r/WarrenBuffett

I came in expecting to learn about investing and mostly walked away with life advice. A bit embarrassing for this sub, I know.

The one I keep thinking about is Buffett's punch card - the idea that you get maybe 20 investments in a whole lifetime, so you'd think hard about each one. Read it as life advice instead and it kind of stings: 20 real bets total, like who you partner with, what you work on, where you live. I stop and think a lot more now before I call something a "bet."

The other thing that surprised me is how slow they were about the partnership. Warren and Charlie ran separate things on opposite coasts for years, just calling each other all the time, before any of it was official. Trust first, paperwork way later. Feels like the opposite of how people network now.

And the line I can't shake, which is really an investing idea dressed up as a life one: "the safest way to get what you want is to try to deserve what you want."

I wrote the whole thing up here if anyone's interested: https://domelian.substack.com/p/what-i-learned-from-warren-buffett

In 1977, Buffett was still early in building Berkshire into what it would become.

He had already bought See’s Candies, taken a major position in The Washington Post, and was rebuilding Berkshire around insurance and investments. But even then, he knew buying an entire great business at a bargain price was extremely difficult.

Owners of wonderful businesses usually know what they have. They rarely sell cheap.

That is why the stock market mattered so much to Buffett.

It occasionally gave him the chance to buy small pieces of outstanding businesses at prices far below what a private buyer would have to pay for the whole company.

I want to address a common critique of the LongtermTrends page on the Buffett Indicator and add some nuance.

The page currently shows several versions:

Wilshire 5000 / GDP as the main Buffett Indicator chart, public and private corporate equities / GDP as a broader quarterly series, and then Dow / GDP and S&P 500 / GDP as narrower historical/proxy views.

The common critique is: "U.S. market cap divided by U.S. GDP is flawed because U.S.-listed companies earn revenue globally, so you are comparing a partly global numerator with a domestic U.S. denominator."

There is also a broader critique: some people argue that GDP is an increasingly incomplete measure of the economy, especially in a world of software, data, free digital services, and AI tools. It is useful and standardized, but it was designed to measure production, not welfare, distribution, sustainability, or the full value people get from digital goods that are cheap or free.

Those critiques have truth in them, but the terms matter. The latest official S&P DJI / FactSet / FactSet Revere data I found show S&P 500 companies getting about 71% of revenue from the U.S. and therefore about 29% from outside the U.S., based on fiscal 2024 foreign-sales figures.

That raises the next question: if S&P 500 companies get roughly 29% of their revenue outside the U.S., does U.S. GDP include anything comparable on the foreign side?

This is where the terms get tricky. The numerator-side number is company revenue by customer geography. The denominator is GDP, which is not company revenue. The BEA defines GDP as the value of final goods and services produced in the United States.

So foreign demand is partly included, but only in a specific way. In the expenditure formula, exports are included and imports are subtracted. If a U.S. company produces something in the U.S. and sells it abroad, that is part of U.S. exports and therefore part of U.S. GDP.

But that is not the same as saying all foreign revenue of U.S.-listed companies is included in U.S. GDP. Using BEA/FRED exports and GDP, U.S. exports were about 10.8% of GDP in 2025 and about 11.1% in Q1 2026. Exports are material, but they are not the same size as the S&P 500's non-U.S. revenue share.

Revenue from foreign subsidiaries, foreign production, or foreign supply chains does not map cleanly into U.S. domestic production. And even exports are not directly comparable to corporate revenue, because company revenue is gross sales, while GDP is value added.

There is one more wrinkle: Buffett's original version did not use GDP. In his 2001 Fortune essay, he talked about total market value relative to GNP. Jesse Felder also stresses this framing when he calls it the Buffett Yardstick.

That may matter conceptually. GDP measures production inside U.S. borders. GNP measures production by U.S. residents, wherever they are located. So GNP may sound like a better match for U.S. companies with global operations.

But I am not sure it solves the issue. GNP still is not company revenue, and for the U.S. today it is very close to GDP: FRED GNP was about $31.883T in Q1 2026, versus GDP of about $31.819T. That means GNP was only about 0.2% higher.

Looking at other Buffett Indicator pages, most either turn the ratio into a valuation signal or add a small caveat section. Current Market Valuation labels the market against trend and standard-deviation bands and discusses interest rates and international sales. Advisor Perspectives / dshort compares GDP and GNP versions and says they differ very little, while also warning that the indicator is not useful for short-term timing. buffettindicator.org even shows a globalization-adjusted version. Investopedia and Corporate Finance Institute mostly explain the formula, valuation zones, and limitations. I am trying to figure out whether LongtermTrends should add a stronger caveat, a clearer signal, or some alternative comparison.

So this is the part I am unsure about.

First: is it fair to compare the market cap of U.S.-listed companies with U.S. GDP at all? Does the fact that U.S. companies operate globally make the Buffett Indicator invalid, or just less precise? Is the foreign revenue of U.S.-listed companies reflected enough in GDP through exports, or not really? Would GNP/GNI be a better denominator, since Buffett originally used GNP, or is the difference too small to matter in practice?

Second: is GDP itself still a good denominator here? Is it a useful standardized measure of the economy, or is it too flawed in an age of AI, free digital services, data, software, and intangible value?

If you were editing the page, what would you add? Would you add a caveat, a critique, a disclaimer, a different chart, or some kind of valuation signal? What wording would help people interpret the Buffett Indicator better? And are there better measures you would compare it with?

I love being able to take a snapshot of what Buffett was into during the early years

Here we have the GEICO position that was newly minted in 75, the famous Post investment, and for the first time, the capital cities investment.