73 Reds

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.

Well, I don't pay attention to the volume traded but someone(s) is driving up the price. Certainly no activist investor as long as Buffett is alive and well.

Curious, hypothetically speaking, if a foreign entity (Saudi Aramco?) were to acquire a 5% interest in Berkshire, would it be subject to the reporting requirements of 13D?

Good post and history lesson. Facts sometimes have a way of getting into the way of some people's opinions, particularly when it comes to personal agendas.

I was always fascinated with options. I use them in real estate quite a lot but when stocks first became optionable this became somewhat of an obsession. The book "Options as a Strategic Investment" (Larry McMillan) was an incredible read for all the possibilities it presented. Every now and then, a trade would arise that made no sense, almost felt like a can't lose - but often it did. Still, at one time, I probably spent the better part of six months trying many of the different strategies. Later, around the year 2000 I recall reading about one trade involving Cisco Systems where an ATM covered call for (I believe) less than a year sold for the same premium as the stock price. By then a company like CSCO was not in my wheelhouse and I didn't do it. But decades later, the idea of covered calls and short puts makes a lot of sense in the right situations. The issue with covered calls on Berkshire is there is entirely no rhyme or reason for the way the stock trades (other than the proverbial more buyers than sellers, and visa versa). If there was ever an extended period of time when one might have reasoned that the stock price would trade down it was after the release of the annual report earlier this year. Yet here we are - go figure.

Buffett has said that a few key long lasting decisions in life make all the difference. Amen to that.

Exactly! Moving the discussion beyond insurance, those are the companies to own in any industry where a catastrophe, crisis, bad recession, etc.. will wipe out the weak and make the strong that much stronger. If investing for the long run and there is a clear leader, I've never understood why anyone would choose 2nd best.

Yes, investment style has much to do with whether investments are held in taxable or tax-deferred accounts. Though as Dealraker shows, his results would be exemplary in both. Not to discourage discussion of trading opportunities at all, but many posters here, particularly younger folks could benefit from his example.

@dealraker, I love your posts but you, yourself demonstrate why a lengthy time period should absolutely be addressed and considered in a forum such as this. Isn't the objective here financial success?

Technically that's true but ONLY because Buffett goes out of his way NOT to promote Berkshire. Has he ever said, or even hinted that the SPY is a better investment than Berkshire? Would a 93 year old man spend nearly every waking hour working on something he doesn't know will outperform an index? Look no further than his last letter to shareholders for his true belief or just ask Bertie.

Seems like Berkshire alone meets your definition of diversified. Why make things more difficult? If you want, simply follow Buffett's advice to his surviving spouse - 90% Berkshire and 10% treasuries. Anyone believe you won't "stay rich"?

"Does concentrating really make sense?" Yes. Berkshire, for one has been an easy stock in which to concentrate. For more than 40 years there has been entirely no reason to sell and many reasons to continue to add.

None. In fact the only equity investment in the past year has been Fairfax, the last buys being right after the MW report. That doesn't, however mean that cash has been the only alternative. Personally it has always been necessary to have one or more alternative sources for reliable investment beyond traditional paper assets (i.e., stock and bonds). Cash is, and always has been the last place to park meaningful sums of money, though having been raised by depression-era parents, I probably retain more than most would consider prudent for no other reason than a safety blanket.

Yep. That demonstrates that investment success does not require any real skills, per se. In fact, if you are just starting out, it would be nearly impossible not to amass more than you need for retirement by simply dollar cost averaging a reasonable sum into a broad based equity fund over the course of a normal working life span.

So in hindsight do you think you made a mistake by not adding capacity once the competition faded away? Otherwise, what could you have done to better prepare for competition that re-entered your market?