
Warren Buffett's Annual Letter to Berkshire Hathaway Shareholders [pdf] - grellas
http://berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2016ltr.pdf
======
otalp
"In Berkshire’s 2005 annual report, I argued that active investment management
by professionals – in aggregate – would over a period of years underperform
the returns achieved by rank amateurs who simply sat still. I explained that
the massive fees levied by a variety of “helpers” would leave their clients –
again in aggregate – worse off than if the amateurs simply invested in an
unmanaged low-cost index fund. ”

He then goes on to show how that's been true, and that a standard index fund
outperforms almost every hedge funds even before extra fees to the hedge funds
are taken into account.

It's not the first time this has been pointed out, and it suggests that for
non-multimillionaires, an index fund is always the most rational choice.

You get close to the return you'd get by investing in real estate, with the
added benefit of index funds being much more easily liquifiable.

~~~
gizmo
Hedge funds make perfect sense for people who want to hedge their capital in
specific ways. A hedge fund doesn't need to outperform the market to deliver
tremendous value to their customers.

Secondly, every trade has a counterparty. So somebody necessarily has to be at
the loser's end of every trade. For every investment fund that makes oversize
profits another fund loses money. It all evens out. That doesn't mean it's
entirely zero sum, though, because money still flows from bad businesses
towards good businesses as a result. The incentives for professional money
managers are also totally misaligned: funds performance is reported quarterly
leading to a short term bias; fund managers get a bonus if they invest
irresponsibly but get lucky; customers are unsophisticated so it's one big
lemon market.

I agree that index funds make a lot of sense for non-millionaires (and single
digit millionaires), but that's simply because it takes a lot of effort to
beat the market even by a few percent so you need a lot of assets for it to be
worthwhile.

~~~
philipov
> _That doesn 't mean it's entirely zero sum, though, because money still
> flows from bad businesses towards good businesses as a result._

Buffet's point is that it's negative-sum. A gambler might win today, but lose
tomorrow, and his counterparty will get the opposite, but the house wins on
every transaction. While the players churn, the market makers and rent seekers
will drain the system of money, in aggregate.

~~~
gizmo
You're reading it incorrectly. Buffett is making the claim that people have
"waste[d] more than $100 billion over the past decade" looking for superior
investment returns. That's his claim, no more. And I agree.

There wouldn't _be_ a stock market if everybody just invests in a fortune 500
index fund. The benefit to society of a functioning stock market is way more
than $10B/yr.

~~~
pg314
No, he isn't reading it incorrectly. Buffett is claiming that on aggregate,
because of the fees, the passive investors will be better off than the active
investors.

From page 23:

    
    
      A lot of very smart people set out to do better than average in securities markets. Call them active investors.
    
      Their opposites, passive investors, will by definition do about average. In aggregate their
      positions will more or less approximate those of an index fund. Therefore, the balance of
      the universe—the active investors—must do about average as well. However, these
      investors will incur far greater costs. So, on balance, their aggregate results after these costs
      will be worse than those of the passive investors.

~~~
gizmo
Yes, but Buffett is not claiming that active investing (as opposed to passive
index investing) is negative-sum in aggregate! That would be ludicrous,
because Buffett is an active investor himself and the Buffett Annual Report is
a long form sales letter to persuade people to buy more Berkshire shares.

~~~
pg314
Buffett, as an active investor, can outperform the market, while active
investors as an aggregate might not. I fail to see any ludicrousness.

> Buffett Annual Report is a long form sales letter to persuade people to buy
> more Berkshire shares.

Nonsense. Buffett doesn't care one whit about people buying more Berkshire
Hathaway shares. If anything, he wouldn't mind people selling shares and
driving the price down to below 1.2 x book value, so he can buy them back at a
discount.

~~~
gizmo
If active investment were negative-sum in aggregate then society would be
better off if there were no active investors at all and everybody would invest
in passive index funds instead. Unfortunately you need active investors to
keep the market honest, without active investors index funds wouldn't work!

Index funds are needed so investment funds don't overcharge their customers,
and investment funds are needed to keep the market honest.

It makes sense for individuals (or institutions) to invest in index funds, but
only up to a point. When too much money is stuck in passive index funds the
active investors will easily outperform the market and the smart money will
leave the index funds again.

The person I was responding to was drawing an analogy to a casino where the
money just moves around and the institutions just skim every time money
changes hands. That's negative sum. In contrast, society benefits when the
stock market gives access to capital to well run companies and takes money
away from poorly run companies. So the casino analogy doesn't work. Buffett
understands that the stock market as a whole isn't zero sum (or negative sum),
and that's true even if all investment firms in aggregate underperform the
indexes.

