MONEY financial advice

Tony Robbins Wants To Teach You To Be a Better Investor

Tony Robbins vists at SiriusXM Studios on November 18, 2014 in New York City.
Tony Robbins with his new book, Money: Master the Game. Robin Marchant—Getty Images

With his new book, the motivational guru is on a new mission: educate the average investor about the many pitfalls in the financial system.

It might seem odd taking serious financial advice from someone long associated with infomercials and fire walks.

Which perhaps is why Tony Robbins, one of America’s foremost motivational gurus and performance coaches, has loaded his new book Money: Master The Game with interviews from people like Berkshire Hathaway’s Warren Buffett, investor Carl Icahn, Yale University endowment guru David Swensen, Vanguard Group founder Jack Bogle, and hedge-fund manager Ray Dalio of Bridgewater Associates.

Robbins has a particularly close relationship with hedge-fund manager Paul Tudor Jones of Tudor Investment Corporation.

“I really wanted to blow up some financial myths. What you don’t know will hurt you, and this book will arm you so you don’t get taken advantage of,” Robbins says.

One key takeaway from Robbins’ first book in 20 years: the “All-Weather” asset allocation he has needled out of Dalio, who is somewhat of a recluse. When back-tested, the investment mix lost money only six times over the past 40 years, with a maximum loss of 3.93% in a single year.

That “secret sauce,” by the way: 40% long-term U.S. bonds, 30% stocks, 15% intermediate U.S. bonds, 7.5% gold, and 7.5% commodities.

Tony’s Takes

For someone whose net worth is estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars and who reigned on TV for years as a near-constant infomercial presence, Robbins—whose personality is so big it seemingly transcends his 6’7″ frame—obviously knows a thing or two about making money himself.

Here’s what you might not expect: The book is a surprisingly aggressive indictment of today’s financial system, which often acts as a machine devoted to enriching itself rather than enriching investors.

To wit, Robbins relishes in trashing the fictions that average investors have been sold over the years. For instance, the implicit promise of every active fund manager: “We’ll beat the market!”

The reality, of course, is that the vast majority of active fund managers lag their benchmarks over extended periods—and it’s costing investors big time.

“Active managers might beat the market for a year or two, but not over the long-term, and long-term is what matters,” he says. “So you’re underperforming, and they look you in the eye and say they have your best interests in mind, and then charge you all these fees.

“The system is based on corporations trying to maximize profit, not maximizing benefit to the investor.”

Hold tight—there’s more: Fund fees are much higher than you likely realize, and are taking a heavy axe to your retirement prospects. The stated returns of your fund might not be what you’re actually seeing in your investment account, because of clever accounting.

Your broker might not have your best interests at heart. The 401(k) has fallen far short as the nation’s premier retirement vehicle. As for target-date funds, they aren’t the magic bullets they claim to be, with their own fees and questionable investment mixes.

Another of the book’s contrarian takes: Don’t dismiss annuities. They have acquired a bad rap in recent years, either for being stodgy investment vehicles that appeal to grandmothers, or for being products that sometimes put gigantic fees in brokers’ pockets.

But there’s no denying that one of investors’ primary fears in life is outlasting their money. With a well-chosen annuity, you can help allay that fear by creating a guaranteed lifetime income. When combined with Social Security, you then have two income streams to help prevent a penniless future.

Robbins’ core message: As a mom-and-pop investor, you’re being played. But at least you can recognize that fact, and use that knowledge to redirect your resources toward a more secure retirement.

“I don’t want people to be pawns in someone else’s game anymore,” he says. “I want them to be the chess players.”

MONEY Warren Buffett

Why Warren Buffett Just Bought Duracell

Warren Buffett, chairman and chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.
Warren Buffett, chairman and chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Andrew Harrer—Bloomberg via Getty Images

All signs indicate that Buffett has once again found another wonderful business at a fair price.

The last few months have been a busy for Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway and today we learned its buying spree continued.

It was announced this morning Berkshire has come to an agreement with Procter & Gamble THE PROCTER & GAMBLE CO. PG -0.293% to buy battery manufacturer Duracell in exchange for the $4.7 billion worth of Procter & Gamble shares Berkshire held.

The details

At the end of June, Berkshire held roughly 53 million shares of Procter & Gamble worth nearly $4.2 billion, and since then P&G has seen its stock rise by almost 15%, explaining the $4.7 billion price tag.

