bennycx

Very unlikely Buffett is buying back stock. Too many bargains around

He said the American commercial banks he owns still earn good ROE even in low interest rates and they're earning better returns with lower leverage compared to European or Japanese banks So there is a distinction there It is not a macro call on rates - he has no view on that Link is here:

With leverage, gains 55% Without leverage, gains 32% Gains came from DVMT arbitrage (end 2018), AXP, USB and CFR (lucky to buy at 80+ levels, now stands at 40% of portfolio)

A merger with Microsoft would be great :)

Why is it so difficult for others to follow the same model though? Ie acquire companies within insurance subs rather than holding tons of bonds

Net of tax and net of debt! Started with 10k 7 years ago after graduation. Been socking 50% initially and more recently up to 70% of my income every month as I get paid more. I am usually holding a 3-5 stock portfolio with roughly 30-50% concentration in one name. Main big returns are BAC in 2011, WFC in 2013 and AXP in 2016, with some tactical arbitrage plays like Dell (from public to private in 2012 and back to public in 2018) and some other less known ones. All is not well since I made one main mistake in an oil name in 2015 and suffered 30%-40% losses there (overall -10% to portfolio). Another positive thing is that I can feel more financially stable when thinking about starting a family!

Today is the first time I've reached my First Million dollars at the age of 30, just before my 31st birthday! ;D I am very grateful to the mega bull market in the US for the past 10 years (started investing since 2009) and all the wonderful learning opportunities on this forum! Some people say the first million is the hardest to make. Do you remember when you first become a millionaire?

This discussion exemplifies group-think, over-analyzing the situation and what investors want rather than what is logical. Put yourself in Buffett shoes and you will realize: 1) He thinks there is more value in some large banks and wholly-owned elephant acquisitions 2) He doesn't think Berkshire's intrinsic value is at a steep enough discount For large wholly-owned acquisitions, incentives are against Buffett as ego-centric CEOs like to say they're a CEO of a big company, rather than a head of a subsidiary of Berkshire. Therefore I still stand by my prediction of the "not impossible" chance of a way for Buffett to get around the 10% limitations of big banks, likely to be an agreement with the SEC or still a minority interest in banks he might deal less with e.g. USB

Berkshire should convert into a bank holding company and increase its stake or buy over a bank.

Probably USB, BK, GS

just based on your numbers alone, 0.6 BV and 9x P/E implies a return on equity of about ¬6.7%. The valuation doesn't sound very cheap to me on a low yielding low growth company. On another note, real estate in HK is also highly overheated and asset/property based companies should all trade below book.

Asia has a lot more capital intensive companies and owner run companies who are not friendly to minority shareholders. For these reasons, they are not really cheap even if it seems so. For good companies who are shareholder friendly, most still trade at an expensive PE ratio. Currently I still find more opportunities in the US than HK/China/Singapore.

Looking at how Buffet decides on whether to keep holdings below 10% ownership e.g. PSX, WFC, etc, it seemed that Buffet really liked American Express a lot. For e.g. he seeks permission to own more AXP but gives up on PSX easily to keep below regulatory requirements. Also understand that WFC is a different situation altogether. Is there a different way of understand this, that AXP is one of his most fav stock?

AXP (largest position)

Can you give a short thesis on ADS?

How do I watch this outside of the US?

I have a large bill to pay in mid 2019. What investments will you do in this situation and why? 1) Merger arbitrage with planned date around 2019 2) BRK 3) Add on to regular stock picks that I have 4) Bonds I am leaning on 1. Any thoughts?

OMC

Video speaks for itself https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wNAP5nF6lU

Previously I had 55% WFC 25% BAC and 20% AXP and I sold away my BAC.. I take comfort in the fact that I have an income which will probably add 10-20% extra cash to the portfolio each year. Certainly if I did not have a job, I would diversify more but don't think I'll go beyond 5-8 stocks. I feel that I know those stocks well enough to understand they're a low risk bet. If there is a decent probability of a stock having a permanent impairment of capital, I feel it makes sense to not even invest, rather than buy a lot of them to diversify.

Hi, Members on this board tend to say they hold a concentrated portfolio or position, but what do you mean by that? I hold a ~half a mil portfolio with 2 stocks making up 75% of it and the rest in cash and I think that is concentrated. However there are members also saying they have concentrated positions and subsequently reveal their top position to be ~10-15%. I understand if you have a 10 mil portfolio but is everyone a multi-millionaire here? I think this portfolio allocation is pretty diversified and many high net worth investors I know run 10-20 positions as a norm. WEB and Munger has said that if they were to run small amounts of capital, they would pick only 4-6 high conviction stocks and hold them for a period of time, and certainty DJCO is run that way.

SICK moves! Can't believe my luck..

55% WFC, 22% BAC, 22% AXP, rest cash (6 digit portfolio)

A whole world of NO! Don't steal from people better off than you because you're jealous! That's extremely petty and pathetic. Take a look at yourself :( Please don't tie the legs of the best swimmers. No one will try to be a good swimmer anymore. I'm a good example. I give about 60% because I don't think I'll be rewarded for doing more. Disagree. CEOs are types who would go for it even with less pay just because they're narcissistic and want control and power and show that they're in the lead. So they should be taxed since the demand there isn't elastic. If there is a high tax, I'm pretty sure a lot of people would still want to be a CEO.

Okay but, would dividend taxes at 60% be not considered high? After all, you can leverage stocks 3-5x just like you can with real estate, and you can still make a return in stocks even if it's negative carry. So like, when the dividend taxes are debated, how come topics like negative carry are not really ever discussed if that is seriously the rational for having high tax rates on rental real estate? How would a regular / poor guy leverage stocks 3-5x as easy as a property?