Volatility's at record levels, and uncertainty abounds. What does it mean for you and your money? The Fool's here to help. Check out our ongoing coverage of the latest market events.  Read The Latest >>

Avoid the Mistake That Cost Buffett 8 Years of Better Returns

There's one investment strategy you won't read much about on Fool.com, even though many have tried it. In fact, Warren Buffett spent eight years working with it before discarding it as worthless.

What investment strategy is that? Technical analysis.

Invest like a lemming
Technical analysis is the practice of predicting where stocks will trade based on charts of historical pricing and volume information. There's a certain logic to it. Stocks trade based on supply and demand, which is greatly influenced by investors' attitudes about the stock. The charts should reflect those attitudes and might predict where the stock will go.

It's an attractive idea. Sun Microsystems (Nasdaq: JAVA) has bounced between $14 and $21 quite a few times in the past five years. Why not buy at the low, and sell at the high? Or look at First Solar's (Nasdaq: FSLR) chart. Clearly, investors love the stock. Its rise from $30 to $240 seems unstoppable. Why not jump aboard and profit?

Technical analysis is a simple yet compelling strategy. You can see why Buffett spent years early in his career trying to master it.

An expensive mistake
But Buffett discovered one small problem. Technical analysis didn't work. He explained, "I realized that technical analysis didn't work when I turned the chart upside down and didn't get a different answer."

After eight years of trying he concluded that it was the wrong way to invest. Then he focused on the teachings of Ben Graham, which stressed business fundamentals, finding a strategy that both made sense and, more important, worked.

Three simple rules
The billionaire discussed that strategy at the 2008 Berkshire Hathaway general meeting. When he was asked how to avoid the crowd mind-set, he said he simply followed Graham's three most important lessons:

  1. Buy stocks with a margin of safety.
  2. A stock is part of a business.
  3. The market is there to serve you, not instruct you.

The first lesson usually makes the headlines. It means that you should buy stocks for less than they're worth. But when Buffett talks about the second and third lessons, he's basically admitting that he wasted eight years of his investing life.

Buying a business
After all, thinking about a stock as part of a business is the opposite of what technical analysis is all about. Technical analysis focuses on trading securities. It doesn't matter whether the security is a share of General Electric (NYSE: GE), with its jet engines, turbines, national TV network, nuclear imaging, and financial arm; or whether that security is a derivative promising the delivery of three tons of Italian meatballs. It's all the same because technical analysis doesn't care about the business -- or the fundamentals.

In Graham's second lesson stocks are far more than just pieces of paper or lines on graphs, and to understand them, you need to understand the business. If you're looking at Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL), ignore whether the stock has been up three days in a row, and focus on how many iPods, iPhones, iTunes songs, and iBackhoes the company will sell today and in the future.

Ways to serve man
Similarly, when Buffett says the market isn't there to instruct, he's saying the movements in the market aren't telling you how to invest.

When Krispy Kreme (NYSE: KKD) soared to $40 five years ago, the market was saying that Tim Hortons (NYSE: THI) would revert to being the man who personified hockey by breaking both his jaw and leg in a single body check.

When McDonald's (NYSE: MCD) hit $13 in 2003, the market was announcing that the Big Mac would end up in the Museum of Neat Ideas Gone Wrong beside the tapeworm diet, land wars in Asia, and Paris Hilton's home videos.

But in both cases the market was wrong.

So, instead of listening to the market, Buffett seeks to take advantage of it. Sometimes, the market will offer to buy a stock for far more than it's actually worth. Other times, it'll offer you the chance to buy shares of a great company for far less than its fair value. An investor who understands the true value of a business will be able to profit when the market offers great companies on sale.

The Foolish bottom line
You can learn from Buffett's error -- don't focus on charts. Instead, understand businesses and seek excellent stocks the market offers at low prices. These days, the market is particularly treacherous. Some stocks that seem cheap will turn out to be very expensive. Others that are simply beaten down by negativity will post amazing returns.