When P&G released its earnings for the first quarter of fiscal 2015, it also announced that it would be exiting the Duracell business, preferably through the creation of a stand-alone company. At the time of the announcement, P&G’s CEO A.G. Lafley said:

We greatly appreciate the contributions of our Duracell employees. Since we acquired the business in 2005 as part of Gillette, Duracell has strengthened its position as the global market leader in the battery category. It’s a business with attractive operating profit margins and a history of strong cash generation. I’m confident the business and its employees will continue to thrive as its own company.

Then, P&G noted the reason behind the move was “consistent with its plans to focus and strengthen its brand and category portfolio,” and that “its goals in the process of exiting this business are to maximize value to P&G’s shareholders and minimize earnings per share dilution.”

Today, P&G noted that the $4.7 billion price tag for Duracell would represent an adjusted earnings before interest taxes and depreciation, or EBITDA, of seven-times fiscal year 2014′s.

The rationale

So, why would Buffett make such a move?

First, as highlighted by many news outlets like Bloomberg, similar to Berkshire’s previous deals in acquiring an energy subsidiary from Phillips 66 earlier this year, by exchanging P&G stock for the entirety of Duracell, Berkshire will be able to abstain from paying any capital gains taxes as if the P&G shares had been sold for cash.

Considering that the P&G stake stood on Berkshire’s books at a cost basis of just $336 million at the beginning of this year, the tax savings alone are a compelling value proposition for Berkshire Hathaway and its shareholders.

Also, knowing at heart Buffett’s always been a proponent of buying businesses at an appropriate price, the fact that the market traded at an 11.5-times EBITDA multiple in January of this year, according to the Stern School of Business at NYU, and the consumer electronics industry traded at nine-times EBITDA, then the $4.7 billion price tag seems more than reasonable.

In last year’s letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders, Buffett wrote that “more than 50 years ago, Charlie [Munger] told me that it was far better to buy a wonderful business at a fair price than to buy a fair business at a wonderful price.”

So, the consideration of the deal must extend beyond just the financial aspects of it. And Buffett’s words regarding the deal are quite telling.

In today’s announcement Buffett said:

I have always been impressed by Duracell, as a consumer and as a long-term investor in P&G and Gillette. Duracell is a leading global brand with top quality products, and it will fit well within Berkshire Hathaway.

It is of note that Buffett mentioned the Duracell brand first. One of my favorite Buffett quotes is:

“Buy commodities, sell brands” has long been a formula for business success. It has produced enormous and sustained profits for Coca-Cola since 1886 and Wrigley since 1891. On a smaller scale, we have enjoyed good fortune with this approach at See’s Candy since we purchased it 40 years ago.

And how is this applicable to Duracell?

Consider for a moment in its ranking of the Best Global Brands in 2014, Interbrand estimated that the brand value of Duracell stood at $4.9 billion, ahead of MasterCard ($4.8 billion) and narrowly trailing both Chevrolet and Ralph Lauren.

Said differently, Buffett paid less for Duracell — the company — than what one company estimated its brand value alone is worth.

Also, it isn’t just the Duracell brand that is compelling, but its business, too. P&G noted in its annual report that Duracell maintains over 25% of the global battery market share. And Interbrand noted in its report on the company:

Duracell continues to respond to consumer demands through innovation and new product launches. New technologies in rechargeable batteries, longer lasting energy storage times (Duralock) and synergies with wireless iPhone charging (PowerMat) demonstrate responsiveness to a changing marketplace. Duracell is working to further increase its presence by forging retailer-specific partnerships and nudging competitors out of view in the process.

Clearly, the company isn’t afraid of innovation, and it is responding to changing demands and desires of consumers.

The charge to the bottom line

We don’t know the details of how Duracell will fit in the massive empire that Berkshire Hathaway has become. But there is one thing we do know — to the delight of Berkshire’s shareholders — all signs indicate that Buffett has once again found another wonderful business at a fair price.

MONEY stocks

How to See the Stock Market Like Warren Buffett Does

Warren Buffett, chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.
Jeff Kowalsky—Bloomberg via Getty Images

Ultimately, intelligent investors mustn't view stocks as numbers on screens or charts moving up and down, but as businesses.

When I say “stock,” what comes to mind?

