ok, so after watching a recent CNBC interview with Warren Buffett, it just occurred to me that his public speeches / media interviews tend to be fairly non-technical, in both senses of the word:
1) easy for laymen to understand - not a lot of jargon or accounting specifics, etc
2) fundamental analysis heavy - all about the 'story' etc, not so much on price action
regarding point 1, the difference really stands out when you compare his interview answers with that of wall street analysts, who usually back up their stock pitches with excel spreadsheet earnings & cash flow projections stuffed with macros, bloomberg downloads, not to mention investment reports filled with jargon like "debottlenecking" / "retention of associate accounting treatment" / "selective rebuilding of verticals"
given that he reportedly runs his headquarters with just a skeleton crew of a few PAs and a couple of bond traders, how detailed & in general - how - do you think he does his due diligence before committing capital? in another 'behind the scenes' documentary a few years ago, one of the owners who sold his company to Berkshire essentially said something along the lines of it being a handshake deal.
it also kinda relates to the general observation that some of the Wall Street legends, particularly of the older generation, don't seem to be all that "technical", in the sense that if you analyze what they say, it comes across as very general/not that different from what your Uncle Fred might say after brunch on Sunday afternoons around the picnic table, as compared to say, answering with some fantastically sophisticated wizardry like you'd expect.
& it's not just him either - if you listen to various interviews by other Wall Street legends, most talk at length on very straightforward concepts. i think in a biography of george soros, they mentioned that he tried taking a security analyst certification exam around the middle of his career before he launched quantum, but didn't exactly score very high. i mean, there must have been guys who scored close to 100%, but didn't return billions in profits.
so my question is,
- do you think they're actually a lot more sophisticated than the appearance they present? (got to be right, otherwise how would they reach the pinnacles of Wall St)
- in what dimensions do you think they are more sophisticated than the rest of the street, such that they outperformed all their peers who are superficially more knowledgeable regarding accounting, macroeconomy, statistics, etc?
1) easy for laymen to understand - not a lot of jargon or accounting specifics, etc
2) fundamental analysis heavy - all about the 'story' etc, not so much on price action
regarding point 1, the difference really stands out when you compare his interview answers with that of wall street analysts, who usually back up their stock pitches with excel spreadsheet earnings & cash flow projections stuffed with macros, bloomberg downloads, not to mention investment reports filled with jargon like "debottlenecking" / "retention of associate accounting treatment" / "selective rebuilding of verticals"
given that he reportedly runs his headquarters with just a skeleton crew of a few PAs and a couple of bond traders, how detailed & in general - how - do you think he does his due diligence before committing capital? in another 'behind the scenes' documentary a few years ago, one of the owners who sold his company to Berkshire essentially said something along the lines of it being a handshake deal.
it also kinda relates to the general observation that some of the Wall Street legends, particularly of the older generation, don't seem to be all that "technical", in the sense that if you analyze what they say, it comes across as very general/not that different from what your Uncle Fred might say after brunch on Sunday afternoons around the picnic table, as compared to say, answering with some fantastically sophisticated wizardry like you'd expect.
& it's not just him either - if you listen to various interviews by other Wall Street legends, most talk at length on very straightforward concepts. i think in a biography of george soros, they mentioned that he tried taking a security analyst certification exam around the middle of his career before he launched quantum, but didn't exactly score very high. i mean, there must have been guys who scored close to 100%, but didn't return billions in profits.
so my question is,
- do you think they're actually a lot more sophisticated than the appearance they present? (got to be right, otherwise how would they reach the pinnacles of Wall St)
- in what dimensions do you think they are more sophisticated than the rest of the street, such that they outperformed all their peers who are superficially more knowledgeable regarding accounting, macroeconomy, statistics, etc?
