure the deal in such a way as to not make it a taxable event for Wesco shareholders.
The deal will only go forward if the Board of Directors of both companies give their approval, along with a majority vote by remaining Wesco shares if a meeting is called for that purpose.
If the deal isn't approved, Wesco will continue to operate as a 80.1%-owned subsidiary of Berkshire.
The remaining amount of the shares not owned by Berkshire were 19.9 percent.
Terms of the deal proposed by Berkshire t Wesco were for an "+exchange for Berkshire Class B shares and/or cash valued at the book value per share of Wesco as of a time reasonably contemporaneous with the closing of such a transaction."
Berkshire is attempting to structure the deal in such a way as to not make it a taxable event for Wesco shareholders.
The deal will only go forward if the Board of Directors of both companies give their approval, along with a majority vote by remaining Wesco shares if a meeting is called for that purpose.
If the deal isn't approved, Wesco will continue to operate as a 80.1%-owned subsidiary of Berkshire.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Warren Buffet Calls for Ouster of BP's (NYSE:BP) CEO
Warren Buffett, who since the banking crisis has become more vocal publicly in areas he has stayed away from in the past, said in an interview with Yahoo! News, that BP (NYSE:BP) CEO Tony Hayward will have to go.
“It’s not in BP’s interest to actually continue with him as CEO,” Buffett said in the interview. “I don’t know him personally and he may be the most wonderful guy in the world, but it’s not in their interest and not in our country’s interest to have him continue.
“When you have something of that impact on society, it’s like the captain of a ship. You’re responsible even though some second lieutenant made all the mistakes.”
A spokeswoman for BP, Sheila Williams, refused to comment on Buffett's statements.
“It’s not in BP’s interest to actually continue with him as CEO,” Buffett said in the interview. “I don’t know him personally and he may be the most wonderful guy in the world, but it’s not in their interest and not in our country’s interest to have him continue.
“When you have something of that impact on society, it’s like the captain of a ship. You’re responsible even though some second lieutenant made all the mistakes.”
A spokeswoman for BP, Sheila Williams, refused to comment on Buffett's statements.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Citigroup (NYSE:C), JPMorgan (NYSE:JPM) Under Scrutiny over CDOs
Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS) is no longer the sole recipient of the gaze of the SEC, as other giant bankers like Citigroup (NYSE:C), JPMorgan (NYSE:JPM), Morgan Stanley (NYSE:MS), Deutsche Bank AG and UBS AG have reportedly all been subpeonaed by the SEC, although JP Morgan has contended they aren't aware of any investigation targeting them.
The focus on the banks is whether or not they were representing the CDOs to be what they were, or they presented them as something else with less risk in them, while actually being extremely risky.
Goldman has said they've done nothing wrong, Warren Buffett has agreed with them, as he's one of the few that actually understand the way the CDO business works.
The problem seems to be the lack of understanding by these politicians who are looking to save their own political rearends after bailing out the banks against the will of the public. So they continue to pursue something that the general population, and many in the finance world itself, don't have a full understanding of, in order to give the appearance they are battling the big banks.
The more they get into it though, the more the realization is coming that they don't know what they're doing, and it's beginning to look like a witch hunt rather than legitimate misconduct by the banking institutions.
The focus on the banks is whether or not they were representing the CDOs to be what they were, or they presented them as something else with less risk in them, while actually being extremely risky.
Goldman has said they've done nothing wrong, Warren Buffett has agreed with them, as he's one of the few that actually understand the way the CDO business works.
The problem seems to be the lack of understanding by these politicians who are looking to save their own political rearends after bailing out the banks against the will of the public. So they continue to pursue something that the general population, and many in the finance world itself, don't have a full understanding of, in order to give the appearance they are battling the big banks.
The more they get into it though, the more the realization is coming that they don't know what they're doing, and it's beginning to look like a witch hunt rather than legitimate misconduct by the banking institutions.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
JPMorgan (NYSE:JPM) Invests in Rail Companies
JPM Global Railway Stock Fund
Following in the footsteps of Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE:BRK-A), JPMorgan (NYSE:JPM) has decided to invest in companies carrying freight like Burlington Northern Santa Fe does, via their JPM Global Railway Stock Fund.
Many investors who like commodities don't realize cargo carriers are a huge commodity play, as it's one of the major ways that raw materials are transported.
