Libs

Thanks for posting. He makes a good case.

Trump weighs in today: https://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20200410/NEWS06/912333993/Trump-suggests-insurers-should-pay-virus-business-interruption-claims-COVID-19-c Here's a company suing for coverage: https://dc.eater.com/2020/4/8/21212037/downtown-proper-21-sues-coronavirus-insurance-coverage

You'll be fine with either Schwab or Fidelity. I use Schwab but my two friends who have RIA's are happy with Fidelity. Good luck! PM me of you want details.

Great interview. Made me question a couple of things I may have overlooked in my research. Thanks for posting.

On the side of this I actually got a call last night about the volunteer position at her hospital. I begin next week (at least training) and will work just a few days a week (evening shift) to help run errands, resupply carts, stock rooms, etc. Don't really know what to expect. I have to fill out daily reports on my health and the hospital will be taking my temp upon arrival of my shift. My guess (and my wifes) is that I will be running supplies from the hospital staging area to the tents they put up outside. It seems like they are trying to create a buffer zone between the hospital and covid central as best they can. This will be a good way to get out of the house and do something supportive of the real heroes out there. I've been pent up for a little over 4 weeks now and the only thing that placates my stir craziness currently is my daily 5 mile lunch break jog. This is great and noble. And I got a laugh out of it because I picture the real Castanza doing this, which would be comical.

I think your analytical skills are not of the highest order. Can't speak to your intellectual capacity, however you have continuously minimized the threat of COVID and used your credentials as a cudgel to push your agenda. The data clearly shows you were wrong about a large number of undiagnosed cases of coronavirus in Jan/Feb, which you repeatedly claimed. Meanwhile, Dalal has been posting good info for weeks, and I don't care what his profession is. Credentialism is unnecessary. Jeez. I just have to weigh in here. Orthopa simply weighed in with some on-the-ground experience that ran counter to the prevailing wisdom. For which he was treated quite roughly. I appreciated his input, right or wrong.

Interesting article. If the authors are right, it's a game-changer. What's the push-back to this? What are they missing?

Good post. Thank you.

Good site for up-to-date coronavirus statistics: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-cases/#case-growth-outchina

Sorry if I missed this in another thread... By my math...80B / 565B= 14.1% Two things occur to me. 1) Obviously a great buy, over $40B in unrealized gains. I don't hear Warren get much press or credit for this. 2) How do BRK owners feel about this? makes me a little uneasy.

He's basically been saying that since like 1957. He might be right this time...I wouldn't bet on it. I'm sure that within the last 5 years, in the letter, he said he expected to marginally outpace the S & P going forward. I don't remember exactly when it was, but it was not that long ago. I find it somewhat shocking. So why own Berkshire?

Buffett no longer claims BRK should beat the S & P? Seems like a bombshell comment, IMO: https://www.ft.com/content/40b9b356-661e-11e9-a79d-04f350474d62 Edit: Paywall. Sorry about that. Here's where I first found it: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/25/buffett-says-investors-would-be-served-equally-well-by-sp-or-berkshire.html

Here's an alternative take, from one of our own (I hope Tim doesn't mind me posting this) Tim Eriksen January 15, 2019 at 10:15 pm Can I play devil’s advocate and say I think the purchase was mediocre and the decision to use equity was terrible. The dividends far exceed actual cash generation from the business. A better term would be distribution from cash and leveraging. Total dividends are over $31 billion. Free cash flow (cash from operations less cash used in investing) is only $19.5 billion. BNSF has taken on $18 billion in debt to cover the dividends beyond the cash flow. The decision to use equity means the acquisition price was actually much higher than $33 billion. Based on today’s $295,000 market price for A shares the true cost is over $50 billion. $50 billion spend to earn free cash flow of less than $20 billion in nearly nine years is not impressive. Here is another way of looking at it BRK spent $26 billion for the 75% of BNSF it did not own, 20% of BRK’s $131 billion of book value at the end of 2009. Since then BNSF has earned $39 billion. 75% of that is $30 billion. Since the beginning of 2010 BRK has earned $200 billion. The $26 billion buyout of BNSF has only generated 15% of earnings. Thus, the purchase was value destructive. Tim

Thanks Hjorth. I'd missed that. I'm getting the low 160's as the basis through Q3.

Getting back to the Apple discussion - I concur with Stubble. Putting such a huge % of BRK's market cap into Apple bothered me from the start. I hope he's done adding. I rarely question Buffett's purchases but the bear case here is worrisome. I've been trying to find BRK's ( most recent) cost basis in Apple. Does anyone have it?

Oops. Posted too soon. The A shares are the derivative security.

What does box 8 mean? ------------------------------------------- "Price of delivery security value $296,000"

That was good. There was a stat to behold: real estate commissions, in the aggregate, are 3 X what Canada is spending on R & D. That's seriously messed up, if true. I guess it is: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/real-estate-fees-home-sales-1.4226630

How are you coming up with $45B earnings for BRK?

I laughed.

This article is getting attention re vulnerability of the power grid. My question is: Is Berkshire legally separated in any way from its utilities? Could a massive power outage that brings a region to its knees for weeks / months/ years bring down Berkshire? https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R45135.pdf

FWIW- I have a friend who has worked in the medical device industry for years, an executive at a firm known to everyone here. He says their DD made it clear the products could not perform to the hype, and they moved on quickly. He's astonished at the 'fools' who invested in Theranos.

<This isn't a 100% home run. It's probably even < 50% chance of happening. But it's absolutely >0%. Betting on asymmetric +EV probabilistic outcomes where there is variant perception against telephone opinions will do well long term.> This is the core of the issue. The bears, if they've even thought about it this way, must be assigning virtually zero chance of BTC becoming embedded in the financial system. I disagree, and am actually heartened by the bears' outnumbering bulls so vastly ( and by their general vitriol). This boils down to your gambling sense, IMO. Nice posts Snarky.

Nice post. I would add, I think there's a lot of over-thinking going on in this thread, with all due respect. I think there's a real chance Bitcoin has staying power ( periodic plunges aside). It could be as simple as this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/18/opinion/bitcoin-boom-technology-trust.html?_r=0

Stumbled onto this piece about bitcoin, the origins of mediums of exchange, and much more. He sees Bitcoin as here to stay ( as a medium of exchange). I liked this section: <I have previously argued why there is no theoretical reason that a medium of exchange has to start out being material.9 It only has to be a scarce good. The digital age, and Bitcoin itself, have made it clear that goods do not have to be tangible. Despite word choices such as commodity in classic writings on this subject, there is no fundamental economic reason that a physical material has to be what secures the essential monetary characteristics—foremost scarcity. The supposed need for tangibility is an association leftover from the range of examples that was available prior to the internet age.> https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5720adbdc6fc0891cbcce17c/t/580d685959cc689a7b411ba4/1477275058522/On+the+Origins+of+Bitcoin+Graf+03.11.13.pdf