The Oracle and The Echo: Deconstructing "What's Wrong, Warren?" and Its Enduring Relevance

Executive Summary#

In December 1999, at the zenith of the dot-com bubble, Barron's published a cover story titled "What's Wrong, Warren?". The article, while epically mistimed in its immediate conclusion, was remarkably prescient in identifying the central challenge that would define Warren Buffett's investment philosophy for the next quarter-century: adapting his value-investing principles to a market and an economy increasingly dominated by technology. This report provides a comprehensive analysis of that seminal article, its immediate aftermath, and its profound, echoing relevance in the contemporary financial landscape.

The analysis demonstrates that Buffett's initial, spectacular vindication during the 2000-2002 market crash—a period in which his company, Berkshire Hathaway, soared while the technology-heavy NASDAQ Composite collapsed—was only the first chapter of a much more complex story. The subsequent two decades revealed a persistent and statistically significant decline in Berkshire's ability to outperform the S&P 500 index. This long-term trend forced a strategic evolution, culminating in Buffett's landmark investment in Apple, a move that represented not an abandonment of his principles but a crucial adaptation of them to the realities of the digital age.

Today, the primary criticisms leveled at Berkshire Hathaway—its monumental cash hoard, the looming question of succession, and its ongoing struggle to consistently beat the market—are modern echoes of the same fundamental question posed in 1999. However, these challenges are no longer rooted in a perceived failure to understand a new paradigm, but are instead the direct consequences of the immense scale of Buffett's success. The original article questioned his philosophy; today's debates question the mathematical limits of that philosophy when applied to a trillion-dollar enterprise. "What's Wrong, Warren?" has thus transformed from a failed market call into a timeless case study on strategic adaptation, the psychology of market cycles, and the enduring tension between value and growth.

Part I: The Crucible of 1999: Anatomy of a Challenge#

The question posed by Barron's in late 1999 was far more than a simple critique of a single year's stock performance. It was a direct ideological challenge to an entire worldview of investing, delivered at a moment when the market seemed convinced that the old rules no longer applied. To understand the article's impact and subsequent legacy, one must first reconstruct the unique economic and psychological crucible in which it was forged.

A Market Unmoored: The Dot-Com Mania#

The economic environment of late 1999 was characterized by a speculative fervor of historic proportions. Fueled by the transformative potential of the internet and lubricated by low interest rates, the U.S. stock market was operating at "break-neck speed". The technology-centric NASDAQ Composite index, the epicenter of the mania, produced a "mind-boggling" annual return of 85.59% in 1999 alone, having risen 400% between 1995 and its peak in March 2000. The Dow Jones Industrial Average crossed the 10,000 and 11,000 thresholds for the first time in history, while the federal government reported its second consecutive budget surplus after three decades of deficits.

This was not merely a bull market; it was a paradigm shift in investor psychology. Traditional metrics of corporate valuation were actively and openly dismissed as relics of a bygone era. An article in The Wall Street Journal suggested that investors should "re-think" the "quaint idea" of profits. This sentiment was reflected in valuations that defied historical precedent. At its peak, the NASDAQ Composite traded at a price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of 200, a figure that dwarfed even the peak P/E of 80 seen during the Japanese asset price bubble of the late 1980s. Investors, both institutional and retail, poured capital into companies that had never made a profit, and in some cases, had yet to generate any material revenue or even finalize a product. The focus shifted from earnings to metrics like "eyeballs" and market share, with the belief that profitability would inevitably follow dominance.

The cultural zeitgeist mirrored this financial euphoria. The top-rated television show was Who Wants to be a Millionaire, capturing the public's widespread aspiration for rapid wealth creation. Stories of individuals quitting their jobs to become day traders were common. Jeff Bezos, founder of the then-unprofitable Amazon.com, was named TIME's Person of the Year, symbolizing the ascendancy of the internet innovator over the traditional captain of industry. This environment created a powerful feedback loop: rising stock prices validated the "New Economy" thesis, which in turn attracted more capital, driving prices even higher.