The JPM Global Railway Stock Fund is investing primarily in U.S. rail companies at this time.
With the rising costs of oil and gas, an increasing number of investors are looking to railroads a the preferred, and ultimately cheapest way to move freight in the years ahead.
When taking into account the tonnage moved and diesel used per ton, railroads are more efficient and cost effective than their competitors, something that should drive up the share prices going forward.
Since it launched in January, the JPM Global Railway Stock Fund has enjoyed gains of 11 percent. Shares are traded only in Japan.
Following in the footsteps of Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE:BRK-A), JPMorgan (NYSE:JPM) has decided to invest in companies carrying freight like Burlington Northern Santa Fe does, via their JPM Global Railway Stock Fund.
Many investors who like commodities don't realize cargo carriers are a huge commodity play, as it's one of the major ways that raw materials are transported.
The JPM Global Railway Stock Fund is investing primarily in U.S. rail companies at this time.
With the rising costs of oil and gas, an increasing number of investors are looking to railroads a the preferred, and ultimately cheapest way to move freight in the years ahead.
When taking into account the tonnage moved and diesel used per ton, railroads are more efficient and cost effective than their competitors, something that should drive up the share prices going forward.
Since it launched in January, the JPM Global Railway Stock Fund has enjoyed gains of 11 percent. Shares are traded only in Japan.
Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE:BRK-A) Most Admired - Why?
Branding Warren Buffett
The marketing machine that is Warren Buffett is one of least understood or recognized skills of the Oracle of Omaha; which is why Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE:BRK-A) is usually among the most admired companies in America year after year, although they usuall go up and down the polls.
The Harris Interactive survey gathered input from close to 30,000 people to get the results.
What I wanted to point out though was one of the comments from an executive from Harris, Robert Fronk.
Fronk stated concerning Berkshire being in the No. 1 spot and Buffett's influence, that "It's his humility and sense of accountability. You don't read about his excesses. Instead you read the opposite. He still has the same office. He's going to make his kids comfortable, but they're not going to be billionaires."
This is one of the more ignorant statements I've ever heard. This is the same Warren Buffett who had a vested interest in the government taking taxpayer money and awarding it to Wells Fargo (NYSE:WFC), which Buffett holds a huge stake in. Talk about conflicts of interest. How about his investment in Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS)?
I admire Buffett's investment genius and management philosophy, but make no mistake that Warren Buffett is a statist, and he wants big government involved in the markets, and doesn't mind at all, from his past talk and actions, to have them step in when it benefits companies he has a stake in.
You don't read about his "excesses" because of his carefully cultivated persona, which the media eats up and reports, with little criticism over his appetite for big government being involved in business. This isn't just a political statement, Buffett's investment strategy is to find companies with a huge moat, or defensive position to invest in. What that ultimately means are companies that are monopolies, but may not be considered such, or at least are left to slide.
Buffett looks feverishly for businesses with a monopoly in their markets, and the interference of the state in the markets always skews the market and results in companies emerging as monopolies, or at least in a very much stronger position than they were before government interference.
Buffett may act and talk like the guy next door, but he's as shrew as they come, and investing isn't the only discipline he has mastered, branding himself as he has is right up there with it.
The marketing machine that is Warren Buffett is one of least understood or recognized skills of the Oracle of Omaha; which is why Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE:BRK-A) is usually among the most admired companies in America year after year, although they usuall go up and down the polls.
The Harris Interactive survey gathered input from close to 30,000 people to get the results.
What I wanted to point out though was one of the comments from an executive from Harris, Robert Fronk.
Fronk stated concerning Berkshire being in the No. 1 spot and Buffett's influence, that "It's his humility and sense of accountability. You don't read about his excesses. Instead you read the opposite. He still has the same office. He's going to make his kids comfortable, but they're not going to be billionaires."
This is one of the more ignorant statements I've ever heard. This is the same Warren Buffett who had a vested interest in the government taking taxpayer money and awarding it to Wells Fargo (NYSE:WFC), which Buffett holds a huge stake in. Talk about conflicts of interest. How about his investment in Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS)?
I admire Buffett's investment genius and management philosophy, but make no mistake that Warren Buffett is a statist, and he wants big government involved in the markets, and doesn't mind at all, from his past talk and actions, to have them step in when it benefits companies he has a stake in.
