Buffett, The Beatles, And Success In Investing

Published in Investing on 20 August 2012

Was Buffett really a one-in-a-billion genius?

The question is asked again and again: just what is it about Warren Buffett that makes him such a great investor? The question is asked so frequently, in the end one gets rather blasé about it. But, having recently read Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers, I now see Buffett's success in a rather different light.

People talk about Buffett being a genius. They talk about him being one in a billion, never to be repeated: someone who was far, far out of reach from mere mortals like you and me. I beg to differ.

I draw a parallel with another Western icon, and an example from Gladwell's book -- the Beatles. What was the secret of their success? Was it genius that made them one in a billion? Well, let's dig a little deeper.

A hard day's night

In 1960 the Beatles were just a struggling high-school rock band, like thousands of others, when they were invited to play in Hamburg. Now, Hamburg was not a place of high-class music venues, but rather had an assortment of seedy nightclubs, sitting alongside strip clubs and other dubious nightspots.

In Hamburg, bands did not just play a one- or two-hour set. Instead, the club's formula was a non-stop show, where bands would play for hour after hour. And so Lennon, McCartney and co would play, and play, and play.

Often, they would play for eight hours at a time -- for seven nights a week. As they did so, they learnt new chords, new riffs, new vocal techniques and composed song after song. By the end of their time in the German city, they had played an incredible 270 nights.

Hamburg was the making of the Beatles. By the time they hit the big time, they had been playing together for 10,000 hours.

The 10,000-hour rule

After the interminable hours of hard graft, the Beatles were now the best band in the world. Were they one- in-a-billion geniuses, never to be repeated? No, the secret of their success was actually far more mundane and prosaic: it was simple, honest hard work.

Gladwell calls it the 10,000 hour rule: in every case of outperformance he has looked at, whether it be the Beatles, Bill Gates, even Mozart, these people were not born geniuses, as you might have assumed. Instead, they worked for around 10,000 hours to build up their experience and expertise. Such dedication and perseverance, and not some god-given ability, was what made them world-beaters.

Chewing gum, newspapers and Ben Graham

Now look at Buffett. The first few cents he ever earned were from selling packs of chewing gum at the age of six. By the age of 13 he was delivering newspapers, and he applied himself to it with a characteristic ferocious energy.

When he read Ben Graham's The Intelligent Investor in 1949, his relentless drive to make money found a new outlet. He threw himself into investing with incredible energy.

In those early years, Buffett learnt an immense amount about what made a good investor. He put in thousands of hours of hard work, investing his own money and that of his friends and family and creating his early partnerships.

Through this constant hard work he learnt about the fundamentals of value investing, the importance of a margin of safety, the qualities that make a great company -- indeed, all the skills that make a brilliant investor.

There is no such thing as innate genius

By the time he was investing through Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK-B.US), his hard graft had made him a world expert in investing, and it showed. His expertise enabled him to make some brilliant investment decisions, buying into companies such as the Washington Post (NYSE: WPO.US), Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO.US) and IBM (NYSE: IBM.US).

Of course, hard work was not the only ingredient: you also need a strong intellect, and a psychological make-up that fits with investing. But my point is that Buffett did not have some innate genius he was born with that made him a great investor.

No, Buffett had to work at it. Just like you; just like me; just like anyone who wants to make it in the world today. The secret of success in investing is the same as the secret of success in anything in life: sheer, honest-to-god hard work.

If you want another example of the fruits of hard work, just consider what's been happening on our doorstep these past few weeks: namely, the success of the British Olympic team. I'll leave the last word to a certain Mo Farah, after his stunning 5000m Olympic victory: "It's been a long journey, and grafting, and grafting. But, you know, anything is possible. So, for the people out there: it's just hard work and grafting".

Buffett's hard work has made him the greatest investor in the world. He has invested in many of the world's best companies. But only one company has drawn him to invest in the UK. Want to know what it is? Well, simply read this free report: "The One UK Share That Warren Buffett Loves".

More investment opportunities from The Motley Fool:

> Prabhat does not own shares in any of the companies mentioned.

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

Fittster 20 Aug 2012 , 10:54am

Any evidence that fund managers how haven't performed as well as Buffett (or even the index) haven't spent 10,000 learning their job?

trmeer 20 Aug 2012 , 11:57am

Agree in principle. Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration as Edison said. That is not the same as your assertion that everyone is born equal. I could spend the same number of hours learning composition and piano as Beethoven and I am pretty certain I would not be as good a composer as Beethoven. You need immense talent as well as hard work to be a genius. I certainly don't think Buffett is a genius at all, he is very bright and very hard working and has been given a large amount of capital to allocate, which he has done very well.

lotontech 20 Aug 2012 , 12:36pm

Nassim Taleb has a different view about Buffett (and probably about the Beatles too): that out of the sheer number of people trying their hands at investing or songwriting, a small number will achieve greatness by pure chance. Restrospectively, we then try to justify why it was obviously meant to be.

