Forum Archive Index - May 2002

[hugh webber <hugh.webber@clear.net.nz>]

Don't forget Warren also says he never invests in something he doesn't 
understand - hence software/gold/charting/astrology are out. :-)

----------
> From: jerrold poh <pohj@ihug.co.nz>
> To: sharechat@sharechat.co.nz
> Subject: Re: [sharechat] why buffett is the third richest man in the worl
> Date: Saturday, 11 May 2002 17:12
> 
> > I don't think fundamental investing is 'the only way to go'.  You 
> > could try and invent a computer software package so that 90% of the 
> > world's PCs need it to run if you like.  
> 
> i've read about bill gates in his younger years.  this guy was a master
> hacker, and could bum code down to minimal sizes, with the most
> efficient algorithms, and also the most stable.
> 
> now adays he doesn't program, and never has programmed since the early
> 90's late 80s.
> 
> larry ellison, is a charming, agressive, arrogant, and every year, wins
> the playboy bachelor of the year award (or was that best dressed man
> award?  can't remember).  he is also the head of oracle, and a multi
> millionaire.  his company makes database software, which year after
> year, get faster, better, and more stable.
> 
> what do these two have in common?  just take for granted that both of
> these people being in IT doesn't mean anything.  one makes crap
> software, acts like a fool half the time, and the other one makes
> brillian software, and is the most charming person in IT, yet bill gates
> is the richest man in the world?
> 
> the product doesn't matter, the methods don't matter.  both these people
> are business men, and they know how to work the system to their
> advantages.
> 
> my theory is that buffett isn't rich because he used fundamental
> investing. he's rich because he knows the power of gearing, how
> partnerships work, how to manage people, how insurance companies work,
> and he knows business like no-one's business :). 
> 
> i reckon if buffett was in the computing business, or gold mining
> business, or even if he used technical analysis for this investing
> methods,  he would still be as sucessful in that, as he is with
> berkshire hathaway. 
> 
> anyway, that's the whole point of my initital post ... just to say that
> "fundamental investors" put too much faith in warren, and don't
> realise that he's rich for many reasons, and not just because he
> uses fundamental investing.
> 
> 
> 
> jerrold.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
> http://www.sharechat.co.nz/chat/forum/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/chat/forum/