
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Why is Warren Buffett so revered?
Posted on 9/25/26 at 2:33 pm
Posted on 9/25/26 at 2:33 pm
ChatGpt: Why Buffett is so revered? His last 20 years tracks the market, not outperfroms it.
Warren Buffett is revered primarily because of the extraordinary length and consistency of his record, not because Berkshire has beaten the S&P 500 every year or even every recent decade.
Berkshire Hathaway's official figures through 2025 show vs. S&P.
1965–2025 19.7%/yr vs 10.5%/yr
2005–2025 10.8%/yr vs 10.7%/yr
Warren Buffett is revered primarily because of the extraordinary length and consistency of his record, not because Berkshire has beaten the S&P 500 every year or even every recent decade.
Berkshire Hathaway's official figures through 2025 show vs. S&P.
1965–2025 19.7%/yr vs 10.5%/yr
2005–2025 10.8%/yr vs 10.7%/yr
This post was edited on 9/25/26 at 2:56 pm
Posted on 9/25/26 at 2:52 pm to ItzMe1972
Take away Apple, which he did not even want to invest in (fortunately he listens to Todd Combs and Ted Weschler) and the numbers are worse.
Posted on 9/25/26 at 3:03 pm to go ta hell ole miss
He had an investment approach and it worked. If you would’ve invested with him since 1965 you would be mighty happy.
Very few of us could replicate his success over a 60 year period
Very few of us could replicate his success over a 60 year period
Posted on 9/25/26 at 3:39 pm to ItzMe1972
Warren Buffett is the undisputed long-duration champion. From 1965 through end of 2024, Berkshire's shares rose 5,502,284% — a 19.9% annualized compound return vs the S&P's 10.4% over the same six decades. The caveat: over the last 10–20 years it's been a different story — Berkshire has trailed the market since January 2009. His edge is duration — no one else has beaten the market across 60 years.
Peter Lynch posted the highest rate of return of any institutional manager over his run. The Magellan Fund generated a 29% annualized compound return after fees during Lynch's 13-year tenure, delivering cumulative returns of 27 times — while the S&P 500 gained only 4.7 times over the same period. Despite those 29% annualized returns over 13 years, the average Magellan investor actually lost money — because investors consistently bought after strong performance and sold after drawdowns. A lesson unto itself.
Stanley Druckenmiller is arguably the most impressive on a risk-adjusted basis. As the Quantum Fund's lead portfolio manager, he helped George Soros pull off one of the single greatest trades — breaking the Bank of England in 1992 with a bet against the British pound that netted a $1B payday. By the time he closed Duquesne in 2010, he had generated 30% average annual returns with no down years across nearly three decades. Zero losing years over 30 years may be the single hardest feat in this group — Buffett and Lynch both had down stretches relative to the market.
For fun:
Chris Camillo is the outlier — spectacular raw numbers, but with major asterisks. His nearly 15-year track record from 2006 to 2020 boasts an average 77% annual compounded return, confirmed by Jack Schwager, starting with a balance of $84,000 and growing to $42 million in cumulative profits by May 2021. The critical limits: this is a personal account, not institutional capital. Strategy scalability is essentially zero — his approach involves data-mining social media platforms to identify and capitalize on early trends before they become mainstream. You can't run that at $10B. Druckenmiller himself noted that managing more than $10B strained his ability to maintain returns.
Peter Lynch posted the highest rate of return of any institutional manager over his run. The Magellan Fund generated a 29% annualized compound return after fees during Lynch's 13-year tenure, delivering cumulative returns of 27 times — while the S&P 500 gained only 4.7 times over the same period. Despite those 29% annualized returns over 13 years, the average Magellan investor actually lost money — because investors consistently bought after strong performance and sold after drawdowns. A lesson unto itself.
Stanley Druckenmiller is arguably the most impressive on a risk-adjusted basis. As the Quantum Fund's lead portfolio manager, he helped George Soros pull off one of the single greatest trades — breaking the Bank of England in 1992 with a bet against the British pound that netted a $1B payday. By the time he closed Duquesne in 2010, he had generated 30% average annual returns with no down years across nearly three decades. Zero losing years over 30 years may be the single hardest feat in this group — Buffett and Lynch both had down stretches relative to the market.
For fun:
Chris Camillo is the outlier — spectacular raw numbers, but with major asterisks. His nearly 15-year track record from 2006 to 2020 boasts an average 77% annual compounded return, confirmed by Jack Schwager, starting with a balance of $84,000 and growing to $42 million in cumulative profits by May 2021. The critical limits: this is a personal account, not institutional capital. Strategy scalability is essentially zero — his approach involves data-mining social media platforms to identify and capitalize on early trends before they become mainstream. You can't run that at $10B. Druckenmiller himself noted that managing more than $10B strained his ability to maintain returns.
Posted on 9/25/26 at 3:42 pm to bayoubengals88
Ken Griffin belongs in the conversation — and he's genuinely underrated in public discourse. Here's the full picture:
The numbers: From 1990 through 2024, Citadel has produced compound annual returns of 19.5%. Citadel's flagship Wellington fund has delivered annualized returns after fees of ~19.1% since inception, according to an investor in the fund. That puts him right alongside Buffett on long-run annualized return — but Buffett didn't charge 2-and-20.
Scale: Citadel has grown to about $67 billion in assets under management as of early August 2025. That's institutional at the highest level — not a personal account, not a small fund.
