Buffett stance on investments and US election might prove telling

With just over a week to go before the US presidential election,a pressing question arises: should we hope for Donald Trump or Kamala Harris to win?

Frankly, neither candidate represents an ideal choice, but if I had to choose, I would favor Trump.

My rationale is that Harris has proven to be far from ideal, particularly since she has not achieved any notable accomplishments during her nearly four-year tenure as vice president.

As global geopolitical tensions grow more fraught - especially with the deteriorating situation in the Middle East and the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine - it's important to recognize that, while Harris may not bear sole responsibility for them as vice president, she nonetheless bears a significant burden of the blame.

Furthermore, her support of Proposition 47 during her tenure as California's attorney general contributed to a jump in thefts that underscores her lack of political insight.

Sure, Trump has had his fair share of being perceived negatively, particularly as his decisiveness appears to have significantly waned since his presidential win in 2016.

His performance in that live television debate not so long ago with Harris was notably poor, and the policies he has proposed seem considerably less substantial than those from the last two election cycles.

This indicates he is not necessarily suitable for the presidency at this time.

However, he has shown a clearer understanding of today's complex global issues, particularly in his ability to engage with leaders like Vladimir Putin of Russia and Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel.

This makes Trump a more favorable option, which explains my preference.

Sure, it is easier to express one's opinion when one doesn't have to vote.

Many influential US figures have publicly endorsed Harris or Trump, but one notable exception is Warren Buffett, who has, through his company Berkshire Hathaway, said he does not favor either.

"In light of the increased usage of social media, there have been numerous fraudulent claims regarding Mr Buffett's endorsement of investment products as well as his endorsement and support of political candidates," the statement reads. "Mr Buffett does not currently and will not prospectively endorse investment products or endorse and support political candidates."

The statement appears to clarify certain misleading claims circulating online and address the existence of false information.

However, it also indicates he will not support any candidate now or in the future, reflecting his lack of approval for both.

Additionally, it mentions that Buffett will not endorse any investment products.

Considering Berkshire Hathaway's consistent strategy of increasing its liquid holdings over the past year, could it be inferred that "cash is king" is Buffett's only currently "endorsed" investment approach?

In fact, if Buffett perceives both Trump and Harris as unviable choices, it is quite possible he believes the US political landscape will become even more unstable over the next four years as it is likely to be accompanied by an increase in global geopolitical risks.

This perspective could explain his continued strategy of accumulating cash.

Therefore, Buffett's statement, which may carry deeper implications, deserves thoughtful consideration.

Andrew Wong is a veteran

independent commentator