~~~
tptacek
I think you and your interlocutors are talking past each other. It's true (and
fashionable to point out) that active investment is what makes price
discovery, and thus the markets themselves, work. But that doesn't make it a
good idea to invest in hedge funds or any other active investment vehicles.
Just as Buffett describes earlier in the letter w/r/t the insurance business,
active investors can compete the returns on effective price discovery down
below the returns on passive investing.

Maybe over the long term the returns on active investing will simply go to
prop traders.

~~~
gizmo
Perhaps it is fashionable to point that out where you live, but common wisdom
I hear is "everybody should just use index funds", without stopping to ask
what would happen if everybody actually did.

Worldwide equities are 65 trillion or so. Can you have a functioning stock
market if 1T of that is actively managed by prop traders and the remaining 64T
is in passive index funds? I'm not so sure.

~~~
tptacek
Now you're talking past me. It does not follow from the fact that active
investment is necessary that people should invest with active investors.
Again, fierce competition among active investors can --- and probably have ---
created conditions where all the returns on active investing will go to
(effectively) proprietary traders.

~~~
gizmo
I don't think I'm talking past you -- your previous point was perfectly clear.
You literally cannot have active investments if nobody invests with active
investors or actively manages their funds themselves. This is tautological. So
somebody has to invest with active investors, but Buffett is arguing it should
be somebody else and not you.

If 99.99% of all assets are locked up in buy-and-hold passive index funds the
prop traders can't do anything when a stock is mispriced because they can only
trade with the handful of active investors that remain. With 65 trillion in
equities a handful of prop traders can jump high and low all they want but the
markets won't budge if nobody is buying or selling. The index managers on the
other hand will be able to move markets with a keystroke, because whenever
they decide that one stock in the index has to be replaced by another all the
index fund money blindly follows.

~~~
tptacek
Nobody has to invest money in prop shops for them to provide market inputs.
There are some _huge_ proprietary trading firms.

~~~
gizmo
Prop shops still have owners. They are the investors. There is no such thing
as an investment without an investor.

~~~
tptacek
You're now litigating the literal definition of a prop trading firm.

Nobody is arguing that you shouldn't start a prop trading firm. The argument
is that you shouldn't invest in hedge funds, because passive investment funds
outperform them. If you want to make money in active investment, join or form
a prop firm.

The broader point would be, the market can probably function based on passive
investment and inputs from prop firms, without retail and institutional
investors ever needing to engage in active investment. That would also be
compatible with the notion that active trading is _in general_ unprofitable
because the profit is so aggressively competed out of it.

~~~
gizmo
I literally made this point earlier. I even used the word literally to
indicate I meant it literally.

> Nobody is arguing that you shouldn't start a prop trading firm.

I disagree. People are absolutely arguing that nobody should start a prop firm
because you can't beat the market. That the prop funds that succeed are just
those that have gotten lucky in the short term. That everybody should put
their money in index funds instead. I know you don't believe this, but it's a
common belief for sure.

I think that if all retail investors and all institutional investors
exclusively invest in passive funds the market will get out of whack. We're
talking about all pension funds, university endowments, private trusts, all
moving to index funds. All households together own about 80% of the stock
market (direct + indirect ownership). Hedge funds another 4%. Prop trading
firms probably less than 1%. There are over 3500 publicly listed US equities
and another 10,000 OTC. Deep analysis on every equity is needed to determine
if it is fairly valued; no way prop firms can take on this gargantuan task by
themselves.

Not to mention that index funds are long-only. Very few hedge funds are. If
almost everybody moved to index funds the long-only bias by itself could be
disastrous.

~~~
tptacek
Like I said, I wasn't say you were _wrong_ , I was saying that you and your
interlocutors were _talking past each other_. It can simultaneously be true
that active investors can "beat the market" and that retail and institutional
investors shouldn't invest in actively-managed funds.

