How Warren Buffett made his money
"Despite Buffett's nearly perfect consistent advice over the past few decades, they don't reflect his earliest days.  His modern philosophy seemed to solidify in the 1970s. You can see that Buffett's earliest days grew faster, at 29.5 % for those partners willing to take on leverage with Buffett, than the last half century, at 19.7%. Not only is Buffett limited by size, as its quite difficult to squeeze one half trillion USD into sub-billion USD investments, but the economy thus market is far different than it was before the 1980s.  He would have to acquire at least 500 billion USD companies outright, and there simply aren't that many available that satisfy all of his modern conditions. The market is much different now than it was when he first started at Graham-Newman because before the 1960s, the economy thus market would collapse and rebound about every few years.  This sort of variance can actually help a value investor because a true value investor will abandon investments when valuations are high and go all in when valuations are low.  The most extreme example was when he tried to as quietly as possible buy up an insurance company selling for something like a P/E of 1 during one of the collapses.  These kinds of opportunities are seldom available anymore, not even during the 2009 collapse. As he became larger, those investments became off limits because it simply wasn't worth his time to find such a high returner if it's only a bare fraction of his wealth.  Also, he started to deviate from Benjamin Graham's methods and started to incorporate Philip Fisher's. By the 1970s, his investment philosophy was more or less cemented.  He tried to balance Graham's avarice for price with Fisher's for value. All of the commentary that special tax dodges or cheap financing are central to his returns are false.  They contributed, but they are ancillary. As one can see by comparing the limited vs general partners, leverage helps enormously, but this is still a tangent. Buffett has undoubtedly built his wealth from the nature of his investments.  The exact blueprint can be constructed by reading every word he has published and any quotes he has not disavowed.  Simply, he buys the highest quality companies in terms of risk-adjusted growth at the best available prices.  Quantitatively, it is a simple strategy to replicate.  NFLX was selling very cheaply during the mid-2000s, WDC sells frequently at low valuations, up and coming retailers frequently sell at low valuations, etc. The key to Buffett's method is emotional control and removing the mental block that price equals value; price is cost, value is revenue, and that concept is the hardest for most to imbibe.  Quoting from the first link: One sidelight here: it is extraordinary to me that the idea of buying dollar bills for 40 cents takes immediately to people or it doesn't take at all. It's like an inoculation. If it doesn't grab a person right away, I find that you can talk to him for years and show him records, and it doesn't make any difference. They just don't seem able to grasp the concept, simple as it is. A fellow like Rick Guerin, who had no formal education in business, understands immediately the value approach to investing and he's applying it five minutes later. I've never seen anyone who became a gradual convert over a ten-year period to this approach. It doesn't seem to be a matter of IQ or academic training. It's instant recognition, or it is nothing. and I'm convinced that there is much inefficiency in the market. These Graham-and-Doddsville investors have successfully exploited gaps between price and value. When the price of a stock can be influenced by a ""herd"" on Wall Street with prices set at the margin by the most emotional person, or the greediest person, or the most depressed person, it is hard to argue that the market always prices rationally. In fact, market prices are frequently nonsensical. and finally  Success in investing doesn’t correlate with I.Q. once you’re above the level of 25. Once you have ordinary intelligence, what you need is the temperament to control the urges that get other people into trouble in investing. There is almost no information on any who has helped Buffett internally or even managed Berkshire's investments aside from Louis Simpson. It is unlikely that Buffett has allowed anyone to manage much of Berkshire's investments considering the consistent stream of commentary from him claiming that he nearly does nothing except read annual reports all day to the extent that he may have neglected his family to some degree and that listening to others will more likely hurt performance than help with the most striking example being his father's recommendation that he not open a hedge fund after retiring from Graham-Newman because he believed the market was topping, and he absolutely idolized his father." "There is actually a recent paper that attempted to decompose Buffett's outperformance. I've quoted the abstract below: ""Berkshire Hathaway has realized a Sharpe ratio of 0.76, higher than any other stock or mutual fund with a history of more than 30 years, and Berkshire has a significant alpha to traditional risk factors. However, we find that the alpha becomes insignificant when controlling for exposures to Betting-Against-Beta and Quality-Minus-Junk factors. Further, we estimate that Buffett’s leverage is about 1.6-to-1 on average. Buffett’s returns appear to be neither luck nor magic, but, rather, reward for the use of leverage combined with a focus on cheap, safe, quality stocks. Decomposing Berkshires’ portfolio into ownership in publicly traded stocks versus wholly-owned private companies, we find that the former performs the best, suggesting that Buffett’s returns are more due to stock selection than to his effect on management. These results have broad implications for market efficiency and the implementability of academic factors."""