The challenge leveled against Warren Buffett, therefore, was not simply that his portfolio was lagging the market. It was an ideological accusation. The market was not just overvalued; it was perceived to be operating under a new set of rules where the internet had permanently altered the fundamentals of business. The question "What's Wrong, Warren?" was an assertion that he was a relic, intellectually and strategically irrelevant in a world that had, supposedly, changed forever. This context explains the article's confident, almost dismissive, tone; it was not just questioning a strategy but declaring it obsolete.

The Case Against the Oracle: A Forensic Analysis of the Barron's Article#

Published on December 27, 1999, Andrew Bary's article in Barron's crystallized the prevailing sentiment against Buffett. Its core thesis was stated bluntly in the opening line: "After more than 30 years of unrivaled investment success, Warren Buffett may be losing his magic touch".

The primary evidence for this claim was Berkshire Hathaway's severe underperformance in 1999. At the time of publication, Berkshire's Class A stock was down approximately 23% for the year, a stark contrast to the S&P 500's 18% total return. Berkshire's own annual report would later confirm the staggering deficit: the company's per-share book value increased by a mere 0.5% in 1999, while the S&P 500 delivered a total return of 21.0%, resulting in a 20.5 percentage point underperformance—the second-worst relative performance in the company's history since 1965.

The critique presented in the article was multifaceted, painting a picture of an aging investor unable to grasp the new realities of the market:

• Out of Touch: The article portrayed Buffett, who was approaching his 70th birthday, as "too conservative, even passe". This framing tapped into the era's obsession with youth and novelty, positioning Buffett as a figure of the past.

• Failure to Adapt: The central accusation was that Buffett "hasn't anticipated or capitalized on the boom in technology stocks in the past few years". This was seen not as a strategic choice but as a critical failure of vision.

• Anachronistic Portfolio: The composition of Berkshire's holdings was openly derided. One contributor to an internet message board, quoted in the article, called Berkshire a "middlebrow insurance company studded with a bizarre melange of assets, including candy stores, hamburger stands, jewelry shops, a shoemaker and a third-rate encyclopedia company". This quote perfectly encapsulated the "Old Economy" versus "New Economy" dichotomy that defined the era.

To highlight the market's complete disregard for traditional fundamentals, the article pointed to the fact that Yahoo's market capitalization of $120 billion dwarfed Berkshire's $83 billion, despite Berkshire being projected to earn ten times more in net income ($2 billion versus $200 million). This comparison was the ultimate expression of the bubble mentality: potential, however speculative, was valued far more highly than proven, profitable reality.

The Fortress of Value: Buffett's Unwavering Stance#

Buffett's refusal to participate in the dot-com frenzy was not a result of ignorance or inability to adapt, but rather a disciplined and unwavering adherence to a set of investment principles he had honed over decades. His inaction was a conscious strategic choice, grounded in a philosophy that was diametrically opposed to the mania sweeping Wall Street.

The cornerstone of his approach was the principle of the "circle of competence." Buffett has consistently emphasized that he only invests in businesses he can thoroughly understand. The technology sector of the late 1990s, characterized by rapid innovation, short product cycles, and unproven business models, fell squarely outside this circle. He could not confidently project the cash flows of a typical dot-com company ten or twenty years into the future, a prerequisite for his investment analysis.

A second core tenet was the search for businesses protected by a durable competitive advantage, or an "economic moat". He believed the early tech companies lacked these sustainable moats. Low barriers to entry and the blistering pace of innovation meant that a market leader in one year could be obsolete in the next, a fear that would later be validated by the decline of once-dominant firms like Yahoo and Nokia. This lack of durability stood in stark contrast to the stable, predictable models of his core holdings like Coca-Cola and American Express.

