On this page
Warren Buffett is universally regarded as history’s greatest value investor, yet his portfolio tells a more nuanced story. Berkshire Hathaway’s largest holding for years has been Apple, a company that most investors classify squarely as a growth stock. The firm also holds positions in Amazon, Nu Holdings, and other companies that would look out of place in a traditional value portfolio. Buffett’s evolution from buying cheap, mediocre businesses to paying fair prices for exceptional growth companies offers invaluable lessons for any investor navigating the growth versus value debate.
The Early Buffett: Pure Value Investing
Buffett’s investment education began under Benjamin Graham at Columbia Business School, where he absorbed the principles of deep value investing. Graham taught that the market regularly offered stocks at prices below their liquidation value, and that patient investors who bought these bargains would eventually be rewarded as the market corrected the mispricing.
In his early partnership years managing smaller sums, Buffett followed Graham’s approach rigorously, purchasing what he later described as cigar butt stocks: mediocre businesses available at prices so low that they offered one last profitable puff. These investments worked because the margin of safety was enormous. Even if the business continued to deteriorate, the gap between price and liquidation value provided protection.
Berkshire Hathaway itself was a cigar butt investment. Buffett bought the struggling New England textile manufacturer at a discount to its book value, attracted by the mathematical cheapness of the stock rather than the quality of the business. The textile operations continued to struggle for decades before finally being shut down, making Berkshire one of Buffett’s most instructive mistakes about the limitations of pure value investing. As he later noted, it is far better to buy a wonderful business at a fair price than a fair business at a wonderful price.
The Charlie Munger Influence
Buffett credits his long-time partner Charlie Munger with pushing him toward higher-quality businesses. Munger argued that truly great businesses, those with strong competitive advantages, high returns on capital, and long growth runways, deserved premium valuations because their economics would compound in the owner’s favor over time.
This philosophical shift was gradual but profound. Rather than buying a $1 asset for $0.50 and waiting for the market to close the gap (Graham’s approach), the Munger-influenced Buffett would buy a $1 asset that would grow to $5 over the next decade for $1.50. The initial purchase might not look cheap on traditional value metrics, but the long-term return would be far superior because the business itself was creating value through growth.
The See’s Candies acquisition in 1972 was a turning point. Buffett paid what seemed like a premium price of $25 million for a candy company earning $2 million annually. But See’s had something Graham never factored into his equations: pricing power and brand loyalty that would allow earnings to grow for decades with minimal capital reinvestment. By 2022, See’s had generated over $2 billion in cumulative earnings for Berkshire, all from that initial $25 million investment. The return was spectacular precisely because Buffett paid for quality and growth rather than demanding a deep discount on a mediocre business.
The Apple Investment: Buffett’s Growth Masterpiece
Berkshire Hathaway began purchasing Apple shares in early 2016, eventually building a position that grew to represent roughly a quarter of the firm’s entire equity portfolio. For a self-described value investor, buying one of the world’s most valuable technology companies seemed contradictory. But Buffett’s reasoning revealed how thoroughly his investment philosophy had evolved.
Buffett saw Apple not as a technology company but as a consumer products company with an extraordinarily loyal customer base. The iPhone was not just a phone; it was an ecosystem that created switching costs, recurring revenue through services, and a relationship with hundreds of millions of consumers that no competitor could replicate. This brand loyalty and ecosystem lock-in was Apple’s competitive moat, analogous to the brand power of Coca-Cola but applied to technology.
The growth component was equally compelling. Apple’s services revenue was expanding rapidly, the installed base of devices was growing globally, and the company’s capital return program (buybacks and dividends) was returning enormous amounts of cash to shareholders. Even though Apple was growing revenue and earnings at rates far exceeding traditional value stocks, Buffett’s purchase price represented a reasonable multiple of earnings, giving him both growth and value in a single investment.
The Apple position became Berkshire’s most profitable single investment, generating well over $100 billion in unrealized gains at its peak. This outcome vindicated Munger’s argument: paying a fair price for a wonderful growing business produces returns that cheap stocks of mediocre businesses simply cannot match.
Buffett’s Growth Investing Principles
While Buffett does not describe himself as a growth investor, several principles from his approach align directly with growth investing best practices.
Durable competitive advantages are mandatory. Buffett insists on investing in businesses with strong economic moats: competitive advantages that protect the company from rivals and allow it to earn above-average returns on capital for extended periods. For growth companies, this translates to network effects, switching costs, brand loyalty, proprietary technology, or regulatory barriers that sustain growth against competitive pressure.
