John Hjorth

That would be the day. Alexander Prokopchuk, a representative for a state, that has abused the Red Notice measure several times against Mr. Browder, and thereby unelectable. Paranoia everywhere. Luckily reason is still around and kicking. South Korean Mr. Kim Jong-Yang was elected a few hours ago.

Personally, I read it exactly that way. Mr. Cardier to me seems to be in his 40's. Now he'll spend perhaps 10 years of his life getting it straight, based on litigation against him - after which it most likely all starts all over again.

Hey, take it easy! Here, LC and I were having a cosy & sad sentiment conversation [having our butts covered with a lot of Berkshire], after which you bullies starts raiding the topic. [ ; - ) ] - And by the way : That Rolex may be a cheap fake!

Yes, LC, I noticed that, too. Mr. Cardier betted the whole shop [including client capital], and lost ... - it all! Somehow, it feels comforting not to have done so - With no "smart" articles on SA, right? Edit: I wonder if there has been some kind of moral hazard involved here, to try to keep up?

LC, It appears authentic, which makes it absolutely sad and terrible. From the video I understand, that he by this has lost friends, too. Seeking Alpha - Contributor Profile page - James Cordier. So he has not gone totally dark, personally [, at least, as of now].

shalab, OK, but to me it reads somewhat snide here. Personally, from here, I'll let this topic go. [Not worth my time.]

shalab, To me, a meaningless comparison you've done. -So what?

opihiman, Nice meeting you in an exchange here on CoBF - for my part, for the first time. I suppose your post has basis in this post by Sanjeev in the PDH topic at August 9th 2017, right? There is no need to repeat here, what Sanjeev then posted here on CoBF. The Canadian MPIC Fund got closed for the reasons mentioned by Sanjeev then, but there is an US MPIC Fund also, and that is still around. So: The answer to your question, ref. your topic title, is actually: No for the US fund, yes for the Canadian fund.

I speculate Mike's more or less constantly selling Berkshire puts is a side gig closely related to Mike's primary occupation: . [ : - ) ]

The exposure to US banks is now enormous - about USD 70 B [getting to USD 67.8 B alone from Dataroma, exclusive New England Asset Management]. It better go well.

Yes, and it seems that the prayers by globalfinancepartners and I have been heard : JPM shares for USD ~4 B. [ : - ) ]

Honestly what's the "problem" here? -Every CoBF member is supposed "to use" the board as that particular person seems fit [among other things], to get a return.

OK, rb. My reply to Jurgis was actually about that I [in general] worry more about myself than Ted & Todd. [ : - ) ]

Jurgis, they just have to deliver, according the their signed contract with Berkshire. No soft feelings here from me. They are hired to deliver.

Posted by dcollon a few days ago in the "Buffett/Berkshire - general news" topic :

Hi Damien, Here I reply by quoting a post by me within the last few days in the "What are you buying today?" topic:

Zorrofan, My reply to you is in the BOL.PA topic.

Thank you Spekulatius, I'll remember that. It's new territory for me, trying to find some interesting stuff down in Europe, outside Scandinavia, by trial and error method with pocket money. It's never too late to get to know something about new & other companies ["under the radar stuff"]. Time will tell where this brings me.

