In Q1, Berkshire tripled their $GOOG position while Bill Ackman sold 95% to buy $MSFT despite being “very” bullish on GOOG long term. Why?

I know most retail investors like to sell green to buy red, and then cry when the green keeps greening and the red keeps redding. I didn’t know even elite investors fall for it. Bill Ackman on X: “To be clear, our sale of $GOOG was not a bet against the company. We are very bullish long term on Alphabet. But at current valuations and in light of our finite capital base, we used $GOOG as a source of funds for $MSFT” My investing philosophy aligns with Berkshire's. I would rather double down on the winners I have high conviction in or just let them run. Bill Ackman did not just trim his high conviction winner, he exited it completely to find a better risk/reward setup. What if $MSFT turns out to be a “value trap”? He sold in Q1 when both $MSFT and $GOOG were crashing. He likely got a great entry price on $MSFT, but he likely also ended up missing most of $GOOG's melt up in April and post earnings. $MSFT is up \~18% from its March low of $356, while $GOOG is up \~43% from its March low of $273. Trimming some goog to add some msft makes sense but bailing entirely on a high conviction winner looks an awful lot like panic sell than smart portfolio rebalancing