Zerohedge - do what buffett says not what he does

[Evolveus]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/do-what-buffett-says-not-what-he-does

 

This Zerohedge article criticizes BRK and Buffett for saying that cash is the riskiest asset, yet BRK has their highest cash balance on record.  I think Zerohedge is muckraking - for one, given the large insurance ops and super cat exposures, they need a sizable slug in the event of said super cat.  Also, it seems that BRK is focusing more on growing earnings from Operating companies so that when WB isn't around they are not as dependent on his investing prowess.  So naturally as they grow cash flow from ops, their cash balance will continue to increase incrementally, and possibly faster than they can put it to good use given their size.  As Munger says, "There are worse problems to have..."

 

If they intended on just holding cash forever and letting it build then that would be risky, just as Buffett is saying - ie, don't go bury your cash in the backyard.  Also a glance at that graph at the bottom of the article clearly shows that cash balance going down considerably in down markets. 

 

Given that cash from Ops is coming in faster than they can deploy it, what does one make of the high cash balance in relation to possible danger in the overall market or lack of value opportunities?

 

[Liberty]

Before you read anything on ZH, read this:

 

http://www.propornot.com/2016/10/zero-hedge.html

[scorpioncapital]

Cash is the riskiest asset ...long term. But nobody has defined long term. Also one hasn't defined the level of cash that is risky or not.

[Dynamic]

Wikipedia editors have very strict guidelines about consensus opinion and not giving undue weight to fringe viewpoints, including reliance on secondary Reliable Sources, both for establishing the notoriety/notability of having an article and for discussion of notable criticial reception (positive and negative) of the subject, so it's often a useful summary as a starting point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge

 

Generally, I became aware of Zero Hedge's recent Twitter ban, but I try not to reward them with advertising revenue or pollute my Google curated news feed by clicking through to them. Likewise, I'm no fan of Zacks Investment Research and one or two others who seem to reveal their automated text generation all too often when they report ridiculous numbers (often zero) for various fundamentals of BRK.B, so I try to avoid clicking through from Yahoo Finance links to their articles.

 

If I want a more reliable Ludwig von Mises Austrian School view of current economics and investing and a measured usually somewhat bearish analysis, I'd much rather read something like The Leithner Letter, which is well referenced (albeit lengthy) and gives pause for thought and some alternative viewpoints to consider, and is written from the point of view of a Graham/Buffett type value investor with a decent 20-year track record despite significant cash and bond allocation. I generally, pay little heed to macroeconomics, but Chris Leithner provides a well reasoned non-mainstream view that's worth considering and weighing against my usual considerations such as time-in-the-market to compound wealth beating attempts at timing the market.

 

Returning to Berkshire specifically, if cash remains closely matched to float most of the time, I would not be concerned. I'd then expect cash to decline compared to float if they can make a well-priced acquisition or substantial additional equity investments, especially during market turmoil.

[wachtwoord]

Before you read anything on ZH, read this:

 

http://www.propornot.com/2016/10/zero-hedge.html

 

May all be true, still name 1 better source for news (not state propaganda) this day and age?

 

I read it, yet I don't leave my brain at home while doing so.

[DooDiligence]

Wikipedia editors have very strict guidelines about consensus opinion and not giving undue weight to fringe viewpoints, including reliance on secondary Reliable Sources, both for establishing the notoriety/notability of having an article and for discussion of notable criticial reception (positive and negative) of the subject, so it's often a useful summary as a starting point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge

 

Generally, I became aware of Zero Hedge's recent Twitter ban, but I try not to reward them with advertising revenue or pollute my Google curated news feed by clicking through to them. Likewise, I'm no fan of Zacks Investment Research and one or two others who seem to reveal their automated text generation all too often when they report ridiculous numbers (often zero) for various fundamentals of BRK.B, so I try to avoid clicking through from Yahoo Finance links to their articles.

 

If I want a more reliable Ludwig von Mises Austrian School view of current economics and investing and a measured usually somewhat bearish analysis, I'd much rather read something like The Leithner Letter, which is well referenced (albeit lengthy) and gives pause for thought and some alternative viewpoints to consider, and is written from the point of view of a Graham/Buffett type value investor with a decent 20-year track record despite significant cash and bond allocation. I generally, pay little heed to macroeconomics, but Chris Leithner provides a well reasoned non-mainstream view that's worth considering and weighing against my usual considerations such as time-in-the-market to compound wealth beating attempts at timing the market.

