73 Reds

Indeed, the key to financial happiness is managing your lifestyle with your means and steadily growing both.

There are, of course exceptions. But as @thepupil pointed out, sequence risk is real. A paying job all but eliminates such risk. Not to suggest that there isn't a time to quit and focus on investing. It would seem that if/when your investment income begins to dwarf your employment income, your time may then be getting too valuable for paid work. Or otherwise, if employment income is no longer needed.

Yep, good post. How many professional money managers fail to even outperform their benchmark indices? They may live to see another day by taking fees from their investors but a DIY investor will almost always be better off sticking with an equity index AND a job.

Leaving a "job" to focus full time on "investing" has a lot of different implications. If you love investing, effectively you are asking whether you have enough to retire. In the case of the original poster, he would at least need to achieve a 5% greater return on his investment portfolio to make up for lost job income. He would also need to consider lost job benefits, i.e., paid health insurance, 401k plan, etc.. You also need to determine your definition of "investing". Are you a purely passive investor? Or do you take a more active role, i.e, real estate, private equity, private lending, etc... For most, the question comes down to personal needs and lifestyle. Its like asking how much one needs to be "rich". The answer is not a uniform dollar amount, but simply being able to afford anything you want, whenever you may want it.

Simple answer - no. IMO you don't have nearly enough to quit your job and focus full time on investing. One bad stretch and you're back in the job market. And you'll feel the need to do "something" when often times doing nothing is your best course of action.

This time Israel is trying something different - they have vowed to eliminate Hamas, whether possible or not. Hezbollah may be next if they try similar tactics. Israelis can strike all they want but at their core they all want the same thing - to be left alone. If attacked, they will fight all the wars necessary to achieve that goal as long as it may take. If nothing else, the country's short 76 year history has proven that peace is achievable even after wars with neighbors who were once arch enemies.

Because when your shares are assigned it means they have been sold - right? Any CPAs here who wish to chime in?

If it works it is certainly a nice feature but I'm surprised the IRS lets you do it for tax purposes.

In that event you already own the shares (?). Here you have to initiate a separate transaction that occurs after the taxable event even though settlement occurs later.

That is interesting and I too wonder how exactly that works. Once the shares are called away how can the tax consequence be undone?

Yeah, but there are also those who own shares in taxable accounts and "traders" in tax-deferred accounts (long ago I used to be one).

You can squeeze out a couple/few extra points each year in tax-deferred accounts without too much trouble. In taxable accounts you've got to be constantly attuned to the share price and roll the calls forward if you don't want to lose the shares when the price rises like Berkshire recently has. OTOH, there are funds that trade covered calls as an investment strategy and I've not heard of any that do particularly well over time. Short puts - admittedly a different strategy altogether - seems like a much easier strategy for tax deferred and taxable accounts when you want to own the stock at a particular price regardless of how shares trade in the interim.

That's an interesting list. On more possibility: Buffett, either independently or in collaboration with 3rd parties and/or government entities is creating a for-profit solution to one or more of the problems identified in this year's annual letter.

I didn't have an issue with it either way. Personally, I own AAPL for some of the same reasons as BRK (optionality on the future).

Yep, and that's the reason why Fairfax remains do damn cheap and Berkshire is Berkshire. An incredible investment for Fairfax would be universally slammed by BRK shareholders as a collosal failure by Buffett. Interesting phenomena.

@gfp I get it. But remember, this is a tough crowd. Fairfax gets away with it because they don't have the same history as does BRK and because its still so damn cheap.

LOL, they'd complain that he has even MORE cash.

More cash = more investment opportunities. I understand your point but the real test of any investment is whether you are satisfied with your results. Just a guess but there are many more former BRK owners who are unhappy they sold the stock than there are current shareholders who are unhappy with their results.

I dunno, people complain he is behind the times and then he goes and buys AAPL which is by far his best equity investment and then they complain when it gets too big and now they complain about the sales proceeds and excess cash. Tough crowd if you ask me. If you'd like to place a side bet that the cash hoard never gets invested in anything but T-Bills, please feel free to DM me!

Then why own the stock? Its a nice collection of businesses but brainpower optionality is what we're all here for.

As a Berkshire investor, is there a more appealing prospect?

T-Bills and AAPL stock both provide optionality. Most companies have far greater problems to complain about. We should feel lucky.

Please NO! Rather see WEB use the shares as currency for an acquisition.

Great article! For me, poignant factors that are transferable to investment in non FOB public companies are (1) superior capital allocation; (2) innovation; and (3) a long term investment approach by management.

Thanks for your thoughtful post. The issue is, and always has been antisemitism. No numbers of "Palestinians" and their supporters will cause a mistaken belief of entitlement to a tiny sliver of land based on a false identity to be any more true. And to your point, no one whose number one goal is extinguishing your neighbor deserves an ounce of recognition. In that vein, the UN building should be padlocked and later used as a homeless shelter.