Tech Analysis is used in trading of BTC to understand important buy/sell levels where high liquidity is available and that BTC could go towards in order to liquidate such areas.
Value and growth investing had been a part when people saw the old records of others buying it for very low and then they bought it even at highs because they believed in the technology and waited for the growth of the project as well as its value. So these 2 are correlated here.
And narrative economy? Ah, Bitcoin got its mass adoption through the power of word of mouth advertising and there are so, so many success stories available in the markets about people earning great returns through this investment.
Yes, you are correct in your analysis from my perspective, Bitcoin is a mixture of those 4 themes, but so are the rest. There's no true "black" and "white" in this world, therefore there's nothing entirely driven 100% by TA, value, growth or narrative investors. However, we can generalize and simplify in order to better analyze, otherwise we couldn't even come up with a unified GDP measure or P/E
However, none of the drug companies you listed are growth investments, those are all value plays. If there's one thing Warren Buffet likes, it's a a broad defensible moat around the business and high barriers to entry for competitors, and this pretty much sums up the biopharma market perfectly where there are high regulatory hurdles and the cost for new entrants in the field is incredibly high. Further, those PE ratios don't even suggest they're high growth companies, this was definitely a value play.
Apple was definitely a value play when Buffet invested, and it was also only made after his younger portfolio managers kind of taught him how to value tech stocks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=143&v=mOgAJnwQxzw&feature=emb_title
StoneCo is a Brazilian tech firm that deals in money transfers and I would characterize it as a growth company (I've followed the company closely, ironically because Berkshire invested in it), however a portfolio manager at Berkshire is responsible for this investment, not Warren Buffet.
Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway invested $340 million to acquire 14,166,748 Class A shares of StoneCo, piggybacking on its IPO, at roughly $24 per share. The move raised eyebrows at the time, a departure from the type of company Buffett would typically choose. Reports later confirmed that it was one of Buffett's portfolio managers -- Todd Combs -- who had made the investment decision.
-https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/03/03/warren-buffett-backed-fintech-company-stoneco.aspx
Since Buffet and Munger are quite old, they have succession plans in place for when they leave the company. This has lead to more younger portfolio managers at Berkshire taking the reigns of ever larger swaths of the investment portfolio. I am quite confident that you will find that any investment in growth/tech stocks were due to the younger portfolio managers, and not Buffet or Munger.
Again, read the Berkshire shareholder letters. It's a primary source. Buffet's own words tell you he's obsessed with intrinsic value, not growth.
(Kind of a Buffet fanboy here. I've read a lot of his writing over the years.)
Lol, yes I noticed that we got a Buffet fanboy here Which is alright, just don't idolize someone too much, learn from the greatest about their success in their times, and apply what is suitable to the changed time which might require a different approach (if we would follow old norms and methods - we still would be riding horses and thinking electricity is sent to us by Gods from the sky).
As for drug companies and Apple, we will never reach a consensus, what is value to you or Buffet - growth for me, what is TA for me - narrative for others. In the end as they say "value of an asset depends on who is paying the valuer".
Furthermore, we could even go on for a discussion of:
- Intrinsic Value (IntV) - asset or security valuation by someone who has complete understanding of characteristics of the asset or issuing firm (used for most investment decisions); vs.
- Fair Value (FV) - the price at which a hypothetical willing, informed, and able seller would trade asset to a willing, informed, and able buyer; vs.
- Investment Value (InvV) - value of a stock to a particular buyer, depending on the buyer’s specific needs and expectations, as well as perceived synergies with existing buyer assets (usually for M&A and LBO); vs.
- Equilibrium Value (EV) - any market price that clears the market at any point in time when there are no more buyers or sellers as no market inefficiencies exist (economic term and usually unachievable condition); vs.
- Market Value (MV) - anything you observe on the market at any point in time for any asset; vs.
- Discounted Present Value (PV) - all future expected cash flows discounted to current period of time (commonly, but not always equals to IntV); vs.
- Book Value (BV) - book value of assets as per accounting records (sometimes equals to IntV).
All above will change from person to person depending on own understanding, and depending on the valuation purpose, and "... who pays the valuer". And what is IntV or InvV to Buffet, won't be same to the "average Joe" from down the street. Because the fact that Buffet invested - is a game changer to the market, moreover, he personally can affect the company, but others - not so much. And, as you correctly noted, some of the investment decisions were made by younger investment managers, which deviated from Buffet's strategy, so that means: either 1) Buffet hired not so intelligent people who don't fully understand "value investment" theory, either 2) those people don't believe in "value investment" theory so much, or in it's future, either 3) We don't fully understand "value investment" theory (Snowflake P/E ), or 4) We don't know the whole picture and truth. I believe the last reason is the most reasonable to assume. Therefore, I don't see too much point arguing around those here, as here we discuss a different thing, however, would be happy to share own opinions on that in a separate thread if you would like to
I think we've reached the point, on this particular issue, where we agree to disagree (for lack of a better characterization). I think ultimately that the venn diagram of value investing and growth investing can have overlap, it's not necessarily that a value investment can't be made in a growth company. After all, all growth investors are eventually counting on profits if they're long term holders and not just momentum trading, which describes the Berkshire approach specifically and also mine, it's just that when they make the decision to invest they had a different thesis about how/why the stock is going to go up. But my whole entry into your response was just to rebut the notion that Munger and Buffet are anything other than value investors.