The place I think we got hung up here is on the notion of "nobody investing
in", because obviously a person who starts or joins a prop trading firm is in
a sense investing in that firm.

~~~
gizmo
It _can_ be true, but my point is that it probably _isn 't_ true. And I've
explained why I think this. You can look at passive investing as defecting in
a large game of prisoner's dilemma (tragedy of the commons). With passive
investing you enjoy the benefits of an efficient market without doing any
analysis yourself (or paying for somebody else to do it on your behalf). So
you can advise every individual to defect (because it's in their best
interest) but if too many people defect the system breaks down.

So when you say "It can be true that [...] retail and institutional investors
shouldn't invest in actively-managed funds", that can mean two totally
opposite things, as hopefully you can now see. That's why we talk past each
other. I also suspect there is a real disagreement about what the impact of
index funds will be in the long term.

------
dsacco
There's one particular passage I'd like to point out, on page 5:

 _Our efforts to materially increase the normalized earnings of Berkshire will
be aided – as they have been throughout our managerial tenure – by America’s
economic dynamism. One word sums up our country’s achievements: miraculous.
From a standing start 240 years ago – a span of time less than triple my days
on earth – Americans have combined human ingenuity, a market system, a tide of
talented and ambitious immigrants, and the rule of law to deliver abundance
beyond any dreams of our forefathers. You need not be an economist to
understand how well our system has worked. Just look around you. See the 75
million owner-occupied homes, the bountiful farmland, the 260 million
vehicles, the hyper-productive factories, the great medical centers, the
talent-filled universities, you name it – they all represent a net gain for
Americans from the barren lands, primitive structures and meager output of
1776. Starting from scratch, America has amassed wealth totaling $90
trillion._

I don't often see this sort of pride in America. Normally the flavors I do
observe are hyper-nationalistic and filled with bravado, while the tone here
is lauding yet reserved. There's a sense of authenticity delivered in the way
Warren Buffett - an extremely humble, yet successful man - talks about the way
his country has helped him succeed. It's austere.

This isn't part of the regularly scheduled programming for threads about his
letters (mostly we like to champion index funds or debate the utility of
active investing), but it's what really struck me this time around. Juxtapose
his words here with the same _category_ of conversation about America in many
other contexts and contrast the integrity involved. In a time when America
appears to be experiencing quite a bit of social and political volatility, it
is refreshing to hear optimism from a source that does not appear to use it as
an instrument of control.

 _EDIT:_ Well this has since ignited a debate about America's cultural
identity and history of imperialism...not really the spirit of what I was
going for but here we are I guess...

~~~
jdavis703
_they all represent a net gain for Americans from the barren lands, primitive
structures and meager output of 1776. Starting from scratch, America has
amassed wealth totaling $90 trillion._

This was a gain that was achieved not by starting from scratch but by stealing
lands from indigenous people and forcing Africans to work that land. I'm not
sure if you can describe the kidnapping, murder, rape and ultimately genocide
of multiple people groups as miraculous, unless one subscribes to the idealogy
of manifest destiny.

~~~
thedevil
While I think it's important to remember these atrocities, I think that for
economic understanding it's important to note that these were not the major
drivers of growth.

Remember that atrocities like that happened in many places that did not grow
into giant economies. Stealing land and enslaving people may have given a head
start, but clearly something else delivered the big gains.

If you look at the history and the economic charts, the big boost was started
by the industrial revolution.

~~~
all_usernames
> for economic understanding it's important to note that these were not the
> major drivers of growth.

 _Two hundred years_ of slavery was not a major driver of economic growth?

Edit: Serious question, rephrased: do economic historians really not consider
slavery a major driver of growth? If so, that would be highly
counterintuitive. We're talking about the free labor of ~10 million people
over two centuries, in an economy that was almost entirely agricultural.

~~~
lordnacho
Normally the story is that you need certain institutions to make it work.

Rule of law (contracts, low official corruption), absence of arbitrary
confiscation risks (ie the King is not going to suddenly come and grab your
stuff), unfettered movement of goods/people/ideas. Generic ideas that allow
you to compare across societies.

I actually studied economics, and the explanation of how growth arrived does
not normally rely on slaves. It tends to focus more on the advent of early
parliamentary government (Glorious Revolution), presence of coal in northern
England, and advancement of science and technology.

There's no absolutes in economic history though, and you might well find an
argument that the triangular trade aided the industrial revolution. That's
more of a vignette that explains why England in particular might have
prospered, rather than an explanation of how growth gets started in general.