You don't read about his "excesses" because of his carefully cultivated persona, which the media eats up and reports, with little criticism over his appetite for big government being involved in business. This isn't just a political statement, Buffett's investment strategy is to find companies with a huge moat, or defensive position to invest in. What that ultimately means are companies that are monopolies, but may not be considered such, or at least are left to slide.
Buffett looks feverishly for businesses with a monopoly in their markets, and the interference of the state in the markets always skews the market and results in companies emerging as monopolies, or at least in a very much stronger position than they were before government interference.
Buffett may act and talk like the guy next door, but he's as shrew as they come, and investing isn't the only discipline he has mastered, branding himself as he has is right up there with it.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Warren Buffett's Huge Dividend Income
Warren Buffett Dividends
Warren Buffett is not only one of the greatest investors of all time, but, and most people don't know or recognize this: he is one of the great marketers as well.
When I say he's one of the great marketers, I'm talking about personal branding and the image he portrays.
Buffett knows the envy rampant in the world concerning wealthy people, and wisely he cultivates a persona of humility and commonality that the regular person relates to, and forgives of Buffett what they won't forgive of most other people, and that is that he's rich.
Beyond that, and probably more important than that, is the way Buffett portrays himself as a free market capitalist, when in fact he's not close to that, but rather is a strong proponent of big government and socialist programs, which have emerged in his public responses to the actions of the U.S. government under Obama.
Now even hear it's hard to tell if Buffett really believes the things he says, as the canny investor thoroughly understands what he's up against with potential government interference, and is an expert at saying the right things at the right time for the benefit of himself and Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE:BRK-A).
For example, read through his quarterly reports on the Internet and see how many times he supports heavy taxation, or other times he's encouraged the death tax to be rescinded for those who are far less wealthy than himself, and which would devastate family wealth.
These are done from personal beliefs, but also from expediency in regard to shoring up the socialist idea that the wealthy should share the wealth with everyone through forced distribution, rather than pass it on to their family, or whoever or whatever they want to.
Anyway, the point is Warren Buffett while marketing himself as a low-income CEO making only $100,000 a year, doesn't bother revealing he makes millions a quarter on dividends he receives from personal investments.
At the end of 2008, Buffett had made $15.5 million for that quarter, the highest level, which of course went down in the midst of the economic crisis and some of his holding cutting their dividend rates.
Even so, think of how much that is for Buffett, who has cultivated the persona of being a thrifty guy in relationship to his money.
while he is that outwardly, he definitely makes far more money that most people know, and many of his outward expressions are part of the role he plays to protect Berkshire Hathaway.
Do I begrudge Buffett this? Not at all. I'm just saying he's far more canny than given credit for, and the things he says and moves he makes is far beyond simple investing, but takes into account the many forces in the world envious and ready to take the wealth from the deserving and transfer it to the underserving.
Buffett has battled this over the year, but unfortunately, in my opinion, has harmed capitalism and free markets from catering to the political crowd in a way that is beneficial for him, but not necessarily for his competitors and other business owners.
Warren Buffett is not only one of the greatest investors of all time, but, and most people don't know or recognize this: he is one of the great marketers as well.
When I say he's one of the great marketers, I'm talking about personal branding and the image he portrays.
Buffett knows the envy rampant in the world concerning wealthy people, and wisely he cultivates a persona of humility and commonality that the regular person relates to, and forgives of Buffett what they won't forgive of most other people, and that is that he's rich.
Beyond that, and probably more important than that, is the way Buffett portrays himself as a free market capitalist, when in fact he's not close to that, but rather is a strong proponent of big government and socialist programs, which have emerged in his public responses to the actions of the U.S. government under Obama.
Now even hear it's hard to tell if Buffett really believes the things he says, as the canny investor thoroughly understands what he's up against with potential government interference, and is an expert at saying the right things at the right time for the benefit of himself and Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE:BRK-A).
For example, read through his quarterly reports on the Internet and see how many times he supports heavy taxation, or other times he's encouraged the death tax to be rescinded for those who are far less wealthy than himself, and which would devastate family wealth.
These are done from personal beliefs, but also from expediency in regard to shoring up the socialist idea that the wealthy should share the wealth with everyone through forced distribution, rather than pass it on to their family, or whoever or whatever they want to.