I don’t know specifics of the situation but one possibility would be that Buffett may have billions in various assets etc companies he owns, stocks bonds, but if he doesn’t sell any of those stocks or cash in any of those bonds, then on paper he didn’t make any money that year because he’s letting the assets appreciate. I would say net income is the amount of income you claimed that year, so if you had sold some stock, the amount of money you sold them for would be your income. As opposed to net worth being “if they wanted to” if Buffett sold all of his stocks and assets, he would be able to get billions for it. So while he technically is worth billions, on his tax returns he doesn’t claim much income. /u/Dexter0_0 - Additionally, nominal dollars should be adjusted for inflation using the [core PCE price deflator](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DPCCRG3A086NBEA). For instance, $5,000 in 1944 (when Mr. Buffett was 14), would feel like $48,000.  /u/jaasx - the trailing off in the later years is more likely do to the difficulty of earning high rates of returns on large piles of money (i.e. diminishing marginal returns). [Here are Mr. Buffett's own words](https://valuebin.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/warren-buffett-on-investing-small-sums-of-money/), and can be seen in the stock price of Berkshire Hathaway (appreciating more slowly in recent decades than in the '70s &amp; '80s). "US federal tax law distinguishes many types of income. For most people, most of their income is ""earned income"", money you were paid to do a job. Another category of income is ""capital gains"", money you made from the sale of an asset. For a variety of reasons, capital gains tax rates are lower than earned income tax rates. (For example, it is common that much of the gain is not real profit but inflation. If you buy an asset for $10,000 and sell it for $15,000, you pay capital gains tax on the $5,000 profit. But what if prices in general since you bought the asset have gone up 50%? Then your entire profit is really inflation, you didn't actually make any money -- but you still have to pay a tax on the paper gain.) So if you make your money by investing in assets -- buying and selling at a profit -- you will pay lower taxes than if you made the same amount of money by receiving a salary from a job, or by running a business where you sell your time and expertise rather than an asset. But money made from assets -- capital gains -- is not tax free. It's just a lower tax. It MIGHT be that when combined with other deductions and tax credits this would result in you paying no taxes in a particular year. Maybe you could avoid paying taxes forever if you can take advantage of tax loopholes. But for most people, making money from capital gains could result in lower taxes per dollar of income than someone doing more ordinary work. Or it could result in higher taxes, if you factor in inflation, net present value of money, and so on. BTW Warren Buffet's ""secretary"" is not a typist. She apparently makes at least $200,000 a year. http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/01/25/warren-buffetts-secretary-likely-makes-between-200000-and-500000year/#ab91f3718b8a. And side note: if Warren Buffet thinks he isn't paying enough in taxes, why doesn't he voluntarily pay more? The government has a web site where citizens can voluntarily pay additional taxes. In 2015 they received $3.9 million in such contributions. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm" "That's just his base salary for last year.  Keep reading in the article: He also received $1.6 million worth of securit[ies]. Plus, he's probably earned plenty in salary, bonuses, and other compensation in previous years to more than keep up his lifestyle.  He can also sell (relatively) small amounts of the stock he already owns to get millions in cash without raising an eyebrow. how are people able to spend more than what they make, without going into debt? Well, people can't spend more than they have without going into debt. Certainly money can be saved, won, inherited, whatever without being ""earned"".  Other than that, debt is the only option. That said, MANY ""wealthy"" people will spend WAY more than they have by going into debt.  This can be done through huge mortgages, personal loans using stock, real estate, or other assets as collateral, etc.  I don't know about Bezos specifically, but it's not uncommon for ""wealthy"" people to live beyond their means - they just have more assets behind them to secure personal loans, or bankers are more willing to lend them unsecured money because of the large interest rates they can charge.  Their assumption is presumably that the interest they'll pay on these loans is less than the earnings they'll get from the asset (e.g. stock, real estate).  While it may be true in some cases, it can also go bad and cause you to lose everything." The main thing you're missing is that while you bear all the costs of manipulating the market, you have no special ability to capture the profits yourself. You make money by buying low and selling high. But if you want to push the price up, you have to keep buying even though the price is getting high. So you are buying high. This gives everyone, including you, the opportunity to sell high and make money. But you will have no special ability to capture that -- others will see the price going up and will start selling within a tiny fraction of a second. You will have to keep buying all the shares they keep selling at the artificially inflated price. So as you keep trying to buy more and more to push the price up enough to make money, everyone else is selling their shares to you. You have to buy more and more shares at an inflated price as everyone else is selling while you are still buying. When you switch to selling, the price will drop instantly, since there's nobody to buy from you at the inflated price. The opportunity you created has already been taken -- by the very people you were trading with. Billions have been lost by people who thought this strategy would work. "First of all, the annual returns are an average, there are probably some