Our Inside Value team is working to take advantage of the situation, and we've identified several stocks we think will post some of those amazing returns. If you're interested in reading about them, we offer a 30-day free trial.

Fool contributor Richard Gibbons should not be used as a dessert topping. He does not have a position in any stocks discussed in this article. The Motley Fool owns shares of Berkshire Hathaway. Apple is a Stock Advisor pick. Tim Hortons is a Global Gains recommendation. Berkshire Hathaway is a Stock Advisor and Inside Value selection. The Fool’s disclosure policy bears an eerie resemblance to Charlie Munger.

Comment (17)
Recommended (58)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • On June 16, 2008, at 11:30 AM, falcon2382 wrote: Report this Comment

    what a horribly biased perspective, not to mention far from accurate. Why don't you take a gander at a book hailed with a similar regard as Graham's "The Intelligent Investor." It's called "Japanese Charting Techniques," by Steven Nison. There is a reason that it is 330 pages long. Just as I can find 5000 crappy books and reviews about the kind of investing you are throwing out there with the rest of the mirror muscles of the world, I can find just as many crappy books about technical trading. The people who do it well don't care what you think just like the people who invest well don't care what you think. It is the people who are trying to learn that do care and listen. That is why I am taking the time to offer a second perspective. The very title of this article points to your inability to speak objectively about the trading, which incidentally makes it clear why you purport that it is "a mistake." The truth is that to trade successfully you have to be completely objective--just as Graham explains with his "Mr. Market" analogy. The two schools of thought are not in opposition to one another as pundits like you portend, at the cost of keeping would-be successful traders (that might have the courage and discipline to learn properly how to trade if pointed in the right direction) from starting on the right foot. If people start scared, then of course they are not going to be objective. Now, for my own opinion. I prefer to both invest AND use technical analysis. I tend to first limit my stocks/companies down to a manageable number (say 50) and I ONLY consider those companies. Now these are companies in which I would like to invest anyways, so if I do happen read the market at the wrong time I then put that company in my "investment" folder. The companies that I do manage to pick up at the right time usually incur a gain of about twenty percent or so. If and only if I feel they have become technically overbought I sell the company stock and try to find another technically undervalued company on my list of worthy companies. It seems to work alright for me--I've done better than the S&P by more than 8% on average during each of the last 9 years.

    Now it is only fair that when you throw out such bias in an article like this, that you admit it and offer something more than what we have all read 80 gazillion times on every finance related website out there. For those that want to gain something from this post, go read Graham yourself. He is fantastic. You can even pick up an audiobook of "The Intelligent Investor." He has a keen ability to convey the reasoning behind his thought process which will allow you to then apply it to a plethora of activities not just in your stock picking abilities, but in your everyday life. Likewise, Nison's "Japanese Candle Stick Charting Techniques" is for technicians, what Graham's book is for investors. Notice how I never mentioned Buffett a single time in this post... The author knew that you would pay extra attention because of Buffett's name.

    There is so much more I could say, I really wish the quality of the "articles" posted by TMF would up the ante in terms of quality. They all seem far too focused on getting you to subscribe to their special services. I enjoy Motley Fools tremendously and am constantly on CAPS, but I really wish the focus of other sections of the website lean towards being as helpful as the CAPS section is. Happy trading!

  • On June 16, 2008, at 11:45 PM, dividendgrowth wrote: Report this Comment

    I concur with the above comment.

    The main article is horribly biased and extremely arrogant. Technical analysis does a good job of showing investor sentiments and flow of the Big Money. Since Big Money cannot enter or exit positions at will, it often leaves identifiable traces known as the "trend". For nimble investors, as all retail investors are, such insights can be exploited to great advantage.

    Of course, technical analysis doesn't work for anyone, at least not for Warren Buffett. But it works for many other successful investors, among them Ed Seykota, Paul Tudor Jones, and Stanley Druckenmiller. It also works for me and the poster above.