Anyway, the point is Warren Buffett while marketing himself as a low-income CEO making only $100,000 a year, doesn't bother revealing he makes millions a quarter on dividends he receives from personal investments.
At the end of 2008, Buffett had made $15.5 million for that quarter, the highest level, which of course went down in the midst of the economic crisis and some of his holding cutting their dividend rates.
Even so, think of how much that is for Buffett, who has cultivated the persona of being a thrifty guy in relationship to his money.
while he is that outwardly, he definitely makes far more money that most people know, and many of his outward expressions are part of the role he plays to protect Berkshire Hathaway.
Do I begrudge Buffett this? Not at all. I'm just saying he's far more canny than given credit for, and the things he says and moves he makes is far beyond simple investing, but takes into account the many forces in the world envious and ready to take the wealth from the deserving and transfer it to the underserving.
Buffett has battled this over the year, but unfortunately, in my opinion, has harmed capitalism and free markets from catering to the political crowd in a way that is beneficial for him, but not necessarily for his competitors and other business owners.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Jim Rogers' Investing Preparation
Jim Rogers Investment Preparation
Investor Jim Rogers said in response to a recent question on the Greek sovereign-debt debacle, what he is looking for to be sure things don't get out of control over there. His answer was telling as to the reasons behind his investment success.
Rogers said that he tries to watch as much of the world as he is possibly able to in order to make the most informed decisions.
This reminds me of how Warren Buffett studies the books and reports of companies he is looking at. One time someone mentioned he reads them like pulp ficton. And he does.
Many times when investors like Jim Rogers and Warren Buffett seem to be moving by instinct or some inner sense, the reality is they've honed their senses by their endless homework, and so when they make their share of right investment choices, it seems they have some type of gift or inner sight, when they are just the hardest workers out there in their respective fields, and the results prove they are.
Jim Rogers Investment Preparation
Investor Jim Rogers said in response to a recent question on the Greek sovereign-debt debacle, what he is looking for to be sure things don't get out of control over there. His answer was telling as to the reasons behind his investment success.
Rogers said that he tries to watch as much of the world as he is possibly able to in order to make the most informed decisions.
This reminds me of how Warren Buffett studies the books and reports of companies he is looking at. One time someone mentioned he reads them like pulp ficton. And he does.
Many times when investors like Jim Rogers and Warren Buffett seem to be moving by instinct or some inner sense, the reality is they've honed their senses by their endless homework, and so when they make their share of right investment choices, it seems they have some type of gift or inner sight, when they are just the hardest workers out there in their respective fields, and the results prove they are.
Jim Rogers Investment Preparation
Monday, January 25, 2010
Buffett, Inflation and Posco (NYSE:PKX)
Asian Steel Maker Posco (NYSE:PKX)
Knowing historically how Warren Buffett has resisted investing much in the commodity sector, it's telling that he has invested a significant amount in Posco (NYSE:PKX), the most profitable steel maker in Asia.
Posco has been an extremely successful company over the last decade, enjoying an average profit of 19.7 percent during that period of time.
The stake Buffett owns in Posco via his Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE:BRK-A) isn't a small one, as he acquired 3.95 million shares as of last February 28 for $768 million, and they've now increased in value in that short time to $2 billion.
With Buffett also buying into energy companies recently, you do have to ask the question of what it is he is doing, and all indicators seem to say he's protecting against inflation, which he knows is coming, and is already here really.
Of course Buffett won't mind the inevitable rise in prices these large commodity companies will enjoy, as his stakes in ConocoPhillips (NYSE:COP) and Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM) show.
In reality, the Burlington Northern (NYSE:BNI) acquisition by Buffett could easily be considered a commodity move, at least in part, as much of the freight moved by the railroad is definitely raw materials and livestock.
Concerning the ongoing relationship between Posco and Warren Buffett, Buffett somewhat contradicted the assertion by Posco executives he is looking to continue investing in the company. That caused shares in Posco to decline after Buffett rumors persisted until he addressed them recently.
Buffett maintains he would buy more shares if the price goes down, and he has no plans to sell any shares.
Asian Steel Maker Posco (NYSE:PKX)
Knowing historically how Warren Buffett has resisted investing much in the commodity sector, it's telling that he has invested a significant amount in Posco (NYSE:PKX), the most profitable steel maker in Asia.
