Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ouroverallperformancein2014wasminusT.2o/o.overthelastl5years,TheLionFundhas
billion
j;il#il;J;;iil;th
?lltlf ::::"*i:t".:itl1
for
controtled businesses employing over 23,000 people" 'not badl:f^
'^-^:-:-rifei" San Antonio w:,111b:':.':,o1:::.:'i:i::il:::s
;'#i#fffiffi;i*;'d;uu'"a
oYl^:0,*it""::*::
and investments: J: T"d
ilil'#,":t "r'"u"t;".ss
",Tii-':1"-":lv*?:l
to design an enterprise
mind
to
come
po.o,
quickly
Buffett
:
walton,
il.?"".il;
ilk;;;n"r,
1 - -a-:L--+^l
+^
Much of our success to date can be attributed to
;;.d by,h" gnyrrlr-'al. our old-fash io ned ideal
app
the owner-manasers of that era thousht
;T$l.J:"'r".?#becau;"",ffid;;" ;;iaild-b-"t becauseenterprises
.- __, :mind
with our partners in -:-l
entrepreneurially as capitalists. We are driven to developing
to advance wealth'
#ffi;
T.:
tli::P:Lil
J/---/-
2014' it
assessment
G',c.-^
-.-r -,^l--^
^f future cash
^^-L
value of
on the present
cash flows. Rather, it is uased
'e
- UVer
;. '---r-,--:=-:=>-*aT^-;^^
Dtnqrlss:
tlme'
business value, we created-WealtTl.
fl^.".
on
flows' f\-
\=::\
Returns are displayed as follows for both Berkshire and the S&P.
(l)
S&P
500lndex
(2)
Relative Results
(r)-(2)
(4.6)
3.9
(8.5)
80.5
t4.6
65.9
(r 0.8)
8.1
18.9
(2.s)
(14.8)
(26.4)
(48.7)
12.3
(22.3)
(34.7)
37.2
2.5
(0.8)%
3.3Yo
(4.1)%
(4.6)%
21.80h
(26.4)%
lt is important to review the trend of our outperformance on rolling five- and ten-year bases.
over which
we have repeatedly stated
{7Five year is the absolule minimum period
- increase in
' performance should be reviewed, and with the passage of time the performance figures
tl
the decade
averaging ten years (and counting!)
validity. Because we have long-term partners
you
presented
is
that
can
determine
for
so
then
test is presented for review. A series of calculations
yourself which period is most consequential for evaluation. Since our inception, there have been
eleven five-year and six ten-year spans-
s&P
2000-09
17.501o
(0.e)%
0.5
2001-10
16.5
1.4
TLF
S&P
19.7"/o
(2.3)%
2001-0s
14.6
2002-06
14.8
6.2
2002-rr
t2.8
2.9
2003-07
19.9
r2.8
2003-12
5.0
71
2004-08
6.8
(2.2)
2004-13
16.0
7.4
200s-09
15.4
0.4
2005-14
14.2
7;7
2006-10
18.6
2007-ll
2t0E-t2
| 1.0
z.J
(0.2)
0.3
1.7
2009-r3
201 0-l 4
25.9
18.0
l3.0
15.5
Last year I wrote to you, "The reason we believe a five-year time horizon is the absolute
minimum by which to judge results is that performance can be significantly distorted by starting and
ending dates. For instance, during the five years that ended with 2012, the S&P generated a return of
i\i2$;;um. However a shift of one y"ur - excluding the dismal year of 2008 but.including the filr
the average S&P annual retum. . .jumped to I 8%. Should an investor
robusi performance of 20 | 3
conclude with a five-year test when one interval produces a paltry 1.7% annual return, but a shift of
one year produces a retum that is over 1000% higher? Arguably, five years can be too short to
evaluate Conclusively performance results." The same logic can be applied to excluding TLF's
outperformance of 2009 but including its underperformance of 2014. A shift of one year reduces
of g.r{[j!Lb" bi-"d,
,N average annual returns from 25.9Yo to l3Yo. Obviously, calculations
/'
dates.
terminal
initial
or
of
[I fuuo.iUly or unfavorably, based on a selection
lI
'.---..-
gut I also, in our Partnership Guidelines, initially laid out in the 2002 Annual Rep-ort and
reproduced every year since then, said that you should "Judge our results aeaiqqlhe5'f;ftS-O0 . oYt
over a period of no less than five years. Make sure not to evaluate us on a yearly basts
benchmark
because I can say with conviction that we will have years in which we trail the benchmark, perhaps
substantially. So, our policy of measuring performance in no way promises excellent results it merely ensures objective assessment. If we fail the five-year test, we will find a new
naturally
line of work, and evin I should find someone else to manage my money. The only caveat to such a
provision: Should the five year period encompass a speculative bull market hurting our relative
performance; we'll address this issue when we cross it." It is clearly time to address it so that I keep
my job!
tu-[
uyz
L-<:7
-rY
'
Whut is rather commonplace in the U.S. system that we find most damning is the pursuit of
short-term performl;gc+{he undue emphasis on near-term stock price has caused firms to issue
year
chain. Thus, the real issue is that managers will engage in false, misleading, or fraudulent reporting
corporate governance al its worst.
But it is not just corporate America that is to blame for the aforementioned craven behavior.
The investment managers who preside over other people's assets are also engaging in short-term
conduct, reinforcing the appalling, atrocious problem. After all, many investment managers suffer
from their own govemance failures with their own faulty investnnent performance and high fees.
Although there are a number of high quality companies who behave honorably, the trend in shortterm sub-standard thinking and reliance on third parties to direct corporate action are quite alarming.
Our reaction to the troubling behavior of corporate America and Wall Street is to ignore that which
we find to be illogical, irrational and invalid. We continue to exercise rationality and thereby exploit
the opportunity gaps created by the shortcomings of others.
Accounting & Audit
KPMG LLP performed all tax accounting for the partnership in 2014. North Street Global
Fund Services LLC handled all the reporting for the Fund. Deloitte LLP audited the Fund's
financials. All three firms performed their tasks in a timely, productive manner'
Prime Broker
We are changing brokers and custodians from M.S. Howells & Co. to J.P. Morgan Chase &
Co. We have been pleased with the services of M.S. Howells, but we are now at a size that requires a
far larger organization to handle our account.
We are eager to see you at the annual meeting to be held Friday, April 24 at the Dominion
Country Club.
April 18,2015