If it’s one that you own, do you think of a chart that is hopefully moving upwards? If it’s one you’re thinking about owning, do you think about how a few important numbers and metrics stack up against those of its peers?

One of the greatest investors of all time — the one and only Warren Buffett — looks at stocks in a way that is easy to understand yet incredibly hard to manage. But his strategy is one we should all remember when we think about the stocks we own and the ones we’re thinking about investing in.

The simple wisdom

When Buffett discusses the progress of Berkshire Hathaway’s four biggest individual stock holdings — Wells Fargo, Coca-Cola, American Express, and IBM — in his latest annual letter to shareholders, at no point does he mention their price.

Instead, he speaks of two critical things: Berkshire’s ownership stake in the companies themselves and how much of their bottom-line earnings are actually available to Berkshire because of that stake.

Berkshire Hathaway’s ownership of each of the big four has grown over the last few years thanks to its purchase of larger positions in Wells Fargo and IBM plus the share repurchase efforts of the management teams at Coca-Cola and American Express.

youll-never-see-your-stocks-the-same-way-again-1_large

Although those slight increases in ownership may not raise any eyebrows, dominate headlines, or even inspire a Tweet, consider Buffett’s own words:

If you think tenths of a percent aren’t important, ponder this math: For the four companies in aggregate, each increase of one-tenth of a percent in our share of their equity raises Berkshire’s share of their annual earnings by $50 million.

And that brings us to our second point: It isn’t just the ownership stake that matters, but the actual results of the company that is owned. Buffett went on to say:

The four companies possess excellent businesses and are run by managers who are both talented and shareholder-oriented. At Berkshire, we much prefer owning a non-controlling but substantial portion of a wonderful company to owning 100% of a so-so business; it’s better to have a partial interest in the Hope diamond than to own all of a rhinestone.

As a result of both increased ownership and the continued success of Buffett’s “Big Four,” the portion of earnings available to Berkshire — although only the dividends paid out show up on its financial statements — has grown dramatically since 2011:

youll-never-see-your-stocks-the-same-way-again-2_large

But this growth is nothing new. In his 2011 letter to shareholders, Buffett said:

We expect the combined earnings of the four — and their dividends as well — to increase in 2012 and, for that matter, almost every year for a long time to come. A decade from now, our current holdings of the four companies might well account for earnings of $7 billion, of which $2 billion in dividends would come to us.

And while the earnings growth of the Big Four may not continue at its recent pace of more than 15% annually, $7 billion may even be a dramatic understatement.

The key takeaway

As Buffett’s famed mentor Benjamin Graham said in his seminal book The Intelligent Investor: “Investment is most intelligent when it is most businesslike.”

Ultimately, intelligent investors mustn’t view stocks as numbers on screens or charts moving up and down, but as businesses. We must largely ignore movements in stock prices and evaluate the fundamental business dynamics, knowing that over time stock prices will reflect changes in underlying fundamentals and the results of the business.

For example, since Chipotle CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL INC. CMG 0.6484% went public on Jan. 26, 2006, its stock has moved up or down by 5% roughly once every four weeks, or 132 times. But those investors who have patiently waited, ignoring the price gyrations and trusting in the company’s hugely successful business, would have seen a $1,000 investment grow to nearly $14,000 at the time of writing.

Examples like this show why Buffett once remarked, “The stock market is designed to transfer money from the active to the patient.”

Does this mean you should simply pour money into great businesses? No, because, as Buffett has also said, “A business with terrific economics can be a bad investment if the price paid is excessive.”

But we must see that whenever we make an investment, we must always consider it part-ownership in a company, not simply a stock. Buffett does, and so should you and I.

MONEY

Most Financial Research Is Probably Wrong, Say Financial Researchers

Throwing crumpled paper in wastebasket
Southern Stock—Getty Images

And if that's right, the problem isn't just academic. It means you are probably paying too much for your mutual funds.

In the 1990s, when I first stated writing about investing, the stars of the show on Wall Street were mutual fund managers. Now more investors know fund managers add costs without consistently beating the market. So humans picking stocks by hand are out, and quantitative systems are in.

The hot new mutual funds and exchange-traded funds are scientific—or at least, science-y. Sales materials come with dense footnotes, reference mysterious four- and five-factor models and Greek-letter statistical measures like “beta,” and name-drop professors at Yale, MIT and Chicago. The funds are often built on academic research showing that if you consistently favor a particular kind of stock—say, small companies, or less volatile ones—you can expect better long-run performance.