 

Returning to Berkshire specifically, if cash remains closely matched to float most of the time, I would not be concerned. I'd then expect cash to decline compared to float if they can make a well-priced acquisition or substantial additional equity investments, especially during market turmoil.

 

The president of the United States & every member of the house & senate should be

required to recite, by memory, Leithner Letter No. 241-244, before being sworn in.

[Liberty]

Before you read anything on ZH, read this:

 

http://www.propornot.com/2016/10/zero-hedge.html

 

May all be true, still name 1 better source for news (not state propaganda) this day and age?

 

I read it, yet I don't leave my brain at home while doing so.

 

It is state propaganda, is the point. You just seem to personally prefer Russian state propaganda designed to make westerners hate and mistrust their own governments for the benefit of Putin and his mafia-state cronies.

[rkbabang]

Before you read anything on ZH, read this:

 

http://www.propornot.com/2016/10/zero-hedge.html

 

May all be true, still name 1 better source for news (not state propaganda) this day and age?

 

I read it, yet I don't leave my brain at home while doing so.

 

It is state propaganda, is the point. You just seem to personally prefer Russian state propaganda designed to make westerners hate and mistrust their own governments for the benefit of Putin and his mafia-state cronies.

 

Everyone the liberal elites don't like are obviously puppets of Putin.

 

Everything is propaganda of one sort or another.  Don't get all of your propaganda from the same source.  99.9% of everything published in the United States is (willingly or unwillingly) doing the deep-state's bidding, so it is sometimes refreshing to get another side... any other side.

 

BTW, Make sure you check under your bed at night for Russians.  They are everywhere.  Hillary said so.

 

[Gregmal]

The whole Russian propaganda thing is clear bullshit. It’s no different at all than the Trump “fake news” cries. It’s meant to train people like dogs to immediately write off anything that doesn’t vibe with said parties agenda. Those that scream either, do so arrogantly assuming the recipients are idiots and not capable of reading and deciphering, responsibly and in a manner capable of figuring out the truth, for themselves.

[rkbabang]

The whole Russian propaganda thing is clear bullshit. It’s no different at all than the Trump “fake news” cries. It’s meant to train people like dogs to immediately write off anything that doesn’t vibe with said parties agenda. Those that scream either, do so arrogantly assuming the recipients are idiots and not capable of reading and deciphering, responsibly and in a manner capable of figuring out the truth, for themselves.

 

Yup.  Look at Tulsi.  Even the Democratic Party's own candidates are Russian plants working for Putin the moment Hillary doesn't like them.

 

[wachtwoord]

Before you read anything on ZH, read this:

 

http://www.propornot.com/2016/10/zero-hedge.html

 

May all be true, still name 1 better source for news (not state propaganda) this day and age?

 

I read it, yet I don't leave my brain at home while doing so.

 

It is state propaganda, is the point. You just seem to personally prefer Russian state propaganda designed to make westerners hate and mistrust their own governments for the benefit of Putin and his mafia-state cronies.

 

Propaganda - truth is a spectrum. ZH is much less propaganda than any western (US or European) mainstream news outlet I've ever come across.

 

If (!) there's Russians behind ZH there's Russians behind ZH big deal. There are definitely groups of people behind mainstream western news outlets whose interests are not alligned with mine (or the truth).

[rkbabang]

Also, to bring this back on topic, the advice to look closely at what a person does versus what they say is generally good advice, even when Putin says it.

 

[Cevian]

Before you read anything on ZH, read this:

 

http://www.propornot.com/2016/10/zero-hedge.html

 

May all be true, still name 1 better source for news (not state propaganda) this day and age?

 

I read it, yet I don't leave my brain at home while doing so.

 

It is state propaganda, is the point. You just seem to personally prefer Russian state propaganda designed to make westerners hate and mistrust their own governments for the benefit of Putin and his mafia-state cronies.

 

Propaganda - truth is a spectrum. ZH is much less propaganda than any western (US or European) mainstream news outlet I've ever come across.

 

If (!) there's Russians behind ZH there's Russians behind ZH big deal. There are definitely groups of people behind mainstream western news outlets whose interests are not alligned with mine (or the truth).

 

+1 Well said.

[Guest Schwab711]

Before you read anything on ZH, read this:

 

http://www.propornot.com/2016/10/zero-hedge.html

 

May all be true, still name 1 better source for news (not state propaganda) this day and age?