~~~
CPLX
I've got a degree in economics as well. There are a few more big ones,
including the advent of the joint stock company (or more generally, the
ability to effectively pool capital) and the common law, specifically the
ability to enforce business contracts. Those two are fundamental.

~~~
lordnacho
This is a good point, under the rubric "institutions girdling trust".

Quite relevant as a set of innovations in the time when people started having
to do business with strangers, particularly ones with different ecological
positions. You can imagine having lived in agricultural societies there would
be a big question of how exactly you're going to have a business relationship
with say a factory owner or delivery company.

JSC, exchanges, (perhaps central banking as well) and various encounters with
credit issues worked out a certain way in the UK, and innovations were copied
across many other societies.

~~~
desas
Didn't the UK mainly copy them from the Netherlands?

~~~
lordnacho
Another thread is that a lot of ingredients originated in different places in
Europe, thanks to political fragmentation.

\- Mass production: Venetian arsenal

\- Central Bank: Sweden

\- The word Bourse: a certain family in Belgium

\- Political philosophy: lots of places

\- Coal and steel production, factories: Northern France, Belgium

\- Religious freedom: rather bloody wars still in living memory

------
tyingq
The transparency and humble tone is pretty unique.

 _" Unfortunately, I followed the GEICO purchase by foolishly using Berkshire
stock"_

" _It was, nevertheless, a terrible mistake on my part "_

 _" Despite that cautious approach, I made one particularly egregious error"_

I bet you don't find that sort of thing in many other annual shareholder
letters.

~~~
gizmo
Warren Buffett is an expert salesperson, and this tone is the exquisitely
crafted product of 70 years of salesmanship. Buffett has worked tirelessly to
build his public image, and his "aw-shucks" act is a critical part of that.
His image of a down-to-earth person with unquestionable integrity* has enabled
him to lock down investment deals under the most favorable possible terms.

*) read one of his biographies to see he's not afraid to play dirty

~~~
differentView
What's the worst he's done?

~~~
p4db
I do not know what the worst is that he has done.

For sure he and his business partners tried to strongarm the german city /
community of Egelsbach to sell it's airport (Germany's largest small airplane
airport, near Frankfurt/Main) to him. The aim was to expand the airport, at
the expense of the inhabitants. The upside would have been 1-10 jobs, the
downside a lot of noise and reduced price of property and life quality.

A lot of intransparent things were going on, fortunately it seems that things
came to a halt.

It's business. I would not believe the image of a business man of his class.

[Disclaimer: I live in Egelsbach, Germany, and I have followed the case with
great concern.]

Additional source (in German):
[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flugplatz_Frankfurt-
Egelsbach](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flugplatz_Frankfurt-Egelsbach)

~~~
skybrian
It sounds like NetJets bought 80% of shares in the airport [1]. Who did they
buy it from? (I assume they were willing to sell?)

[1] [http://www.juve.de/nachrichten/deals/2009/05/net-jets-
uebern...](http://www.juve.de/nachrichten/deals/2009/05/net-jets-uebernimmt-
mehrheit-am-flughafen-egelsbach)

Translated:
[https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://...](https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.juve.de/nachrichten/deals/2009/05/net-
jets-uebernimmt-mehrheit-am-flughafen-egelsbach&prev=search)

------
Radle
"Some years, the gains in underlying earning power we achieve will be minor;
very occasionally, the cash register will ring loud. Charlie and I have no
magic plan to add earnings except to dream big and to be prepared mentally and
financially to act fast when opportunities present themselves. Every decade or
so, dark clouds will fill the economic skies, and they will briefly rain gold.
When downpours of that sort occur, it’s imperative that we rush outdoors
carrying washtubs, not teaspoons. And that we will do."

------
defenestration
It took me 30 minutes to read the complete letter. It was time well spent. I
learned why the property/casualty insurance business has a really good
business model. It also reminds me to walk away from deals where the financial
fundamentals are wrong, but our competition is eager to sign. And finally, I
feel that his humble tone is honest and that he is trying teach by showing his
considerations, successes and failures.