As I wrote earlier this year, some academic quants even think they’ve found stock-return patterns that can help explain why Warren Buffett has done so spectacularly well.

But there’s also new research that bluntly argues that most such studies are probably wrong. If you invest in anything other than a plain-vanilla index fund, this should rattle you a bit.

Financial economists Campbell Harvey, Yan Liu, and Heqing Zhu, in a working paper posted this week by the National Bureau of Economic Research, count up the economic studies claiming to have discovered a clue that could have helped predict the asset returns. Given how hard it is supposed to be to get an edge on the market, the sheer number is astounding: The economists list over 300 discoveries, over 200 of which came out in the past decade alone. And this is an incomplete list, focused on publications appearing in top journals or written by respected academics. Harvey, Liu, and Zhu weren’t going after a bunch of junk studies.

So how can they say so many of these findings are likely to be false?

To be clear, the paper doesn’t go through 300 articles and find mistakes. Instead, it argues that, statistically speaking, the high number of studies is itself a good reason to be more suspicious of any one them. This is a little mind-bending—more research is good, right?—but it helps to start with a simple fact: There’s always some randomness in the world. Whether you are running a scientific lab study or looking at reams of data about past market returns, some of the correlations and patterns you’ll see are just going to be the result of luck, not a real effect. Here’s a very simple example of a spurious pattern from my Buffett story: You could have beaten the market since 1993 just by buying stocks with tickers beginning with the letters W, A, R, R, E, and N.

Winning with Warren NEW

Researchers try to clean this up by setting a high bar for the statistical significance of their findings. So, for example, they may decide only to accept as true a result that’s so strong there’s only a 5% or smaller chance it could happen randomly.

As Harvey and Liu explain in another paper (and one that’s easier for a layperson to follow), that’s fine if you are just asking one question about one set of data. But if you keep going back again and again with new tests, you increase your chances of turning up a random result. So maybe first you look to see if stocks of a given size outperform, then at stocks with a certain price relative to earnings, or price to asset value, or price compared to the previous month’s price… and so on, and so on. The more you look, the more likely you are to find something, whether or not there’s anything there.

There are huge financial and career incentives to find an edge in the stock market, and cheap computing and bigger databases have made it easy to go hunting, so people are running a lot of tests now. Given that, Harvery, Liu, and Zhu argue we have to set a higher statistical bar to believe that a pattern that pops up in stock returns is evidence of something real. Do that, and the evidence for some popular research-based strategies—including investing in small-cap stocks—doesn’t look as strong anymore. Some others, like one form of value investing, still pass the stricter standard. But the problem is likely worse than it looks. The long list of experiments the economists are looking at here is just what’s seen the light of day. Who knows how many tests were done that didn’t get published, because they didn’t show interesting results?

These “multiple-testing” and “publication-bias” problems aren’t just in finance. They’re worrying people who look at medical research. And those TED-talk-ready psychology studies. And the way government and businesses are trying to harness insights from “Big Data.”

If you’re an investor, the first takeaway is obviously to be more skeptical of fund companies bearing academic studies. But it also bolsters the case against the old-fashioned, non-quant fund managers. Think of each person running a mutual fund as performing a test of one rough hypothesis about how to predict stock returns. Now consider that there are about 10,000 mutual funds. Given those numbers, write Campbell and Liu, “if managers were randomly choosing strategies, you would expect at least 300 of them to have five consecutive years of outperformance.” So even when you see a fund manager with an impressively consistent record, you may be seeing luck, not skill or insight.

And if you buy funds that have already had lucky strategies, you’ll likely find that you got in just in time for luck to run out.

TIME Earnings

Warren Buffett Just Lost Another $1.5 Billion

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett speaks at an event on September 18, 2014 in Detroit, Michigan.
Billionaire investor Warren Buffett speaks at an event on September 18, 2014 in Detroit, Michigan. Bill Pugliano—Getty Images

Losses in IBM and Coke add to a recent rough patch for Buffett

Another day, another $1 billion down the market’s drain. Spare a thought for Warren Buffett, whose portfolio is not doing him any favors this week. On Monday Buffett lost nearly $1 billion on his third-largest investment, IBM, after the company posted disappointing earnings. On Tuesday, Coca-Cola did the same thing, posting third-quarter revenue that fell short of expectations and warning of currency headwinds.