Posco has been an extremely successful company over the last decade, enjoying an average profit of 19.7 percent during that period of time.
The stake Buffett owns in Posco via his Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE:BRK-A) isn't a small one, as he acquired 3.95 million shares as of last February 28 for $768 million, and they've now increased in value in that short time to $2 billion.
With Buffett also buying into energy companies recently, you do have to ask the question of what it is he is doing, and all indicators seem to say he's protecting against inflation, which he knows is coming, and is already here really.
Of course Buffett won't mind the inevitable rise in prices these large commodity companies will enjoy, as his stakes in ConocoPhillips (NYSE:COP) and Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM) show.
In reality, the Burlington Northern (NYSE:BNI) acquisition by Buffett could easily be considered a commodity move, at least in part, as much of the freight moved by the railroad is definitely raw materials and livestock.
Concerning the ongoing relationship between Posco and Warren Buffett, Buffett somewhat contradicted the assertion by Posco executives he is looking to continue investing in the company. That caused shares in Posco to decline after Buffett rumors persisted until he addressed them recently.
Buffett maintains he would buy more shares if the price goes down, and he has no plans to sell any shares.
Asian Steel Maker Posco (NYSE:PKX)
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Commodities: Peter Schiff on 2009
Peter Schiff has come under fire for exposing the macro-economic weaknesses in the United States, especially the horrid policies of the Federal Reserve and the government bailouts.
Schiff has gained notoriety and confidence from people because he accurately predicted the collaspe of the housing market and credit crunch well before they happened, and is now projecting the collaspe of the U.S. dollar and the collapse of the bond market, which he thinks is already in a bubble that is ready to burst.
Some of criticized Peter Schiff for some of those investing with him losing money because the exact timing of things hasn't come about yet. But that's ridiculous when you really think of it, as there is no investor or financial advisor in the world that hasn't been wacked by the timing of the market, which those like Warren Buffet, Peter Schiff and Jim Rogers all recognize is impossible to do.
So when taking into account the insights of Peter Schiff and also Jim Rogers, we have to realize that the U.S. dollar will collapse. It's impossible for the government to keep the fiat money presses running and offer up trillions in bailouts without having to pay for that money. The only way they can do that is by printing it out, as other countries like China can no longer take on dubious U.S. debt, as they'll lose big time as the dollar falls in value.
What we need to do is plan in a way that takes the reality that the U.S. dollar will plunge in value. It's no longer a matter of if, only a matter of when. Whether it's in 2009 or not doesn't matter, we need to put our money in things that will not be tied to the dollar in any way, as it will be highly diluted.
A few things to keep in mind for 2009 are the surety that gold and silver will perform strongly, as there's very little else that could be considered a haven of safety for people's money. Also the oil contango or super contango provides an excellent opportunity for safe investment, and should be considered going forward, as the predictable oil futures market is extended beyond what it usually is, the reason it's now being called a super contango rather than just a contango.
Silver prices will probably outperform gold in 2009, when you take into account percentages, although gold is more the haven than silver will be, and probably safer.
Platinum prices in 2009 are a toss up to me, as there are market factors that could drive platinum futures up even though its use in the auto industry will decline. Gold prices have caused Indians who usually buy it in large amounts to start looking to platinum as an alternative as gold prices and futures continue to soar. So platinum prices could receive some support depending on how much demand comes from India, and how much platinum they buy in 2009.
Peter Schiff has the overall economic picture accurate, and so investing in the right commodities will be the most profitable over the next five to ten years. Even after the global economy starts to recover, and gold isn't looked to as a place of safety, then the growing middle classed in China and India will resume their buying again, and raw materials demand will soar, and the commodity bull market continue.
How will grains do in 2009? That is also a toss up in my book. The usual factors will have to be watched, as the recent drought in Argentina and also China has people concerned over the near future of wheat, corn and soybeans. The only problem this year is the harvest has been so successful and food so plentiful, that even with the weather challenges there's so much on the market that it's not offering fundamental support to increased prices.
You also have the economic factor to consider, as people continue to cut back on all spending, and are only buying the bare necessities in order to survive. That will change in the long term, but short term it will affect the prices.