Finally, Buffett's philosophy was rooted in a relentless focus on business fundamentals and intrinsic value, not on stock market sentiment or momentum. He viewed stocks not as ticker symbols to be traded but as partial ownership of businesses. The dot-com companies, with their focus on attracting "eyeballs" at the expense of profits, failed this fundamental test. His most famous aphorism, "Be fearful when others are greedy and be greedy only when others are fearful," was the perfect intellectual and psychological antidote to the "irrational exuberance" of 1999. His refusal to chase the high-flying tech stocks was the literal application of his most deeply held principle. He was not missing the party; he was consciously and deliberately avoiding it, convinced it would end in a hangover of epic proportions.

Part II: The Aftermath: Vindication and the Seeds of a New Critique#

The bursting of the dot-com bubble provided Warren Buffett with a swift and spectacular vindication. His discipline was rewarded, and the thesis of the Barron's article was seemingly demolished. However, this decisive short-term victory masked a more complex, long-term reality. A deeper, data-driven analysis of Berkshire Hathaway's performance in the 21st century reveals that while the article's timing was disastrous, its underlying question about Buffett's place in a technology-driven world would gain a delayed and profound relevance.

The Great Unraveling: Buffett's "Last Laugh" (2000-2003)#

The "New Economy" paradigm began to collapse in March 2000. The technology-heavy NASDAQ Composite index, which had peaked at over 5,000, began a precipitous decline, ultimately wiping out nearly 80% of its value by October 2002. Billions of dollars in shareholder equity vanished as hundreds of dot-com companies, having burned through their venture and IPO capital without ever achieving profitability, went bankrupt.

In this environment of carnage, Buffett's "boring" collection of old-economy businesses proved to be a fortress of stability and value. The reversal of fortunes was dramatic and immediate. In the three-year period from the beginning of 2000 to the end of 2002, Berkshire Hathaway's stock gained a cumulative 36% while the S&P 500 lost 37%. This represented a staggering 73-percentage-point swing, providing a decisive and unambiguous refutation of the notion that Buffett had "lost his magic touch."

A year-by-year breakdown of the performance data underscores the magnitude of this vindication :

• In 2000, as the bubble burst, Berkshire's per-share market value rose 26.6%, while the S&P 500 (with dividends included) fell 9.1%.

• In 2001, the divergence continued, with Berkshire gaining 6.5% against the S&P 500's loss of 11.9%.

• In 2002, while Berkshire posted a modest loss of 3.8%, it was far superior to the S&P 500's disastrous 22.1% decline.

The comparison with Yahoo, which the Barron's article had used to highlight Buffett's supposed obsolescence, became a particularly stark lesson in the enduring importance of fundamentals. While Berkshire's market capitalization grew from $83 billion at the time of the article to over $500 billion two decades later (and eventually surpassed $1 trillion), Yahoo's valuation collapsed from its peak of $120 billion to an eventual sale price of just $4.5 billion to Verizon. The period from 2000 to 2003 was, without question, Buffett's "last laugh," a masterclass in the value of discipline, patience, and contrarian thinking.

The Waning Alpha: A Long-Term Performance Review#

While the dot-com crash cemented Buffett's legendary status, a comprehensive analysis of Berkshire's performance in the subsequent decades reveals a more nuanced story. The very outperformance that was so spectacular in the early 2000s began to erode, and the company's historical edge over the market—its "alpha"—significantly diminished.

A stark statistical shift is evident when comparing the pre- and post-crash eras. From 1965 to 2002, a period of 38 years, Berkshire Hathaway underperformed the S&P 500 in only four of those years, or roughly 10% of the time. In the 17 years that followed, from 2003 to 2019, Berkshire underperformed the index in eight years, a rate of 47%. The magnitude of outperformance also shrank dramatically. In the pre-2002 period, Berkshire beat the S&P 500 by double-digit percentage points in over half of the years (53%). In the post-2002 period, this level of outperformance occurred on only four occasions, or 24% of the time.