Coke is Buffett’s second-largest investment and has been one of the stalwarts of his portfolio for decades. (He left Coke’s board in 2006 and his son Howard took a board seat there in 2010). With 400 million shares, Tuesday’s decline of $2.72 cost…

Read the rest of the story from our partners at NBC News

MONEY The Economy

Warren Buffett Owns More of Your Favorite Companies Than You Realize

Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett announced plans to license his company's brand to real estate agencies in Europe and Asia, adding yet another way in which Berkshire Hathaway interacts with everyday consumers.

MONEY Warren Buffett

Why Warren Buffett Wants to Sell Houses, Cars and a Whole Lot More

Warren Buffett has one of the most respected names in business. Now he's trying to turn that respect into cash.

Even those with only a passing interest in business affairs are familiar with the grandfatherly visage and folksy wisdom of investing sage Warren Buffett. And his long-time investing vehicle, Berkshire Hathaway, is almost a household name as well. Yet, for the most part, the Berkshire brand has remained behind the scenes.

But as new report from the Financial Times highlights, that may be changing. A range of Berkshire subsidiaries and acquisitions are rebranding to emphasize their affiliation with Buffett and his golden reputation. Soon, consumers will be increasingly likely to think of the Oracle of Omaha when they shop for homes, cars, and even when they look at their electric bill.

Earlier this month, Berkshire announced it was buying Van Tuyl Group, the nation’s fifth-largest auto retailer, and renaming it Berkshire Hathaway Automotive. The new business will include 78 locations in 10 states. And that number is set to grow: Buffett says he plans to buy even more dealerships in the future, adding them to the Berkshire fold.

Prudential Real Estate, meanwhile, has already placed more than a thousand real estate agencies under the Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices brand after striking a franchising deal with the conglomerate in 2011. That number is still expanding, both in the United States and internationally. The company plans to pursue further licensing deals in Europe and Asia, in addition to other American markets.

Depending on where you live, Berkshire’s trademark could even be coming inside your house. MidAmerican Energy and PacifiCorp, two utility companies serving Western and Midwestern markets, were recently renamed Berkshire Hathaway Energy and now share a logo.

Why the sudden marketing push for the Berkshire name? Analysts say his celebrity holds value, and could bring in additional business if successfully monetized. “Like Virgin reflects Sir Richard Branson’s rebelliousness and Apple reflects the genius of Steve Jobs, Berkshire Hathaway has brand equity around trust, stability and integrity,” Oscar Yuan, a partner at consultancy Millward Brown Vermeer, explained to CNBC.

The irony of Buffett’s new branding effort is that virtually all consumers already have a deep attachment to Birkshire’s brands. It is, after all, the corporate parent of Heinz ketchup, Benjamin Moore paints, Fruit of the Loom underwear, Brooks running shoes, Spalding basketballs, and the Geico gecko, to name a few. The company’s catalogue even extends to military uniforms (Fechheimer), sweets (See’s Candy) and engagement rings (Ben Bridge Jewelers).

In one way or another, we’re all Buffett customers. Now, it seems, he just wants us to know it.

MONEY Markets

Warren Buffett Tells You How to Handle a Market Crash

Berkshire Hathaway Chairman and CEO Warren Buffett
What would Buffett do? Nati Harnik—AP

Are you starting to panic? Heed the advice of the Oracle of Omaha.

Warren Buffett has never been shy about packing lessons for successful investing into his annual letter to shareholders. That letter is a treasure-trove of insight, presented in a folksy manner that is not only easy to read but incredibly entertaining.

With the market tumbling we’re all likely in need of a few doses of Warren’s unpretentious advice, so I dug through his past shareholder letters to find some gems that may help us navigate the current market drop and build a bigger nest egg for retirement.

1. “It’s better to have a partial interest in the Hope diamond than to own all of a rhinestone,” wrote Buffett in 2013.

Buffett is always hunting for great companies that he can buy for Berkshire Hathaway shareholders, but if he can’t buy the whole company, he’s OK with owning a smaller piece of it instead. Applying this advice to our own investments means spending less time considering how many shares of a company we can buy and more time figuring out where we believe the company will be in ten years. Doing that will help us avoid the pitfall of foregoing investments in great companies like Amazon AMAZON.COM INC. AMZN 1.225% ) or Priceline THE PRICELINE GROUP INC. PCLN -0.2395% when they’re on sale to buy lower quality companies with smaller share prices.