 

I read it, yet I don't leave my brain at home while doing so.

 

It is state propaganda, is the point. You just seem to personally prefer Russian state propaganda designed to make westerners hate and mistrust their own governments for the benefit of Putin and his mafia-state cronies.

 

Propaganda - truth is a spectrum. ZH is much less propaganda than any western (US or European) mainstream news outlet I've ever come across.

 

If (!) there's Russians behind ZH there's Russians behind ZH big deal. There are definitely groups of people behind mainstream western news outlets whose interests are not alligned with mine (or the truth).

 

When ZH is trying to regurgitate news, they heavily quote mainstream media that you say is inaccurate. Their latest article quotes three paragraphs from the NYT, a Sky News tweet, a SCMP tweet, some random twitter account (started in January 2020 with 3 followers), and China Economy (an account started a month ago with 100 followers). I'm going to take a wild shot in the dark and guess that the Chinese twitter account with 3 followers is actually ZH quoting themselves to make their article appear to have more authority than it actually does. The whole article is bolding select sentences in a NYT article when seen from this perspective. That's the problem with ZH. It's not a news site. I could do this with every 'news article' ZH posts. ZH is a confirmation bias honeytrap.

 

ZH doesn't actually engage in any journalism. Some of their articles are written by former Infowars, Paul Joseph Watson. Infowars has admitted in court that they do not publish news and they are an entertainment site. Similarly, ZH is clearly for entertainment only. You might like what the Babylon Bee writes but it's still not news/truth.

 

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/i-cant-let-my-mom-die-home-desperate-patients-swarm-wuhan-hospital-hong-kong-closes

[Castanza]

Before you read anything on ZH, read this:

 

http://www.propornot.com/2016/10/zero-hedge.html

 

May all be true, still name 1 better source for news (not state propaganda) this day and age?

 

I read it, yet I don't leave my brain at home while doing so.

 

It is state propaganda, is the point. You just seem to personally prefer Russian state propaganda designed to make westerners hate and mistrust their own governments for the benefit of Putin and his mafia-state cronies.

 

Propaganda - truth is a spectrum. ZH is much less propaganda than any western (US or European) mainstream news outlet I've ever come across.

 

If (!) there's Russians behind ZH there's Russians behind ZH big deal. There are definitely groups of people behind mainstream western news outlets whose interests are not alligned with mine (or the truth).

 

When ZH is trying to regurgitate news, they heavily quote mainstream media that you say is inaccurate. Their latest article quotes three paragraphs from the NYT, a Sky News tweet, a SCMP tweet, some random twitter account (started in January 2020 with 3 followers), and China Economy (an account started a month ago with 100 followers). I'm going to take a wild shot in the dark and guess that the Chinese twitter account with 3 followers is actually ZH quoting themselves to make their article appear to have more authority than it actually does. The whole article is bolding select sentences in a NYT article when seen from this perspective. That's the problem with ZH. It's not a news site. I could do this with every 'news article' ZH posts. ZH is a confirmation bias honeytrap.

 

ZH doesn't actually engage in any journalism. Some of their articles are written by former Infowars, Paul Joseph Watson. Infowars has admitted in court that they do not publish news and they are an entertainment site. Similarly, ZH is clearly for entertainment only. You might like what the Babylon Bee writes but it's still not news/truth.

 

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/i-cant-let-my-mom-die-home-desperate-patients-swarm-wuhan-hospital-hong-kong-closes

 

Show me one MSM outlet that doesn’t selectively quote or selectively cite information? There isn’t a single outlet out there that simply lays out what happened. News does not exist anymore. Narratives do. Everything is so outlandish it’s insane!

[rb]

Show me one MSM outlet that doesn’t selectively quote or selectively cite information? There isn’t a single outlet out there that simply lays out what happened. News does not exist anymore. Narratives do. Everything is so outlandish it’s insane!

Reuters

[Guest Schwab711]

Totally agree. Every news site has some bias due to the writer, limitations due the trade-off between nuance and mass-appeal, and all sorts of other reasons. It's not possible to "just lay out what happened" without being accused of bias. Providing context obviously is necessary to lay out what happened, but that requires subjective judgement. Providing full detail is necessary to tell the truth, but the order you post the detail and what is or isn't considered relevant requires subjective judgement. That doesn't make something FAKE NEWS. It may lead you to prefer certain news outlets versus others, that's completely normal. There may be some annoyance with the pattern of subjective choices by certain outlets. They are often still reporting the news. Sometimes they make mistakes, but generally it's still the news. The news in the US very much exists.