~~~
dv35z
If you enjoyed that - take the time and get the book compilation of all BH's
annual letters to shareholders - starting 1960s to present. Some of the most
valuable reading I have done in years - strongly recommend.

~~~
graeme
Link: [https://www.amazon.com/Berkshire-Hathaway-Letters-
Shareholde...](https://www.amazon.com/Berkshire-Hathaway-Letters-Shareholders-
Buffett/dp/0615975070/)

~~~
BatFastard
Sold, 2.99 for kindle edition.

------
CurtMonash
I was a #1-ranked stock analyst. And I indeed outperformed the market on my
and my parents' accounts. I also know a small hedge fund manager who I believe
could consistently outperform the market. But in each case the strategy was to
know a small portfolio of underfollowed stocks very very well. It's not
something that could scale. He eventually just dumped his clients and managed
his own money. I stopped investing in anything except index funds after I
stopped being a stock analyst.

I.e., I agree with Buffett's general premise, and have since the 1980s.

------
ryanmarsh
"This team efficiently deals with a multitude of SEC and other regulatory
requirements, files a 30,450-page Federal income tax return"

30,450 pages holy crap

~~~
tormeh
How can that be necessary? Not a rhetorical question.

~~~
twosheep
I guess they itemize

------
NuDinNou
I liked HBO's documentary on him, "Becoming Warren Buffett",
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70nGRBvqFNw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70nGRBvqFNw)

------
ambicapter
> _We may in time experience a decline in float. If so, the decline will be
> very gradual – at the outside no more than 3% in any year. The nature of our
> insurance contracts is such that we can never be subject to immediate or
> near-term demands for sums that are of significance to our cash resources.
> This structure is by design and is a key component in the unequaled
> financial strength of our insurance companies. It will never be
> compromised._

Is he basically saying that the insurance business is structured in such a way
to never payout catastrophic amounts? Is this a harmful thing for the
insurance claimants?

~~~
MarkMc
I think he's saying that Berkshire's insurance is so large and diversified
that even something like a earthquake in California would not have a big
impact on its cash position. I'm surprised it would be capped at 3% though.

~~~
nikdaheratik
I believe he's saying that the year-over-year float won't go below 3%, not
that a very big impact event won't hurt the float for a period of a few
months. Part of this is because policies are re-issued every year which means
that they can increase premiums if needed and drop high risk customers as he's
pointed out in previous letters.

------
kennyma
Here's an annotated version of the letter by Bloomberg
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-02-25/lessons-f...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-02-25/lessons-
from-the-oracle-warren-buffett-s-shareholder-letter-annotated)

------
digitalmaster
"Americans have combined human ingenuity, a market system, a tide of talented
and ambitious immigrants, and the rule of law to deliver abundance beyond any
dreams of our forefathers." \- W. Buffet

------
perseusprime11
Buffet is so modest and humble. It comes through in this comment: "A few,
however – these are serious blunders I made in my job of capital allocation –
produce very poor returns. In most cases, I was wrong when I originally sized
up the economic characteristics of these companies or the industries in which
they operate, and we are now paying the price for my misjudgments. In a couple
of instances, I stumbled in assessing either the fidelity or ability of
incumbent managers or ones I later put in place. I will commit more errors;
you can count on that. Fortunately, Charlie – never bashful – is around to say
“no” to my worst ideas."

------
cbanek
One hilarious thing I learned, and I can't wait to put into action:

So stop by for a quote. In most cases, GEICO will be able to give you a
shareholder discount (usually 8%). This special offer is permitted by 44 of
the 51 jurisdictions in which we operate. (One supplemental point: The
discount is not additive if you qualify for another discount, such as that
available to certain groups.) Bring the details of your existing insurance and
check out our price. We can save many of you real money. Spend the savings on
other Berkshire products.

I need to get hooked up with my shareholder discount!

------
crb002
What Buffet left out. The massive windfall from OPIC, a U.S. Government
insurance program not audited by the GAO, in the buy of Mid American.
[https://www.opic.gov/sites/default/files/docs/claim_mid_amer...](https://www.opic.gov/sites/default/files/docs/claim_mid_american.pdf)

------
gillianlish
that is assuming the stock market doesn't crash. if you bought an index fund
in 1928 you would still be broke AF in 1935 and wouldn't get your money back
until the 50s.

buffett profited off the housing bubble and should not be trusted. he owned
huge stakes in the ratings agencies that were giving AAA+ ratings to these
awful mortgage products, even as publically he was decrying the financial
products involved as 'mass destruction' he was making money on it.