2. “A ‘normal year,’ of course, is not something that either Charlie Munger, Vice Chairman of Berkshire and my partner, or I can define with anything like precision,” wrote Buffet in 2010.

Sure, the average annual return for the S&P 500 has been 8.14% over the past decade, but assuming that will be our return this year, next year, or any year is folly. Returns are volatile and will continue to be volatile, so we should focus less on the returns for any one period of time and instead focus on buying great companies and socking them away. Consider this point: While the S&P 500 has experienced plenty of fits-and-starts over the past 10 years, those who have owned it all along are up 103%.

3. “Long ago, Charlie laid out his strongest ambition: ‘All I want to know is where I’m going to die, so I’ll never go there,’” wrote Buffett in 2009.

Buffett avoids businesses whose future he can’t evaluate. Instead, he focuses on finding businesses that offer a predictable profit for decades to come. Taking the long-haul approach to finding great companies goes far beyond identifying the next big thing — after all, during the Internet boom there were plenty of Internet companies that soared on expectations rather than profit, and many of those companies have since gone bankrupt. Instead, we should be investing in companies we can understand that are likely to remain winners.

4. “We will never become dependent on the kindness of strangers. Too-big-to-fail is not a fallback,” wrote Buffett in 2009.

Warren’s cash stockpile is a thing of legend, and while that cash hoard holds back his returns in periods of growth, it also protects him when markets turn sour. Importantly, it also gives him the financial flexibility to take action and buy when prices are right. That plan-ahead mentality is something every investor can embrace by making sure there’s always some dry-powder around to deploy during the market’s inevitable declines.

5. “We would rather suffer the visible costs of a few bad decisions than incur the many invisible costs that come from decisions made too slowly — or not at all — because of a stifling bureaucracy,” wrote Buffett in 2009.

Buffett doesn’t hesitant when he’s presented with an idea that hits the mark. He recognizes that he won’t be right every time, but he also believes that taking action is critical to realizing the potential of an opportunity. As investors, we can emulate Buffett’s approach by making sure that once we’ve done our due diligence and picked our favorite investments we take action and buy, regardless of the market’s short-term machinations.

6. “Unlike many business buyers, Berkshire has no ‘exit strategy.’ We buy to keep. We do, though, have an entrance strategy, looking for businesses in this country or abroad…available at a price that will produce a reasonable return. If you have a business that fits, give me a call. Like a hopeful teenage girl, I’ll be waiting by the phone,” wrote Buffett in 2005.

Buffett keeps strictly to his investment discipline, but he also keeps an open mind to great ideas that fit into his strategy. Those ideas can come from various places. His acquisition of Clayton Homes, for example, was sparked by an autobiography of Clayton’s founder Jim Clayton which had been given to him as a gift by some University of Tennessee students. Keeping open to opportunities, regardless of their origin, may help us find worthwhile investments for the long term, too.

7. “Investors should remember that excitement and expenses are their enemies. And if they insist on trying to time their participation in equities, they should try to be fearful when others are greedy and greedy only when others are fearful,” wrote Buffett in 2004.

Buffett knows that emotion is a dangerous weapon that, if used incorrectly, can result in significant loss — and, if used correctly, can result in significant gain. Emotional reactions to surging or descending markets can make people buy when they should sell and sell when they should buy. Buffett often compares taking advantage of market slides to shopping for groceries. Last week on CNBC he summed it up by saying, “If you’re buying groceries, you like it when prices go down next week. And you like it if they go down further the next week.” Just as we like getting a good deal on the items at the grocery store we would be buying anyway, we should also be fans of getting a good deal on our favorite companies.

Following in Buffett’s footsteps

Buffett has no idea whether he’ll outperform the S&P 500 over the next year, but he does know that Berkshire Hathaway’s book value has grown a compounded annual 19.7% over the past 49 years. Similarly, we don’t know if our investments will outperform the market daily, weekly, or yearly, either. What we can feel pretty good about is the knowledge that investing in great companies like Coca Cola THE COCA COLA CO. KO 0.0678% and Wells Fargo WELLS FARGO & CO. WFC 0.2249% — two companies that are long-standing Buffett holdings — may help put us on a path to a less-worrisome retirement.

