Ham Hockers

It's worse than that, the figures on their website (where I think you got the -5.84% relative performance) is only through 2012. Through 2013 it's more like -7.9% Sorry, more like -6.4%

It's worse than that, the figures on their website (where I think you got the -5.84% relative performance) is only through 2012. Through 2013 it's more like -7.9%

what ever happened to ICQ or AIM?

Crap, I hope they don't start charging. I've been using Whatsapp free for years.

Agreed. I think it's a tax efficient way to get out of the stock, same as what they did with Philips 66 last year. And a good reason to add back some of the deferred tax liability on the balance sheet when looking at Berkshire's book equity.

Is it saying pension plan held investment which increased from $223mn to $389mn in 9 months? I wonder which one that would be. Mostly some large cap. Also structure of this transaction will point to Buffett's valuation of Berkshire. I think it was good bargain below 109 and still not very far from it. Valeant Pharma. Sequoia is one of the two managers of the pension plan and Valeant has been a grand slam home run for them. That's a good guess. Matches the reported gain.

Could have added to the position, it's not clear it's all performance gains. Could be anything. WPO itself increased 67% over that period.

Sorry, this was a little cryptic. This is from the 13D filed by Berkshire for their holdings of Graham Holdings (FKA The Washington Post)

This is interesting, particularly if it allows Berkshire to avoid the tax bill that would be paid if they sold the stock. From today's 13D: The Issuer is discussing with Berkshire the possibility of Berkshire acquiring an as yet unformed subsidiary of the Issuer, which would own a business and would own certain other assets to be determined but which may include shares of Berkshire common stock owned by the Issuer, in exchange for all of the Reporting Persons’ shares of Class B Stock in a transaction that would be structured to be a tax-free split-off. Berkshire and the Issuer have not agreed on any terms for such a transaction, and may not reach any such agreement. In particular, while Berkshire believes that such a transaction could be viable based on a valuation of Class B Stock and Berkshire’s common stock at prices prevailing on the date of this Amendment No. 8, a change in such prices may cause such a transaction to no longer be viable. Substantial other issues would also need to be resolved to proceed with such a transaction. If Berkshire and the Issuer do determine to enter into such a transaction, Berkshire believes that the transaction and related definitive agreement would be subject to approval by the Issuer’s board of directors, which to Berkshire’s knowledge has not yet considered any such transaction. Berkshire does not expect any transaction to be agreed upon unless the transaction will be of substantial economic benefit to both parties. If a transaction of the sort currently being discussed is not concluded, Berkshire or entities within the Berkshire group of companies may determine to acquire additional shares of Class B Stock, depending upon the performance of the Class B Stock in the market, market and general economic conditions, evaluation of alternative investments, price, availability of funds, and other factors, or may determine from time to time to sell some or all of its Class B Stock, based upon the same set of factors.

Moving money out of the securities market and into your house isn't removing risk either. You just moved it into equity in your house! There's really no option to be completely risk free with your money. Even if you leave it in cash you're taking the risk of losing purchasing power. Anything you do with your money has risk consequences.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah

To get the As down to 40% of the vote you'd need approx 375k A shares on top of WEB's holdings to convert to B (assuming no repurchases of stock by the company). That's a lot of shares. I think much more likely the As continue to be well north of 50% of the vote. I think the illiquidity would be the problem, but I don't think the cost is prohibitive. To get 6% of the vote, assuming WEB's 336k shares become B shares and nothing else happens, would only cost $7 bn at today's prices. And that gets CHEAPER as the A shares convert to B shares, up to a certain point when you don't have enough A shares to get the % of votes you want.

Most of us will never ever get better leverage than 30 year fixed around current rates. FWIW my mortgage is defeased with uninvested cash on hand, so I'm basically paying for the option that this is someday massively in the money (which I think it will be ... i mean there's still 28 years left on this thing).

It probably depends on why rates are doubled.

Not sure you're right here -- where are you getting $11m? It's also in the notes, and earlier in the 10K. They're netted out to zero for financial reporting purposes. I also wouldn't consider everything that gets lumped into deferred tax assets on the balance sheet as NOLs. There's tons of stuff in there that has nothing to do with NOLs.

http://www.nuveen.com/Home/Documents/Viewer.aspx?fileId=61768&utm_source=MarketCommentary&utm_medium=Twitter&utm_campaign=MarketCommentary

It's a red flag. I think it's equally common among larger companies, too. It's hard to invest with management who you feel isn't always looking out for minority shareholders, no matter how cheap the stock is. I would probably do it if the stock was very cheap and there was an activist holding a large position who could police the company.

I agree it's mostly a non-issue, but control actually gets less costly as the number of A shares shrinks, up to a certain point.

Maybe, but then people would buy the B shares and the premium would fall again. It's hard to see the As trading at a permament & material premium above the Bs, unless there was some odd situation around control of the company. And even that I think would be temporary. Buffett himself said a 1% premium would make the Bs more attractive. Granted he said this a long time ago.

Seems to me a non-issue. Other than Buffett's holdings, the A shares are pretty widely held and traded

PSEC is not a REIT

Isn't CAGR the same as geometric mean?

RSG

This doesn't answer your question, but if you're going to use your personal trading history as part of your track record, I'd recommend that you monitor your performance exactly as you would as a fund, even before going to get it audited. For the most part, this means that taking the numbers your brokerage firm gives you isn't good enough.

Thanks much. I was coming up with closer to $3.00 / cubic yard for the assets I'm looking at. Seems in line given the difference in compaction rate and tipping fee.