Apart from the fact that you're comparing the obsessive focus of a business plan to that of a portfolio, you realize that Berkshire owns NetJets, Dairy Queen, Borsheim's jewelry, insurance companies, and the Burlington Northern Railroad, right?
"Obsessive focus on being awesome" is not a non-diversified investing strategy.
>"Obsessive focus on being awesome" is not a non-diversified investing strategy.
I disagree. I think focusing on only owning/investing in "All-Stars" is a non-diversified investing strategy.
"Berkshire's CEOs come in many forms. Some have MBAs; others never finished college. Some use budgets and are by-the-book types; others operate by the seat of their pants. Our team resembles a baseball squad composed of all-stars having vastly different batting styles. Changes in our line-up are seldom required."
In the tech world VCs and angels seem to want this too. If they only invested in Google, Facebook, Twitter, Groupon, LivingSocial, Amazon, Spotify, etc., I think they'd be perfectly happy.
IMO, DST seems to be implementing this strategy, at least to some extent.
I disagree. I think focusing on only owning/investing in "All-Stars" is a non-diversified investing strategy
Only if you want to abuse the term "diversified investment strategy" to the point where it becomes meaningless.
When we say you should have a diverse portfolio it does not mean "diversely spread between good assets and crap assets". You should only buy good assets. But you should buy multiple good assets, largely to protect yourself from the fact that what you think is a good asset may in fact be crap.
Look, I understand you're trying to be contrarian here, but "diversify your assets" isn't a point that leaves a lot of room for contrarianism.
"Obsessive focus on being awesome" is not a non-diversified investing strategy.