Warren Buffett on Squawk Box
-
- Verified User
- โพสต์: 435
- ผู้ติดตาม: 0
Warren Buffett on Squawk Box
โพสต์ที่ 1
วีดิโอ CNBC สัมภาษณ์ Warren Buffett เมื่อ 2 มี.ค.2554 นี้เอง มีทั้งหมด 12 ตอน
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/03/bu ... quawk-box/
ในตอนที่ 12 ....Becky ถามเรื่องที่ Buffett ตกลงโละพอร์ตของ Luo Simpson หลังจากที่ลาออกเมื่อ มิ.ย. ปีก่อน ให้ Todd รับผิดชอบจัดพอร์ตเองใหม่ ลองฟังคำตอบจาก excerpt ข้างล่างนี้ หรือฟังจากบทสัมภาษณ์ตอนที่ 12 ก็ได้แล้วแต่ชอบครับ
BECKY: OK, let's bring in another question. Robert from Potomac, Maryland, writes in--and this is something that a lot of people are confused on, so hopefully you can clear this up. But, "Why did you allow, I assume, the new manager to liquidate many of Lou Simpson's stocks? If they met your `forever' holding period criteria with Simpson, why sell? Simpson's record is long-term proven. The new manager has no record long enough to show a similar competency or that his results are just luck. These stock sales are inconsistent with your forever holding period advice." So maybe you could clarify what's really happening there.
BUFFETT: Yeah. Well, we buy--when I say I, I buy stocks with the idea I'd be happy holding them forever. We don't end up owning them forever, obviously, in many cases, because you find something else that's more attractive and--or sometimes managements change and who knows what. But Lou Simpson was managing his own portfolio. He managed it for 21 years, did a sensational job. But when he said he was going to leave in June, he and I both decided he was going to liquidate his portfolio between then and the end of the year. In other words, I never inherit any investment decision from somebody else. If Charlie Munger made me a gift of 100 shares of some stock, I would sell it then--and then--I would then decide whether I wanted to buy it again myself. But I do not believe in default-type decisions on investments. So when Lou left, his portfolio left. When a new man comes in, his portfolio comes in.
BECKY: And the two aren't related.
BUFFETT: They're not related at all. Lou had maybe 15 or so stocks, generally in the 3- to $400 million range, and he just sold them proportionally throughout the rest of the year. He wasn't going to be managing them anymore, and I knew they were probably good companies, but I didn't want to buy them myself. And there's no reason, if I don't want to buy them myself, I should tell the next manager at Berkshire--of GEICO to manage them. Todd is going to be responsible for his decisions, and--just as Lou was when he was there. And I want it to be Todd's portfolio.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/03/bu ... quawk-box/
ในตอนที่ 12 ....Becky ถามเรื่องที่ Buffett ตกลงโละพอร์ตของ Luo Simpson หลังจากที่ลาออกเมื่อ มิ.ย. ปีก่อน ให้ Todd รับผิดชอบจัดพอร์ตเองใหม่ ลองฟังคำตอบจาก excerpt ข้างล่างนี้ หรือฟังจากบทสัมภาษณ์ตอนที่ 12 ก็ได้แล้วแต่ชอบครับ
BECKY: OK, let's bring in another question. Robert from Potomac, Maryland, writes in--and this is something that a lot of people are confused on, so hopefully you can clear this up. But, "Why did you allow, I assume, the new manager to liquidate many of Lou Simpson's stocks? If they met your `forever' holding period criteria with Simpson, why sell? Simpson's record is long-term proven. The new manager has no record long enough to show a similar competency or that his results are just luck. These stock sales are inconsistent with your forever holding period advice." So maybe you could clarify what's really happening there.
BUFFETT: Yeah. Well, we buy--when I say I, I buy stocks with the idea I'd be happy holding them forever. We don't end up owning them forever, obviously, in many cases, because you find something else that's more attractive and--or sometimes managements change and who knows what. But Lou Simpson was managing his own portfolio. He managed it for 21 years, did a sensational job. But when he said he was going to leave in June, he and I both decided he was going to liquidate his portfolio between then and the end of the year. In other words, I never inherit any investment decision from somebody else. If Charlie Munger made me a gift of 100 shares of some stock, I would sell it then--and then--I would then decide whether I wanted to buy it again myself. But I do not believe in default-type decisions on investments. So when Lou left, his portfolio left. When a new man comes in, his portfolio comes in.
BECKY: And the two aren't related.
BUFFETT: They're not related at all. Lou had maybe 15 or so stocks, generally in the 3- to $400 million range, and he just sold them proportionally throughout the rest of the year. He wasn't going to be managing them anymore, and I knew they were probably good companies, but I didn't want to buy them myself. And there's no reason, if I don't want to buy them myself, I should tell the next manager at Berkshire--of GEICO to manage them. Todd is going to be responsible for his decisions, and--just as Lou was when he was there. And I want it to be Todd's portfolio.
"The man who doesn't read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." Mark Twain
-
- Verified User
- โพสต์: 2141
- ผู้ติดตาม: 0
Re: Warren Buffett on Squawk Box
โพสต์ที่ 3
port geico เท่านั้นครับไม่ใช่ berkshire
M aterial catalyst
A ttitude & Perception
D isclipine
A ttitude & Perception
D isclipine
- OutOfMyMind
- Verified User
- โพสต์: 1232
- ผู้ติดตาม: 0
Re: Warren Buffett on Squawk Box
โพสต์ที่ 4
ต๊อด อาจจะกลับมาซื้อหุ้นที่ลู ขายก็ได้ แต่ผมว่าไม่แปลก
การล้างพอร์ตแบบนี้ ผมว่าดีนะ เพราะต๊อดจะได้เข้ามาเริ่มงาน
โดยปราศจากอคติและแรงกดดันใด ๆ ทั้งสิ้น
การล้างพอร์ตแบบนี้ ผมว่าดีนะ เพราะต๊อดจะได้เข้ามาเริ่มงาน
โดยปราศจากอคติและแรงกดดันใด ๆ ทั้งสิ้น
แชทบอทสำหรับนักลงทุนเน้นคุณค่า
https://www.chathoon.com/
https://www.chathoon.com/
-
- Verified User
- โพสต์: 435
- ผู้ติดตาม: 0
Re: Warren Buffett on Squawk Box
โพสต์ที่ 5
"The man who doesn't read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." Mark Twain