73 Reds

Barring poor health he will be there.

As Chairman, why wouldn't he be on stage next year?

Yup. Wasn't that Charlie's baby?

Sure, but for a relatively small capital outlay you may wind up with the next $ trillion company. When your universe of existing investments is as small as Berkshire's, creativity can be rewarding. And using a baseball analogy, even you have the worst batting average in history, one good swing can make all the difference.

I've long wished that Berkshire would consider forming a division focused on angel investing and venture capital. Who knows what collaboration with some of the great minds around the World might ultimately generate.

Not to suggest any lesser investment discipline but if cash continues to build under Greg, shareholders will begin clamoring for a dividend which is the last thing this shareholder wants. There are more competitors these days vying to be the investor of last resort.

There are folks here and on other investment forums who have been giving Buffett investment advice for as long as I can remember - nothing new there. With Greg, the issue comes down to his propensity and ability to make large deals - particularly once Buffett is actually not available. Shareholders will not give him the same deference to hold huge sums of cash as they do for Buffett.

Yeah, little to no change other than perhaps a little more proactive deal making. Buffett is still down the hall and his phone number is not going unlisted for any potential new acquirees. The old man is far from gone; he put on quite a show Saturday but clearly misses his old Compadre, which IMO is the main reason for him stepping down as CEO. Hopefully Ron Olson is correct and Buffett will assume Charlie's role as consigliere as to Greg.

Buffett and Greg handled the question in a good natured manner and didn't embarrass the guy.

So it appears that IRAs can only derive "investment income" for the income to remain tax deferred. Once RMDs begin, I wonder whether any UBTI could be taken as part of the RMD and not be subject to additional taxation.

I'm no expert but this post leaves me scratching my head just a bit. My understanding is UBI (unrelated business income) is income generated by a tax-exempt organization that is not related to its primary business. Generally a tax exempt organization is a charitable organization, or 501(c) non-profit organization. No one "owns" a non-profit organization so it can't be owned in an IRA. Also, IRAs are not tax exempt; they are tax-deferred and they have no distinct purpose other than to generate wealth for their owners. How is any for-profit endeavor unrelated to the primary purpose of an IRA?

@James22 Explain why Warren Buffett cares whether anyone buys shares of Berkshire. Taken to an illogical conclusion, if is there is not one new buyer for the rest of eternity, all current owners and their heirs will sooner or later share in the company's profits. Same with any other company worth owning.

Of course not but how many folks here owned BTC since day one? You also assume out-performance vs. everything else will continue. Good luck.

Perhaps, but unlike you and others, I'm not here offering advice. Sharing an opinion that is good for me personally is not a suggestion or recommendation for you to follow.

It is wrong to assume anything about anyone you don't know.

Again, self-serving statements like that (even said in jest) assume non BTC owners won't do as well or better than you. Those of us who don't own BTC don't care what you own and don't need anyone to "adopt" our ideas.

The products/services are mostly essential. I was referring to ownership of these companies, not what they sell. BTC needs new, and more owners all the time.

Actually it doesn't. But I enjoy the challenge of making money.

12X in 5 years? Nothing that I know of. But like some here, it really wouldn't matter that much at this stage. Life's been good having done it the old fashioned way.

@James22 I think Buffett and Munger had it right all along. Which is the reason why the argument that BTC is a "store of wealth" (whether right or wrong) is simply immaterial. Consider that when I purchased my first share of BRK, one would need another 7 or 8 shares of BRK equivalent to buy a moderately priced new car and at least 40 shares worth of BRK to purchase a moderately priced new home. Today that same single share buys at least 10 new cars and a decent new house, both of which are of much higher quality. Not to mention that as the conservative investor I am, the day I purchased my first share of BRK the company's greatest time of growth had arguably already passed.

OK, and one final time here: A store of wealth is entirely meaningless to me when there are plenty of assets with which to grow wealth.

"delulu". Thanks! Learned a new word today. Try paying your bills with BTC and tell us who is delulu.

I know, I know.... that's the narrative. The difference is how hard BTC proponents have to push others and to push for adoption. I don't care if anyone adopts ownership of my investment holdings - they do well on their own.

Again, you are conflating a default with inflation. No question, dollars buy less almost each and every year. But the value of the goods and services that $1 buys also grows every year with productivity and technology. To me the issue isn't about inflation, its about protecting wealth and growing wealth. I wouldn't use dollars, gold or bitcoin for either. Currencies are for mere convenience and until such time as it is convenient to use BTC to pay for stuff, dollars work just fine. And if that time should come, it is highly doubtful I'd store BTC any further than today's dollars. There are a lot of assumptions built into the BTC thesis which I am not willing to make.

I think the methodology is what's mostly in question.