Are investors born great, do they achieve greatness (as per Gladwell), or do they have greatness thrust upon them by pure chance (as per Taleb)? I don't know, it's probably a combination of all three.

Excel35 20 Aug 2012 , 1:47pm

You can't teach or learn to be a genius.

Sure, plenty of percieved genuises put in a lot of time and effort at what they are good at.

The 10,000 rule, of progressively increasing difficulty practice applies more to being good at something than being a genius.

vinchainsaw 20 Aug 2012 , 2:25pm

Couldnt agree more lotontech.

There must've been a hundred guys Buffet's age when he started who had the same temperament and intelligence.
He was in the right place at the right time and his early bets came off.

M0byDick 20 Aug 2012 , 2:28pm

Nassim Taleb has a different view about Buffett (and probably about the Beatles too): that out of the sheer number of people trying their hands at investing or songwriting, a small number will achieve greatness by pure chance.

Back in 1984 Columbia Business School arranged a "contest" between Michael Jensen, a University of Rochester professor and a proponent of efficient market theory, and Warren Buffett. Jensen argued that a simple coin tossing experiment among a large number of investors would generate a few successive winners, and the same happens in financial markets. Buffett took up Jensen's metaphor and started his own speech with the same coin tossing experiment. Buffett wanted to know why a statistically significant share of the random winning minority were investment funds managed by Benjamin Graham's alumni.

Interesting question?

More here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Superinvestors_of_Graham-and-Doddsville

Foolish best
MobyDick


ANuvver 20 Aug 2012 , 6:15pm

I would see it more as a question of spending 10,000hrs to put yourself in the best possible position to succeed.

And aptitude comes in great degree from enthusiasm (often bordering on obsession). Nobody puts 10,000hrs into anything unless they have an unquenchable fascination for it - and a fascination strong enough to break through the inevitable process of setback, breakthrough, plateau, frustration.

A couple for any jazzheads out there:

I've lost count of the number of times people enthuse about what a genius Charlie Parker was, then in the next breath relate the story that he once spent 5 years practising for 14hrs a day.

Another obsessive practiser was John Coltrane. He was really despondent and frustrated about being stuck and Monk told him: relax, we're playing again tomorrow.

Takes a very clever person to learn from their own mistakes, but a real genius to learn from those of others.

KBO, as Churchill was wont to say.

Wuffle 20 Aug 2012 , 8:28pm

Talent, hard work and opportunity. It takes all three.
You only have control of the middle one.
Talent is something you are born with and it's likely that the opportunities you are blessed with also strongly correlate to birth. Warrens dad was a stockbroker.

Wuffle.

goodlifer 21 Aug 2012 , 10:53pm

There's one important skill I don't have but Uncle Warren certainly does.

I'm just a sucker for creative accounting, whereas he's obviously sharp enough unearth the truth, however hard they try to hide it.

I'm inclined to think he actually enjoys reading accounts.

atilliator 22 Aug 2012 , 3:25am

This is an article that is flogging the 10,000 hour rule. The article is flawed.

The Beatles. If one listens to a few early recordings, one can see that the 10,000 hour rule did not apply to Pete Best. He had done everything his fellow band members had done on the Reeperbahn, but still could not play his instrument to a professional standard.

Of course geniuses exist. Look at Capablanca. Cuba had never produced a chessplayer approaching his strength before, and has never produced one since.

I think the problem about genius is that the word is overused, and given to people who do not really deserve this title.

Is Buffett a genius? Maybe. But if one looks at the work of Benjamin Graham, he might have a greater right to that description.

vinchainsaw 22 Aug 2012 , 9:48am

atilliator,

Good point; you infer Buffett is simply an imitator? You'll get banned for life for such blasphemy!

atilliator 27 Aug 2012 , 9:19pm

vinchainsaw

Imitator? Maybe a bit strong. I think that Buffett and Munger developed and refined Graham's hypotheses. Nothing wrong with that. History is full of people who look at conventional wisdom and see things that others don't. I think the expression is "standing on the shoulders of giants." [There. That should stop me from getting banned!]

Join the conversation

Please take note - some tags have changed.

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: [b]bolded text[/b], [i]italicised text[/i]. All other tags will be removed from your post.

If you want to add a link, please ensure you type it as http://www.fool.co.uk as opposed to www.fool.co.uk.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.