Key Insights- Buffett redefines tech stocks as "monopoly businesses," adapting to the times.
- Burry's obsession with predicting an AI bubble ended in fund dissolution.
- Convenience store AI achieves 15% efficiency in sales analysis, but field adoption remains at only 42%.
- Maintain a 33:33:33 portfolio allocation and limit AI exposure through ETFs.
Buffett Evolves, Burry Disappears
I was browsing the internet at home when a headline caught my eye: "Berkshire Hathaway acquires 17.85 million shares of Alphabet in Q3." I almost scrolled past, but something made me stop. Buffett? Buying Google?
It felt off. Like watching a lifelong steakhouse owner suddenly add sushi to the menu. Buffett has spent his entire career saying, "I don't invest in businesses I can't understand." He's always been cautious with tech stocks. During the dot-com bubble of the 2000s, when Amazon was soaring in the 2010s—he just watched from the sidelines. Even his Apple investment came only after he reframed it as "a consumer goods company, not a tech company."
But now Google? Search engines, Android, YouTube, and AI—the hottest topic of the moment. This seemed far from classic "Buffett-style" investing. And the size of the bet wasn't trivial either: about $4.3 billion. This wasn't an experiment. This was a serious commitment.
Reading the news, I felt something strange. Curiosity? Unease? It was like witnessing a 94-year-old legendary investor transform before my eyes.
The Value Investor Embraces Tech
Buffett's investment philosophy is simple: invest in companies with a moat—an insurmountable competitive advantage—and make sure you fully understand the business. He understood Coca-Cola. People will keep drinking soda, and Coca-Cola dominates that market. Simple and clear.
But Google? Search algorithms, machine learning, cloud computing. Can a 94-year-old man claim to "fully understand" these? Buffett himself would probably struggle to explain how Google's data centers work.
So why did he buy? Digging deeper, the answer became clear. What Buffett saw wasn't the technology—it was the monopoly. Google controls over 90% of the search market. When people around the world want to know something, they "Google it." That's as clear a moat as Coca-Cola's. Plus, advertising revenue accounts for 75% of Google's total revenue. Search dominance translates directly into advertising dominance.
(To be precise, Buffett likely didn't make this decision himself. His portfolio managers, Ted Weschler or Todd Combs, probably initiated it, and Buffett approved.)
Ah, that's why. Buffett didn't see Google as a "tech company"—he saw it as an "advertising monopoly." Just like he saw Apple as a consumer goods company. It made sense. But it also raised questions.
Why I Don't Own Google
I don't own Google stock. I have no plans to buy it. Even after seeing Buffett's purchase, my thinking hasn't changed. Why?
I follow a clear principle when investing: 33% growth stocks, 33% value stocks, 33% dividend stocks (including utilities). I stick to this ratio. When I buy value, I want clear value. When I buy growth, I want clear growth. Google falls into neither category cleanly. Its valuation is too high to be a pure value play, and it's already too massive to be a pure growth play.
More importantly, Google's revenue model doesn't appeal to me. Despite being a tech company, its primary income comes from advertising. Sure, advertising is stable and profitable. But how that model evolves in the AI era remains uncertain.
Consider this: today, people search on Google and see ads on the results page. But what happens when generative AI like ChatGPT advances? People won't scroll through search results anymore—they'll just read AI-summarized answers. Where do the ads go then? They'd need to be naturally embedded in AI responses, but will that be as effective as today's model?
Google is developing Gemini AI to address this, but whether it can truly replace the existing advertising model remains to be seen. That uncertainty is why I don't own Google. I prefer certainty over question marks.
My growth portfolio includes Tesla, ARKG (genomics ETF), and ICLN (clean energy ETF). Except for Tesla, everything is ETFs to spread risk. Even my AI exposure is indirect through ETFs rather than buying NVIDIA or Microsoft directly.
Buffett may have seen "certainty" in Google, but I haven't yet. And that's okay. There's no single right answer in investing.
The Reality of AI from Behind a Convenience Store Counter
Running a convenience store, I encounter AI too. Our sales analysis system uses AI to analyze data. It recommends which products sell when and how much inventory to maintain. There's also a chatbot system supposedly handling customer inquiries automatically.
But honestly? It's underwhelming. The sales analysis is basic statistics at best, and recommendations are often inaccurate. The chatbot is just that—a bot. It's embarrassingly simple to call it AI. It can only answer pre-programmed questions like "What are your business hours?" and keeps repeating the same responses.
Why is this? Because the convenience store industry hasn't heavily invested in AI. Corporate headquarters loudly promote AI adoption, but actual implementation on the ground is slow and limited. The ROI isn't clear enough.
The media screams, "AI will transform your life!" Personal assistant AI, personalized learning AI, creative AI. All focused on individual consumers. But the AI that actually makes money is enterprise AI. Amazon's warehouse AI, Microsoft's Copilot for corporate clients, Google's Gemini for advertising efficiency—that's the real AI market.
According to a McKinsey report, 70% of the projected $1 trillion AI market in 2030 will be B2B (business-to-business). Consumer AI accounts for only 30%. So why do YouTube and news outlets only talk about consumer AI? Simple: it drives clicks. "AI that will change your life" is relatable, but "AI that reduces corporate logistics costs by 15%" is boring.
I feel this gap every day behind the convenience store counter. The world shouts about the AI revolution, but the POS system in front of me still feels like it's from the computer age. The AI era is still far off, at least in my workplace.
