How Warren Buffett's Tech Blindspot Cost Him Billions—And What It Teaches Us

Even the world’s most celebrated investor has painful regrets. For Warren Buffett, the biggest ones aren’t about bad bets—they’re about legendary companies he completely walked past. At Berkshire Hathaway’s 2018 annual meeting, Buffett made a candid confession about Amazon that left investors stunned.

The Moment Buffett Realized His Mistake

“I blew it,” the legendary investor said flatly when discussing Amazon. He had watched Jeff Bezos construct an e-commerce empire from the ground up but never placed a single dollar into the company during its explosive rise. “Obviously, I should have bought it long ago,” Buffett reflected. “I admired the business early on, but I completely underestimated the strength of that model.”

What makes this confession particularly striking is that Buffett actually saw the opportunity. He just talked himself out of it. “When I think something will be a miracle, I tend not to bet on it,” he explained. The real issue? “I was too dumb to see what Jeff Bezos could build at that scale.”

Google Was Another Story of Missed Vision

Buffett wasn’t alone in his tech blindness. Charlie Munger, his late business partner, was equally blunt about bypassing Google in its early stages. “I feel like a horse’s ass for not identifying Google earlier,” Munger admitted. Both men passed on the search giant when it went public in 2004 at $85 per share—a decision that would haunt them as the stock soared through multiple splits, creating extraordinary returns for early believers.

Why Warren Buffett’s Investment Circle Left Tech Out

Understanding Buffett’s misses requires looking at his core investment philosophy. For decades, he religiously stuck to his “circle of competence”—betting only on businesses he could fully comprehend. Insurance companies, banks, consumer staples, utilities? Those were in. Technology stocks? Firmly out.

His reasoning was logical: tech stocks operated in unpredictable territory. Which companies would survive? How would the business models evolve? Traditional value investing demanded visibility into earnings and competitive moats, but early-stage tech companies offered neither. Buffett’s caution kept Berkshire safe from countless tech bubbles and busts, but it also meant sacrificing positions in the biggest wealth-creators of the internet era.

The paradox is this: Amazon and Google weren’t just any investments. They were high-growth enterprises trading at premium valuations, requiring faith in long-term potential rather than current profitability. That flew against everything Buffett’s playbook preached.

The Price Tag of Being Wrong

The numbers tell a brutal story. Amazon’s stock has climbed over 1,000% since 2008—a point when Berkshire could have still grabbed shares at accessible prices. Alphabet (Google’s parent) delivered comparable gains to patient shareholders. A $1 billion allocation to each company during their growth surge would be worth tens of billions today.

These weren’t small mistakes. They represented some of history’s largest potential gains—all left on the table.

How Buffett Finally Adapted (Partially)

The Amazon and Google regrets eventually shifted Buffett’s thinking. In 2016, Berkshire made a seismic bet on Apple, signaling a pivot toward technology. At first, Buffett’s investment managers purchased the shares, but he eventually embraced the position himself. Apple had what he fundamentally respected: fierce brand devotion, predictable cash flows, and competitive durability—characteristics you’d normally associate with consumer goods companies, not Silicon Valley upstarts.

The Apple investment proved himself right about adapting. It became one of Berkshire’s crown jewels, validating that Buffett could evolve when tech companies matched his value-investing criteria. Still, by 2019, when Berkshire finally purchased Amazon shares, that window had long since closed. The company’s growth explosion was already history.

What This Teaches Every Investor

Buffett’s willingness to confront these failures head-on offers a crucial takeaway: nobody bats 1.000, not even legends. The real skill isn’t having a perfect record—it’s staying mentally flexible without abandoning core principles.

His circle of competence strategy remains sound. It generated staggering wealth for decades and protected Berkshire from countless value traps. But the Amazon and Google misses prove that the world changes, and rigid frameworks can become cages.

The lesson isn’t to chase every hyped stock or ditch proven strategies. It’s to balance conviction with curiosity—to know when a company falls outside your expertise and when you’re simply scared to challenge your own boundaries.