Peak year: In 2022, Citadel chalked up a $16 billion profit for investors, making it the best ever annual return for a hedge fund — surpassing John Paulson's previous record of $15.6 billion in 2007. In that same year, the average hedge fund lost 4.25%, while Citadel's flagship Wellington fund returned 38.1%.
The ugly asterisk: Citadel came close to collapse during the 2008–09 financial crisis, reporting a 55% loss that wouldn't be fully recovered until 2012, and was forced to suspend withdrawals — a restriction that infuriated investors. That's the single biggest knock on Griffin's record. Druckenmiller had zero down years. Griffin nearly blew up.
The numbers: From 1990 through 2024, Citadel has produced compound annual returns of 19.5%. Citadel's flagship Wellington fund has delivered annualized returns after fees of ~19.1% since inception, according to an investor in the fund. That puts him right alongside Buffett on long-run annualized return — but Buffett didn't charge 2-and-20.
Scale: Citadel has grown to about $67 billion in assets under management as of early August 2025. That's institutional at the highest level — not a personal account, not a small fund.
Peak year: In 2022, Citadel chalked up a $16 billion profit for investors, making it the best ever annual return for a hedge fund — surpassing John Paulson's previous record of $15.6 billion in 2007. In that same year, the average hedge fund lost 4.25%, while Citadel's flagship Wellington fund returned 38.1%.
The ugly asterisk: Citadel came close to collapse during the 2008–09 financial crisis, reporting a 55% loss that wouldn't be fully recovered until 2012, and was forced to suspend withdrawals — a restriction that infuriated investors. That's the single biggest knock on Griffin's record. Druckenmiller had zero down years. Griffin nearly blew up.
Posted on 9/25/26 at 4:02 pm to ItzMe1972
quote:
His last 20 years tracks the market, not outperfroms it.
I'm not a WB fan, but it's harder to find meaningful opportunities the larger you grow. Eventually you get too big for your pond and see your returns diminish unless you can diversify into other things that can match your prior returns (which is rare).
Posted on 9/25/26 at 4:21 pm to ItzMe1972
I respect him because dude is worth $150b and he drives around in a 10+yr old Cadillac that he bought from a hail damage sale.
Posted on 9/25/26 at 5:16 pm to bayoubengals88
Meh, Jim Simon’s is the goat. 60%+ returns for 30 years straight.
Posted on 9/25/26 at 5:19 pm to ItzMe1972
He’s a due diligence investor that’s always been relentless. Back in the day basic information equaled asymmetry if you were hard working and willing to verify it. He comes from the school of “find companies that are massively cheap by any measure and buy them.” It wasn’t easy but it was possible. It’s not a thing anymore.
Posted on 9/25/26 at 7:15 pm to Shepherd88
Even after their high fees, RenTech's CAGR is about 40%.
Others off the top of my head:
Jane Street's net trading revenues basically doubled in both 2024 and 2025, thought their overall CAGR isn't public information.
Victor Niederhoffer's CAGR before his first blow up was 35%, and his second fund did 50% before it blew up.
Paul Tudor Jones is just 19%, but he beat VN over the long run.
Others off the top of my head:
Jane Street's net trading revenues basically doubled in both 2024 and 2025, thought their overall CAGR isn't public information.
Victor Niederhoffer's CAGR before his first blow up was 35%, and his second fund did 50% before it blew up.
Paul Tudor Jones is just 19%, but he beat VN over the long run.
Posted on 9/25/26 at 7:16 pm to ItzMe1972
I think his strategy is more duration and smarter, safer investments and proper hedging to ensure steady growth, not being a person who can pick hot stocks that will shoot up and get you rich quick.
He is just good at managing risk and understanding how the market works. Patience, smart informed investments based on metrics, and not letting emotions guide decisions. His way is guaranteed success, not high risk gambling. A regular person can follow his strategy and end up with a nice retirement and financially secure with plenty to leave his/her descendants. Not a “get rich quick with high risk potentially high percentage returns ” investment strategy
He is just good at managing risk and understanding how the market works. Patience, smart informed investments based on metrics, and not letting emotions guide decisions. His way is guaranteed success, not high risk gambling. A regular person can follow his strategy and end up with a nice retirement and financially secure with plenty to leave his/her descendants. Not a “get rich quick with high risk potentially high percentage returns ” investment strategy
Posted on 9/25/26 at 8:05 pm to ItzMe1972
What’s left unstated is he became the go-to source for troubled corporations who would also sell him equity at a discount just to say Warren Buffet took a stake.
I’d be extremely surprised if Berkshire sees those fortuitous benefits moving forward.
I’d be extremely surprised if Berkshire sees those fortuitous benefits moving forward.
Posted on 9/25/26 at 9:17 pm to ItzMe1972
Because he was rich and talked to average investors with simple plans that worked.
Like John Bogle he preached realistic approaches for average Americans that could be relied upon that were not subject to the up and down of the markets.
Once again his company didn't follow the same strategies but he told you why in plain English
Like John Bogle he preached realistic approaches for average Americans that could be relied upon that were not subject to the up and down of the markets.
Once again his company didn't follow the same strategies but he told you why in plain English
Posted on 9/25/26 at 9:25 pm to ItzMe1972
Buy blue chips. Drip the dividends. Continue buying next big thing blue chips. Hold for 60 years. Walk away winning.
Still waiting on OXY to moon.
Still waiting on OXY to moon.

Popular
Back to top
10












