Going into the Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting this year, my excitement was tangible. A longtime student of Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger, I was thrilled to finally be able to see them both in person, answering a barrage of questions from 40,000 shareholders off the cuff. My weekend in Omaha certainly didn’t disappoint. In addition to checking out Berkshire’s headquarters, Nebraska Furniture Mart, and Buffett’s house, I was able to see Buffett and Munger speak twice — first at the now-famous annual meeting and again the next day in a much cosier setting at the Berkshire press conference. The two…
To keep reading, enter your email address or login below.
Going into the Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting this year, my excitement was tangible. A longtime student of Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger, I was thrilled to finally be able to see them both in person, answering a barrage of questions from 40,000 shareholders off the cuff.
My weekend in Omaha certainly didn’t disappoint. In addition to checking out Berkshire’s headquarters, Nebraska Furniture Mart, and Buffett’s house, I was able to see Buffett and Munger speak twice — first at the now-famous annual meeting and again the next day in a much cosier setting at the Berkshire press conference.
The two were on top of their game the entire weekend, giving their thoughts on questions on so many different topics such as Berkshire’s valuation, European debt problems, and the U.S. educational system.
One thing about their responses caught me by surprise, though. These two investors are known, among other things, for their investment focus on the qualitative facets of a business.
Buffett emphasises management, integrity, reputation, and competitive advantage. To be sure, these concepts showed up in their answers to various questions. But what struck me most was their numerical focus: For all their focus on qualitative factors, Munger and Buffett are quantitative hounds. Entirely offhand, the two men rattled off all of these figures:
- The percentage of trained engineers that end up in the financial sector.
- The percentage of the time the wind blows in Iowa.
- The percentage of all U.S. corporate taxes paid by Berkshire.
- The relative income tax rates of hedge fund managers and physics teachers.
- The market price of gold when Buffett took over Berkshire Hathaway.
- The increase in See’s Candies’ revenue relative to increases in invested capital.
- The percentage of Europeans who died from the Black Death.
- The population of New Zealand.
- The total reinsurance losses on the Japanese earthquake and tsunami and the percentage attributable to Berkshire.
- The value today of $1 in 1930.
- The total number of employees of all Berkshire subsidiaries.
- The dimensions of a cube containing all the world’s gold supply and its total market value.
Buffett and Munger quickly put each question into quantitative context, and their answers flowed from this context.
Shiny, happy, useless gold
Take, for example, the last figure on this list. In response to a question about why he hadn’t invested in gold, Buffett whipped out a response that sounded something like this (after my paraphrasing):
Imagine a cube containing all of the world’s gold. This cube will measure just over 67 feet to a side. It’s great; it’s shiny; it’s pretty. You can look at it; you can fondle it; you can stand on it. It’s isn’t going to do anything — except it will depreciate in value unless demand keeps up with the annual growth in the gold supply as we mine more of the stuff. So I ask you this: Would you prefer this 67-foot-to-a-side cube of gold, or instead all the farmland in the United States, 10 ExxonMobils, AND a trillion dollars of walking-around money? Because the current market values are the same.
If that’s not a quantitative mind at work, I don’t know what is.
The striking thing about these figures is their scarcity.
Buffett and Munger are both known for their voracious reading habits, but these are not figures you would stumble upon in a book or newspaper. These are calculated figures. Warren and Charlie’s off-the-cusp knowledge of these numbers makes clear to me a major difference between their investment processes and those of the average investor.
Most average investors take available information and use it to make decisions. Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger do the reverse: They figure out exactly the information they need to make an investment decision, and then they go find it — often patching it together and calculating it themselves.
Be smarter and a better investor
We can all learn a ton about decision-making (investment and otherwise) from Warren and Charlie. There is much to be said for their focus on qualitative business factors, but don’t miss the bigger concept: The qualitative factors combine with the quantitative context to form a clearer investment picture.
The next time you are considering a new investment, take a page from Warren and Charlie’s book and decide what you need to know, then seek it out. Besides making you sound smart at cocktail parties, the information you patch together will help you make better, more independent investment decisions — and over time, better decisions mean better returns.
This article, written by Alex Pape, was originally published on Fool.com. Bruce Jackson, who has an interest in Berkshire Hathaway, has updated it.