73 Reds

Again, it was the result of learning from a lot of prior mistakes. Obviously Buffett had a great influence, which in hindsight has been more valuable than the stock.

All of my current holdings are long term, high conviction positions: BRK (early 80s), MSFT (late 80s) HD and WMT (early 90s) AAPL (early 200s) Fairfax (2021). Didn't buy any of these until long after they were established, profitable companies. Nothing fancy. These are the stocks that remain from a lot of learning from trading mishaps and other investment mistakes when I was younger. I did own MO for about 20 years starting in late 1970s (my first stock) but sold around the time of the MSA. Also own a few minor positions in a small retirement account from brief stint as a W-2 employee (COP, GILD, T, BTI, SWBI, JOE) which are the only stocks I trade for fun.

+1. Strict criteria for a stock worth owning eliminates all trading vehicles, which in my case is a good thing. If a stock does not make complete sense within 5 minutes of looking at financials, it is a pass. It also has to have a great, long term runway.

@Red Lion I tried doing this strategy 30 years ago +/-. The internal conflict was that for stocks I wanted to own and hold it didn't work. One stock ran away from me to the upside and on another occasion I was put a stock I really didn't want to own that much but the option premiums seemed too good to pass up and the stock remained a dog for several years. For me the strategy works best with stocks you may like but don't absolutely love and definitely not with any stock you wouldn't want to own for a long time. But the premiums have to justify the time, work and tax consequences if you are using taxable funds (you did say these were tax-deferred proceeds). But over time I grew bored with the process and the nickels and dimes, though they can add up, were not worth the trouble. Since those days the only options I do are short puts to try to enter a position at a specific price in lieu of a limit buy order.

That's getting a little past my pay grade but would think that since an option is an inherent right to buy the stock and more than 30 days passed from the date the option was purchased and the date initial shares were sold you should be OK but I've learned from prior experience that the IRS does not always accept what is otherwise a logical taxpayer argument. Caveat Emptor.

@RedLion I don't think the strike price matters. In fact, I also remember asking the CPA to define a "similar security" for purposes of the rule and he said that it is subject to IRS discretion. So even selling an ETF and exchanging it for a different ETF with largely the same or similar holdings could trigger the rule.

I don't believe you can do that. Though I haven't traded options in many years, wash sale rules apply to the same and even similar securities, including options. I remember inquiring about this very issue. Even using a retirement account to repurchase the same or similar stock within 30 days of (both before or after) the sale triggers the wash sale rule. As a practical matter, I remember asking a CPA how the purchase in a separate retirement account could even be tracked, and his response was "do you want to take the risk"?

Well, as I stated previously, Greenland's sovereignty should be up to its people. Doesn't mean they can't make a deal with the US which would be in both countries' best interest, which is likely the thinking of the President. I understand your point but the issue is not black and white; there is a lot of gray in between.

Sure; the words "will not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland" can have various meanings. In no way do those words invalidate any concurrent interests by the US which are not in conflict with stated Danish interests . Such interests can be strategic, military, involve resources and use of Greenland's vast unused lands for nearly any beneficial purpose.

John, interesting historical document - thanks for sharing. I do think it can be interpreted in a number of different ways, as can the VP's comments about "more territorial interest" by the US in Greenland.

Yeah, no problem with the visit or the mayor declining a meeting but I'd have to think that an upcoming election is precisely why he declined a meeting.

LOL, if a guest visit resulted in offspring did the guest have to pay child support?

Thanks, John. Of course while Buffett is in charge, the BOD largely remains a fiction. In a (my own) perfect world the board would be much smaller and required to maintain at least 50% of their wealth in BRK shares.

Agree in part. The whole issue of tariffs is a long term nothing-burger. Tariffs are imposed for one reason - to influence behavior. Everything in politics is reactionary and the current US administration is clearly a reaction by voters as to perceived unfairness of policies of both the prior administration and The United States' financial responsibility relative to the rest of the world. What you deem "chaos" is precisely what the majority of Americans voted for. To what degree these policies are successful remains to be seen. But any notion of permanent destruction lacks real context. As Buffett has often said, we have survived and prospered through World Wars, economic depressions, pandemics and numerous other disastrous events. The pendulum swings in both directions and when it swings too far either way it always reverses course. This time will be no different but because it had swung too far to the left, it could take some time to reverse.

You forgot one: Trump bashing.

+1. All young folks needs to know about investing is to avoid anything with a risk of permanent impairment of capital.

It's not ridiculous but what is ridiculous is any notion that the population of Greenland lacks self-determination. If they should vote to become a possession of the US so be it. The way the issue is portrayed by the media is that somehow the US will forcibly take over Greenland. That is ridiculous and a sign of Trump derangement.

The odds are -0- that Trump acquires Greenland. The odds are slightly higher for the US. Amazing how much attention this draws.

The makeup of the BOD may be one of the more interesting facets of Berkshire once Buffett is gone. My guess is a rift may develop between those who want to strictly maintain the culture instituted by Buffett while others may vote for changes in an attempt to derive more shareholder value. Hopefully a congenial balance will result in a company whose primary objectives become a bit less restrictive than Buffett's empire building and preservation of capital.

Sanjeev, all due respect please re-read your post. Isn't this what we are trying to avoid here on this board? Why can't we all just stop extrapolating into infinity every word, action and opinion of public figures we don't like?

Yup. Trump, Musk, [Pick a name] Derangement Syndrome is alive and well, even here. How did we even survive before social media and a 24/7 news cycle?

A couple more: Stop spending my tax dollars on stuff I don't support and likely detest; and Grow a spine when it comes to recognizing mainstream immorality.

No worries; I'm not right (or any) wing. But unless you feel that no issues exist at all, the first move is necessary. And if you truly believe the US "has nothing" for Canada, would Canadians prefer the protection of, and to border Mexico or any other country?

Negotiating 101: Get the other side's attention. Why do you think it ends there?

<<as I said, I agree that the US has legitimate grievances with the rest of the world. There are many ways to settle those grievances>> @Viking, I am genuinely interested in some of those ways. I don't think asking nicely works anymore. Try to understand that Trump is doing largely what his electorate wants. He ran first and foremost on US strength. He and his followers believe that once adequate strength is achieved a lot of good both domestic and world-wide will come of it. What I don't understand is why so many accuse Trump of perpetual lies except that when it comes to tariffs they are all-in Trump believers.