John Hjorth

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.

StubbleJumper & alwaysinvert, How do you feel and think about the whole thing today Monday? - In a time context, your posts was just after the Berkshire 10-Q was released. Now we have had ongoing discussion during the weekend and analysis of the 10-Q, and it has come up that about ~USD 15B has been allocated to financials during 2018Q3 [- of the ~USD 15 B ~USD 6 B allocated to BAC -], on top of the share buyback of ~USD 1 B in the quarter. Furthermore considerations/speculations [ time will tell ] that more capital has been allocated to perhaps BK, USB & GS, perhaps even new positions in financials. Personally, I was a bit disappointed just after the release of the 10-Q, too. After a couple of nights sleep on it, I have a good feeling about this here Monday morning. The upward trend in liquidity surplus has been turned, and Berkshire is still the Rock of Gibraltar. All in all, not that bad, because it's actually able to generate good earnings and cash flow as it is.

aws, That's discussed and covered in this topic.

Great observations about BAC for Berkshire, gents, The next questions are, as at least partly already mentioned by globalfinancepartners, because it's a lot capital allocated during 2018Q3 to financials etc.: ~USD 15 B in financials etc., with ~USD 6 allocated to BAC, what's the rest allocated to? -Personally I speculate that it would at least include an allocation to JPM - alone because of the size of the rest - time will tell [mid this month]. If ~USD 6 B has been allocated to BAC during 2018Q3, why should continued buying not take place during "Red October", where BAC has tanked some, and daily volume has gone materially up?

Thank you, globalfinancepartners, & my question #1 does not really matter, what had me really puzzled, was my question #2, which has been answered satisfactory by longinvestor. The whole thing makes sense to me now, actually, in the meaning that we're not any longer held in the dark. We have now black on white, that Berkshire has been buying back at average 207ish for the B share. That's sufficient for me.

lol. Good humor upon Red October.

Thank you, longinvestor! I missed that, got it now! [ : -) ] If one look at a price chart for the B share for 2018Q3, it really looks like a "208 threshold" for the period [2018Q3].

globalfinancepartners, From you numbers etc, it appears clear to me, the basis for your post is the 2018Q3 10-Q, p. 45, lower part, where we have the facts, right? 1. Why 8 days in October, ref. my emphasis in the quote of your post? [i suppose you perhaps mean 18 trading days instead?] 2. Why is August 6th first day in your opinion for the new buyback regime? The public announcement was July 17th. I just want to be sure to understand correctly your line of thinking here.

Started tiny positions yesterday in : LVMUY - LVMH - Moët Hennessey - Louis Vuitton SE [CoBF Investment Ideas topic] [Company Website]. Bought it at its primary market place at Euronext Paris [ticker: MC.PA], SBRCY - Sberbank of Russia [CoBF Investment Ideas topic] [Company Website]. Bought it at London Stock Exchange [ticker: SBER.L], & EXO.MI - EXOR N.V. [CoBF Investment Ideas topic] [Company Website].

dcollon, Thank you for sharing. Please also repost this interview in this topic - It certainly seems worth it, despite I haven't been listening to the whole thing yet.

Admitted, you're not the only one to be confused here, SwedishValue [ : - ) ], Yesterday I was studying the C 2018Q3 10-Q. C reports at that spot outstanding shares at end of 2018Q3.

SwedishValue, Or close to the end of October 2018. On the front page of the 2018Q2 10-Q the share count for outstanding shares was as per July 26th 2018.

Added a bit to SCHO.CPH & BAM [in the early hours of both markets] today. - - - o 0 o - - - It's good to read good mood among fellow board members in these volatile days!

I think it was yesterday, that I read a Twitter thread by Francine McKenna about Berkshire. Honestly, to me, she does not know what she's talking about. Absolutely rubbish to me. Edit: To me, a bit like the SIRF Report [March 11th 2013] about Brookfield Asset Management Inc.

That's really weird. I use Chrome on a Win PC, by the way.

I have noticed some weeks ago - perhaps 1 - 2 months ago - that I lost secure connection to CoBF [https://]. Perhaps there is an issue with the security certificate of the CoBF domain.