 

All news should be confirmed, both on plausibility and among other sites. If 10 outlets all say something happened, it's likely that event occurred in at least some manner akin to the reporting (and maybe exactly as the reporting says). It's like history. Historians disagree on all sorts of nuance, but they generally agree events occurred in principle.

 

When I say that ZH is a bad news site, I'm not also saying you must read the Dailykos. You can get it from the Washington Times, Newsmax, Fox News, or whatever, I don't care. I have complained about the selective citation bias of those in the past in these types of conversations to make a point, but I still think they are at least credible journalistic enterprises and I read them. ZH is not credible.

 

Saying "news does not exist anymore" doesn't really make sense because it never existed then. News is generally more accurate today then at any point in US history.

 

[LC]

Zerohedge almost never provides first-hand source material nor provides any value-addition. They just create a narrative out of pre-existing events.

 

ZH is essentially useless to those who prefer to do their own thinking.

 

In contrast, established journalist outlets perform their own studies, their own information gathering, their own analysis (statistical or judgmental), and present both the methodology and the results.

 

This is useful information because it allows the reader to draw their own conclusions.

 

For example, for years now the Washington Post has maintained its own dataset of police violence. This is a valuable service because it can be used to independently validate statistics which are self-reported by government sources. Both sources disclose the methodology behind their dataset construction, and you can use this to form your own opinion on the extent of police violence. This is the healthy function of a journalistic enterprise.

[Gregmal]

See what most people dont realize is that the onus falls on you the individual, not the news outlet or "propaganda machine".

 

Example, a major headline front page on CNN's website.

 

"Marco Rubio's mind-blowing explanation of his impeachment vote"

 

So lets look at this here.

 

First, why, out of all the senators and congressmen, is Rubio targeted? (answer, probably because of his party affiliation)

 

Now lets look at the choice of words.

 

mind-blowing, is deliberately used to frame the subsequent info as abnormal, extraordinary, and defying logic.

 

attach mind blowing to impeachment vote, with the above framing, casts a negative and dubious connotation to what his vote was(which was a NO).

 

So now, whats happened here is that an event occurred. But what occurred, Senate voted(or Rubio voted), was not what was reported, but rather, they've slanted the presentation to 1) insinuate that Rubio is crazy, and that 2) his vote is ridiculous

 

They've surrounded everything with a bias, and the intent is to brainwash the reader into thinking that such behavior is so "ridiculous", that they give no thought to the original issue, being that, "the senate voted" and are much less likely to form their own opinion.

 

 

Further, if I wanted to be extraordinary like CNN, I could easily make the case that CNN and all of its employees deserve to be treated no different than the KKK. After all, both organizations peddle narratives that encroach upon the constitutional rights and the pursuit of happiness with the respect to anyone whom disagrees with them. Both, I am sure can theoretically have "some good people" but the overall message is not one of unity but divisiveness and hatred of those whom are different. In fact, CNN regularly promotes propaganda that undermines and attacks the President of the United States, and regularly roots against American interests in order to further push their agenda.

 

See how easy(and dangerous) all this shit is?

[no_free_lunch]

zerohedge is useful because it breaks news first.  However, they also lie and exaggerate.  So you are getting the news first, right and wrong, but you don't know if you can trust it.  If you really want to know, you have to verify everything they tell you.  No different than CNN, except CNN lies in a more selective information way.  I think it is a very useful data source as long as you treat it as suspect and do your own DD.

 

[rkbabang]

See what most people dont realize is that the onus falls on you the individual, not the news outlet or "propaganda machine".

 

Example, a major headline front page on CNN's website.

 

"Marco Rubio's mind-blowing explanation of his impeachment vote"

 

So lets look at this here.

 

First, why, out of all the senators and congressmen, is Rubio targeted? (answer, probably because of his party affiliation)

 

Now lets look at the choice of words.

 

mind-blowing, is deliberately used to frame the subsequent info as abnormal, extraordinary, and defying logic.

 

attach mind blowing to impeachment vote, with the above framing, casts a negative and dubious connotation to what his vote was(which was a NO).

