Joe sod, some interesting questions which I will try to answer.
I started when it was a very different world. The environment was simpler and more traditional. Investing was primarily the preserve of the wealthy and financial information was hard to acquire. Newspapers and annual reports, endless form filling and tons of paperwork right down to the share certificates themselves. So my first observation is that it seemed simpler to choose companies but more complex to get it done. Organic growth was more predictable and steady as you suggest in traditional industries that had stood the test of time. The age of disruption had not really gathered pace and globalisation, as we know it today, was only ramping up.
Buffett sold Gillette to P&G and effectively took the payment by way of shares in P&G. Beneath his folksy exterior is a really sharp mind. And he's man enough to admit when he gets it wrong which I admire e.g. not investing in tech because he didn't understand it. Now that he has some younger people working with him, he does or they do on his behalf.
The game changer, the leveller, and the equaliser was the advent of the internet. Information and education is now available to anybody. We can learn about all sorts of things. And that's an investors friend. The downside is that we're battered with information 24/7 and that's a challenge to manage. That we are better informed, able to share and better off because of this and other technology is great. The choice for investments is now bewildering. And it's complex in a different way, by its sophistication, speed and transparency. But I think that the same basic tenets hold true.
And yes, I stuck with the software company right through to today. Software fuelled computers and one company did it better than anyone else. I viewed it as petrol in a car. Much better gross margins, hard to copy and PC's could not operate without it. Very sophisticated analysis. I stayed the course through thick and thin because I regarded the company as an unregulated super monopoly. And I got lucky. I missed others because I was too conservative or to quote Buffett, I didn't understand what they did. But many of the more traditional businesses did very well over the years and still do. They paid dividends and bought back shares. And almost all of us use their products or services in one way or another. Market dominance, fortress balance sheets, great management, enviable margins and sensible growth.
I started when it was a very different world. The environment was simpler and more traditional. Investing was primarily the preserve of the wealthy and financial information was hard to acquire. Newspapers and annual reports, endless form filling and tons of paperwork right down to the share certificates themselves. So my first observation is that it seemed simpler to choose companies but more complex to get it done. Organic growth was more predictable and steady as you suggest in traditional industries that had stood the test of time. The age of disruption had not really gathered pace and globalisation, as we know it today, was only ramping up.
Buffett sold Gillette to P&G and effectively took the payment by way of shares in P&G. Beneath his folksy exterior is a really sharp mind. And he's man enough to admit when he gets it wrong which I admire e.g. not investing in tech because he didn't understand it. Now that he has some younger people working with him, he does or they do on his behalf.
The game changer, the leveller, and the equaliser was the advent of the internet. Information and education is now available to anybody. We can learn about all sorts of things. And that's an investors friend. The downside is that we're battered with information 24/7 and that's a challenge to manage. That we are better informed, able to share and better off because of this and other technology is great. The choice for investments is now bewildering. And it's complex in a different way, by its sophistication, speed and transparency. But I think that the same basic tenets hold true.
And yes, I stuck with the software company right through to today. Software fuelled computers and one company did it better than anyone else. I viewed it as petrol in a car. Much better gross margins, hard to copy and PC's could not operate without it. Very sophisticated analysis. I stayed the course through thick and thin because I regarded the company as an unregulated super monopoly. And I got lucky. I missed others because I was too conservative or to quote Buffett, I didn't understand what they did. But many of the more traditional businesses did very well over the years and still do. They paid dividends and bought back shares. And almost all of us use their products or services in one way or another. Market dominance, fortress balance sheets, great management, enviable margins and sensible growth.
. If you're advocating staying in cash, at least make an argument