My positioning with my investors was always, I need three to five years.

I have always believed that a single talented analyst, working very hard, can cover an amazing amount of investment landscape, and this belief remains unchallenged in my mind.

The late 90s almost forced me to identify myself as a value investor, because I thought what everybody else was doing was insane.

When I stand on my special-issue Intelligent Investor ladder and peer out over the frenzied crowd, I see very few others doing the same. Many stocks remain overvalued, and speculative excess - both on the upside and on the downside - is embedded in the frenzy around stocks of all stripes. And yes, I am talking about March 2001, not March 2000.

The borrowers will always be willing to take a great deal for themselves. It’s up to the lenders to show restraint, and when they lose it, watch out.

I think a lot of funds get their ideas from Wall Street. I just like to find my own ideas. I read a lot. A lot of news. I just follow my nose. A lot of times it's a dead end, but sometimes there's value there.

If you are going to be a great investor, you have to fit the style to who you are.

Read every line item until you get it.

My natural state is an outsider. I've always felt outside the group, and I've always been analyzing the group.

Early on, people invested in me because of my letters and then, somehow, after they invested, they stopped reading them.

It is ludicrous to believe that asset bubbles can only be recognized in hindsight.

I didn't offer transparency. I provided one quarterly report in letter form. That was all you got. I basically demanded that if you're going to invest in my fund you need to accept my terms. The terms not being super highs, but just, I'm not going to cater to you.