JBird

I don't follow here. Well, the shareholder is no longer getting a 28 cent per quarter cash dividend any longer (it was cut to zero). Let's say the shareholder has 100,000 shares. In the old days, he would get $28,000 of cash dividend each quarter. Under my regime, the company will be using that very same $28,000 (28 cent per share per quarter) to repurchase shares. Now (under my regime), he just sells shares each quarter amounting to $28,000 cash proceeds. He might not even owe any tax on this (depends on his cost basis). Potentially he sold for a capital loss and can actually take the $28,000 distribution completely tax free, as well as reducing his capital gains tax bill from other sales. Compared to the world where he's automatically paying tax on $28,000 of dividend, that's a huge leap forward for mankind. Eric, I'm still in agreement regarding dividends vs. buybacks. There's one consistent statement of pushback I receive regarding capital-gain-income over dividends: "If you sell shares at any kind of loss, you're just taking principle." In other words, in a falling market the strategy doesn't work. I would love to hear your thoughts on that. My take is that you can only take as much income from a stock as the company earned in profit attributable to you. If it earns $5 in profit attributable to your holdings (look-through earnings) then you can take $5 from the stock as a dividend or by selling $5 worth of shares. If it doesn't earn, you can't take. Therefore, the stock price being up or down from your cost basis is really not a factor regarding your income withdrawals from the stock.

Fantastic news. Thanks for posting, Liberty!

LOL-- Thanks for sharing that

Nobody has tough skin like you Donald, nobody.

If BRK accounted for the KHC investment at market, the new buyback price would be $137. Instead its $131.

Are you adding back the excess of BRK's KHC investment at market over its carrying value? I have that as $13 billion

1) I thought I'd give you the 9 word explanation on how Tesla will make its investors rich. 2a) Yes. The first 200k Model 3 purchasers will get a fed tax credit of $7.5k (50% of the 2018 Model 3 production). Tesla will also receive from Nevada a transferable tax credit of $12,500 per permanent full-time job, up to 6,000 jobs as well as transferable tax credits of 5 percent for the first $1 billion and 2.8 percent for the next $2.5 billion investment (source: Forbes). Don't know how this is relevant though. Accepting tax breaks is not bad business practice and is also not unique to Tesla or the auto industry. b) Somewhere between 0 and 100. c) Since we're talking about the future I don't know how this is relevant either, but now we've come full circle on your not reading too much about Tesla. Is the selling price of a Model S today more than its cost of production? Yes. They have negative net income because they're making all the investments and R&D expense required to grow a car company that produces 600 cars a year in 2010 to one that produces 500,000 in 2018. If you're curious to read more about Tesla: www.tesla.com Disclaimer: I've never owned TSLA shares.

Respectfully, this is a conversation disqualifier. By selling 500,000 cars in 2018 at ~20% margins.

Really well said, Picasso!

https://www.ft.com/ One of the few sites I've found worth paying up for.

What is all this based on?

Earlier in this letter, I pointed out some numbers that Charlie and I find useful in valuing Berkshire and measuring its progress. Let’s focus here on a number we omitted, but which many in the media feature above all others: net income. Important though that number may be at most companies, it is almost always meaningless at Berkshire. Regardless of how our businesses might be doing, Charlie and I could – quite legally – cause net income in any given period to be almost any number we would like. - 2010 Berkshire letter

Merely being Secretary of State and a Senator. I don't know that she accomplished a damn thing, but I think that alone makes her more fit. Trump consistently demonstrates a breathtaking ignorance of the world: HABERMAN: What kind of change could you make in terms of Nafta without fully withdrawing from it? How could you? TRUMP: You’ve got to be fair to the country. Everyone is leaving. Carrier just announced they’re leaving. Ford is building a massive plant. I have a friend who builds plants, that’s what he does, he’s the biggest in the world, he builds plants like automobile plants, computer plants, that’s all he does. He doesn’t build apartments, he doesn’t build office space, he builds plants. I said to him the other day, “How are you doing?” He goes, “Unbelievable.” Oh, great, that’s good, thinking about the United States, right, because he’s based in the United States. So I said, “Good, so the country is doing well.” He said, “No, no, not our country, you’ve got to see what I’m doing in Mexico.” He said: “The business there is unbelievable, the new plants we are building. People moving from the United States.” That’s what he does. One-story plants. You understand? Trump wants to be President the same way kids want to be Tom Brady. For the image. NY Times: But according to the Kasich adviser (who spoke only under the condition that he not be named), Donald Jr. wanted to make him an offer nonetheless: Did he have any interest in being the most powerful vice president in history? When Kasich’s adviser asked how this would be the case, Donald Jr. explained that his father’s vice president would be in charge of domestic and foreign policy. Then what, the adviser asked, would Trump be in charge of? “Making America great again” was the casual reply. Trump in 2013, "Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest–and you all know it! Please don’t feel so stupid or insecure, it’s not your fault." That is not exactly the type of humility I'm looking for in someone meant to be negotiating with congressman and foreign heads of state.

Sam Harris on Donald Trump:

Amen. Thanks