he is doing the same with his stock market push. if a million people listen to
him and go buy stocks, what do you think happens to his index funds? They go
up of course.

absolutely hilarious and sad to watch people worship this guy. if his secret
is really to buy index funds, then why do people listen to his speeches and
newsletters? you could just go buy index funds and be done with it.

like every other con artist, his genius is to get people to buy in to his
story.

~~~
valuearb
He doesn't own or sell index funds.

Your analysis of the great crash ignores the effects of dividends, which were
very high in the thirties and made investors profitable much more quickly than
you claim.

The housing bubble burst and BRK is worth far more now.

You don't know what Buffett does, how he got rich, or much about the stock
market either.

------
mrfusion
Has anyone ever attended a shareholder meeting? Sounds kind of fun.

~~~
stevenj
Yes, it was really fun.

On a related note, I came across a website several years ago that has a lot of
info from the annual meeting Q&As, as well as other interviews, etc. It's
quite long, but I found it very enjoyable to read.

[http://buffettfaq.com](http://buffettfaq.com)

~~~
sumedh
If like reading about Buffett you should definitely check out buffettfaq.com

------
MarkMc
I have more respect for Warren Buffett than any person outside my family.

He's smart, honest, humble, generous, witty and a great communicator. And he's
the best investor in the world.

------
ahh
Anyone else a bit disappointed?

Normally these letters have some new brilliant insight or dive into a business
I know nothing about. This one feels shorter and more peremptory. I see the
financials for the major sectors and the same boilerplate explanation of
insurance and railroads that's in every letter.

What's up? It's not like nothing happened with Berkshire Hathaway this year.

------
jedberg
The "Annual meeting" section is the most entertaining. It sounds like
woodstock for capitalists.

------
glbrew
"Come to Omaha – the cradle of capitalism – on May 6th and meet the Berkshire
Bunch."

------
fovc
Does anyone know why it is that their insurance businesses post underwriting
profits? Is there anything structural? Why does GEICO have such a cost-driven
moat?

~~~
pg314
An owner (Buffett) that understands the insurance business goes a long way.
There is less pressure than in a public company to do business even when the
appropriate premiums can't be obtained (see p. 10). Having a very large and
sound balance sheet also helps.

Their insurance businesses don't always make money. There have been years in
the past that they posted big losses.

------
WhiteOwlLion
Did anyone notice page 4 is 8.5x11 inches while every other page is 8.25x10.75
inches?

------
psyc
All that cheerleading for capitalism, and the only micro-nod to inequality is
this: "However our wealth may be divided, the mind-boggling amounts you see
around you belong almost exclusively to Americans."

"See around me," indeed.

------
DiabloD3
There's going to be a day where there won't be any more annual letters from
him.

~~~
narendraj9
Yes. But why do you want that? Why the need to state this at the moment?

~~~
Nokinside
Life expectancy of 86 year old male is 5.4 years.

~~~
skolsuper
What is it for 86 year old male multi-billionaires?

~~~
yorwba
tl;dr: ~5.3 years.

I collected all Wikipedia articles on American billionaires who died in 2008 -
2017:
[http://tools.wmflabs.org/dschwenbot/intersection/index.php?l...](http://tools.wmflabs.org/dschwenbot/intersection/index.php?linklist=&catlist=American+billionaires%0D%0A2017+deaths%7C2016+deaths%7C2015+deaths%7C2014+deaths%7C2013+deaths%7C2012+deaths%7C2011+deaths%7C2010+deaths%7C2009+deaths%7C2008+deaths&deep=0&do_intersection=Query)

That got me 74 results. I wgot the articles and manually removed the women
based on related Wikipedia categories (turns out
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_McClendon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_McClendon)
was a man, I would have removed him just based on the name).

Then I grepped the files for '"[0-9]\\{4\\} births"' to get the year of birth
(this string marks the corresponding category). Two men didn't have a known
birthdate, so I threw out their articles, too. This left me with the years of
birth for 65 American billionaires. I got their years of death analogously.

After that I calculated their ages as the difference (yes, this could be off
by +-1 year, but my method is not exactly rigorous anyway). The mean of these
values is ~82.6. 29 of them are >= 86. The mean of those is ~91.3, or 5.3
years past 86. Considering the huge error bars, this is well in line with the
general population average.