So going forward, keep in mind the overall economic situation as mentioned by Peter Schiff. Those who invest in commodities and develop strategies accordingly, will hold onto their money, those that don't believe the economic situation as defined by Schiff will find themselves struggling to survive as the normal way of investing no longer will cut in over the next several years.
Schiff has gained notoriety and confidence from people because he accurately predicted the collaspe of the housing market and credit crunch well before they happened, and is now projecting the collaspe of the U.S. dollar and the collapse of the bond market, which he thinks is already in a bubble that is ready to burst.
Some of criticized Peter Schiff for some of those investing with him losing money because the exact timing of things hasn't come about yet. But that's ridiculous when you really think of it, as there is no investor or financial advisor in the world that hasn't been wacked by the timing of the market, which those like Warren Buffet, Peter Schiff and Jim Rogers all recognize is impossible to do.
So when taking into account the insights of Peter Schiff and also Jim Rogers, we have to realize that the U.S. dollar will collapse. It's impossible for the government to keep the fiat money presses running and offer up trillions in bailouts without having to pay for that money. The only way they can do that is by printing it out, as other countries like China can no longer take on dubious U.S. debt, as they'll lose big time as the dollar falls in value.
What we need to do is plan in a way that takes the reality that the U.S. dollar will plunge in value. It's no longer a matter of if, only a matter of when. Whether it's in 2009 or not doesn't matter, we need to put our money in things that will not be tied to the dollar in any way, as it will be highly diluted.
A few things to keep in mind for 2009 are the surety that gold and silver will perform strongly, as there's very little else that could be considered a haven of safety for people's money. Also the oil contango or super contango provides an excellent opportunity for safe investment, and should be considered going forward, as the predictable oil futures market is extended beyond what it usually is, the reason it's now being called a super contango rather than just a contango.
Silver prices will probably outperform gold in 2009, when you take into account percentages, although gold is more the haven than silver will be, and probably safer.
Platinum prices in 2009 are a toss up to me, as there are market factors that could drive platinum futures up even though its use in the auto industry will decline. Gold prices have caused Indians who usually buy it in large amounts to start looking to platinum as an alternative as gold prices and futures continue to soar. So platinum prices could receive some support depending on how much demand comes from India, and how much platinum they buy in 2009.
Peter Schiff has the overall economic picture accurate, and so investing in the right commodities will be the most profitable over the next five to ten years. Even after the global economy starts to recover, and gold isn't looked to as a place of safety, then the growing middle classed in China and India will resume their buying again, and raw materials demand will soar, and the commodity bull market continue.
How will grains do in 2009? That is also a toss up in my book. The usual factors will have to be watched, as the recent drought in Argentina and also China has people concerned over the near future of wheat, corn and soybeans. The only problem this year is the harvest has been so successful and food so plentiful, that even with the weather challenges there's so much on the market that it's not offering fundamental support to increased prices.
You also have the economic factor to consider, as people continue to cut back on all spending, and are only buying the bare necessities in order to survive. That will change in the long term, but short term it will affect the prices.
So going forward, keep in mind the overall economic situation as mentioned by Peter Schiff. Those who invest in commodities and develop strategies accordingly, will hold onto their money, those that don't believe the economic situation as defined by Schiff will find themselves struggling to survive as the normal way of investing no longer will cut in over the next several years.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Commodities: Peter Schiff Dismantles Detractor
There's been a lot of buzz around the internet recently concerning a defective attempt by a small money manager and small man to discredit Peter Schiff because of some things he alleges Schiff missed for his clients, effectively costing them a lot of money. There were even implications from the financial midget that Schiff was a fraud. It's hard to believe this little person is actually allowed to manage people's money. I won't mention his name so he doesn't get any more attention.
What this small time clown did was accuse Schiff of missing a number of assertions he made, making it look like he was so far off he was either a fraud or incompetent.
Of course the usual few disgruntled investors that lost money over the short term are doing their whining and complaining that they should have kept their money in some type of safer investment. But if anybody has done even their basic homework, or did due diligence on Schiff, they knew he's in things for the long term, and those investing with him should take that into consideration when employing his services.
Look for example at Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway (BRK-A). In the middle of September 2008, the stock surged to over $147,000 a share, and as I write was only a little over $89,000 a share. That's a huge loss of $58,000 a share in a very short time. Does that mean that Warren Buffett has no idea what he's talking about, or that his long-term philosophy of investing is faulty? No one with half a financial brain would say that.
