Masayoshi Son, the founder and CEO of SoftBank Group, has earned global attention for his massive, high-profile investments — so much so that some have dubbed him the "Warren Buffett of the tech world." However, recent controversies surrounding startups backed by SoftBank and its Vision Fund have raised questions about Son’s ability to “turn sand into gold.”
While comparisons to Warren Buffett may seem flattering, many observers argue that the similarities between Son and the legendary American investor end there. In fact, SoftBank’s Vision Fund differs significantly from Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway — in philosophy, strategy, and leadership values. Here are three of the most notable differences.
Warren Buffett has spent over half a century championing the principles of value investing, a strategy he adopted from Benjamin Graham. In his annual shareholder letters — famously free of technical charts — Buffett focuses on long-term fundamentals and compares returns to a single benchmark: the S&P 500. Between 1965 and 2018, Berkshire Hathaway’s average annual return stood at 20.5%, more than double the S&P 500’s 9.7%. To Buffett, investing is about buying great companies, not just great stocks.
Son, on the other hand, embraces a vastly different approach. In SoftBank’s 2013 annual general meeting, he declared his ambition to make the firm a global leader in all dimensions: profits, cash flow, and market capitalization. But this all-encompassing vision has been criticized as vague and unfocused. The Financial Times notably pointed out that, for investors, the only true metric that matters is return on capital — not scale or ambition.
In a more recent shareholder meeting, Son presented his bold goal to raise SoftBank’s market cap to 20 trillion yen (~$1.85 trillion) by 2040 — a 20-fold increase. Yet, over the past five years, SoftBank’s stock has significantly underperformed the Nikkei 225.
Buffett has long expressed skepticism toward investing in emerging technologies. He famously avoided tech and internet stocks for decades, admitting that he did not fully understand the sector and warning that betting on early-stage tech companies was akin to gambling.
Son, in contrast, is a fervent believer in technology’s exponential future. He’s a vocal advocate of the concept of singularity — the idea that artificial intelligence (AI) will surpass human intelligence within the next 30 years. Accordingly, SoftBank’s portfolio focuses heavily on startups in AI, IoT, and digital platforms.
The Vision Fund’s investments target platform-based businesses that connect buyers and sellers — companies like Uber, Grab, and Coupang (the “Amazon of Korea”). SoftBank has also backed WeWork, a shared office space platform, despite its struggles.
Son’s handling of leadership within his portfolio companies has attracted criticism. Most notably, he played a key role in the ousting of WeWork’s controversial CEO Adam Neumann after the company’s valuation plummeted ahead of its failed IPO. The We Company’s current valuation is still far below what SoftBank initially paid.
Buffett, on the other hand, places a strong emphasis on character and integrity when assessing company leadership. He has famously said:
“We look for three things when hiring people: intelligence, energy, and integrity. If they don’t have the last one, the first two will kill you.”
This people-first philosophy explains why Berkshire Hathaway invests in companies with long-standing, stable CEOs — such as those leading JPMorgan Chase, Coca-Cola, and American Airlines.
In contrast, many of the companies funded by SoftBank and Vision Fund — including Uber, SoFi, and WeWork — have faced executive turnover, public scrutiny, and governance issues.
As Nikkei noted, while Son may be drawn to bold, like-minded visionaries, his cowboy-style management often comes with hidden risks.
Conclusion
While both Masayoshi Son and Warren Buffett are visionary investors in their own right, their approaches diverge dramatically. Buffett builds slowly with discipline, prioritizing value, people, and patience. Son, in contrast, bets big on disruptive technologies and bold personalities — a strategy that has yielded both meteoric rises and painful missteps.
In the end, comparing the two is like comparing a master craftsman to a high-stakes gambler — both skilled, but playing very different games.
Tiếng Việt
English
