Here’s Why The Pundits Are Wrong About Warren Buffett via Roger Lowenstein, Fortune
It takes a lot of cherry-picking to make him look bad.
Norman Pearlstine, the vice chairman and longtime editorial soul of Time Inc., which publishes Fortune, once said that every feature story fit into one of three archetypes: “How the Mighty Have Fallen;” “David v. Goliath,” or—referring to stories that go against the trend—“The Hole in the Donut.”
Barron’s Mailbag June 1962: Irving Kahn On False Comparisons
The following letter from Irving Kahn appeared in the June 25, 1962, issue of Barron’s. Irving Kahn wrote to Barron's criticising the publication’s comparison of the 1962 market crash to that of 1929. Irving Kahn points out that based on volume and trading data, the 1962 decline was a drop in the ocean compared to Read More
He might have added a fourth: “Take-downs of Warren Buffett.” Ever since the Omaha investor was discovered to be human, reporters have churned out stories claiming that Buffett is (a) just plain lucky; (b) not as good as his record; (c) a hypocrite; (d) over the hill; (e) exploiting an unfair advantage; (f) a monopolist; or (g) some or all of the above.
One of the worst of the genre, "Don’t Buff it up: The other side of Warren Buffett," appeared in The Economist earlier this month. While journalists, of course, should treat Buffett as skeptically as they do other public figures—and criticize unreservedly where it is warranted—The Economist article would seem a transparent attempt at fault-finding.
“Mr. Buffett is not as saintly as he makes out,” the magazine writes. (The article, like most in The Economist, does not carry a byline.) “He has to act in his own interests, and he does so legally, but if all companies followed his example America would be worse off.”
See the full article here.