 

So now, whats happened here is that an event occurred. But what occurred, Senate voted(or Rubio voted), was not what was reported, but rather, they've slanted the presentation to 1) insinuate that Rubio is crazy, and that 2) his vote is ridiculous

 

They've surrounded everything with a bias, and the intent is to brainwash the reader into thinking that such behavior is so "ridiculous", that they give no thought to the original issue, being that, "the senate voted" and are much less likely to form their own opinion.

 

 

Further, if I wanted to be extraordinary like CNN, I could easily make the case that CNN and all of its employees deserve to be treated no different than the KKK. After all, both organizations peddle narratives that encroach upon the constitutional rights and the pursuit of happiness with the respect to anyone whom disagrees with them. Both, I am sure can theoretically have "some good people" but the overall message is not one of unity but divisiveness and hatred of those whom are different. In fact, CNN regularly promotes propaganda that undermines and attacks the President of the United States, and regularly roots against American interests in order to further push their agenda.

 

See how easy(and dangerous) all this shit is?

 

I don't think you understand.  The people attacking ZH as biased agree with CNN, so that makes CNN legitimate and not biased.

 

As far as repeating things others report.  Have you ever seen the videos on youtube consisting of clips from multiple news outlets reporting on the same story using _EXACTLY_ the same words?  It's almost as someone scripted a narrative and told them all exactly what to say and how to say it. It is chilling how scripted the so-called "legitimate" news sources are.  When I have time I'll try to find some of these videos and I'll post them here.

 

[Guest Schwab711]

I think it's funny that CNN, NYT, WSJ, ect are all untrustworthy. Unless ZH quotes them verbatim, then ZH is trustworthy...

 

Comments on ZH have nothing to do with political leaning. Somehow any support for large news enterprises implies you must be the most lefty person imaginable that tithes to CNN. It's exhausting to debate anything subjective that has even the smallest association with Trump.

[rkbabang]

I think it's funny that CNN, NYT, WSJ, ect are all untrustworthy. Unless ZH quotes them verbatim, then ZH is trustworthy...

 

Comments on ZH have nothing to do with political leaning. Somehow any support for large news enterprises implies you must be the most lefty person imaginable that tithes to CNN. It's exhausting to debate anything subjective that has even the smallest association with Trump.

 

No the right wingers are just as bad with Fox News.  I wouldn't trust ZH any more than CNN, but no less either.  CNN, MSNBC, FOX NEWS all have biases that are in the opposite direction of mine, ZH has its biases in a direction closer to mine.  That doesn't make them trustworthy, but I know why I like reading it.  You however think that the mainstream news sources are somehow more legitimate, without realizing that the only reason you think this is because their biases line up better with your own.  Newsflash, not everyone you disagree with is a Russian Asset.

 

 

[wachtwoord]

I think it's funny that CNN, NYT, WSJ, ect are all untrustworthy. Unless ZH quotes them verbatim, then ZH is trustworthy...

 

Comments on ZH have nothing to do with political leaning. Somehow any support for large news enterprises implies you must be the most lefty person imaginable that tithes to CNN. It's exhausting to debate anything subjective that has even the smallest association with Trump.

 

Well the fact that ZH actually quotes and links their articles instead of rehash or copy without proper sourcing makes it better than CNN, NYT, WSJ, FOX et al.

 

I'm not saying ZH is amazing, in fact I agree with most of your criticisms of ZH. Still, all is relative and everything else is worse. Not many real journalists around nowadays. I mean there's wikileaks but their editor's in chief is getting tortured to death for his troubles and it doesn't publish day-to-day news.

 

It seems to always come back to this in a world of terrible quality. The same as with the whole Trump debate, I dislike Trump, but still consider him the best US president since Ronald Reagan. All the others were just that much worse.

 

I think no-free-lunch summarized nicely how ZH can be useful.

 

Edit:

 

+1 to rkbabang above. Agree with that word for word.

[Guest Schwab711]

If CNN, NYT, WSJ, FOX et al are writing without sourcing and ZH links to those sources to support their opinions...

 

That's my point about ZH support. Usually what ZH is praised for should apply to the media outlets their supporters hate (or the dislike for those outlets should be magnified on ZH for taking that work and further spinning it).

 

I appreciate that at least you are making an attempt to see my POV. We don't have to agree in conclusion.

 

@rkbabang

I never said Russian asset. Some guy on Twitter thinks so and some might think that opinion has merit. That's my point though. Just because I think ZH is a magnitude worse in sourcing issues relative to known media outlets and is undeservedly called a news source doesn't mean I think they are run by the FSB or that I love CNN. I only meant what I wrote.