How Buffett Sees The World

Published in Investing on 20 March 2012

Warren Buffett divides investments into three main types.

The investing legend that is Warren Buffett recently outlined in a column for Fortune magazine how he categorises possible investments, and Fools would do well to understand this before putting money at risk.

First, a word about risk

And risk is the first thing to understand before going any further. To many in the investment industry, risk is equated with historical volatility, and is measured by beta, the amount the price of a share changes relative to a change in the overall market.

This might be acceptable for a statistician, but not for Buffett; to him, risk is the reasoned probability that an investment will cause its owner a loss of purchasing power over the contemplated holding period.

How the market chooses to value that asset in the meantime is of little consequence to him, as the market has a tendency to mis-price. Thus a volatile asset may be one that he considers low risk, while a stable asset may be hugely risky.

1. Currency-based investments

Currency-based investments, often referred to as 'fixed-income' investments, include bank deposits, government gilts and commercial bonds. They are generally thought of as safe, but "in truth they are among the most dangerous of assets. Their beta may be zero, but their risk is huge".

Even those that reliably pay their interest or coupons as they fall due have destroyed the purchasing power of investors, and are doomed to do so forever. The reason is inflation, and as government determines the ultimate value of money, 'systemic forces' will sometimes cause them to produce inflation.

And even a relatively modest rate of inflation in a trusted currency will compound significantly over the years, with the US dollar having lost a staggering 86 percent of its value since 1965. Investors would need to have been earning 4.3% interest tax-free annually from bond investments over that period to simply maintain their value.

In the real world, however, we do pay tax. Buffett takes a rate of 25 percent in his example, so the bonds would need to pay 5.7 percent gross just to keep up, which is coincidentally what continuous rolling of US Treasury bills produced over that 47-year period; considering any of that interest as income would have been a mistake.

"'In God We Trust' may be imprinted on our currency, but the hand that activates our government's printing press has been all too human."

Over some periods, of course, the interest rate may compensate for inflation, but at current rates he sees no upside, and quotes an old saying from Wall Streeter Shelby Cullom Davis: "Bonds promoted as offering risk-free returns are now priced to deliver return-free risk."

2. Investments that will never produce anything

Unproductive assets, such as gold and tulips, "are purchased in the buyer's hope that someone else, who also knows that the assets will be forever unproductive, will pay more for them in the future".

This type of investment requires an expanding pool of buyers, who, in turn, are tempted because they believe the buying pool will expand still further and will desire the asset even more avidly in the future.

In the case of gold, buyers have a justified fear of paper money, for the reasons outlined above, and their investment thesis depends the ranks of the fearful continuing to increase.

And if you were to take all the gold in the world -- a 170,000-tonne cube, 68 feet per side, worth over $9 trillion -- it would buy all the cropland in the US (producing an output of about $200 billion annually), 16 Exxon Mobils (NYSE: XOM.US) -- each earning more than $40 billion annually -- and still have a few hundred billion left over for spending money.

Those lands and companies will produce earnings every year for the next hundred years, while the block of gold will still be just a block of gold. Which would you rather have?

3. Investment in productive assets

These businesses, farms and property are all examples of productive assets, the sort that Buffett likes. Even businesses with heavy capital requirements can be better than the other two types of investment we looked at, but Buffett's preference is for businesses with the ability to deliver output that will retain its purchasing-power value in inflationary times while requiring a minimum of new capital investment.

"People will forever exchange what they produce for what others produce," he says, and a century from now, whatever type of currency we have, he believes people will be willing to exchange a couple of minutes of their labour for a Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO.US).

With all that in mind, what types of assets would you want to invest in?

> Get the latest on investing and the markets, direct from the desk of David Kuo. You'll also receive a special free report on '10 Steps To Making A Million' if you join The Motley Fool Collective today.

More on the markets:

> Padraig has at least some interest in all three of these investment types, including gold.

Share & subscribe


The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

F958B 20 Mar 2012 , 6:12pm

".......Those lands and companies will produce earnings every year for the next hundred years, while the block of gold will still be just a block of gold........."

But does that mean that shares are always a good investment, at *any* price?
(shares were very higly valued are the turn of the millenium but clearly some kind of mean-reversion occurred)

Or that if gold (or anything else, no matter what it is used for) can be purchased for less than the cost of production that it isn't worth considering?
(it could be bought for around taht price at the turn of the millenium, and an upwards-mean-reversion has occurred)

Also; how many companies are well-enough managed, with predictable-enough revenues, to survive the turbulence of economies for more than a decade or two?

So we have to consider the price being asked and the quality of the company being purchased, and judge that relative to other opportunities, before we can deem them to be worth buying.

Probably only one-in-three companies in the FTSE are truly worth buying "for the long term", with only half of those candidates being well-managed close to their potential at any given time.

Furthermore, only a few of the really worthwhile companies are actually available for purchase at a sensible price at any given time - and those are times when the company is passing through a rough patch and the "fine weather investors" refuse to take the opportunity staring them in the face.

Clitheroekid 20 Mar 2012 , 8:31pm

Investors would need to have been earning 4.3% interest tax-free annually from bond investments over that period to simply maintain their value.

In the real world, however, we do pay tax. Buffett takes a rate of 25 percent in his example, so the bonds would need to pay 5.7 percent gross just to keep up

I'm not sure that it's really serves any purpose to say that it's the return after deduction of tax that needs to be compared with inflation.

This effectively assumes that we get zero benefit from the tax that's paid, which is frankly ridiculous.

In the UK we get free health care, free education, the provision of the armed forces and emergency services, public libraries and a whole bunch of other things that are of benefit to us.

Admittedly, we don't get the choice as to how the money is spent. But if there was no income tax and these services weren't provided we would have to pay for them out of our untaxed income anyway.

You may well say that if you're in receipt of a decent income you get no value from the tax that's spent on benefits for the poor. But at the very least you aren't faced with a million people who are either starving to death or being forced to turn into criminals in order to survive. For most people this has a very significant value, both morally and from a purely pragmatic point of view.

Even where tax receipts are spent on matters that may be anathema to me (such as onshore wind farms in my case) I accept that in a democratic society the tyranny of the majority must generally prevail, and that's just the price I have to pay for a generally very stable society.

So whilst accepting that the lack of choice as to how one's tax is spent may warrant a discount on the value of having that tax in your pocket to spend as you wish, to work on the assumption that every penny of it is just completely wasted is absurd.

BrnzDrgn 21 Mar 2012 , 2:05pm

I agree, gold is worthless in itself. It's a place to hide money and those that sit in on gold and don't move out in time will make losses when other markets become more profitable.

CunningCliff 22 Mar 2012 , 2:18pm

Padraig, my friend, I've heard the 'gold cube' story many times before, but you made your case against the yellow metal beautifully.

'Fool' marks, fella! :0)


CunningCliff 22 Mar 2012 , 2:33pm

Likewise, you make the case for taxes most eloquently, Clitheroekid, you Fool Hero! :0)


Join the conversation

Please take note - some tags have changed.

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: [b]bolded text[/b], [i]italicised text[/i]. All other tags will be removed from your post.

If you want to add a link, please ensure you type it as as opposed to

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.