They’d been rather boastful, outperforming the market for years, but then the market had a bit of a growth spurt in 2025. A bit rude, really. Now, after a small dip – 10% and 14%, to be precise – these two magnificent companies look rather tempting indeed, like plums just waiting to be picked.
Let’s face it, Amazon became a household name by delivering everything from aardvarks to zithers right to your doorstep. Convenience! It was revolutionary! They were losing money hand over fist, but nobody cared! They were too busy ordering inflatable flamingos! Now, they’re finally figuring out that maybe, just maybe, they should try to make a profit. They’ve been throwing money at robots, automating everything. It’s a little scary, frankly. All those robots… coming for our jobs… but hey, at least the packages will arrive on time! Morgan Stanley says this robotic revolution could save them four billion dollars. Four billion! That’s enough to buy a small country! Or a really big collection of inflatable flamingos.
The surge, naturally, followed a brief stumble. An analyst, one Philip Gibbs of Keybanc, deemed the stock “fairly valued,” a phrase that, translated from bureaucrat-speak, means “the easy money has been made.” He fretted about catalysts and shifting product mixes – concerns as predictable as the rising and setting of industrial quotas. Shares, having already enjoyed a 50% ascent in six months, seemed to have absorbed all the optimism the market could muster. A perfectly reasonable observation, though one that conveniently ignores the enduring human capacity for irrational exuberance.
Market participants are increasingly focused on the Buffett Indicator – a ratio comparing U.S. stock market capitalization to U.S. gross domestic product. Popularized in the early 2000s, the metric gained prominence following its prescient indication of the impending correction of the dot-com bubble. The rationale, as articulated by Warren Buffett in a 2001 interview with Fortune magazine, centers on the inherent limitations of extrapolating exponential growth indefinitely.
The pursuit of income, you see, is not unlike the search for the perfect cup of coffee. One might be seduced by the immediate, bracing kick of a high yield, only to discover a bitter aftertaste. Others, captivated by the legacy of steady growth, might overlook the budding potential of a younger vine, promising a richer harvest. The wise investor, however, understands that the true measure lies not in a single season’s bounty, but in the enduring resilience of the roots, the careful tending of the soil, and the willingness to embrace the unpredictable rhythms of the land. It is a delicate balance, a slow dance with fortune, and a recognition that even the most promising orchard can be ravaged by a sudden frost.
It’s a habit, you see, amongst those who dabble in such things – these ‘investors’ – to occasionally step back and survey the landscape. To consider, if you will, the grand sweep of history, the rise and fall of empires, and the inherent instability of anything vaguely resembling a financial instrument. And when they do, they might still find themselves… intrigued by Bitcoin. But the question remains, doesn’t it? Is this digital ephemera capable of transforming a modest outlay into a sum that would make Croesus blush? A genuine millionaire-making machine?
Both, of course, promise exposure to the precious. Silver, for SIVR, and gold for GLDM. A simple transaction, one might think. Yet, simplicity is rarely the companion of profit. The appeal, naturally, is to avoid the bother of actual possession – the vaults, the insurance, the inevitable anxieties. These funds, like dutiful servants, manage such concerns. But at what cost, precisely?
Both offer a route to the metallic bonanza, but they’re about as alike as a dachshund and a giraffe. SLVP, you see, is a bit of a social butterfly, flitting about amongst the mining companies themselves. PPLT, on the other hand, is a staunch individualist, preferring to hold the actual platinum, a rather solid sort of fellow. A crucial distinction, wouldn’t you agree?
Then we have Coca-Cola. Not exactly a whirlwind of innovation, is it? More of a… steadfast presence. Like a particularly stubborn garden gnome. It’s been around for well over a century, a testament to the enduring power of sugary water and marketing. A total return of 16% in 2025. Respectable, certainly. But it lacks the… frisson of something genuinely, dangerously new. It’s the sort of company your grandfather invested in, and then told you about at length, whilst simultaneously questioning the merits of your ‘digital doodads’.
The succession, naturally, is the source of these tremors. However, to suggest that Berkshire’s future hinges solely upon the whims of a single man is to misunderstand the nature of the enterprise. There are, as it happens, some $382 billion reasons to remain, if not optimistic, at least… resigned to continued prosperity.