John Hjorth

In any case, it wont harm you to revisit Dynamic's post of January 25th 2019.

Thank you for sharing, Spekulatius.

Spekulatius, I've - with great interest - been following your moves for years. [However I do not understand some of your moves, to me basically because your investment universe is much larger than mine, based on that you have multiples of investment experience & stock picking knowledge compared to me.] This move by you is a surprise to me with regard to EXOR.MI & FCAU [i'm unopinionated with regard to FRA.DE.] If you would take the time to elaborate just a bit on your line of thinking here, I would personally appreciate it very much.

Thanks, shalab, That makes sense, perhaps combined with local/national capital allocation restrictions among asset classes for those pension funds. Viewed isolated it just looks like the last idiot isen't dead yet.

Amazing notes transactions, gfp, Thank you for sharing. Berkshire working on both sides of its balance sheet. Do you know who is the decision maker at Berkshire on such transactions? - Mr. Buffett, or is this perhaps the playground for Mr. Hamburg? To me it's incomprehensible that somebody will tie up capital for 20 & 40 years respectively on such conditions. I wonder who is buying this stuff?

This is turning ridiculous - for your part, muscleman.

I'll do that, Dynamic.

I understand it exactly the same way as you do, Dynamic, Recently, I have been pretty annoyed about KHC - as a part of the Berkshire sphere - not being in compliance with regulatory reporting requirements for a US listed company. I've spent a couple hours today reading the KHC 10-K. It has softened me up a lot. The work with the KHC 10-K is from a professional angle to me very good, - at first glance. David Knopf - the KHC CFO - appears to me to be competent - he's fairly young, 31 years old. I need to study the 10-K more, as of now.

Added to LVMH [MC.PA] today.

Hi Lance, I just looked around Saturday afternoon now almost about two weeks ago because of the jump in Gazprom [, now up ~40 percent within a couple of weeks, ref. the Gazprom dividend release mentioned by TwoCitiesCapital in the OGZPY topic]. I think it must have been late 2013 I last time looked at Rosneft - I was then pretty much overworked and stressed in relation to running on full throttle downsizing for our two parents still alive. So I think I must have drifted away from it mentally because of that. I was a bit surprised under the revisit to Rosneft - much larger than compared to my recollection from back then in 2013, likely based on anchoring in the Rosneft 2012 financials, not fully comprehending the effects of the TNK-BP deal between Rosneft and BP closely related to BP's situation after the Macondo Blowout. Rosneft appears to smoke every other large oil company with regard to reserve replacement ability, but I'm not sure I understand it correctly. I need to read some more to understand it. Rosneft is somehow Mr. Putins puppy, but the shareholder presence of BP & Qatar Holding with a total ~40 percent ownership counters it somehow, I think. I still hold all shares of Lukoil bought back in august 2013 & August 2014, and all shares of Gazprom bought May & June 2013. Mentally I think of it like the dividends received are repayments of invested principal, and then go somewhere else with the dividends. To me that's a way to mentally handle the political risk, combined with modest positions. Lukoil has worked out satisfactory, Gazprom not so far, but I think Gazprom will deliver much more going forward [Gas to China]. It's investing in "hold your nose"/generally out of favor/hated companies, operating in the "dirty"/"black" part of the energy space, based on good dividends.

Good to see you back, rb.

Thank you, Pete.

Lance, Years ago, we both looked at Rosneft ... -Have you looked at it recently?

I saw a video clip on Twitter yesterday from birds perspective & downtown Toronto - pretty amazing - It appeared like the area was *boiling* - tremendous noise from a huge crowd of happy people all over the place! The whole story about Maple Leaf on Wikipedia is pretty amazing, too!

coc, Somebody has to call you out, - I'm hereby by doing it. There is something called "Minimum regulatory capital requirements" for US insurance companies. It's explained in the Berkshire 10-Qs & 10-Ks. I'm not going to spend time on explaining it to you here. Furthermore - in short - if you, as the CFO of the parent [in this case, Mr. Hamburg] are not able to explain to your CEO, how book value [and thereby book value per share] has evolved over time for the parent, then you may have a problem. If you're in control of your sh!te as Berkshire group CFO, you are supposed to know exactly the composition of Berkshire earnings, for accounting purposes, - for any period, including explanations for variances.

coc, Are you an accountant? [ : - ) ] -I ask because you think about this exactly like I do. - - - o 0 o - - - Edit: Geico - Financial Information. There was here on CoBF a similar discussion about NICO a few years back [for NICO, similar information is available at the NICO website], with some very good elaborations and explanations provided by gfp about how to interpret the numbers - they must still be laying around here in the Berkshire forum somewhere.