The same is now happening with Peter Schiff, because he has in the past correctly identified the problems of undergirding the U.S. economy and its horrible government interference which undermines its strength. That infuriates those that hold to the goverment as a religion, and certain dectractors then dishonestly and desceptively put together fairy tales and half truths to make people like Schiff look like they're incompetent and frauds.
Here's how Schiff obliterates the midget:
"The crux of the blogger's arguments are that my beliefs in "decoupling, hyperinflation, and that the dollar is going to zero" have been completely discredited by the events of 2008, and that the resulting investment losses suffered by my clients last year confirms the fatal flaws in my approach.
"In addition to mischaracterizing many of my beliefs, he also is confusing short-term market fluctuations with long-term economic trends.
"First of all, the hyper inflation issue is a straw man at best. While I often talk about the possibility of hyper inflation, I have always said that it would be a worse-case scenario that would play out over many years. The fact that it did not appear in the first year of the economic crash (2008) does not invalidate my position. I have always maintained that this worst-case scenario will likely be avoided by what will ultimately be a dramatic shift in policy once our leaders come to their senses. However, until then the dollar will likely lose a substantial portion of its value.
"Second, I never said that the dollar would go to zero, either in 2008 or any year thereafter. I have said that in the event of hyper inflation the dollar's value would approach zero. My actual forecast in my book "Crash Proof" was that the Dollar Index would fall to 40 (currently about 85), with a realistic worst case scenario, assuming very high but not hyper inflation, of 20 or lower.
"Third, the blogger points out that because the decoupling theory (foreign economies improving while the U.S. falters) that I wrote about in 'Crash Proof' has yet to occur, that the theory itself was ridiculous. In my book I wrote that this process would not occur overnight, that initially our creditors would come to our aid, and in so doing our problems would become manifest abroad. I wrote that it would take time for the world to realize that what had been decoupled from the economic train was not the engine but the caboose. In fact, that is precisely the way it is playing out."
In the end, most of this is dealing with the long term investing horizon that the real successful investors employ. The other stuff is a smokescreen, as Schiff has shown.
I read the hit piece floundering financial advertisement by the financial midget, and found that that's all it was - an advertisement using Peter Schiff as the subject to draw attention to himself. In that sense he was successful. Maybe he should go into marketing rather than financial advising, as his short-term horizon will be a disaster for those following his pathetic "advice."
What he said was Schiff should have done better even though his assertions were correct. In other words, he was trying to say Schiff (and evidently himself) should have been a better market timer; something Schiff has repeatedly said he isn't.
This is the similar mentality of those wanting to bailout every poorly run sector in the U.S., saying they're too big to fail.
People that attack long term investors and outlooks, are those that falsely believe there should be no such thing as a bad year, and those advising clients need to make that happen.
But Warren Buffett has proven over his long investing career that holding to a long-term investing outlook far outperforms those that go in and out of a market, giving the illusion their clients are doing well because they may occasionally outperform their long-term counterparts over the short term.
Remember those laughing at Warren Buffett during the dot com era? Do you hear them laughing now? Buffett was again exonerated for his long-term outlook and understanding of what he was doing.
As Schiff says, this financial midget is only trying to make a name for himself by focusing on the little short-term gains some of his clients may have made in contrast to Peter Schiffs' clients.
In the end, Schiff will be the one laughing, and those people made out to be the ignorant people they are.
What this small time clown did was accuse Schiff of missing a number of assertions he made, making it look like he was so far off he was either a fraud or incompetent.
Of course the usual few disgruntled investors that lost money over the short term are doing their whining and complaining that they should have kept their money in some type of safer investment. But if anybody has done even their basic homework, or did due diligence on Schiff, they knew he's in things for the long term, and those investing with him should take that into consideration when employing his services.
Look for example at Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway (BRK-A). In the middle of September 2008, the stock surged to over $147,000 a share, and as I write was only a little over $89,000 a share. That's a huge loss of $58,000 a share in a very short time. Does that mean that Warren Buffett has no idea what he's talking about, or that his long-term philosophy of investing is faulty? No one with half a financial brain would say that.