This is mathematically true but it is actually a chicken and egg issue. It trades above book because, among other reasons, there's an expectation that these dollars will be worth more than a dollar. If that expectation/assumption was removed or proved wrong by one or two mistakes (let's say, just for a hypothetical consideration, that all of the excess cash was invested in IBM-like stocks), it could well trade (and deserve to trade) below book. Another way to point it out is to say that this excess cash built up to an extent that was 95% of assets (again, thought experiment) would the stock still be worth 1.4x book? At that point, aren't you just paying 1.4x for mostly cash. The multiple would have to come down. The way I think of opportunity cost here is: If they pay out $1, you'd get $0.85 (in most cases). To make it $1 again, you need a return of 17.64%. Then you are even and you have to earn about 10% p.a. after that which BRK is likely to earn over time on their investments. If you can get that return (or better) outside of Berkshire, you probably deserve a dividend. I think WEB/CM think that for all shareholders taken as a whole, that is not achievable. When viewed mathematically like this, I tend to agree with their conclusion even though, I'd love a large special dividend of cash as much as anyone else. With regard to taxes for the in fact controlling shareholder, globalfinancepartner's point is far from moot. It appears evident to me, that you're most likely holding your Berkshire position in an account, where you're not subject to taxes on dividends, and that this fact is indeed perhaps blinding you. Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. My point is exactly that taxes make dividends a bad idea. My math I showed supports that. So I'm not sure why I gave you the impression that I don't care about taxes. It's the opposite. Of course, to a policy question of what BRK should do, how I own my shares shouldn't matter... but even so, I do own them in a taxable account. In fact Berkshire is the type of thing you'd WANT in a taxable account (at least if you live in the US).... no dividends, long term gains, etc. all play well with the current tax law here. AdjustedEarnings, Frankly, to me, you appear indisposed right now. For Mr. Buffett, the taxes on a dividend would reduce his donation capacity, measured in absolute USD [his 2006 pledge with amendments does not - as far as I can see - exclude him from suggesting a dividend though]. -Where do you think Mr. Buffett wants the money to go? - To the five foundations, or to the US IRS?

This is mathematically true but it is actually a chicken and egg issue. It trades above book because, among other reasons, there's an expectation that these dollars will be worth more than a dollar. If that expectation/assumption was removed or proved wrong by one or two mistakes (let's say, just for a hypothetical consideration, that all of the excess cash was invested in IBM-like stocks), it could well trade (and deserve to trade) below book. Another way to point it out is to say that this excess cash built up to an extent that was 95% of assets (again, thought experiment) would the stock still be worth 1.4x book? At that point, aren't you just paying 1.4x for mostly cash. The multiple would have to come down. The way I think of opportunity cost here is: If they pay out $1, you'd get $0.85 (in most cases). To make it $1 again, you need a return of 17.64%. Then you are even and you have to earn about 10% p.a. after that which BRK is likely to earn over time on their investments. If you can get that return (or better) outside of Berkshire, you probably deserve a dividend. I think WEB/CM think that for all shareholders taken as a whole, that is not achievable. When viewed mathematically like this, I tend to agree with their conclusion even though, I'd love a large special dividend of cash as much as anyone else. With regard to taxes for the in fact controlling shareholder, globalfinancepartner's point is far from moot. It appears evident to me, that you're most likely holding your Berkshire position in an account, where you're not subject to taxes on dividends, and that this fact is indeed perhaps blinding you.

In short, you and I don't agree.

I've bought trackers in the following companies: Bolloré SA [CoBF Investment Ideas topic] [Company Website] For my part, ODET.PA has to wait for now, Ackermans & van Haaren NV [No CoBF Investment Ideas topic so far] [Company Website] [Ticker : ACKB.BR][1], Sofina SA [No CoBF Investment Ideas topic] [ Company Website ] [Ticker : SOF.BR] Yeah, I get my hair combed here - Financials are only available in French language![1], HAL Trust [No CoBF Investment Ideas topic] [Company website] [Ticker : HAL.AS][1], & Pargesa Holding SA [No CoBF Investment Ideas topic] [Company Website] [Ticker : PARG.SWX][2]. - - - o 0 o - - - 1 H/T & credit wachtwoord for putting these companies on my radar. 2 H/T & credit tom for putting this company on my radar. Link to tom's post about it - perhaps tom will cringe even more now [ : - D ].

Thank you, Jurgis, I just want to express that I was not asking for some kind of documentation here, just source. [ : -) ] And, yes, my reaction from reading your post was similar to your own overall expression in your first post. It seems pretty promotional. Thank you for sharing.

Source, Jurgis? [ : - ) ]

Thanks, alwaysinvert, Your post actually triggers me thinking that I'm personally biased here, because I haven't bought anything american but Berkshire and [big] US banks for the last 1½ years or so, [which is what Mr. Buffett here has done]. [i have bought some MKL & FFH too in that time span though, but that was more a matter of portfolio alignment, while something else got sold.] And, yes, the forward time horizon under which to assess this situation matters.