years where their return was several thousand percent,  this can make a decade of 2% a year become an average of 20% . Second of all, accredited investors are allowed to do many things that the majority of the population cannot do. Although this is mostly tied to net worth, less than 3% of the US population is registered as accredited investors. Accredited Investors are allowed to participate in private offerings of securities that do not have to be registered with the SEC, although theoretically riskier, these can have greater returns. Indeed a lot of companies that go public these days only do so after the majority of the growth potential is done. For example, a company like Facebook in the 90s would have gone public when it was a million dollar company, instead Facebook went public when it was already a 100 billion dollar company. The people that were privileged enough to be ALLOWED to invest in Facebook while it was private, experienced 10000% returns, public stock market investors from Facebook's IPO have experienced a nearly 100% return, in comparison. Third, there are even more rules that are simply different between the ""underclass"" and the ""upperclass"". Especially when it comes to leverage, the rules on margin in the stock market and options markets are simply different between classes of investors. The more capital you have, the less you actually have to use to open a trade. Imagine a situation where a retail investor can invest in a stock by only putting down 25% of the value of the stock's shares. Someone with the net worth of an accredited investor could put down 5% of the value of the shares. So if the stock goes up, the person that already has money would earn a greater percentage than the peon thats actually investing to earn money at all. Fourth, Warren Buffett's fund and George Soros' funds aren't just in stocks. George Soros' claim to fame was taking big bets in the foreign exchange market. The leverage in that market is much greater than one can experience in the stock market. Fifth, Options. Anyone can open an options contract, but getting someone else to be on the other side of it is harder. Someone with clout can negotiate a 10 year options contract for pretty cheap and gain greatly if their stock or other asset appreciates in value much greater. There are cultural limitations that prompt some people to make a distinction between investing and gambling, but others are not bound by those limitations and can take any kind of bet they like." "Warren Buffett pointed out that if you set 1 million monkeys to flipping coins, after ten flips, one monkey in about 1,000 (1,024) actually, would have a ""perfect"" track record of 10 heads. If you can double your money every three to five years (basically, the outer limit of what is humanly possible), you can turn $1,000 into $1 million in 30-50 years. But your chances of doing this are maybe those of that one in 1,000 monkeys. There are people that believe that if Warren Buffett were starting out today, ""today's version"" could not beat the historical version. One of the ""believers"" is Warren Buffett himself (if you read between the lines of his writings). What the promoters do is to use the benefit of hindsight to show that if someone had done such-and-such trades on such-and-such days, they would have turned a few thousand into a million in a few short years. That's ""easy"" in hindsight, but then challenge them to do it in real time!" Shit article that displays the author has no farming idea of how Warren Buffet operates.    The man has metrics that tell him when shares are too expensive. When this happens, he doesn't buy, and dividends can tend to accumulate when you have almost $500 billion in assets (which could just be 2 years of 5% dividend yields).   If they are expensive, he won't buy, and money will accumulate. When there is a crash, he buys on the cheap. That how you get 23% of Year-on-year gains for 40 years.   The fact that he is not buying does indicate that the market is overvalued, which is consistent with the fact that there is still a substantial amount of QE. The question is: what will happen as the Fed winds it down. They are aiming for a small decrease or leveling out of the stock market. If that happens, and the market stagnates for a couple of years, maybe the metrics will catch up and he will buy again without a crash happening. I could be wrong, but I doubt that Bernie started out with any intention of defrauding anyone, really.  I suspect it began the first time he hit a quarter when his returns were lower than everyone else's, or at least not as high as he'd promised his investors they'd be, so he fudged the numbers and lied to get past the moment, thinking he'd just make up for it the next quarter.  Only that never happened, and so the lie carried forward and maybe grew as things didn't improve as he expected. It only turned into a ponzi because he wasn't as successful at investing as he was telling his investors he was, and telling the truth would have meant the probability that he would have lost most of his clients as they went elsewhere.  Bernie couldn't admit the truth, so he had to keep up the fiction by actually paying out returns that didn't exist, which required constantly finding new money to cover what he was paying out.  The source of that money turned out to be new investors who were lured in by people already investing with Bernie who told them how great he was as a financial wizard, and they had the checks to prove it. I think this got so far out of hand, and it gradually dragged more and more people in because such things turn into black holes, swallowing up everything that gets close. Had the 2008 financial crisis not hit then Bernie might still be at it.  The rapid downturns in the markets hit many of Bernie's investors with margin calls in other investments they held, so they requested redemptions from him to cover their calls, expecting that all of the money he'd convinced to leave with him really existed.  