Eventually the thesis for a good investment boils down to 2-3 simple points. You have to do a lot of work to figure out what those are & why.
2/
At a time when Buffett is being criticised for his style, again, I can't help but admire the investor & the person. Can't help but want to be more like him.
"Buy a company because you want to own it, not because you want the stock to go up."
Some excerpts:
👇
Excellent compilation of Forbes articles on Warren Buffet from 1969 to 2000s. h/t @valuewalk \U0001f44f@dmuthuk @Gautam__Baidhttps://t.co/V7uTYjwSrn pic.twitter.com/GPDyuk7WGB
— Ram Bhupatiraju (@RamBhupatiraju) December 5, 2020
Eventually the thesis for a good investment boils down to 2-3 simple points. You have to do a lot of work to figure out what those are & why.
2/
3/
90 & still counting box-cars.
4/
It has been 50 years since we are debating whether the market values "this kind of analysis".
"This kind of analysis" is all that there is.
5/
Don't cheat, put in the hours. The courage will come from the strength of your convictions.
8/
More from Trading
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
