John Hjorth

At around 6:30 PM my local time, I added yet another 50% on the upside in poll options. Lonely outlier on the upside, you are hereby free to edit your vote. [Note to readers : As the poll creator, I can't see who has voted what - just in case you may think about it.] - - - o 0 o - - - Unfortunately, there is no practical way here on CoBF to expand the span to the downside. [No way of rearranging poll options, leaving votes already cast untouched.] [As if a return of less than minus 50% wasn't "enough" [ : - / ].]

That's awesome, Eric!, Happy New Year!

We all have our own way to define what we report here. So be it, and that's OK. [it's just for fun - what really matters for all of us - and we all know that - is the long term track record of the outcome of what you do with your capital/AUM].

It's this time of year! [ : - D] -Let the show & show-off begin! [ : - D] - - - o 0 o - - - I've widened the span in the poll options materially compared to last years poll [span now 175%], and made it more fine meshed than last year - if you may be "outside ballpark" in the poll, I sincerely hope it's in the positive end!

hasilp, First of all, welcome here on CoBF, and happy holidays. Please don't be a stranger going forward. - - - o 0 o - - - The answer to your question is, that several of the legal entities within the group of Berkshire insurance subs are heavily over-capitalized compared to regulatory capital requirements, which provides more [regulatory] freedom with regard to capital allocation than what you observe for the majority of other insurance companies.

Merry Christmas to all CoBF members!

Whoa whoa whoa... you mean to tell me that as an established fund manager with a real business you don’t live in a giant mansion paid for by extracting fees from people?? All jokes aside it’s refreshing every once in a while running into someone in the financial industry who isn’t a totally selfish piece of shit only concerned with stuffing as much money as possible into their pockets. Cuz it’s like 98.5% of them. Personally, I have to agree with Greg here, BG2008, Your personal story for your past and youth is very well documented by you here on CoBF. I would argue that exactly that - and the way you've managed to handle the hardship during those years - is today likely the greatest strength of yours. With regard to "door envy", perhaps you may have a choice. [ ; - ) ]

Danish minister of Industry, Business & Financial Affairs Simon Kollerup - reply to the parliamentary business committee - Reply to the Danish Parliament about contra-cyclical capital buffers for banks within the EU [December 19th 2019]. It's unfortunately only available in Danish [AFAIK], - please just focus on the table included in the document. [Translation help here : "Aktuel buffer" [<- Danish] -> "Actual buffer" [<- English], & "Vedtaget buffer" [<- Danish] -> "Buffer decided" [<- English][at some point in time in future]]. To me, the document is quite striking. Capital buffers raised in the Nordic countries [where - at least to me - the systemic risks are lower than in - at least - some other parts of Europe]. In short, there seem to exist in Europe an inverted correlation between perception of systemic risks in the national financial systems among European countries and what's actually going on. - - - o 0 o - - - - How is it, that I'm not surprised. [-The last idiot is not born yet.]

I'm not 100% sure what you're getting at here, but if I am reading it right this is neither obvious nor possible. It certainly isn't on the table. The way I understand the situation, Mr. Johnson still needs to plane a knob off by a [new] agreement with EU before end of January 2020, ref. what Ms. May did. How will that activity [properly considering also the hollidays in front of us] fare on a timely basis?

Heck, it's all about patience. ATH today, and still cheap.

What does all that tell the stock pickers here at CoBF, RuleNumberOne?

While this isn't directed to me, I doubt the previous poster meant bid 49.98/ask 49.99 for bid-ask spreads. If Buffett wants to buy a full company away from the stock market, he probably needs to pay a premium, maybe in the 30% range. The ask for the whole firm being greater than the ask for a single share. Similarly, if he takes a big position in something, once disclosed (either quarterly or at 5% of target) that has the potential to increase the price making the remainder of the position more expensive. Oh, spare me.

Ohh, please give me a break. You can talk macro walls-up, and walls-down. It dosen't matter. Where are your long money?

RuleNumberOne, Please tell us all how to ride this wave, so that we make more money!

Mr. Buffett doesn't give a heck about bid-ask spreads. Nor does he care about momentum hedge funds.