When he realized he couldn't meet the flood of redemptions, that was when he 'fessed up and the bubble burst. Could he have succeeded by simple investing in Berkshire?  Probably.  But then how many people say that in hindsight about them or Amazon or Google, or any number of other stocks that turned out similarly? (grin)  Taking people's money and parking it all in one stock doesn't make you a genius, and that's how Bernie wanted to be viewed.  To accomplish that, he needed to find the opportunities nobody else saw and be the one to get there first.  Unfortunately his personal crystal ball was wrong, and rather than taking his lumps by admitting it to his investors, his pride and ego led him down a path of deception that I'm sure he had every intention of making right if he could.  The problem was, that moment never came. Keep in mind one thing:  The $64 billion figure everyone cites isn't money that really existed in the first place.  That number is what Bernie claimed his fund was worth, and it is not the amount he actually defrauded people out of.  His actual cash intake was probably somewhere in the $20 billion range over that time.  Everything else beyond that was nothing more than the fictionalized returns he was claiming to get for his clients.  It's what they thought they had in the bank with him, rather than what was really there. Do you think Buffet's track record is a result of luck?   Also it is tough to compare Singer and Buffet because their strategies are so different. Paul Singer's investing focuses on activism &amp; distress, whereas Buffet is a value investor. Yes, because we don't want to be China. It also helps stimulate an economy to have your largest portion get most of the wealth.      Warren Buffett can only eat one meal at a time, live in one house at a time, and only has so much time in his day. If you give his yearly salary to 150 people that are right now unable to do any of those things, they will put that money to better use. "Consultant, I commend you for thinking about your financial future at such an early age. Warren Buffet, arguably the most successful investor ever lived, and the best known student of Ben Graham has a very simple advice for non-professional investors:  ""Put 10% of the cash in short-term government bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund. (I suggest Vanguard’s.)"" This quote is from his 2013 letter to shareholders. Source: http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2013ltr.pdf Buffet's annual letters to shareholders are the wealth of useful and practical wisdom for building one's financial future. The logic behind his advice is that most investors cannot consistently pick stock ""winners"", additionally, they are not able to predict timing of the market; hence, one has to simply stay in the market, and win over in the long run." This has never really adequately explained it for me, and I've tried reading up on it all over the place. For a long time I thought that in a trade, the market maker pockets the spread *for that trade*, but that's not the case.  The only sensible explanation I've found (which I'm not going to give in full...) is that the market maker will provide liquidity by buying and selling trades they have no actual view on (short or long), and if the spread is higher, that contributes directly to the amount they make over time when they open and close positions they've made.  It would be great to see a single definitive example somewhere that shows how a market maker makes money. "my problem with your argument is its base falseness: ""During the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis, Goldman was able to profit from the collapse in subprime mortgage bonds in the summer of 2007 by short-selling subprime mortgage-backed securities. Two Goldman traders, Michael Swenson and Josh Birnbaum, are credited with bearing responsibility for the firm's large profits during America's sub-prime mortgage crisis. The pair, members of Goldman's structured products group in New York, made a profit of $4 billion by ""betting"" on a collapse in the sub-prime market, and shorting mortgage-related securities.""  that is wikipedia, but they seem to know what is going on better than you do so..." "We just got in an argument in another thread, and I don't necessarily want to continue it, but was browsing your comments and saw this. I can say from personal experience (I have several high net worth clients) that this isn't true. The rich do the opposite of leave their money laying around. They invest it to make more money. They buy office buildings, fund new companies, buy up stocks, and drive investment in general. Someone has to do these things. Office buildings can't just be owned by ""the people"". Someone with a ton of money has to come along and fund them.   For example, one of my friends knows Elon Musk (founder of Pay-Pal, Tesla Motors, Solar City, and Space X). He is *worth* $2 billion, but was living on other people's couches (including my friend's) after he sold Pay-Pal because he had just poured all of his cash into starting Tesla Motors. He was a billionaire without a penny to his name (well I'm sure he had a little cash lying around, but was essentially asset rich, cash broke).   THAT is what most ultra rich people are like. They invest their money, they don't just horde it away in a savings account. The things people like Musk do create jobs and sometimes entire industries (or three entire industries in his case). I'm by no means arguing that this is right or wrong, but to say rich people just have money lying around is absurd. You don't get rich by saving money in the bank, you get rich by spending it.  I'm in my early 20's, but already own multiple apartment buildings. I'm not rich yet and am in the same boat as Musk was. I have tons of assets, but almost no cash I can spend. However, you bet my efforts are creating jobs. I'm employing people to renovate and people to repair and maintain these buildings. I'm helping stop the bleeding in the real estate market, but, according to the narrative, I'm evil because my ""income"" is six figures."