John Hjorth

Nothing wrong about that, if its based on BRK corporate govenanence. It could be a very good thing. If WEB's energy level or mental acuity are weakening, then we want him to concentrate what's left on the allocation of BRK's $109+ billion of cash. That's where he has a comparative advantage over almost everyone else on the planet. Let somebody else sit on the Heinz board of directors to agonize over the best way to produce ketchup and Kraft Dinner. SJ I agree with StubbleJumper here. And I apologize for a low quality reply to rb here. To elaborate a bit: Yes, somehow it's a bit sad, actually. But that's life - some day, it comes to an end for all of us - at least so far. [That may perhaps change over time going forward.] Mr. Buffett isen't exactly a spring bunny any longer [despite longinvestor has called him a energizer bunny, that keeps on and on [ : - ) ]]. He has stated several times, that he loves his job. That job must be just daunting, despite he loves it. Berkshire is just so vast now. I suppose he has got a lot of support and help on the running follow-up on things from Mr. Hamburg now during many years. So I see it as an initiative to reduce his actual workload - by delegation of responsibility and tasks - to two persons he trusts. To me, that's good thing, because it will reduce his tear and wear, likely making him last longer. That is what I personally want - to me, Mr. Buffett has deserved this. - - - o 0 o - - - For more than one reason I would like to experience Mr. Buffett to do the mother of all Berkshire acquisitions [ ~ USD 100 B, perhaps?] before he retires. [ : - ) ].

Nothing wrong about that, if its based on BRK corporate govenance.

It's never going to happen here. I'm looking around though.

To me, this is actually very funny! - Earlier today, I pressed on the download link provided by Joel, and *KAA-POOM* - down came nothing less than 912 pages in a pdf-file! [ : - ) ] Now - as so many times before - thank you - very much to you, Joel - for sharing your gems here on CoBF! [ : - ) ]

Yes [ ; - ) ], I understood from a tweet by Shane Parrish, that he felt honoured by being interviewed to, and thereby included in the book. [ : - ) ]

Why not just post the second expression first, and then we all get along? - - - o 0 o - - - I hope we can now get back to "Buffett/Berkshire - general news".

Quite weird to observe indeed. - Especially if one look at those particular trackers. Incoming capital/accounts to be reallocated?

To be released 20th April 2018 on Amazon in paperback.

If you read it carefully, those considerations by Dynamic are - at least to some extent - short term beta considerations. [No critisism intended here, Dynamic.]. When you load up seriously on some position, the short term future will most likely be volatile, the long term future will tell you if your move was right or not.

Example: NVO 2017 ROE 80 percent. [Perhaps some board member may wonder why it's still not possible to see my shoe soles covering my butt with this one.]

In all honesty, today I regret the topic title as the OP. The topic title is a far stretch. I started the topic to get attention here on CoBF to this initiative, that is now on the move, without having read just one line in the document. I have read some of it today. Basically, no numbers about financing. Still, somehow the document makes sense to me. One has to start with the regulatory framework to get this thing up in the air. - - - o 0 o - - - So, I hope that we can just continue to discuss this initiative - including sharing af background information - going forward with this topic as placeholder, despite it was started with a foul topic title. I also hope that we can keep it relatively non-political, more with an investment angle. To me, with regard to that, so far so good. I always enjoy to read what my fellow North American board members think about society and living conditions.

This reads really concerning, Cardboard. Is it more or less the same situation in the different provinces of Canada, or are there differences among provinces?

DooDiligence, Somehow, I get concerned reading this, Sailor. Naturally, you can do both! Where there is will & determination, there is a way.

It is here, today. Bloomberg [2018.02.12]: Trump Sends His Infrastructure Plan to Skeptical Congress. The basic source - the plan itself: The White House: Legislative Outline for Rebuilding Infrastructure in America. - - - o 0 o - - - Happy reading!

