The founding irony: Berkshire Hathaway was a bad investment
In 1965, Buffett took control of Berkshire Hathaway, then a New England textile company in structural decline against Asian competition, which he himself would later admit was one of his worst deals. The irony is notable: the vehicle that would go on to become synonymous worldwide with investing success was born from a miscalculation Buffett spent years correcting, gradually redirecting the dying textile firm's capital toward insurance and other far more profitable acquisitions.
That ability to recognize a mistake and redirect capital without emotional attachment to the original business is, in itself, as important a lesson as any of his later successful investments.
The philosophy: buying understandable businesses at a reasonable price
Trained under the direct influence of Benjamin Graham, considered the father of value investing, Buffett developed a criterion that's relatively simple to explain though hard to execute with discipline: invest in businesses whose profit-generating model is clearly understood, that have a durable competitive advantage (a 'moat'), and that trade at a reasonable price relative to their real long-term cash-generating ability.
His famous 'Rule No. 1: never lose money. Rule No. 2: never forget rule No. 1' doesn't mean avoiding any short-term loss, something impossible even for him, but avoiding decisions that could permanently destroy capital: overpaying, over-leveraging, or investing in businesses you don't really understand.
- Buy understandable businesses, not just stocks that are going up.
- Look for a durable competitive advantage over rivals.
- Pay a reasonable price relative to the business's cash-generating ability.
- Hold the investment for years or decades, not months.
A real example: the 1988 Coca-Cola investment
in 1988, after the October 1987 stock market crash had left many large companies' valuations below what Buffett considered reasonable, Berkshire Hathaway began buying shares of Coca-Cola, a brand with an obvious competitive advantage and a business model Buffett could explain in a single sentence. He held that position with barely any changes for more than three decades, collecting growing dividends year after year and watching the stake's value multiply many times over the original investment, with no need for any further trading or predicting any short-term market move.
Why six decades of 19% a year beat any single big bet
The mathematical key behind Buffett's success isn't an annual return dramatically higher than the market's (19-20% versus 10% for the S&P 500 is a notable difference, but not an enormous one in any single year), but the number of years he's sustained it, nearly six decades, letting compound interest multiply that gap exponentially. A slightly higher return sustained for decades ends up generating a much larger final wealth gap than a spectacular return achieved in a single episode, however dramatic it makes for a story.
That's why Buffett has repeatedly recommended, for the vast majority of individual investors who don't have his time or analytical ability, something much simpler than replicating his own strategy: investing consistently in a low-cost index fund and holding it for as long as possible.
The final contrast: why this bet is the hardest to copy
Compared to the stories of Soros, Burry, or Livermore, Buffett's case has almost no narrative drama: there's no single day when he made a billion dollars, no concentrated bet that changed everything overnight. And yet it's probably the strategy with the best cumulative results in this entire series, precisely because it didn't depend on getting a single market moment right, but on sticking to the same approach, without wavering, for longer than most investors manage to sustain their patience.
That, ultimately, is the lesson that closes this series: the most intriguing bets to tell (Soros, Burry, Livermore) require an exceptional combination of information, conviction, and the ability to withstand pressure that almost no one possesses on a sustained basis. Buffett's strategy, by contrast, is replicable by anyone with consistency and patience, even if 'boring and steady for 60 years' will never make as good a movie as 'a genius makes a billion dollars in 24 hours.'
Apply This Knowledge to Your Real Finances
eXcenda combines net worth, expenses, simulations, and macro context into a single app so you can move from theory to action.
Frequently Asked Questions
Berkshire Hathaway's per-share book value has compounded at roughly 19-20% annually since Buffett took control in 1965, versus an average of about 10% a year for the S&P 500 over the same period.
Because he recognizes that his own level of analysis, time invested, and access to information isn't replicable by the vast majority of individual investors, for whom a low-cost index fund usually delivers, with far less effort and risk, a more consistent long-term result.
It doesn't mean avoiding any single loss, which is unavoidable even for Buffett, but avoiding decisions that could permanently and irreversibly destroy capital, like overpaying for an asset or taking on excessive leverage.
Berkshire Hathaway started buying Coca-Cola shares in 1988 and has held that position, with very few changes, for more than three decades.
Exactly replicating his individual stock picks is very difficult, but the underlying principle (investing consistently, avoiding excessive leverage, and holding the investment for as long as possible) is within reach of any disciplined individual investor.