The same is now happening with Peter Schiff, because he has in the past correctly identified the problems of undergirding the U.S. economy and its horrible government interference which undermines its strength. That infuriates those that hold to the goverment as a religion, and certain dectractors then dishonestly and desceptively put together fairy tales and half truths to make people like Schiff look like they're incompetent and frauds.
Here's how Schiff obliterates the midget:
"The crux of the blogger's arguments are that my beliefs in "decoupling, hyperinflation, and that the dollar is going to zero" have been completely discredited by the events of 2008, and that the resulting investment losses suffered by my clients last year confirms the fatal flaws in my approach.
"In addition to mischaracterizing many of my beliefs, he also is confusing short-term market fluctuations with long-term economic trends.
"First of all, the hyper inflation issue is a straw man at best. While I often talk about the possibility of hyper inflation, I have always said that it would be a worse-case scenario that would play out over many years. The fact that it did not appear in the first year of the economic crash (2008) does not invalidate my position. I have always maintained that this worst-case scenario will likely be avoided by what will ultimately be a dramatic shift in policy once our leaders come to their senses. However, until then the dollar will likely lose a substantial portion of its value.
"Second, I never said that the dollar would go to zero, either in 2008 or any year thereafter. I have said that in the event of hyper inflation the dollar's value would approach zero. My actual forecast in my book "Crash Proof" was that the Dollar Index would fall to 40 (currently about 85), with a realistic worst case scenario, assuming very high but not hyper inflation, of 20 or lower.
"Third, the blogger points out that because the decoupling theory (foreign economies improving while the U.S. falters) that I wrote about in 'Crash Proof' has yet to occur, that the theory itself was ridiculous. In my book I wrote that this process would not occur overnight, that initially our creditors would come to our aid, and in so doing our problems would become manifest abroad. I wrote that it would take time for the world to realize that what had been decoupled from the economic train was not the engine but the caboose. In fact, that is precisely the way it is playing out."
In the end, most of this is dealing with the long term investing horizon that the real successful investors employ. The other stuff is a smokescreen, as Schiff has shown.
I read the hit piece floundering financial advertisement by the financial midget, and found that that's all it was - an advertisement using Peter Schiff as the subject to draw attention to himself. In that sense he was successful. Maybe he should go into marketing rather than financial advising, as his short-term horizon will be a disaster for those following his pathetic "advice."
What he said was Schiff should have done better even though his assertions were correct. In other words, he was trying to say Schiff (and evidently himself) should have been a better market timer; something Schiff has repeatedly said he isn't.
This is the similar mentality of those wanting to bailout every poorly run sector in the U.S., saying they're too big to fail.
People that attack long term investors and outlooks, are those that falsely believe there should be no such thing as a bad year, and those advising clients need to make that happen.
But Warren Buffett has proven over his long investing career that holding to a long-term investing outlook far outperforms those that go in and out of a market, giving the illusion their clients are doing well because they may occasionally outperform their long-term counterparts over the short term.
Remember those laughing at Warren Buffett during the dot com era? Do you hear them laughing now? Buffett was again exonerated for his long-term outlook and understanding of what he was doing.
As Schiff says, this financial midget is only trying to make a name for himself by focusing on the little short-term gains some of his clients may have made in contrast to Peter Schiffs' clients.
In the end, Schiff will be the one laughing, and those people made out to be the ignorant people they are.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Warren Buffett Cools off Speculators in Canadian Oil Sands Companies
With the lid being blown off the recent, secretive trip of Warren Buffett and Bill Gates to the Canadian Oil Sands, where they toured the Canadian Natural's C$9.3 billion ($8.9 billion) Horizon oil sands mining and synthetic crude processing operation, Warren Buffett made an appearance on CNBC's Squawk Box to make it clear he and Gates were only touring the facilities on a fact-finding mission, and weren't going to invest in the "Sands" at this time.
Oil Sands-related stocks on the Toronto Exchange surged on the news that Buffett and Gates had toured the area, with speculators bidding up a number of the oil stocks.
When Buffett made the announcement, the oil stocks plunged back to normal rates.
Oil Sands-related stocks on the Toronto Exchange surged on the news that Buffett and Gates had toured the area, with speculators bidding up a number of the oil stocks.
When Buffett made the announcement, the oil stocks plunged back to normal rates.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)