John Hjorth

Jurgis, Somehow, I knew in advance, that this particular topic may have triggered your interest, based on my knowledge gained over the years about how you invest. Here is CoBF link to the company as guidance. The family years. The stock exchange years. In short, I still thinks dredging stinks, -but please enjoy! [ : - ) ] [Credit: CoBF member : wachtwoord]

Ref. what I have already linked to : What's odd about a photo of a sheriff in the night with a gun?

Somehow, I agree a bit with the last post of StubbleJumper here, there is separate topic in the Politics forum about this topic too, as mentioned by Jurgis in this topic. I mentioned the annual report 2017 for the foundation earlier in this topic. LC mentioned also earlier in this topic that it's more about what Howard Buffett does, not so much what he says. I started reading the annual report late last night , and I almost "fell" into it - I almost couldn't let it go again. To me, it answers a lot of questions asked in this topic, a la "What has Howard Buffett done?", "How does he think about certain issues?", also "What does he say he will do going forward?" and so on, in his capacity as non-executive director at Berkshire [with his personal activity/agenda/mission] [so to say : his personal track record, and plan for the future, on top of what has already been mentioned here about board work etc.] I highly recommend the exercise, actually! [ : - ) ] [i'm not myself finished reading the annual report yet.]

cameronfen, That comment of yours makes sense, if that was the only part of the investment approach of the fund, which it's not. Its investment approach is a combination of investing in special situations and the investment approach primarily covered by the interview. For material about successful implementaton of this "compounder" approach I refer to the shareholder letters by Mr. Elkann for EXOR. [Every investment approach can be executed poorly.] - - - o 0 o - - - This topic was not meant as a pitch for the fund. I'm sorry I did not express that clear enough in the starting post.

I'll just read the annual report in full and try to stay open minded till then. At least I'll learn something about the line of thinking of the man. He has put a lot of effort into the report, that's evident just from a quick glance.

Thank you for shedding some light on the fund Mr. Marcus is running, Paul, Funds like this have always been a no-go for me personally, for two reasons : Taxes and fees. I was more posting with the intent of providing a link to some speaking of a money manager, who for at a part of his available capital has been practicing an investment approach, that has at least some traction here on CoBF, including my own personal interest. I'll definitely comb out to me interesting stuff in his writings that may have appeal to me, for further study.

StubbleJumper, -You "said it" - I "settled" with thinking it. [ ; - ) ] My post is likely based on home bias. There is public control with charitable foundations here in Denmark - both with regard to capital allocation decisions [donations] and spending, which again can have tax consequences.

Howard G. Buffett Foundation - Annual Report 2017. Especially page 1 may be worth your time. So, somehow it may be old news - perhaps we just didn't know, nor discussed it earlier. Personally, I'm puzzled about formal & real support of law enforcement can be accepted as charital activity. Edit: Comparing with the mission statement and purpose of the foundation in the six-year report 2000- 2005, the purpose of the foundation has been changed between 2005 and 2017.

SoundCloud - MOI Global Ideaweek : David Marcus - Great owner-operators in Europe. Mr. Marcus' Company Website. [<- Please note that financials, writings to clients etc. are available on the website.] I listened to the podcast episode yesterday, and I liked it. Mr. Marcus is in the interview touching stuff like the Wallenbergs and their Investor AB, Kinnevik AB, Ratos AB, Bolloré & EXOR N.V. etc. - some of it stuff that we actively discuss here on CoBF. If you're interested, I hope you like it too - It'll take almost an hour of your time.

I'm sorry for an unclear post above of mine, globalfinancepartners, It's about my try to reverse engineer Berkshire's Apple position. To do it I had to make additional assumptions to try to triangulate it. The difference to the reverse engineering of Berkshire buybacks is we have an "extra" fixpoint based in the information in the 10-Qs about buybacks and a reasonable assumption [you did it, and what you proposed made perfect sense to me] how the buy order to the broker is bolted together. That fixpoint we don't have for the Apple position [quarterly]. So it would be pure guesswork based on my own speculations, and what may come out of the Excel crushing the numbers would most likely be a self-fulfilling prophecy. In short, I would just be fooling myself. So I didn't try to proceed with the calculations. Also, I hope my fellow board members got a good laugh of this brainfart of mine! [ : - ) ] Also - and especially - the fact that aws has expressed a variant expectation to mine, which is as good as mine, gave me confirmation that doing the calculations was a no-go. Better to wait to mid February to see the size of the Apple position EOP 2018Q4 and the cost of it at a later moment in the Berkshire 2018 10-K. That said, rough estimates of the cost of the additions to the Apple position for the first 3 quarters of 2018 can still be done now, yes.

Well, Spekulatius, to me, you're not [in any way] related to this. In short, it's about double indentity here on CoBF. Please explain yourself, Og, here.