MONEY Warren Buffett

Warren Buffett Hates Gambling…Unless He’s the House

The Oracle of Omaha has a history of winning bets. Here's a look at some of his past wagers.

Earlier this week, investing sage Warren Buffett made headlines by predicting Hillary Clinton would win the 2016 presidential election. In fact, he added, he’s willing to put some coin behind it. “Hillary’s going to win,” said Buffett, speaking at Fortune’s Most Powerful Women Summit. “I will bet money on it. I will. I don’t do that easily.”

But that’s not quite accurate.

Sure, the Oracle of Omaha has publicly denigrated gambling, including comments to his Berkshire Hathaway shareholders in which he called it a “tax on ignorance” and “socially revolting.” And he even bought a 10-cent slot machine in his home to teach his offspring the evils of casinos. “I… put it on the 3rd floor of my house,” Buffett explained. “I could then give my children any allowance they wanted, as long as it was in dimes, and I’d have it all back by nightfall. I wanted to teach them a good lesson. My slot machine had a terrible payout ratio, by the way.”

But in fact Buffett has a long history of making very public wagers — and a pretty good track record of winning them. Here are a few of his most famous bets.

$550 on College Football

Earlier this year, Buffett placed his first-ever Las Vegas stake, betting $550 that Nebraska would beat Fresno State by more than 12 1/2 points. The Cornhuskers went on to destroy Fresno, 55 to 19, making Buffett (and other gamblers who rushed to copy him) a healthy return.

$1 Million on Index Funds Beating Hedge Funds

Buffett has consistently recommended index funds as the best investment vehicle for most investors, specifically endorsing Vanguard’s funds in a March letter to shareholders. He’s so sure indexes are the way to go that he bet $1 million that the S&P would outperform a “fund of funds” portfolio of hedge funds over 10 years, after fees, costs, and expenses are taken into account. An asset management firm called Protege Partners took the other side of the bet. So far, Buffett is on track for a payday: Fortune reports that, after six years, Buffett’s horse—Vanguard’s Admiral shares—was beating the firm’s five funds by more than 30% at the end of 2013.

$30 Million on World Cup Soccer

In a way, gambling of a kind is actually a routine part of Buffett’s business—and I’m not talking about his equity investments. One of Berkshire Hathaway’s many revenue streams is selling insurance that protects companies in the event that they have to pay out large cash prizes. For example, Bloomberg reports that in 2010 Berkshire insured an Omaha-based business that agreed to pay one of its clients if the French soccer team won the World Cup. If France wins, Buffett explained at the time, “I think we’re going to lose 30 million bucks or something like that.” But once again the Oracle of Omaha came out on top: Les Bleu were knocked out by South Africa in the group stage.

$1 Billion on March Madness

Thanks to Buffett, NCAA basketball got a lot more interesting this year. In January, the investor teamed up with Quicken Loans to offer a $1 billion prize to anyone who submitted a perfect March Madness bracket. The odds of Buffet losing? According to math site Orgtheory.net, the likelihood of correctly filling out a 64 team bracket randomly is less than 1 in 9 quintillion. But, because March Madness predictions do involve some level of skill, the true odds are difficult to determine. “There is no perfect math…There are no true odds, no one really knows,” Buffett told CNN. That said, he still liked his chances. “I don’t want to say it’s impossible, but it’s basically impossible,” admitted Buffett.

Buffett ultimately won his bet, collecting an undisclosed insurance premium from Quicken chairman Dan Gilbert (“Dan says it is too much and I say it’s too little,” he joked), but it was a close one. In March, ABC News reported that one man, Brad Binder, had in fact filled out a perfect NCAA bracket—he just hadn’t entered it into Buffett’s contest. “I wish I could give you a better reason why I didn’t enter other than I was rushed and heading to work,” Binder told ABC. “Obviously, I didn’t think I’d be where I am now.”

So is Buffett really a gambler after all? Not so much. Other than the Vegas wager, all of Buffett’s other bets gave the Berkshire chairman hugely favorable odds, or involved an industry where his expertise is unmatched. Buffett would probably agree that gambling isn’t really so bad — if you’re the house.

TIME Music

Watch Warren Buffett Sing Sinatra to 400 Women

Paul Anka and Warren Buffett give Carol Loomis a musical sendoff at Fortune’s Most Powerful Women summit

This article originally appeared on Fortune.com

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser