ValueAnalyst

bkkcanuck said:

jonl said:

We're talking about tech investments here, something Buffet has repeatedly said he doesn't get into, because he doesn't understand tech. Berkshire held $INTC only for around one year, not Buffet's preferred "forever" timeframe; many attributed it to Buffet reasserting control after a PM bought the stock. As for IBM, Buffet repeatedly pumped its buyback and $20 per share target, and he continued long after it became clear to everyone else that it wasn't going to happen. He's just digging in his heels now. He can afford to, and he's hoping that Watson and the other research stuff will pan out, the cloud business will expand, etc, just like everyone else who made the mistake of following him into it.

I worked as a consultant during the peak of the .com boom and was asked repeatedly why I did not jump to one of the high fliers who I was contracted with -- and my answer was simple.... I could not understand the business of most of those companies.  It was we do this, that and the other thing and then money will magically appear in the future.  I also remember Warren Buffet saying the reason why he did not invest in many of those companies ( and why he was not hurt as badly during the bust) was because he could not understand the business of those companies.  Trillions of dollars went into and down the drain during the bust because there was no concept of where they were going to make money.  There is a vast difference between a lot of tech companies and manufacturers (hardware and software) who are tech companies.   I just keep on coming back to -- what is so hard to understand about a phone manufacturer?  I think (cough cough) even Warren Buffet can understand a company like Apple, Microsoft or Intel....  so the next step is ... does he think that any of those companies are undervalued and have good long-term prospects for growth (in addition to ongoing income)? 

Do you really think Warren Buffet is so stupid that he can not understand companies like Apple?  Do you think he considers Apple to be this hard to understand business?  The tech industry is littered with lots of companies that are really hard to understand from a business standpoint.... (more are the latter unfortunately -- which is why there is such a larger percent that go under).

levi said:

ValueAnalyst said:

Didi has already denied this rumor:

http://techcrunch.com/2016/05/15/didi-chuxing-chinas-largest-taxi-on-demand-firm-denies-plan-for-u-s-ipo-in-2017/

I should get paid for fact checking AppleInsider articles

Yes because thier denial makes it untrue 

teejay2012 said:

He just made about 30 million today from this announcement. How I wish...

jonl said:

ValueAnalyst said:

To AppleInsider staff: Please note that it is highly likely that Warren Buffett had nothing to do with the investment decision to buy AAPL. He may have, but the total amount of the purchase is small enough to warrant that either Todd or Ted (one of the managers who Warren hired a few years ago to replace him) were the likely buyers. This is a very important distinction.

It may be a lot like when Berkshire was in Intel around 2011 or so. That was a PM, not Buffet. Berkshire got out around $27, and $INTC went down to $20 over the next couple of years. So far, it does not seem like the $IBM stake, which Buffet himself talked about from the start, and in retrospect, he was bamboozled by IBM's buyback and promise of $20 EPS by 2018 or whatever the date was. Heh, it might be a plus that Buffet isn't behind it.

 Buffett is still the greatest investor of all times, and he handpicked Todd and Ted, and they more or less follow the same investment strategy. So it is a strong vote of confidence from the value camp. I just wanted to point out that the first sentence of this article (after the headline) is misleading at best, and highly likely to be factually wrong at worst.

Btw, I wouldn't write off his IBM stake as a bad investment. He hasn't lost much on it as a percentage of his investment, after counting dividends and stock buybacks, and the fat lady hasn't sung on that one yet..