원문 보기
On the left you have the old guard Warren Buffett $257 billion. On the right the growth hunter Ken Fiser 251 billion. The numbers they are nearly identical but these two portfolios represent two incompatible realities. Buffett is betting on the past cycles history. Fiser. Well, he is betting on a break from history, a new paradigm.
This isn't just a difference in stock picking. It is a divergence in philosophy. Usually, at this level of wealth, portfolios converge. The smart money tends to hedge the same risks. They buy the same insurance. They read the same macro reports. But in 2025, that consensus has fractured. The most successful investors in the world are no longer looking at the same horizon.
Buffett sees a cliff. Fiser sees a launchpad. And the data, the actual 13F filings that just came out, they reveal exactly why. You have to understand this doesn't happen often. If you go back to 2008 or 1999, the big players were usually positioning themselves defensively before the crash or they were all chasing the same bubble.
But today, it's a clean split. Half the billionaires are hoarding cash, expecting a deflationary bust. The other half are leveraging up, expecting an inflationary boom. They can't both be right. And the winner of this specific bet will likely control the financial narrative for the next decade. Start with the anomaly, Berkshire Hathaway.
For years, the narrative on Wall Street was that Buffett had lost his touch, that he missed the tech boom, that he didn't understand the speed of modern value creation. But the Q2 2025 filings, they show something else entirely. He isn't missing the boom. He is rejecting it. He sold a massive stake in Apple.
He reduced exposure to Bank of America, one of his longest held positions. And he moved that capital into the only asset that is truly risk-free, treasuries, short-term government bonds. He is sitting on over $300 billion in liquidity. That number is hard to visualize. It is larger than the GDP of most nations.
This is not an investment strategy. This is a war chest. You have to look at the historical context here. Buffett did this exact same thing in 1999, right before the dotcom bubble burst. He sat on his hands. He looked foolish for 2 years and then he bought the wreckage for pennies on the dollar. He did it again in 2007.
Buffett knows that in a zero interest rate world, asset prices inflate. It's basic gravity. But when rates hold or when growth slows, that gravity kicks in. He is valuing cash right now because he expects everything else to get cheaper. However, he did not sell everything. And this is the key detail, accidental petroleum, Chevron.
He kept the oil. While the rest of the market is chasing the energy transition, the green energy pivot, Buffett is buying the energy baseline. Think about the mechanics of the AI revolution for a second. Data centers, they are power hungry. A single AI query uses 10 times the electricity of a standard Google search.
If Fiser is right and AI takes over the world, the power grid is going to break. It cannot handle the load. So Buffett is betting that the digital world is entirely dependent on the physical world. He knows that wind and solar are variable. They're intermittent. But a natural gas peaker plant, an oil reserve, that is ondemand power.
So when the grid strains, when the data centers in Northern Virginia start pulling gigawatts of power, the man with the oil wins. It is a defensive hedge against a fragile system. He is effectively saying, "You guys can have the software. I will own the power plant that keeps the software running." Kin Fiser takes the absolute opposite bet.
Fiser views the market as well efficient. If a stock price is high, if Nvidia is trading at a massive multiple, it isn't because people are stupid. It is because the future earnings justify it. His portfolio is a direct reflection of the AI super cycle thesis. Nvidia, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, ASML.
He is not hedging. He is aggressive. Fischer's argument is historically grounded too, just a different kind of history. He believes AI is not a financial bubble like the.com era or the housing crisis. He believes it is a technological shift like electricity in the 1920s or the steam engine in the 1800s.
When electricity was introduced, it didn't just make candle makers go out of business. It allowed factories to run 24 hours a day. It exploded productivity. Fiser sees AI doing the same thing for white collar work. If these companies, Microsoft, Google, can effectively rewrite the rules of productivity, then current valuations are irrelevant.
If a company can fire half its staff and produce double the output using AI, then that company is going to be more profitable than it has ever been in history. So Fischer looks at a PE ratio of 40 or 50 and he says it's cheap. And the strategy, well, it is working. A decade ago, Buffett was untouchable.
He was miles ahead in AUM. Today, Fiser has nearly closed the gap. He ignored the inflation fears of 2022. He ignored the rate hikes of 2023. He stayed fully invested in the technology sector. Buffett is playing not to lose. Fiser is playing to win. One is preparing for a nuclear winter. The other is betting on an endless summer.
And the risk for Fiser is that the technology hits a wall. That the productivity boom doesn't happen fast enough to justify the trillions of dollars being spent on chips. If that happens, his portfolio collapses. But so far, the market is voting with Fiser. The split continues. And it gets even more specific when you look at the hedge funds.
Chris Hone, TCI Fund Management. Now, Hone is an activist investor. He is ruthless. He doesn't just buy stocks. He forces companies to change. But his portfolio tells a fascinating story about Moes, Visa, Moody's, S&P Global, Canadian National Railway, Canadian Pacific. These companies have one thing in common.