Spekulatius, Nothing. I actually appreciated listening to your voice. Somehow, it put some kind of colour on you as a person to me, personally. And I personally don't consider the content of that particular podcast your "incoherent ramblings". Exactly the same applies for me to your posts here on CoBF, which I also appreciate very much. So, in short, - as already indicated by me - this is not about your personal integrity [which is fully intact to me] -but about the personal integrity of others posting here on CoBF.

At 92 votes, I'm still the lonely guy in the 40 - 35 bracket, that nobody wants to play with. And I'm a chicken. -Mike, this better go well!

Thank you Mike! [ : - ) ] - - - o 0 o - - - Here, I'm adding a few personal thoughts - unordered, phrased short: 1. I always appreciate reading your posts, Mike. Thank you for sharing. 2. Spekulatius' concerns should not be disregarded. Doing so would be unwise. The risk is real. However, it's doable. 3. If Berkshire is broken up/starts fading/loosing its marbles, we'll leave it, seeking greener grass for our herd, whispering : "What a ride we had!" 4. This poll has been on my mind for years. Finally got my act together. 5. I'm surprised about how heavy the board in general is on Berkshire. I already knew about a few you, though - through your posts. 6. Asking about absolute capital allocation is perhaps not good form, ref. Sleepydragon. The short answer is: "A lot!" [ : - ) ]

Welcome to you here on CoBF, TB!

Wow! - 65 votes right now... This comes to mind:

Og, who are you, posting here on CoBF? Are you the provider & interviewer on this podcast? [Please leave Spekulatius out of this question.]

Please take the poll. And please feel free to comment the way you like. Gross position defined as if you use leverage.

Dynamic, lol. Well, the chess watch on that has perhaps not only run out - Perhaps the metal parts of it are now already recycled into a SUV right front fender. On a serious note, I'm happy I in this topic opted for voters to edit. Errare humanum est.

Bumping this up for informational purpose here - here, especially for Dynamic : You should be able to fine tune your vote - with an "Edit vote" button, if you feel inclined to do so. Also, I suppose - by logic - that option disappears within 90 days.

Bumping this up by quoting, with attachment! - - - o 0 o - - - Anybody of my fellow board members willing to take firm, unconditional & binding WAG [<- learned that expression from longinvestor! [ : - D ]] stab at: Berkshire portfolio material [quantified by name] additions [net] in 2018Q4, Berkshire buybacks in 2018Q4, measured in USD B, & Berkshire liquidity EOP 2018Q4 [Total cash plus US T-Bills] ? [ : - ) ] BRK_-_Estimated_selfimposed_acquisition_capacity_in_USD_M_in_AAPL_and_relevant_US_banks_EOP_2018Q3_-_20181218.xlsx

Holdings Channel : All Stocks Held By Sprucegrove Investment Management Ltd. as of September 30th 2018.

bizaro, Thanks for the examples, but please try to keep this "general" [faithful to the general line of thinking of Pete]. Examples [why not start based on what some CoBF members would consider "homebias"] : [VWS.CPH] - Vestas Wind Systems A/S : Near death experiences two times, if you include its predessescors. New and current management steered the ship off the cliff. Forward looking: A steal? I [still] don't know. [Great management now, not sure of the business prospects going forward, - before : documented awfull management, in a "?" business. [What will it get you, if you buy it now?] [DANSKE.CPH] - In rear hindsight, a great business [a minor part of it being absolutely rotten], earlier run by bad & by principles, incompetent management. Now new management. [What will it get you, if you buy it now?]

No, I don't think so - they're tightly related. Pete, I hope I've understood your "No" here as to you, I'm not clogging up the topic. To me, it's like a two dimensional proposition [here : simplified]: Company : Good - mediocre - bad, Management : Good - mediocre - bad. That simplified perception gives you 9 applicable investor modus operandi [please feel free to refine, if needed]. ... They are all some sort of opportunity of dumpster diving for a value investor, based on variant perceptions to market, market sentiment, company sentiment etc. -No matter what you do, the price you pay matters.

Hi John, that's fine. I often edit my posts several times after I write them and I'm sure people end up seeing multiple versions. I try not to offend anyone more than is necessary, although I do admit my sarcasm runneth over from time to time. Graham, I see you read my reply to you exactly the way it was meant. [ : - ) ] Please just ditch and disregard mentally the posts in this topic, that you personally consider dishonest - A tiny test by supplementary questions does not hurt, and it's it: No reply is also a reply. [ : - ) ] - Simply waste of mental energy for your part. [i've been there, done that, got that shirt for prior years ... [i.e.: outstanding return relatively to CoBF average in an up year, combined with reported > 50% percent average cash position during the year, and no visible activity during the year here on CoBF on what that particular CoBF member has been up to during the year, - and no reply to my question.] -Let it go!