Michael Burry: A Hero in the Past Tense
Around the same time as Buffett's Google news, I saw another headline: "Michael Burry dissolves Scion Asset Management fund."
Michael Burry. The protagonist of The Big Short. In 2008, he predicted the financial crisis, shorted subprime mortgages, and earned 489% returns. He became a genius investor, hailed as a "market prophet."
But in 2025, he quietly exited the stage. On November 10th, announcing the fund's dissolution, he posted on X (formerly Twitter): "On to much better things Nov 25th." Perhaps he's preparing to reclaim past glory.
What happened? He saw AI as the second coming of the dot-com bubble. In Q3 2025, he bought put options (betting on decline) on NVIDIA and Palantir, convinced AI stocks would crash. But the market mocked his prediction. AI stocks kept rising, and he lost money.
I actually analyzed his AI bubble warning around November 5th. His logic had merit—AI companies' valuations were indeed disconnected from actual earnings. But Burry missed one thing: you can't predict market timing.
He was right in 2008. But that was just once. And reaching that moment of glory was incredibly difficult for him. After that, his bets kept failing. His Tesla short failed, his inflation bet missed. Yet he stubbornly stuck to the same approach: "The market is crazy, and I'm right."
After hearing about the fund dissolution, it became clear. Michael Burry is a "hero in the past tense." He got trapped in his prime time—the 2008 success. He tried to repeat that methodology in 2025, but times had changed. 2008 was a debt crisis; 2025 is a technological revolution. The same strategy couldn't work.
Watching Burry, I realized that even legendary investors are human. They cling to the methods that made them shine. They believe it'll work again. But markets change. Stubbornness becomes a liability, not an asset.
The Flexibility of a 94-Year-Old
This is where Buffett and Burry differ. At 94, Buffett still evolves. Buying Google proves he's still reading the times.
Of course, Buffett probably didn't make this decision directly. His portfolio managers, Todd Combs or Ted Weschler, likely led the charge. But the crucial point is that Buffett approved it. If he had refused, saying "This isn't my style," the deal wouldn't have happened.
When Buffett bought Apple, he faced similar questions: "Didn't you say you don't buy tech stocks?" He answered, "Apple isn't a tech company—it's a consumer goods company. People use iPhones like essential goods."
Same with Google. Buffett probably doesn't see Google as an "AI company." He sees it as a "search monopoly that strengthens that monopoly with AI." Google's Gemini AI reportedly increased search and advertising efficiency by 30%. That's not technology—that's revenue. Language Buffett understands.
Perhaps this deal represents Google gaining market recognition: a tech company that consistently creates value through advertising and OS (Android) development. Among Big Tech, it's earned the label of being the most "Buffett-like."
At 94, he hasn't changed his philosophy, but he's adapted its interpretation to a new era. That's true flexibility. Burry got trapped in the past at 46, while Buffett reads the present at 94.
Keep Your Principles, But Read the Times
Seeing these two news stories made me rethink investing. There's no single right answer in investing. But there is an attitude.
First, have principles. I maintain my 33:33:33 ratio. That's my principle. Buffett's principle is "companies with moats." Without principles, you get swayed by market noise.
Second, don't get trapped by your principles. Burry tried to apply his 2008 success formula to 2025. That's not principle—that's stubbornness. Buffett bought Apple and Google while maintaining his principles but expanding their application.
Third, read the times. AI is definitely a game-changer. But not every AI company makes money. The real money goes to Big Tech using AI as a tool—Google, Microsoft, Amazon. They've used AI to boost operational efficiency and increase revenue by 15-20%. Meanwhile, most pure AI startups are still losing money.
Fourth, know yourself. I'm not buying Google. I don't care if Buffett did. I see uncertainty in advertising's future; Buffett sees search monopoly endurance. Both views could be wrong or right. What matters is that I trust my judgment and act on it.
Maintain your principles while broadening your perspective—even looking in different directions. That might be the shortest way to express it.
Investment Philosophy from Behind a Convenience Store Counter
Fifty-nine hours a week, I stand behind a convenience store counter. I serve customers, organize inventory, and open at dawn. In between, I check market news. That's how I learned about Buffett's Google purchase and Burry's fund dissolution.
Convenience store work is monotonous. The same routine daily. But investing is similar. Building bit by bit every day. Not chasing home runs, but consistently following principles. Like Buffett's 60-year average of 20% annual returns, or Lynch's 29% over 13 years.
People cheer for Burry-style "lottery plays." One big score. A movie-worthy story. But what's sustainable in reality is Buffett-style "boring wins."
I turn 40 next year. Exactly one year before my convenience store contract expires. What will my investment portfolio look like then? Will Google be in it? Probably not. But I don't think that's the wrong choice. (Though I can't be certain. If Google shows remarkable innovation that maintains profitability, I'll immediately admit I was wrong.)
Investing isn't a game of finding the right answer. It's a game of keeping your principles while reading the times and adapting flexibly. At 94, Buffett is still playing that game. At 46, Burry stepped away.
What kind of investor will I become? I don't know yet. But I know one thing. Whether behind a convenience store counter or in the investment market, what matters is surviving long-term. And to survive, you must change. Keep your principles, but stay mentally flexible.
Buffett evolves, Burry disappears. That's the lesson the 2025 investment market taught me.
References:
- Berkshire Hathaway 13F Filing (2025 Q3)
- Warren Buffett's Annual Shareholder Letters (2023)
- Michael Burry's Scion Asset Management Deregistration (SEC Filing)
- McKinsey & Company, "The State of AI in 2025 and Beyond"
Comments
Post a Comment