Management must be exceptional capital allocators. Buffett pays intense attention to how management deploys the cash the business generates. Growth companies that reinvest at high returns on invested capital create compounding value. Growth companies that waste capital on unprofitable expansion, excessive stock-based compensation, or ego-driven acquisitions destroy value regardless of how fast revenue grows.
Predictable economics trump rapid growth. Buffett prefers companies whose earnings trajectory he can reasonably forecast over the next decade. He has historically avoided early-stage technology companies not because they lack growth but because their competitive positions are uncertain. His growth investments tend to be in companies that have already proven their business models and established market dominance.
Growth and value are inseparable. In his 1992 letter to shareholders, Buffett wrote that growth is always a component in the calculation of value, constituting a variable whose importance can range from negligible to enormous. He views the growth versus value distinction as artificial, arguing that all intelligent investing is value investing because you are always trying to buy something worth more than what you pay for it.
What Buffett Avoids: The Limits of His Growth Approach
Understanding what Buffett will not buy is as instructive as understanding what he will. Several categories of growth stocks remain outside his comfort zone.
Unprofitable growth companies that burn cash to acquire customers at unsustainable rates do not meet Buffett’s criteria. He requires current earnings and free cash flow generation, not promises of future profitability. This excluded the vast majority of high-flying software and fintech companies during the 2020-2021 era, many of which subsequently declined 70-90% from their peaks.
Companies dependent on continuous technological innovation are too unpredictable for Buffett’s approach. He has noted that in rapidly changing industries, the competitive landscape shifts so quickly that even dominant companies can be displaced within a few years. This is why Berkshire has generally avoided semiconductor companies, social media platforms, and other technology sub-sectors where the next generation of products could obsolete the current leaders.
Highly leveraged growth companies violate Buffett’s insistence on financial conservatism. Companies that fund growth through excessive debt face existential risk during economic downturns. Buffett’s preference for companies that can fund their own growth from internal cash generation eliminates the overleveraged growth stories that periodically blow up spectacularly.
Lessons for Growth Investors
Buffett’s evolution offers several practical lessons for growth-focused investors who want to incorporate his wisdom into their approach.
First, valuation always matters, even for the best growth companies. Buffett’s success with Apple came partly because he bought at reasonable multiples. The same company purchased at 2021 peak valuations would have produced a very different result. Growth investors who ignore valuation eventually pay the price, usually during the exact market conditions when they can least afford it.
Second, quality of growth matters more than speed of growth. Buffett consistently chooses companies growing at 15-25% with sustainable economics over companies growing at 50% with questionable unit economics. Sustainable growth driven by genuine competitive advantages compounds more reliably than explosive growth that attracts competition and erodes margins.
Third, the holding period should be as long as the competitive advantage endures. Buffett’s famous quip that his favorite holding period is forever reflects the reality that truly great companies compound value for decades. Growth investors who sell winners at arbitrary profit targets, as discussed in our guide on when to take profits, should consider maintaining at least a core position in their best holdings for Buffett-like holding periods.
Fourth, circles of competence are essential. Buffett only invests in businesses he understands deeply. He avoided technology for decades not because technology was a bad investment but because he did not feel qualified to evaluate competitive dynamics in the sector. Growth investors who buy into sectors they do not understand are speculating rather than investing, regardless of how compelling the growth narrative appears.
The Buffett-Growth Synthesis
Buffett’s journey from cigar butts to Apple represents the most successful evolution in investment history. He proved that the principles underlying value investing, buying assets for less than they are worth and insisting on a margin of safety, are not incompatible with growth investing. They are complementary.
The GARP investing approach represents a formalized version of what Buffett practices intuitively: seeking growth at a reasonable price, with an emphasis on business quality, competitive durability, and management excellence. Investors who combine growth investing’s focus on expanding businesses with Buffett’s disciplined approach to valuation, quality, and long-term holding periods position themselves to compound wealth reliably across market cycles.
Buffett did not abandon value investing when he bought Apple. He expanded his definition of value to include the growth component that he now recognizes as inseparable from the calculation of intrinsic worth. For growth investors, the lesson is equally clear: growth investing is not the opposite of value investing. At its best, it is value investing applied to businesses whose value is growing rapidly.
For the complete framework this fits into, start with my guide to growth vs value investing.
