73 Reds

What's wrong with owning 1 share?

They've been saying the same thing for decades. Meanwhile people will need their nicotine fix in one form or another. Profits and dividends from tobacco companies would be the least of my worries.

There is no moral equivalency between Israel and terrorist animals. Why is Bibi even an issue? He has the support of the Israeli people. He doesn't care what anyone in any part of the World thinks. Do people understand that there are innocent casualties in war? Israel didn't start this war but they will finish it. If any of you had terrorists as neighbors with an undeniable intent to destroy you, perhaps you'd understand.

+1. But (there is always a but...) the entire discussion about crypto on this board has opened my eyes as to what folks believe constitutes "value". Clearly James and others believe that BTC is a value holding. They can measure value in ways that you (and I) can't, and don't. They don't worry that overnight the price will go to -0- or that demand will dry up when *reason* takes hold. It is fascinating to observe. Though my mind and yours will likely never be persuaded to buy the stuff, I do hope someone pays $1 million for a BTC just to be able to watch from the sidelines and continue to ponder human behavior.

My concern is not with volume declines but rather with management (i.e. the JUUL fiasco). Still very viable for a dividend portfolio with room to continue increasing the dividend payout if management focuses on what they do best.

MO has been "melting" for decades. Meanwhile it trades at 10X earnings and pays a 7% dividend. I get those who won't buy tobacco companies for personal reasons but there haven't been much better dividend plays in the last 20 years and these companies aren't going away in my lifetime.

Yes. Waiting for the "right"opportunity is a losing bet. How often do people holding large percentages of cash find excuses not to buy even when stocks get cheap? Recognizing that recessions and macro downdrafts unrelated to specific businesses are bound to happen is not only practical but highly profitable in the long run if you don't bail on every piece of bad news. The issue is how much cash to retain in order to take advantage of price declines and your own propensity to pull the trigger when they arise. Having a bucket of investments that consistently throw off cash (or a high paying job) lets you remain more fully invested. Personally, I have never purchased a T-Bill or any bond and don't plan to start now.

Yeah, but it is always a question of degree. I mean what occurrence - macro or otherwise - does anyone here truly envision where Buffett & Co, would have an opportunity to shoot fish in a barrel? Alternatively, what private operator has any incentive now to call Berkshire for the purpose of acquiring their company? Surely since the AAPL investment and setting aside the Japanese trading houses which have been a really good investment though not even close to needle-moving, there have been investment opportunities far superior to T-bills. As a shareholder, it is worth considering now that Buffett is passing the torch whether preservation of capital remains the company's primary objective. Unless Berkshire starts making distributions, isn't Greg Abel's primary goal to attract new shareholders? Preserving capital is fine for a subset (like me), particularly with large deferred capital gains but it does little to attract new buyers.

No, but if I did, it would be a basket of tobacco companies (PM, MO, BTI, etc..)

Bill, I get that. It's not the form of cash holdings (T-Bills) but the lost opportunity for such a large % of assets owned. The argument that BRK is waiting for bear markets to deploy capital ignores the fact that we've had bear markets yet the cash pile continues to grow. The World is awash in liquidity and the chance that BRK finds the "perfect" investment opportunity to deploy large sums of capital shrinks by the day. Even a $100 billion investment won't make a huge amount of difference - how many of these are out there? This from an ardent BRK shareholder who likely will never sell my shares but would be hard-pressed to acquire additional shares under the circumstances.

He (we) is (are) getting paid a very subpar return. Problem is, unless something changes quite dramatically, such returns will continue on that portion of Berkshire's assets.

Of course, they're simply a parking lot. But he's paying up for long-term parking.

Yet he continues to stockpile the same very worrisome currency. Most of us agree with his sentiment; the issue is what to do about it, and when. For my $, dominant businesses and real estate make the most sense.

Blake, it is comments like this that cause some people to dismiss you due to your youth. Rather than stereotype or classify Trump voters as "ignorant", why not consider that POTUS elections are binary and my guess is the vast majority of voters selected the best of two rather poor choices. Or, many (myself included) ignored the personalities altogether and voted for those policies I prefer. You can criticize an individual all you want but when you categorically deem all Trump voters as ignorant it doesn't reflect well on you.

They're all good and it is far too early to choose just one because some are still playing out.

LOL, rumor has it we survived his first term. I've stopped reading this thread altogether other when when seeking some entertainment.

Blake, I wish I was as smart as you when I was your age. Hell, I wish I were as smart as you now! But at times you can outsmart yourself. What I've learned over a lifetime is financial/investment success has nothing to do with macro events and so-called experts. Like @Dealraker, the stocks I have owned for decades all have enormous built-up capital gains. When folks like some posters here do all the work and make compelling cases for certain equities, it is at least worth a read and some further inquiry. Yet even if your macro focus is all doom and gloom you don't even need to invest in public markets. Some of the most successful folks I know are far from the smartest. They were really good at one or two things like auto parts, bagels and mattresses and made fortunes. Others in real estate did the same. You think the credit markets are a horrible bet? Maybe so but the [private] hard money market has never been better. There is always something out there to invest in; you simply have to overcome those factors that are immaterial to your own success and then look for what will make you money.

He's a banker. They usually make for lousy investors.

Nah, faith in a higher being is probably the number one driver of human evolution. And humans are incapable of ignoring history and where they come from.

@Milu similar situation to you but my friends/relatives all know my position on all things politics and for the most part they are the ones who choose not to address these issues while in my presence. Not sure what to make of that but it keeps everyone civil and happy. When discussing these issues it is probably wise to stick with policy matters and try to leave people and personalities out of the discussion as much as possible.

Yeah, everything in their investment universe is overpriced so what do do? I know Buffett downplayed RE at thte last AM because of the time involved in every deal but I could see Berkshire someday buying and redeveloping entire communities. In distressed areas it is not terribly difficult for even small developers to buy entire streets and city blocks and municipalities sometimes even help contribute to redevelopment costs. Just thinking out loud but changes are surely coming one way or another.

I'd be down on Berkshire if they didn't hold all that cash. What's the old saying..... the world is their oyster.

<<But $10 billion wouldn’t have done that much anyway.>> That is the single, greatest issue facing Greg Abel. The company is already awash in cash and it is his job to determine how and where it is spent. Berkshire takes in more than $3 billion every month. Acquiring operating companies comes with lots of competition and owner/operators will naturally be wary of Greg, as a newcomer CEO. In the public markets, building a meaningful equity position in any one company can take months or longer, assuming the cumulative buys don't move the price out of range, which is getting more and more difficult as Berkshire's definition of a "meaningful" position grows. If not now, then certainly soon there will be a need to expand the company's circle of competence. Cash can buy you almost any talent in existence in almost any field. IMO next generation Berkshire is going to look a lot different than today.

@Viking keep pounding the table. Young investors here would be wise to start accumulating shares of Fairfax and simply refrain from selling unless the company materially violates anything that got it to where it is now.

Well, he's the Chairman of the Board and the largest shareholder - by far. No way they do anything material while he is of sound mind without his consent. Next year's AGM will be a tribute to a life well spent. They've probably already started planning it. He'll be front and center. Could be the best AGM ever.