I get that it is all a 'hypothetical' here, but a 30 year fraud is tough to believe in. What would be the suggestion in ~1965 that a fraud was 95% probable? At the extremes, everything is upside down, divorced from the intended logic of statistical probabilities. This merely serves as a framing point for dialing in your logical tolerance for uncertainty, but you don't have a framework for that, only an acceptance that 26 years into BRKA, and 26 years into believing BRKA could still be a fraud, you'd have an internal downside risk of matching the market?
Yeah, that last sentence is sort of highlighting the uselessness of the guessing at returns over 30 years, right? But, to go back to it, I think you've got to dial in to a limit on 'I think the probability of fraud here is less than .... [5,10,15?]%' or else you have to just say 'I cannot invest at all in something I have so little faith/understanding in.' For me it would have to be under the 10% mark, I think.
I get that it is all a 'hypothetical' here, but a 30 year fraud is tough to believe in. What would be the suggestion in ~1965 that a fraud was 95% probable? At the extremes, everything is upside down, divorced from the intended logic of statistical probabilities. This merely serves as a framing point for dialing in your logical tolerance for uncertainty, but you don't have a framework for that, only an acceptance that 26 years into BRKA, and 26 years into believing BRKA could still be a fraud, you'd have an internal downside risk of matching the market?
That's not really what i was trying to drive towards thoguh it is also an interesting framing!
Yeah, that last sentence is sort of highlighting the uselessness of the guessing at returns over 30 years, right? But, to go back to it, I think you've got to dial in to a limit on 'I think the probability of fraud here is less than .... [5,10,15?]%' or else you have to just say 'I cannot invest at all in something I have so little faith/understanding in.' For me it would have to be under the 10% mark, I think.
life seems pretty miserable when 'not yet rich enough' is perpetual.
One day we're evaluating an "Ethics Screen" and the next we are handicapping fraud!!! Man investing is hard :)