    To succeed in investing, we MUST have an open mind to begin with, and we need to try different approaches before settling down on the one that best works for ourselves.

  • On June 16, 2008, at 11:53 PM, spowers84 wrote: Report this Comment

    Thank you falcon2382, i seriously cannot stress how much i want to thank you for taking the time and posting the article. I don't think i will be taking another Fool article seriously, as Technical analysis is my favorite investing techinque. All Fool does is basically mentions Buffets' name a couple of times and pretty much pitch their own services at the end. which I have found to be true in literally every article that you read at fool.

  • On June 17, 2008, at 12:24 AM, rbgibbons wrote: Report this Comment

    Falcon, I sincerely believe that, in most cases, technical analysis is bunk. I'm not about to write an article that attempts to be "unbiased", extolling techniques that I think don't really work, and, in particular, don't work for small investors. That would be dishonest.

    The reason that I talk about Buffett is because I found it really interesting that the most well-known and successful value investor spent so long on technical analysis. Eight years isn't a short time -- it's over 10% of Buffett's investing life. It also shows how his investment style has evolved.

    It's also noteworthy simply because Buffett is one of the most intellectually honest and rational public figures that I know. It's interesting when someone like that examines a strategy for eight years, and concludes that it doesn't work.

  • On June 17, 2008, at 12:36 AM, jjun0366 wrote: Report this Comment

    Technical analysis.... Sounds a bit like trying to determine a pattern for pi.

  • On June 17, 2008, at 1:00 AM, mgiv wrote: Report this Comment

    spowers, I agree I love the caps system but never knew what it was like inside one of the news letters. I'd like to see much deeper due diligence. I find the caps system more valuable but it doesn't have the deep DD. Unless you're following elderhadspicks - who happens to be doing a great job of interpreting financial statements to gauge management effectiveness and meters the company's performance against peers - there isn't much depth. And gives a little background on the company. Rulebreakers accuracy is abismal. For the would be investor which will on occasion would buy into one of the recommendations, better accuracy is necessary. They are right only 40% of the time.

    Also the investment strategy touted seems to ignore or atleast down play cyclicals. I am more in the soros camp where I feel in some sense an investment is a speculation gone awry. Cycles are an inevitable part of existence so why not exploit them.

    The only time an investment occurs is when you actually hand money over to the company as working capital to get going.

    So we like to call ourselves investors, but we are really all just speculators with different time horizons.

  • On June 17, 2008, at 4:12 AM, none0such wrote: Report this Comment

    All the comments here are great as well as the article because they are all ultimately constructive no matter how or why they are packaged and presented. Those in the technical group have something to offer the value group and vise versa, i.e one still needs to evaluate growth somehow and one still needs to understand a business.

  • On June 17, 2008, at 12:24 PM, stmmmd99 wrote: Report this Comment

    I have to agree with Gibbons--the whole thing about technical analysis sounds no different that reading your daily horoscope for stock advice. It seems pretty random to me.

  • On June 17, 2008, at 5:13 PM, martinfrosa wrote: Report this Comment

    Technical analysis is voodoo. Name one billionaire that made his money by technical investing techniques. Still thinking? Hmm! Now peruse the Forbes 400 and see how many got there by investing based on fundamentals. Case closed.

  • On June 18, 2008, at 10:42 AM, bluedome wrote: Report this Comment

    To falcon2382, even though you get good results you have offered no proof that technical analysis contributed to it, since you used fundamental analysis as well. If you take your 50 stocks picked using fundamentals, then compare the results of the ones you bought for technical reasons to the ones you did not buy, and there was a difference in performance, then you would have made your point.

    I, for one, believe a chart gives clues about the short-medium term

    likely direction, but nothing longer term.

  • On June 18, 2008, at 2:16 PM, previnedward wrote: Report this Comment

    Hi,

    Interesting discussion. I'm not an extremely experienced investor but am interested how this plays in: I work for a bank and a significant function is to manage market risk. This is a very mathematical process (using complex interdependent IT systems containing various data) using actual positions, historical data and a set of algorithms (or models). In other words, it appears figures drive their some risk evaluations and determine constraints (and maybe other factors) for their investments.

