Not only is Warren Buffett usually right, but he’s been right for so long. His longevity is singular.
Since 1965, the S&P 500 has returned an average of 10.5% per year. Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway has returned 20.1% per year.
The S&P turned $1 in 1965 into $300 today. That’s fantastic. Buffett turned that same dollar into $36000.
Doubling the S&P over one year is great, but won’t make you famous. Doubling the S&P for six decades means you’re the most famous investor of all time.
Warren is usually right. But for the rest of the investing world, right and wrong are cyclical.
Further reading: Check out Buffett’s 2021 Annual Report here.
“Triple-levered FAANG” makes me think of a mean viper.
In this case, though, it refers to an investment.
The FAANG stocks are Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Google. And triple-levered means “$1 of investment buys your $3 of exposure.” It’s an investment with 3x the risk and 3x the reward.
In August 2020, reader-of-the-blog Sidd asked me about FNGU. It’s a triple-levered ETF that holds:
- Facebook (now Meta)
- Google (now Alphabet)
FNGU is a risky investment. It was risky then and it’s risky now. Risk, as we know, is tethered to reward. It’s the fundamental relationship of investing.
I wanted to caution Sidd on the downside potential of his investment. But, at least initially, I was wrong.
FNGU’s Roller Coaster
For 15 months, the reward from FNGU appeared well worth the risk.
115% gain in 15 months is nothing to scoff at. Did I caution Sidd too much?
But one of the dead horses in The Best Interest’s stable is reversion to the mean. Hell, I’ve beaten that poor horse four times this year alone.
Investments that fly like Icarus tend to fall like Icarus. FNGU is no different.
FNGU is now down 60% from where Sidd bought it, and down over 80% from its November high. I’m not sure if Sidd sold (or bought more!) since we spoke in August 2020.
But my point is that concepts like “wrong” and “right” can be cyclical. Especially in investing.
FNGU looked great for 15 months. My risk-aversion appeared misplaced. Then 6 months later I look like a genius. In 2 or 3 more years, FNGU might be at $100 and I’ll look dumb again.
In my opinion, an ideal portfolio is “built for all weather.” It’s diverse in its assets (stocks, bonds, alternatives, etc.) and diverse within those assets (e.g. low-cost funds, not single stock picks).
Such an “ideal portfolio” isn’t going up 100% of the time. It still rises and falls. But it never feels “wrong.”
That’s the benefit of diversification. That’s the benefit of a margin of safety. I always feel confident I’ll stick with my investments, and I always feel confident I’ll live to invest another day. Investing is psychologically difficult, but I never feel the urge to panic sell.
It’s less-than-exciting during bull runs. It’s also better than panicking during bear markets.
Back to Warren
Funny aside: even Warren has had “wrong” years. The S&P has beaten Berkshire in 20 individual years since 1965. There have been long periods where critics ask if he’s “losing his edge.”
The past few years were a case in point.
After the “COVID crash,” popular media was asking if Berkshire Hathaway (orange) had lost its edge on the market (purple). Warren Buffett appeared, for a short time, wrong.
The last 6 months have turned the table. Right and wrong are cyclical. For some (me and you) more than others (Buffett).
But an ideal portfolio rarely feels “wrong.”