You cannot compete with them. Take the railroads. You physically cannot build a new railroad in North America today. The land rights, the environmental permits, the capital costs, it is impossible. The map is drawn. It was drawn a 100red years ago and it is never changing. So if you own Canadian National, you own a monopoly on moving heavy goods from the Port of Prince Roer to Chicago.
It doesn't matter if the economy is great or if the economy is in a depression. If you want to move grain or coal or cars, you have to pay the toll. And look at Moody's and S&P. They rate the world's debt. If a corporation wants to borrow money, they must get a rating. There are only two or three companies that matter.
It is a forced toll booth on the entire global financial system. Hone isn't betting on innovation. He isn't betting on the next big thing. He is betting on stagnation. He is betting that the current winners have built walls so high that no amount of AI and no amount of disruption can climb over them.
While Fiser is betting on the cloud, Hone is betting on the tracks. It creates a fascinating contrast. Fiser buys the company selling the goods Amazon. Hone buys the company moving the goods, CN Rail, and the company processing the payment, Visa. It is the plumbing of the economy. Sharp contrast that moat strategy with Steve Cohen at 72.
Cohen is a trader, a shark. He doesn't care about holding forever. He cares about velocity. Broadcom, Nvidia, Amazon. Cohen is buying the machine. He isn't looking for a monopoly. He is looking for efficiency. There have been reports, reliable reports, that Cohen is integrating AI directly into his firm's operations.
He is using the technology to slash costs by millions of dollars. He is replacing analysts with algorithms. So, his investment in Broadcom and Nvidia, it isn't speculative, it is practical. He sees the utility firsthand. He knows that every hedge fund, every bank, every insurance company is about to spend billions on this infrastructure.
He is buying the arms dealer. For Cohen, the infrastructure of AI, the chips, the servers, the networking gear is the only game in town. He is pivoting his entire portfolio to capture this capital expenditure cycle. It is a short-term aggressive bet. He is betting that the capex boom, the spending spree by Microsoft and Meta, has another two or three years to run.
But unlike Buffett, Cohen isn't worried about what happens when the spending stops. He plans to be out of the trade by then. Then there is the forever money. Bill Gates Cascade Investment. Now, everyone knows Gates owns Microsoft. It is still a massive part of his net worth, but look at the rest of the portfolio.
Look at what his money managers buy when they want to diversify. Waste management, caterpillar, deer, ecoab. It is a portfolio of dirt, trash, and iron. This is strictly speaking legacy preservation. This portfolio implies that regardless of the stock market, regardless of interest rates, society has basic functions that cannot stop.
We build, we farm, we throw things away. Waste management is the ultimate defensive stock. Inflation goes up, they raise the price of trash pickup. Recession hits, you still produce trash. It is inflation proof, it is recession proof. And finally, we have to talk about the alarm bell. Jeremy Grantham.
Grantham is a legend for one reason. he calls the tops. He called the Japan bubble in the 80s, the dotcom crash in 2000, the housing crisis in 2008, and today he describes the current moment as a superb bubble. He argues that the euphoria around AI is masking deteriorating fundamentals. He looks at the PE ratios.
He looks at the profit margins and he sees a reversion to the mean coming. His portfolio has shifted entirely to quality. He wants companies with massive cash flow and zero debt. He is positioning for a collapse of the premium. Grantham believes that the soft landing is a myth. He thinks the interest rate hikes of the last few years work with a lag and that the pain is just about to arrive.
If he is right, then Fischer's portfolio is going to get crushed. Nvidia will drop 50 60 70%. But if he is wrong, then Granthm will miss out on the biggest rally of the decade. There is one last group to consider. The Tiger Cubs, Chase Coleman, Andreas Halverson. They disagree with Granthm completely.
They are heavy into the consumer. Meta, Uber, Door Dash. They believe the American consumer is resilient enough to absorb any shock. They look at the employment numbers, which are still strong, and they see a consumer who is addicted to convenience. So the board is set. You have the defensive camp. Buffett, Grandanthm, Gates.
They value cash, commodities, physical monopolies. They are positioning for a correction or a prolonged period of stagflation. And you have the offensive camp. Fiser, Cohen, the Tiger Cubs. They value growth, technology, innovation. They are positioning for a breakout, a productivity miracle. The divergence, it is not about who is smart.
They are all smart. It is about the timeline. Buffett is preparing for the next 2 years of volatility. He is willing to look stupid for a while to survive the crash. Fiser is investing for the next 10 years of transformation. He is willing to take the risk of a crash to ensure he owns the future. The market it simply cannot sustain both narratives forever.
Either the AI productivity boom justifies the prices or the liquidity crunch brings them down. One of these portfolios is about to face a reckoning. And when you look at your own money, you have to decide. Are you building a bunker or are you building a rocket? Because you can't really do both.
댓글 0