This trend of waning alpha is confirmed by multiple analyses covering different time frames. One study found that an investor who purchased Berkshire stock at the end of 2002 would have underperformed the S&P 500 by 2% annually through 2020. Another analysis covering the decade ending in 2023 calculated Berkshire's compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for shareholders at 11.8%, slightly trailing the S&P 500's 12.0% CAGR over the same period. Looking at the full two decades from 2003 to 2023, Berkshire's annual return was 10.55%, compared to the S&P 500's 11.10%. The data makes it clear that while Buffett has managed to keep pace with the market—an incredible achievement for a conglomerate of its size—the legendary, consistent outperformance that defined his career has become a feature of the past.

This long-term data reveals a profound paradox. The dot-com crash, which seemed to be a complete repudiation of the "New Economy" thesis, paradoxically served to validate it in the long run. The crash did not destroy the internet revolution; it merely wiped out the weakest, most speculative companies that had no viable business models. The survivors of that crucible—companies like Amazon and eBay, along with the soon-to-be-public Google—emerged stronger and went on to become the dominant drivers of economic growth and stock market returns for the next two decades. Berkshire's subsequent period of market--level performance was largely a consequence of its initial underweighting of these very technology titans. Therefore, while the 2000-2002 crash was a short-term vindication of Buffett's discipline, it also cleared the field for the tech giants that would ultimately prove the underlying premise of the "New Economy"—that technology would fundamentally reshape business and drive market leadership—to be correct. The Barron's article was wrong about the specific companies and the timing, but it was right about the transformative power of the trend.

The following table provides a year-by-year visualization of this narrative, showing the dramatic outperformance during the crash followed by the long-term convergence with the market.

Note: Berkshire Hathaway returns are based on per-share market value. S&P 500 returns include dividends. Data compiled from multiple sources. The table uses a hypothetical 2024 and 2025 return for illustrative purposes based on available data.

Part III: The Evolution of an Oracle: Adaptation and the Digital Age#

The long period of market-level returns following the dot-com crash presented Warren Buffett with the most significant strategic challenge of his career. The very sector he had famously avoided had matured into the engine of the global economy. His response was not to abandon his core principles but to evolve his application of them, leading to the most significant strategic shift in Berkshire Hathaway's history: a cautious but massive embrace of technology.

From "No Tech" to Tech Titan: The Apple Paradigm Shift#

For decades, Buffett's skepticism toward the technology sector was a defining feature of his investment philosophy. This stance was rooted in his "circle of competence" principle; he argued that the rapid pace of innovation made it nearly impossible to predict long-term winners and losers with any certainty. His avoidance of Microsoft, despite his close friendship with Bill Gates, was a famous example of this discipline.

His first major foray into the sector, a significant investment in IBM in 2011, proved to be a misstep. Buffett's thesis was that IBM's entrenched position in corporate IT departments gave it a stable, utility-like moat. However, he underestimated the disruptive power of cloud computing and other emerging trends. He later admitted that IBM faced "big strong competitors" and began selling the position in 2017, acknowledging the error in his analysis.

Crucially, the IBM mistake did not cause Buffett to retreat from technology. Instead, it appears to have been a valuable learning experience that sharpened his perspective and paved the way for a much more successful investment. His thinking began to shift in the 2010s, culminating in Berkshire's landmark investment in Apple, which began in 2016. This was not a tentative step; it was a monumental pivot. Apple has since become, by a wide margin, Berkshire Hathaway's single largest holding, at times accounting for approximately 45% of its publicly traded equity portfolio.

The key to this shift was a crucial re-framing of what Apple represented. Buffett came to see Apple not as a speculative hardware manufacturer subject to the whims of product cycles, but as a dominant consumer products company with one of the most powerful economic moats in the world. He recognized the immense power of the iPhone and the iOS ecosystem, which created a sticky, loyal customer base with significant pricing power—all classic hallmarks of a "wonderful business" that he could understand and value. In his view, Apple had transcended the category of a traditional tech company to become an indispensable part of modern life, much like Coca-Cola or American Express were in the 20th century.

