International premiumrebateforexvestment guru Warren Buffetts own excellent r bestforexrebateratesk management has become an important prerequisite How Forex Rebates Work guarantee of his brilliant investment performance 1. In 1965, Buffett made an important investment decision to buy control of Berkshire Hathaway, a textile company located in the southern United States, but by 1985, Buffett decided to discontinue Berkshire Hathaways textile business and admitted HowForexRebatesWork it was a major failure in his investment c cashback forexer. At the time of the investment decision, it was clear that Buffett lacked understanding of the business characteristics of the textile industry, which was mainly manifested in the following aspects: ① ignored the huge advantages of foreign competitors in terms of labor costs; ② faced with domestic counterparts continue to increase capital investment, if they refused to reinvest, the competitiveness of the enterprise will continue to weaken; ③ ignored the textile industry is essentially a surplus of the industry, the industry is extremely competitive, the price war has become a common means of enterprise competition, after each round of investment, the advantages added by the enterprise soon transformed into an industry-wide price reduction of the bottom line, investors put in more money and get much less return Although the president of Berkshire Hathaway, Ken, and his successor, Gary, are very good and dedicated, but as Warren Buffett later concluded, when Managers with brilliant reputations have to deal with companies with bleak prospects, disorganized management and notorious reputations, the only thing that remains the same is the companys reputation If you find yourself on a chronically leaky boat, building a new one is much more effective than patching the holes A good management record (as measured by financial returns) is less because you are efficient than because you got on that boat A textile company that can Textile companies that allocate their assets efficiently are outstanding textile companies but not outstanding companies Fortunately, it wasnt long before Buffett began to realize the error of his ways, and in early 1967, Buffett used the cash generated by his textile business to buy National Indemnity Company and enter the insurance business, investing partly from the earnings of the textile mills and partly from reducing textile inventories, accounts receivable, and It can be said that without this very wise and timely retreat, Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaways brilliance would have been greatly reduced, and Buffett would probably be ranked after the fiftieth in the global rich list, instead of the second in the global ranking today In fact, the Chinese proverb Men are afraid to enter the wrong profession, women are afraid to marry the wrong man can also be applied to the field of investment as a good summary of choosing where to invest your money. Beware of the misleading theory of efficient cashbackforexreviews Since the 1970s, the theory of efficient markets has become so popular in academic circles that it has become sacred scripture. In fact, while markets are often efficient, to conclude that they are always efficient is clearly to miss the mark by a thousand miles. To this day, Efficient Market Theory remains an integral part of the investment curriculum in major business schools. In the dictionary, we generally define risk as loss or the possibility of loss, and followers of Efficient Market Theory prefer to use the term stock or portfolio of stocks relative to other stocks or portfolios of stocks (often using the overall movement of the broad market, i.e., the stock index). Efficient market theory followers believe that risk can be effectively avoided by accurately calculating each stocks β value, i.e., its past relative volatility, and then basing asset allocation on an obscure investment and asset allocation theory built from these calculations. The counter-argument is the example of Warren Buffetts purchase of The Washington Post. It was the plunge of The Washington Post stock in 1973 that created a very favorable buying opportunity, at a time when The Washington Post stock was still very volatile relative to other stocks or the broader market, i.e., its β value was still very high, does it mean that The Washington Post stock was much riskier at low prices than at high prices? It was Warren Buffett who bought 1.73 million shares of Washington Post stock in 1973 for a purchase cost of just $11 million, and by the end of 1999, the market value reached $960 million. In fact, successful investment gurus do not subscribe to the efficient market theory, and here are some investment gurus views on the efficient market theory: Graham said: I have a hard time connecting the research of efficient market theory professors with actual Fisher said: I do not believe that the stock market is very effective for diligent, knowledgeable long-term investors Buffett said: If the stock market is always effective, I have to beg along the street Peter Lynch said: It is clear that in terms of investment, Wharton professors who believe in quantitative analysis and random walk theory are nowhere near as good as my colleagues at Fidelity Fund Management, so, in the face of Rogers said: The U.S. market, the Chinese market for me and other markets are no different study of markets around the world throughout history, you will find that the market is always the same, because we humans have commonality, whether you like it or not, whether you are black, white, or yellow, the market at all times in history is the same, people make terrible mistakes, do stupid Things,…… you have to have vision, and thats the secret of success for good investors Obviously, determining the amount of investment risk based on the relative degree of price volatility of a stock (β value) is one of the misconceptions of efficient market theory about risk 3. Be wary of mergers and acquisitions The stock market always tends to cheer every merger and acquisition, because mergers and acquisitions always seem to bring more However, as an investor, or to be precise, as an owner of a part of a listed company, what we should do is to soberly analyze whether each M&A is beneficial or detrimental to us, instead of following the market to cheer. They remember only the success of the princess, and often pay an excessively high price for the right to kiss the toad of the acquired company. When the acquisition managers get stuck in a pile of toads and have to declare the acquisition integration a failure, it is often the CEO of the company who learns the lesson and the shareholders who have to pay the tuition. ② Many companies reward their managers with the size of their organizations, and rankings such as the Fortune 500 companies also contribute to letting company managers know where they are ranked by sales, while managers may never know where they are ranked by profitability. ③ Managers are often more interested in expanding their dominance than in growing the wealth of the companys owners, and few managers view mergers and acquisitions exclusively from the owners standpoint ④ Many mergers and acquisitions focus on maximizing short-term reporting numbers on accounting statements or tend to focus on whether the transaction will have an immediate dilutive effect on earnings per share If the CEO is determined to make the acquisition, his or her subordinates and financial advisors are quick to provide the necessary projections to rationalize any acquisition price. In these cases, M&A is a mine of wealth for the shareholders of the acquired company, and M&A also enhances managements income and status, and a big honeypot for the financial advisors and intermediaries on both sides of the merger and acquisition, but often means a significant reduction in the intrinsic value of equity for the acquirers shareholders