Bijie.com reported:
Regarding stock selection, I had no previous experience or knowledge, so almost all of my ideas so far come from the two predecessors, Warren Buffett and Philip Fisher.
These two predecessors have both similarities and distinct differences in their approaches. The biggest difference, in my opinion, lies in how they weigh the importance of the management team.
Buffett emphasizes that the selected company should have a moat, but he particularly emphasizes that the selected company should ideally have a solidified moat to the extent that even a fool could run it successfully.
By saying this, Buffett does not mean that the management team is not important. In fact, when acquiring a company, he pays special attention to evaluating the quality of the management team. His intention is to emphasize that a company should have a difficult-to-break, difficult-to-change, and undisturbed advantage. This means that even if the company encounters a lousy team, the negative impact would still be controllable.
However, Fisher is different. He places great importance on the management team. He believes that a good management team can lead a company to overcome various difficulties, navigate through challenges, and continuously create benefits for shareholders.
Under these two different approaches, the long-term stocks selected by the two predecessors have distinct differences. Buffett mostly selects companies that are traditional and excellent in their industry.
On the other hand, Fisher selects many high-tech companies that were considered risky and constantly changing during his time. It is worth noting that even after several decades, some of these companies still dominate certain technological fields, such as Texas Instruments and Motorola.
Comparatively, I lean more towards Fisher’s approach, and my original thinking also places great emphasis on the core team.
Of course, I believe there are aspects of Buffett’s approach that are worth learning from, such as selecting companies that have already established certain barriers and thresholds.
Combining these two approaches, my main focus is on larger and more mature companies in the US stock market that also demonstrate a strong “drive” and proactivity to some extent.
In yesterday’s article, I mentioned that I have consciously started paying attention to some AI-related US companies, such as:
– Microsoft, which has rejuvenated in recent years
– Google, which has always been active
– Oracle, which has started building nuclear power plants for strong AI data centers
– Tesla, which has been actively involved in autonomous driving
– And of course, the well-known NVIDIA in this field.
After carefully evaluating various aspects of these companies, I believe that Tesla is the most likely to create miracles in the future.
NVIDIA, Microsoft, and Google are all remarkable, but I always feel that the temperament demonstrated by their teams lacks a certain expansiveness and tension, not “wild” enough.
I believe this kind of “wildness” is a necessary quality for high-tech companies that can create great miracles.
Larry Ellison from Oracle is already 80 years old, yet he is still able to think about building nuclear power plants for AI. This is crazy enough, but I feel that his craziness is not applied to the core of this field. His understanding of AI seems to be limited, lacking breadth.
In contrast, Elon Musk’s understanding of AI is broad, and his actions are “wild” enough. Once his current layout succeeds, it may disrupt multiple ecosystems in the future.
Regarding Tesla, I agree with the following perspective: it is not an electric vehicle company, but an AI company. Electric vehicles are just a carrier, and its ultimate goal is undoubtedly achieving AI autonomous driving.
To achieve AI autonomous driving, Musk’s solution is visual intelligence. However, according to Musk, NVIDIA’s GPU is not the optimal solution because achieving the desired processing results requires a chip capable of processing the massive context collected by the visual system. Therefore, Musk’s team is researching such a chip.
Recently, Musk even mentioned the idea of building electric planes. If electric planes are a viable option, can Falcon rockets also be electrified? If all these transportation tools can be electrified, then his grand vision of interstellar travel could also be electrified. And the ultimate goal of electrification is undoubtedly full AI control.
Furthermore, if the chip being researched by Musk’s team can be mass-produced, it may be applied to all AI applications related to visual processing.
At the same time, Tesla’s robots are also being developed in parallel…
Considering all the things that he is doing, how many industries will he disrupt? How many ecosystems will he impact?
I agree with a similar viewpoint expressed by Duan Bin in “The Rose of Time”: buying stocks of a company is like entrusting your money to someone you trust, allowing them to create miracles.
For someone like Musk, I am willing to give him a small amount of my money and let him create miracles, even if failure is possible.
Writing this article is not to recommend Tesla’s stock to everyone, nor is it to suggest at which price point to buy Tesla’s stock. Instead, it is to share my changing views on individual US stocks and the methods and insights I have learned from the two predecessors during this period.