    On the other hand, I don't know how frequently or if ever trades are made based purely on figures and algorithms. If one could truly do this, could one program a robot to execute trades and invest for us? If this is not done (successfully), does that indicate pure mathematical analysis can't 100% be relied on 100% of the time (then again, is whats left necessarily fundamental analysis or just a human factor on technical analysis?) don't know.. but its interesting

    I do reckon though that if banks use technical analysis to set limits on their investments, calculate risk and determine how much capital needs to be retained for safety ("economic capital"), I'll be careful in dismissing technical analysis completely as having no value to an investment strategy.

  • On June 18, 2008, at 5:30 PM, Mitch67212 wrote: Report this Comment

    I too think that Technical Analysis is a little like voodoo, and am much more comfortable with Fundamental Analysis proposed by the Fool.

    However, I do agree with one of the proponents of TA, that the Fool (in general) will make a high-level observations and then pimp out one of their services.

    I remember the Fool from years ago, when articles were more meaty and weren't always followed by something to the effect of:

    "Our Inside Value team is working to take advantage of the situation, and we've identified several stocks we think will post some of those amazing returns. If you're interested in reading about them, we offer a 30-day free trial."

  • On June 19, 2008, at 10:11 PM, ButtSauce wrote: Report this Comment

    falcon2382 and company, technical analysis is useful but a small piece of the puzzle. If you spend too long sniffing the paint and forget to stand back and look at the canvas, you can miss the bigger macro/sector picture. But having said that, you give excellent advice as far as reading Graham.

  • On June 20, 2008, at 4:25 AM, monksnake wrote: Report this Comment

    I was going to write something, but it seems ButtSauce already put what I was going to type. Technical analysis CAN, but not always, help you get in at a little better position than if you just buy a stock at any given time, however you still have to look at the bigger picture, buying on Graham principles seems like the most common sense.

  • On June 20, 2008, at 3:45 PM, somacho wrote: Report this Comment

    In 48 years of investing, I have neaver met a rich technical analyst

  • On June 20, 2008, at 9:46 PM, douglasjmartin wrote: Report this Comment

    Technical analysis is not vodoo. Nor should it be used in isolation. There is significant statistical and psychological support for TA, starting with the fact that a huge population of people rely on or at least refer to it in deciding the timing and levels of their buys and sells. Wouldn't you like to know what they're watching?

    Basic business analysis, as subjective as that can be, tells you what investments to monitor. TA tells you when and at what level to buy it or sell.

  • On June 30, 2008, at 2:01 AM, KrispyKremeSucks wrote: Report this Comment

    KrispyKremeSucks.com Krispy Kreme Sucks big time, what a waste of money.

Add your comment.

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Compare Brokers

TD AMERITRADE
more info
ShareBuilder
more info
Power E*Trade

more info
Scottrade
more info
Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 665429, ~/articles/articlehandler.aspx, 10/16/2008 3:28:04 AM,

Sign up for FREE Motley Fool site access to keep reading:

“Avoid the Mistake That Cost Buffett 8 Years of Better Returns”

Signing up allows you to comment on articles and on the discussion boards.

It's completely FREE and will take only 10 seconds.

Privacy / Legal Information

We will use your email address only to keep you informed about updates to our web site and about other products and services that we think might interest you. The Motley Fool respects your privacy. Please read our Privacy Statement

.

Related Tickers

Apple, Inc.

AAPL Down! $97.95 -6.13 (-5.89%) 4:00 PM
CAPS Rating:
18397 Outperforms
1520 Underperforms
Rate This Stock

Major Indices

S&P 500907.84 -9.04%
DJIA8,577.91 -7.87%
NASD1,628.33 -8.47%
Updated: 4:04:23 PM
Sponsored by:

The Motley Poll

What do you think will be the best performing sector over the next six months?

Sponsored by: