CASE 1: Warren Buffett From Warren Buffett’s perspective, “intrinsic value is assessed as the present value of future expected performance” (Bruner, Eades, & Schill, 2010): in order to determine whether the investment is worth and is therefore fairly operating on the principle of achieving value for this investment. The displays volatility in earning corresponding to the fluctuation of prices will give investors the cheapest price when the investment shown by the discounted-flows-of-cash calculation.
The theory of intrinsic value is significantly important, as it shows the relative attractiveness of investments and businesses, not just simple stock (Carbonara, 1999).
The estimation of intrinsic value based on the two elements, which …show more content…

If it was greater than the benchmark portfolios, it means good performance and vice versa. The two most common indicators to measure the fund’s performance were (1) the percentage of annual growth rate of net asset value (NAV) assuming reinvestment (the total return on investment) and (2) the absolute dollar today of an investment made at some time in the past (Bruner et al., 2010). Moreover, to effectively estimate the performance of fund, investors frequently adjust for the relative risk of mutual funds (known as the standard deviation of returns). Thus the relationship between risk and return was reliable both on average and over time.
The investment strategy is highly recommended the deep research on particular industries which the investment got involved, this statement was correct both in cases of Buffett and Miller, Miller’s approach was research-intensive and extremely concentrated. Nearly 50% of Value Trust’s assets were invested in just 10 large-capitalization companies (Bruner et al., 2010). Portfolio managers play roles as the leader of a team of analysts and researchers, ultimately responsible for making initial investment decisions for a fund. They constantly stay on top of current financial market events in efforts of generating adequate acts to protect the investment.
Most mutual-fund managers relied on some variation of the two classic school of