Muscleman, I'm here very happy to inform you, that there actually exists - at least partly - a solution to your mental "1427"-condition. [ : - D ] Definition by exclusion of the solution here : 1. You'll not be in need of a shrink/brain twister [advantage], 2. You'll not be in need of a coach, or any other kind of advisor [advantage], 3. [1. & 2. combined : It's all a DIY-solution [advantage, -well, sort of - it really depends on you personally]], 4. You don't have to inject any substance into your body [advantage, I would say ... - It would really be a pitty to see your six-pack running on five cylinders, ref. your avatar, wouldn't it?], & 5. You don't need to take any pills [advantage]. - - - o 0 o - - - <break> Curious? - I bet you are! <end break> - - - o 0 o - - - Further triangulation of the solution to your "1427"-condition : 6. To the contrary of so many other treatments, there exists no "correct dose" [certainly an advantage, I would say], 7. 6. also implies that you can't OD on the treatment [great!], 8. With regard to dose, there is [almost, - sort of] total freedom of choice from "all shelters" [also great], but : - - - o 0 o - - - 9. The cure is - as already mentioned - only partial, maxed out to 70% of your symptoms [and that really sucks!]. - - - o 0 o - - - Here is the recipe : a. Click on "Profile", b. Next, in "Modify Profile", click on "Look and Layout", c. Next, in "Messages to display per page", increase from forum default "15" to "50" ["maximum dose" - or whatever you prefer]. - - - o 0 o - - - After that : Done. Your "1427" condition will instantly disappear, being reduced to a "428"-condition, or something like that. - - - o 0 o - - - I really hope this helps. [ ; - D ]

Happy post-thanksgiving to you, LC, & to all CoBF members! I hope you all have enjoyed the holidays.

What is it with people here on CoBF discussing this investment as of now [Here, I disregard posts from 2014]? It's so simple. It's all about cash flows from the asset(s), judged by leverage used. Do you you see any? If you're holding real estate without any real cash flow, you're stuck [& subject to downside]. It's that plain simple.

We all hear you, Greg, Please go back to doing your stuff, while I [and other CoBF members] will keep on doing our stuff.

Yes, Cigarbutt, In practice, things work in another way - at least if this is financing provided a bank or a consortium of banks. There will be an ongoing dialogue, during thick and thin, and if the relationship between the lender and the financing party/ies turns sour & distressed because of perceived increased risk related to the financing provided by the financing party/ies, a call is way to set an example of "Who is this going to be a pitty for?"

Yes, SharperDingaan, But that part of the whole process is actually pretty boring & uninteresting, if it has [already] come so far.

porcupine, My answer to your question would be a "Yes". If you look at the description "as is" of this specific term for the covenants overall & from a birds perspective, I think that you will agree with me, that this particular term is about the intent that the company will not have the opportunity to circumvent the covenants by deliberately tinkering with the audited financials to keep up with the covenants at the expense of qualification from the auditors in report & opinion. The catch here is also that the mere existence of covenants can trigger qualified auditors opinions, expressed as various degrees of doubt/conviction about going concern alone because of the existence of the covenants, thereby creating a [bit weird] circularity among causes and effects.

Thanks for info, James. - - - o 0 o - - - - A follow-up piece by Mr. Damodaran, likely based on intense commenting and push-back [! [ : - ) ]] : Aswath Damodaran - Musings on Markets [November 19th 2019] : Regime Change and Value: A Follow up Post on Aramco.

Brokon, Please take a look at Tilman's [CoBF member ebdem's] signature here on CoBF. [ : - ) ]. Tilman is already doing all that stuff! [ : - ) ] He has for some years now been building a value investesting community out of Germany, Austria & Switzerland! - And, from what I can tell - with great success! [ : - ) ]

Yes, wachtwoord, There are so many red flags here [many of them also mentioned by Cigarbutt in his posts from April this year], that if one looks at the "pricing" section in Mr. Damodaran's blog post, the comparison with regard to market pricing recently of other major Oil & Gas companies, the valuation of the whole Saudi Aramco at USD 1.7 T appears out of line. Many of the described risks related to a stock investment in Saudi Aramco appear to me to be similar - at least partly - to the risks related to buying stocks in the Russian Oil & Gas companies. Personally, I won't be surprised, if this IPO actually ends up failing, alone based on that. Edit : Still do, yes. James, You are then certainly close by! [ : - ) ] [Note to others : Dhahran is where the Saudi Aramco HQ is located]. If you don't mind sharing - What's the sentiment about this IPO in your community? [- Please note that I respect your privacy - that goes both for if you for professional and/or personal reasons can't or won't comment.]