Buffet’s last good move was the deal he got for Goldman Sachs in 2007. Then he said he was not going to invest in tech companies because he did not invest in businesses he did not understand, then he dumped a bunch of money in IBM which obviously did terrible, then he relented and finally bought a ton of Apple in 2014 or 2015, which has single-handedly saved Berkshire and kept it relevant.
I also would like to see objective proof of how well Burry has done since 2008 compared to the basically risk-less and cost-less VOO or VTI.
Apple, in absolute terms, has been his best investment (iirc). But yeah. The law of large numbers has gotten him. When you have to invest hundreds of billions, it’s impossible to keep compounding at high rates. I’d put a lot of money on Buffett beating the market if he was managing $50M.
One of Buffett’s built-in edges is access to cheap capital through his insurance companies [1]. That matters less in a low-interest rate environment, which has been the dominant regime for the last 20 years.
These days Apple is not really a "growth" prospect developing something speculative, it's more of a "cash cow" collecting rents.
The former would be the kind of "tech stock" he would avoid; the Apple of today (the latter) is the kind of predictable business Buffett does invest in.
I also would like to see objective proof of how well Burry has done since 2008 compared to the basically risk-less and cost-less VOO or VTI.