Expanding the Circle: Beyond Apple#

The investment in Apple was not an isolated anomaly but the centerpiece of a broader, albeit still highly selective, adaptation to the digital economy. In 2019, Berkshire Hathaway disclosed an investment of approximately $2.1 billion in Amazon. This move was particularly significant because Buffett had previously admitted that his failure to invest in Amazon earlier was a mistake, a missed opportunity where he failed to appreciate the scale of Jeff Bezos's vision and the dominance of its e-commerce and cloud computing platforms. The investment in Amazon, particularly its focus on the growth of Amazon Web Services (AWS) in the AI and cloud space, demonstrated a clear expansion of his circle of competence.

Buffett has also been candid about other missed opportunities, most notably Google (now Alphabet). He has publicly stated his regret in not buying the company, acknowledging that he failed to fully grasp the strength of its network-effect moat in search advertising, a business he should have understood given Berkshire's long history with media and advertising companies.

This entire evolution reflects the profound influence of his long-time partner, Charlie Munger, who famously convinced Buffett to shift his strategy from Benjamin Graham's "cigar-butt" approach of buying "fair businesses at wonderful prices" to a focus on acquiring "wonderful businesses at fair prices". Buffett's eventual foray into technology was the ultimate application of Munger's wisdom.

He did not abandon his principles; he waited for the technology sector to mature to a point where it produced companies that fit his timeless criteria. His historical aversion to tech was based on the premise that rapid innovation constantly destroys competitive advantages. His eventual investments in giants like Apple and Amazon were not bets on their next innovative product. Instead, he invested only after they had successfully used innovation to build something far more durable and defensible: massive, locked-in consumer ecosystems and dominant platforms with powerful network effects. He was not investing in the volatile process of technological disruption; he was investing in the stable, quasi-monopolistic end result of that disruption. He waited until the "New Economy" had created the new "Old Economy" titans.

Part IV: The Modern Echo Chamber: Is Something Wrong with Warren Today?#

A quarter-century after the Barron's article, the question "What's Wrong, Warren?" continues to resonate, albeit in a new form. The primary debates surrounding Berkshire Hathaway today—its massive cash position, the uncertainty of succession, and its struggle for market-beating returns—are modern echoes of the 1999 critique. The fundamental questions about strategy and performance remain, but they are now framed by the immense scale of Buffett's success and a market structure that is, in some ways, eerily similar to that of the dot-com era.

The Great Wall of Cash: Prudence or Paralysis?#

The most prominent contemporary criticism of Berkshire Hathaway centers on its massive and ever-growing cash hoard. As of the second quarter of 2025, the company's cash and short-term treasury holdings reached a record level of $344 billion. This has led to a persistent critique that the company has become too large to find attractive, "elephant-sized" investment opportunities, leaving it effectively paralyzed by its own success. The criticism is amplified by Buffett's own past statements, in which he called cash a "terrible long-term asset" that is "certain to depreciate in value" due to inflation.

Buffett and his defenders offer a consistent rebuttal. They view the cash not as a sign of paralysis but as a strategic asset—"financial ammunition" or a "call option with no expiration date". This position is a direct application of his contrarian philosophy: the cash is held in reserve, ready to be deployed aggressively when markets panic, others are fearful, and high-quality assets become available at bargain prices. He has repeatedly stated that he refuses to "swing at pitches" he doesn't like, arguing that the cardinal sin is overpaying for an investment, not holding cash in an overvalued market.

The debate has been further fueled by Berkshire's recent actions, or lack thereof. The company has been a net seller of stocks for 11 consecutive quarters, and management did not repurchase any of its own shares in the second quarter of 2025, even after a price decline. This suggests that even at current prices, Buffett does not view his own stock as a compelling value, reinforcing the perception that he sees few attractive opportunities anywhere in the market.

The Succession Question and the "Buffett Premium"#

Looming over the strategic debate is the inescapable reality of succession. With Buffett approaching his mid-90s, the market is increasingly focused on the future of Berkshire Hathaway under his designated successor, Greg Abel. This has given rise to significant uncertainty and the concept of a "Buffett Premium"—the idea that a portion of Berkshire's stock price is directly attributable to investors' confidence in Buffett's unique genius for capital allocation.

The existence of this premium was seemingly validated in the market's reaction to Buffett's retirement announcement. In the period following the news, Berkshire Hathaway's Class A shares fell by 14%, a stark contrast to the S&P 500's 11% gain over the same timeframe. While the company's decentralized business model, in which its many subsidiaries operate with significant autonomy, is designed for durability and continuity, the central question remains. The primary engine of Berkshire's extraordinary value creation over six decades has been Buffett's personal skill in allocating the massive cash flows generated by those businesses. Whether any successor, however capable, can replicate that legendary acumen is the multi-trillion-dollar question facing the company.

The Perennial Debate: Value in a Growth-Dominated World#

The current market environment presents a modern parallel to the conditions of 1999. Just as the dot-com era was defined by the dominance of a narrow group of technology, media, and telecom (TMT) stocks, today's market is heavily influenced by a handful of mega-cap technology companies whose growth is fueled by the promise of artificial intelligence (AI).

The core challenge for Berkshire is therefore structurally similar to the one it faced in 1999: can a diversified, value-oriented conglomerate outperform, or even keep pace with, a market where returns are so heavily concentrated in a few high-growth, high-valuation names? This is the modern iteration of the timeless debate between active, value-based management and passive indexing in a momentum-driven market. Buffett's decision to hoard cash can be interpreted as his definitive answer to this question. Just as he did in 1999, he appears to view the market as broadly overvalued and speculative, and believes the most rational and prudent course of action is to wait patiently for a more opportune moment to deploy capital.

Ultimately, the contemporary criticisms of Berkshire's cash hoard and its waning outperformance are two sides of the same coin: the inescapable mathematical constraints imposed by the "law of large numbers." The reason Berkshire holds a record cash pile is that its scale is so immense that finding acquisitions large enough to meaningfully impact its bottom line, and at reasonable valuations, is incredibly difficult. A small, nimble investment that could generate a high return is now mathematically irrelevant to a company of Berkshire's size. Similarly, the reason the company's alpha has diminished is that generating a 20% annual return on a trillion-dollar asset base is exponentially more difficult than on a billion-dollar one. The law of large numbers acts as a powerful gravitational pull on returns.

Therefore, the cash hoard is not simply a strategic choice; it is a symptom of the scale problem. The underperformance is not necessarily a failure of philosophy; it is an inevitable consequence of that same scale problem. The 1999 Barron's article questioned Buffett's philosophy. The modern critiques are, at their core, about the inescapable mathematical limits of his own monumental success.

Conclusion: The Legacy of a Perennial Question#

"What's Wrong, Warren?" stands as one of the most famous and instructive cover stories in the history of financial journalism. As a short-term market call, it was a spectacular failure. It mistook disciplined, principled patience for obsolescence and was published on the very precipice of a market crash that would spectacularly validate the very strategy it questioned.

Yet, despite its immediate failure, the article has become one of the most enduring and insightful questions in modern finance. It has endured because it correctly identified the tectonic shift toward a technology-driven economy as the single greatest challenge to Warren Buffett's established investment model. The question implicitly asked how a philosophy built on stable, predictable, old-economy businesses could survive and thrive in a world defined by rapid, disruptive innovation.

The legacy of that question is not found in the rubble of the dot-com bust, but in the evolution of Warren Buffett himself over the subsequent 25 years. The initial vindication gave way to a long, humbling period of market-level returns, forcing the world's greatest investor to adapt. His eventual, massive investment in Apple was not a capitulation but a masterful synthesis: applying his timeless principles of economic moats and consumer loyalty to the new titans of the digital age.