Personally, I perceive it as you do here, alwaysinvert, The last couple of days I've been thinking about to picture what's going on at Berkshire HQ on daily basis in the meaning of daily routines over an "ordinary" year wheel [what ever that may imply] for Mr. Buffett: Minus 6. Taking care of responses to incoming mail, carefully sorted by a secretary taking care of "a priori defined trivia" sorted out, Minus 5. Answering phone calls carefully filtered by a competent secretary, who knows exactly how to "filter", refer & delegate, Minus 4. Sign original filings [presented to him, with the expectation that they are correct & timely], Minus 3. Take care of all compensation matters for persons referring direct to him, Minus 2. Write the annual shareholder letter [in cooperation with a professional & experienced editor], Minus 1. Follow-up on everything inside Berkshire, on which Mr. Buffett wants to do so, - - - o 0 o - - - 0. And so on, ordered by your personal discretion - please add what ever you prefer, and renumber accordingly, by your personal perception of priority, - - - o 0 o - - - 1. Berkshire capital allocation [buybacks and/or deals] - - - o 0 o - - - I certainly acknowledge and respect the posts by Dynamic on this matter - But I just can't see Mr. Buffett even considering anything BRK price sensitive on his desk, while at the same time having instructed an employeé to buyback BRK shares. Based on that, it's extremely fascinating, that your [to me : correct] observations about silent periods vs. actually buybacks provides basis for the opposite. - - - o 0 o - - - So, to me, this is the ultimate patience test of shareholders with regard to patience for delayed gratification. We will be opposed to it - or even hate it - until we love it, because of market conditions. [And most likely, when that happens, nobody will talk about opportunity costs.]

Let Jeff and you be excused. Jeff has posted that he does not consider himself a slacker, - so I assume he was buying at the broker, posting here, reading chords, singing & playing piano or guitar - all in one big bunch simultaneously - multitasking is hard.

Absolutely not, CorpRaider!, Modesty is a virtue. I see Mike has also opened the valve on his pipeline of free beer - now we just need to read this here on CoBF: , and everybody will be happy.

Pete, What is your personal [ and thereby subjective, naturally - no strings attached!] perception about the major UK banks for now?

And perhaps now CorpRaider, CharlesMunger or James are sitting crying for being ignored - perhaps all of them. May the wonderful price paid provide some comfort!

The situation around British Steel has been actively covered in the Danish Press yesterday and the day before. It reads bad - I saw mentioned 4,500 jobs directly on the line, & estimated 45,000 affected in the whole supply chain below it. It reads like perhaps more than a tiny shock wave in UK businesses potentially spreading, if the situation gets totally out of control. What I read was that British Steel was now basically hit from every angle of effects of the Brexit situation. Personally, I don't care about the PE firm owning it. - - - o 0 o - - - Personally, I appreciate all our active UK CoBF members. I specifically remember, that Dynamic some time ago wrote "... I'm still European, at least for next few weeks ..." or something similar. No matter what happens related to Brexit for you here on CoBF living in the UK, you'll always be European to me! Also, here's a tip, that you may be free to pass on to the appropriate and relevant person related to British Steel : Please give oligarc & steel tycoon Vladimir Lisin a call about British Steel. To me, he appears to have some weird attraction to loss generating steel production plants - at least he has now owned such a Danish black hole for many years, that is doing nothing but sucking in his money - pretty consistently over the years. And yes, I have thought about what is actually going on inside that particular Danish black hole... [ ; - ) ]

Thank you for a very useful elaboration on this complicated stuff, Dynamic, And after studying the FAQ I think that Dynamic must be correct about not lumping together the two share classes while calculating ADTV, subject to seeking Safe Harbor. It's specifically phrased in A to Q8 in the FAQ in a way, that - at least to me personally - leaves no leeway for interpretation.

Cornell Law School - Legal Information Institute : 17 CFR § 240.10b-18 - Purchases of certain equity securities by the issuer and others. If one press on the embedded link "security", you get a pop-up with the legal definition of the word "security" in this context : So, ref. alwaysinvert's question 1, I conclude ADTV is calculated based on total volume for the A and the B. - - - o 0 o - - - Edit: Cornell Law School - Legal Information Institute : 17 CFR § 229.703 - Purchases of equity securities by the issuer and affiliated purchasers. Please note: and

Greg, It reads a bit funny to me. Personally, I'll bet it's no-go for you, based on your posts here on CoBF. I think of it - in general - that this may be below your margin of boredom. Naturally, I may be wrong, though.