Nell-e, Some board members actually do not sell, or sell seldom. [i.e. longinvestor and Valuehalla are in that camp, and you can include me there.] Some board members selling or reducing their positions prefer to post about it in the particular topic in the Investment Idea forum. Some board members prefer to post about their rebalancings gathered as one post in the buying topic. Some board members don't post in detail about their doings. [We don't have to.] - - - o 0 o - - - I appreciate you asking. It's a big board. It takes time to find out how things actually work around here.

Not exactly Max, Say, some vehicle [, or I don't know what] takes control of Berkshire in future [Let alone, that scenario to commence, in it self need some analysis with regard to probability of feasibility], that acquring entity selling ie. BNSF will just have the sales proceeds of BNSF to add in the statements of regulatory capital for NICO, reduced by historical cost, in that case, increasing dividend room for Berkshire [subject to dividend tax].

WneverLOSE, To shed some light about what globalfinancepartners is talking about, please visit National Indemnity Company Financial Information webpage. The overcapitalization of NICO is built up on the long haul by Berkshire since the acquisition of NICO many years ago, and a major part of the surplus capital compared to required regulatory capital is allocated to other businesses and listed investments.

I have to agree with StubbleJumper. Not your usual posting style, Graham. I have always appreciated your posts here on CoBF, except this one. I just hope that you remember this topic from about two years ago. The point here being, that I learned something from the discussion in that particular topic about Berkshire leverage and Berkshire cost of capital.

Berkshire isen't trading right now at 0.3 x BV - 0.4 x BV above soft buyback treshold, but more around .15 x BV above soft buyback treshold.

Let's continue this Berkshire discussion here, so that we don't annoy other fellow board members with lengthy Berkshire talk in this topic.

From the "what are you buying today" topic: A belated welcome to you here on CoBF, Nell-e! [: - ) ] Personally, I'm more interested in tinkering with Berkshire earnings numbers like attached! BV and analyst price targets less. BRK_-_Tinkering_with_earnings_numbers_-_20180209.xlsx

I have a raw estimate of Berkshire equity YE2017 of USD 357 B ex. minority interests. With end 2017Q3 A share equivalents at 1,644,656, that gives me a BV per B share of 145, exactly as longinvestor has posted in a topic in the Berkshire forum a few days ago as a reply to wescobrk [longinvestor posted 143]. So to me, buying the B at 196 is equal to buying it at 1.35 x BV. We could go to that particular topic for further discussion, if needed.

John, take a deep breath, and make sure to ask yourself if this is because you yourself are ready to take advantage of them, or is it because the market has shown little to no volatility (beyond a week or two) over the last 6 years (since the 2011 drop)? I'm only asking you to take a moment because I respect your insight, and the help you've given me on many Danish names that popped up for me in the past, and I want to know your thoughts tomorrow and beyond as we find a floor or continue to build a top. :) Sharad, As you already know, I always appreciate your posts. [ : - ) ] Everything is relative, depending on what you hold, and what you want to buy. [Please see attached file # 1]. Last night I studied with great interest a Danish company, that has just reported nothing less than minus 9,044.1 percent ROIC. [Please see attached file #2].

Somehow I personally consider this initiative an employer-owned PBM, that will be running on some kind of non-profit basis. Attached is a part of note 1 from Novo Nordisk Annual report 2017 released yesterday. It's ludicrous. Gross sales af DKK 216 B, net sales of DKK 112 B, US rebates etc. alone of DKK 100 B. Novo Nordisk diabetes US market share 39 percent. Very rough calculation of total potential savings [with a lot of short cuts with regard to not taking NVO product mix etc. into consideration], here assuming without diabetes pharmas earnings affected: Savings potential for diabetes alone ~ DKK 100B / 39 percent minus J/V internal operation costs ~ DKK 256 B minus J/V internal operation costs ~ USD 43 B minus J/V internal operation costs. What US politics haven't been able to fix so far, will eventually be fixed by Corporate America.

Will poor Starman end up in the Asteroide Belt? - SpaceX overachieving/overshooting "a bit" here?.