Today, the question "What's Wrong, Warren?" is as relevant as ever, but its meaning has transformed. The challenges now are not of philosophy but of physics—the financial physics of scale. The criticisms of a massive cash hoard and waning market outperformance are the direct, unavoidable consequences of his success. Having built a fortress of capital so immense, Buffett now faces the challenge of finding battles large enough to fight.

The 1999 article is, therefore, a timeless lesson. It demonstrates how the right question, even when asked for the wrong reasons at precisely the wrong time, can define an entire legacy. It framed the central tension of Buffett's career in the 21st century and, in doing so, ensured its own relevance long after the bubble it misjudged had become a distant memory.

Works cited#

1. Party Like It's 1999: Era of the Dot-com Bubble – HERI - UCLA, https://heri.ucla.edu/party-like-its-1999-era-of-the-dot-com-bubble/ 2. Dot-com bubble - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble 3. Understanding the Dotcom Bubble: Causes, Impact, and Lessons - Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dotcom-bubble.asp 4. Dotcom crash: 20 years of hindsight - Cazenove Capital, https://www.cazenovecapital.com/en-gb/uk/wealth-management/insights/dotcom-crash-20-years-of-hindsight/ 5. Dot-com Bubble & Bust | Definition, History, & Facts | Britannica Money, https://www.britannica.com/money/dot-com-bubble 6. The Late 1990s Dot-Com Bubble Implodes in 2000 - Goldman Sachs, https://www.goldmansachs.com/our-firm/history/moments/2000-dot-com-bubble 7. What's Wrong, Warren? - Hedge Fund Alpha, https://hedgefundalpha.com/whats-wrong-warren/ 8. Corporate Performance vs. the S&P 500 - BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC., https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/1999ar/corp.html 9. Warren Buffett and the tech sector: A changing perspective | Trustnet, https://www.trustnet.com/investing/13445249/warren-buffett-and-the-tech-sector-a-changing-perspective 10. Warren Buffett's Investment Strategy - Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/articles/01/071801.asp 11. How Warren Buffett Changed the Way Investors Think of Investing - MoneyRise - Risevest, https://risevest.com/blog/how-warren-buffett-changed-the-way-investors-think-of-investing 12. Warren Buffett's Investment Strategy Explained - YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lmzz4wYd1ec 13. Here's What Warren Buffett Says You Should Do (And Not Do) When the Stock Market Crashes - Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/heres-what-warren-buffett-says-you-should-do-and-not-do-when-the-stock-market-crashes-11787355 14. Warren Buffett's Investment Strategy, Investing Rules, and How He Made His Fortune, https://www.investing.com/academy/trading/warren-buffett-investment-strategy-rules-fortune/ 15. Has Warren Buffett lost his touch? | Articles | Morningstar India, https://www.morningstar.in/posts/59787/warren-buffett-lost-touch.aspx 16. Berkshire's Performance vs. the S&P 500 - MyVoipApp, https://www.myvoipapp.com/download/warren_buffett/ltr_en.pdf 17. NYSE:BRK.A - Berkshire Hathaway Inc. - TradingView, https://www.tradingview.com/symbols/NYSE-BRK.A/ 18. Berkshire Hathaway - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkshire_Hathaway 19. Is Berkshire Hathaway Still a Market Beater | - Alaric Securities, https://alaricsecurities.com/is-berkshire-hathaway-still-a-market-beater/ 20. The Portfolio Secrets of Warren Buffett: 21.7% Annualized Returns Since 1965 - Tickeron, https://tickeron.com/blogs/the-portfolio-secrets-of-warren-buffett-21-7-annualized-returns-since-1965-11274/ 21. Warren Buffett Has Underperformed the Stock Market for the Last 20 Years - Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/Bogleheads/comments/1b1m955/warren_buffett_has_underperformed_the_stock/ 22. Berkshire Hathaway Returns by Year - Slickcharts, https://www.slickcharts.com/berkshire-hathaway/returns 23. How Berkshire Hathaway Outperformed the S&P 500 Over 60 Years | Value The Markets, https://www.valuethemarkets.com/investing-data-story/how-berkshire-hathaway-outperformed-the-sp500 24. What can we learn from Warren Buffett's biggest mistakes? - Saxo Bank, https://www.home.saxo/content/articles/equities/what-can-we-learn-from-warren-buffetts-biggest-mistakes-03092024 25. Warren Buffett's Portfolio: Strategies for Wealth Building in 2025 - Resident Magazine, https://resident.com/business-and-finance/2025/02/02/warren-buffetts-portfolio-insights-and-strategies-for-wealth-building-in-2025 26. Warren Buffet, known for not traditionally investing in tech, now has major investments in AI; he's betting billions on this specific AI stock, should other investors Buy? - The Economic Times, https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/us/warren-buffet-known-for-not-traditionally-investing-in-tech-now-has-major-investments-in-ai-hes-betting-billions-on-this-specific-ai-stock-should-other-investors-buy/articleshow/118481865.cms 27. 1 of Warren Buffett's Biggest Mistakes May Have Been the Best Thing That Ever Happened for Berkshire Hathaway Shareholders | Nasdaq, https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/1-of-warren-buffetts-biggest-mistakes-may-have-been-the-best-thing-that-ever-happened-for 28. Buffett's 2024 Vision: What Investors Can Learn from Six Decades of Letters | WisdomTree, https://www.wisdomtree.com/investments/blog/2025/02/26/buffetts-2024-vision-what-investors-can-learn-from-six-decades-of-letters 29. Is The Warren Buffett Premium Over? - Barchart.com, https://www.barchart.com/story/news/34192573/is-the-warren-buffett-premium-over 30. How shaky is the ground? Why is Buffett hoarding cash? : r/ValueInvesting - Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/ValueInvesting/comments/1j07sql/how_shaky_is_the_ground_why_is_buffett_hoarding/ 31. To those concerned/panicking about Berkshire Hathaway's recent slump. : r/BerkshireHathaway - Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/BerkshireHathaway/comments/1m1s95n/to_those_concernedpanicking_about_berkshire/ 32. Warren Buffett Once Called This US Investment a 'Terrible Long-Term Asset' That Pays 'Virtually Nothing' and Is Sure To Depreciate — but He's Holding $325 Billion of It Today. Here's Why - Moneywise, https://moneywise.com/investing/investing-basics/warren-buffett-once-called-this-us-investment-a-terrible-long-term 33. Should You Buy Berkshire Hathaway Stock, Even Though It's Down 10% Since Warren Buffett Announced He's Retiring as CEO? - Mitrade, https://www.mitrade.com/insights/news/live-news/article-8-1042984-20250815 34. Berkshire Hathaway's Underperformance: Succession Concerns and Market Shifts, https://www.markets.com/news/buffett-berkshire-underperformance-succession-concerns-561-en-EU 35. Should You Buy Berkshire Hathaway Stock, Even Though It's Down 10% Since Warren Buffett Announced He's Retiring as CEO? | The Motley Fool, https://www.fool.com/investing/2025/08/15/should-you-buy-berkshire-hathaway-stock-even-thoug/ 36. Warren Buffett's Warning to Wall Street has Reached Deafening Levels: 3 Things You Should Do Before 2025. | The Motley Fool, https://www.fool.com/investing/2024/12/15/buffetts-warning-to-wall-street-3-things-to-do/ 37. Berkshire Hathaway vs. the S&P 500: A Modern-Day Investment Showdown - PW Harvey, https://www.pwharvey.co.za/berkshire-hathaway-vs-the-sp-500-a-modern-day-investment-showdown/ 38. Warren Buffett's Genius Strategy in The 2025 Stock Market Crash - YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IifFTUB39o