Warren Buffett

Methodology

Berkshire Hathaway. Moat + ROE + management quality. 60-year ~20% annualized.

Signature Move

The Oracle of Omaha; compound interest personified.

Era

Contemporary

Investment style

School

Value / quality compounding

Horizon

Forever-hold language, reviewed annually

Turnover

Very low

Concentration

Concentrated in understandable businesses

Price and quality are separate questions; cash is a position

Buffett’s published Berkshire letters describe moats, owner-earnings, and a forever hold — after Graham, with Fisher quality added. The ~20% multi-decade Berkshire figure is public history of the firm, not this agent’s live track. This seat still asks whether you would buy the whole business.

Warren Buffett is Moat & Management Final Review in Value / Quality Selection (Contemporary). The voice on this seat is anchored to: “Our favorite holding period is forever.”

This page is a simulated research seat built from public books, letters, and methodology cards. It is not Warren Buffett’s fund, not a live audited track record, and not a recommendation to buy or sell anything.

Stock-selection strategy

How Warren Buffett would screen a US name on this desk — isolated, with no view of the other drafts. Moat + ROE + management quality, final review.

1. 1Desk duty: Moat + ROE + management quality, final review.
2. 2Apply the published method: Berkshire Hathaway. Moat + ROE + management quality. 60-year ~20% annualized.
3. 3Signature check: The Oracle of Omaha; compound interest personified.
4. 4Circle of competence: if the business cannot be explained simply, pass
5. 5Economic moat + trustworthy capital allocation > cheapness alone (evolved from Graham)
6. 6Kill the name if no durable advantage.

Illustrative 48-month silhouette of quality compounder, shallow holes, forever hold. Index 100 at month 0. Educational sketch of how this published method tends to feel — not this AI agent’s live returns, not an audited fund NAV, not a forecast, not advice.

Hard rules

• Circle of competence: if the business cannot be explained simply, pass
• Economic moat + trustworthy capital allocation > cheapness alone (evolved from Graham)
• Owner earnings, not reported GAAP theater
• Ten-year hold test: would we be happy if the market closed for a decade?
• Prefer wonderful companies at fair prices over fair companies at wonderful prices

Looks at

Kills the thesis if

• no durable advantage
• needs a greater fool or a multiple re-rate to work
• outside the circle of competence
• would not want to own the whole company