I've shared this old Buffett interview before (from 1985 I believe, and one of Buffett's first), but it recently turned up again in my YouTube feed, and it's such a great interview I thought it worth sharing again & offering a few quick thoughts (below).

One of the first things Buffett says is rule #1, don't lose, and rule #2, don't forget rule #1. This is a quote I've heard many times over the decades, but only fairly recently have I begun to really fully appreciate how fundamentally important this dictum is.
Every cycle, Buffett is widely criticized for "missing winners". This cycle, it's for "missing Amazon" etc. But that misses an important point: Buffett's approach/value investing is fundamentally about *avoiding the risk of overpaying* at all costs.
Buffett has long understood that if you avoid overpaying, this virtually guarantees you long term investment success with minimal risk. You don't to pick huge winners. You need to have the discipline to avoid chasing high returns and overpaying, which is most investors' downfall.
This defensively-oriented strategy that is virtually guaranteed to work well over the long term is not enough for most people. Greed temps people to want more, and faster. There is always a temptation to chase fashions & growth. That's why not forgetting rule #1 is so important.
What I also love about this video is that the interviewer asks "So you don't even own IBM?". In 1985, not owning IBM was like not owning Amazon & it's ilk today. It had done well and everyone owned it. It was a sure winner in the coming computer age.
Not owning IBM seemed foolish. Sure, it might not be cheap, but IBM had *never been cheap* and those that hadn't owned it had missed out on big profits. It seemed like big profits were being needlessly left on the table. Why stick so rigorously to old-fashioned principles?
The answer is because Buffett adheres to rule #2, and doesn't forget rule #1. He acknowledged it was a "wonderful company". But unlike most investors, Buffett is able to define the realistic limits of his foresight, whereas most investors are far too overconfident in that regard.
Times change, and as we have seen, IBM lost its towering position. There will be a time in the future when many of today's invincibles" suffer similar fates. Buffett is too modest when he says he doesn't understand these stocks. He understands them all too well.
He knew that the prices being paid required not just a positive outlook for the next 5yrs, but for the next 20-30yrs+, and didn't feel capable of having confidence in the outlook that far out. Other investors did, but subsequent events proved that confidence to be misplaced.
Buffett's experience & success shows just how far you can go with your investment results if you are able to avoid the temptation to chase growth/hype and the FOMO many investors suffer from, and instead simply remember rules #1-2 and scrupulously avoid the risk of overpayment.
Most investors try to pick winners, and worry more about missing out on profits than minimizing the risk of overpaying and incurring losses. Buffett focuses on *not picking losers*. And as his results show, if you invest for a long time and avoid overpayment, you'll do very well.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Lyall Taylor

Lyall Taylor Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @LT3000Lyall

26 Mar
Owning high quality but expensive stocks is great when multiples are rising. High returns & low biz risk - what's not to like? The Q is, how will investors react/behave if multiples start to decline and stocks go sideways/down for years. How long before ppl get tired of owing em?
Patience is in short supply in markets - due to both investor temperament and performance pressure. Most are unwilling/unable to hold stocks going nowhere/underperforming for years. People's perceptions & attitudes towards these stocks will change when multiples stop rising.
2-3yrs in, after years of stagnation, investors will start to see these stocks as dull/dead money, and start looking for cheaper stocks that have the opportunity for larger gains. Trends like this are self-reinforcing. This is how 10yr+ multiple derate cycles in quality happen.
Read 4 tweets
24 Mar
It's amazing what absurd things ppl will believe/argue when they emotionally want to be bullish. On Kuaishou below:
*User coverage is 90% but there is "room for platforms to increase user base". Infants perhaps? To not see saturation here is glass is half full in extreme.
(1/2) Image
*Average time spent is 67min per DAU, but this "could rise to 110min by 2025". It could also fall. There are only 24 hours in a day, and there will be more not less competition for our entertainment time in the future.

Really nutty stuff.

(2/2)
PS (3/3)
*Tiktok & Kuaishou have formed a duopoly, "although WeChat may muscle in". Just a casual remark in passing that "oh, and by the way it might not remain a duopoly, and might get a lot more competitive". But no need to worry, because there is no need to worry.
Read 5 tweets
17 Mar
A bunch of German municipalities have lost a significant portion of their deposits, which they parked with Greensill's now-insolvent bank. They did so because they wanted to avoid paying negative rates on deposits, & signed up for Greenshill's 0.1%.

wsj.com/articles/green…
Reaching for yield has always been dangerous/a problem. However, central banks have now created a situation where people/institutions are desperate for any means of avoiding their savings being whittled away. It would be surprising if this did not lead to negative consequences.
We actually now have a historically-unprecedented situation where the cost of capital is negative. Sitting on cash guarantees significant losses over time - nominal as well as real. It should not be a surprise that anything that generates a positive yield is in high demand.
Read 4 tweets
16 Mar
Great thread on banks. Agree with all/most. It is important that banks/financials/lending businesses are run by thoughtful risk managers, not growthy/marketing people. Many fintechs make me nervous for this reason. The former stand the test of time, the latter usually don't.
One of the repeating cycles you see is that after a bust where all the go-go aggressive banks/financials get wiped out, you'll eventually see a new cohort emerge arguing trad banks are too conservative/bureaucratic/slow moving; are leaving lending opportunities underserviced etc.
The actual truth is that those segments are usually underserviced because they blew up the last cycle's go-go cohort. And long term success in a leveraged biz like banking *requires* that you be conservative/bureaucratic/slow moving to make sure you don't make any big mistakes.
Read 5 tweets
6 Mar
Here is a a look at the NASDAQ's earnings trend. Interestingly, earnings have been falling since 2018 and are actually (1) down about 25% from their 2018 peak; and (2) currently slightly below 2016 levels.
This is actually not atypical late in a boom/bubble. The flood of capital into an industry usually drives down returns. Often that's ignored because people are focusing on the growth narrative/top line instead of earnings & returns on capital. Eventually earnings matter though.
It goes without saying that the consensus earnings estimates shown in light shade are likely to prove fairly delusional. I think we are most likely to see a continuing downward trend in earnings from here until we have a 2000-style bust & resultant industry capital rationing.
Read 5 tweets
6 Mar
Near the top (in time, not necessarily price), you'll often see very violent swings, as investors try to determine if it really is game over. Retracements are brutal & fast, but if a bubble survives such a pullback/market test, it will often quickly catapult back to new highs.
In speculative markets the price action is path dependent. People sell because the market is going down & fear more, and buy because it's going up & worry they'll miss a run up. Demand and supply becomes primarily a function of the price action itself.
George Soros talked a lot about this. Bubbles face "tests". If they survive the test, they catapult to new highs. Usually they survive multiple tests on the way up. But at some stage the tests fail and the markets breaks catastrophically down and doesn't come back.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!