adesigar

You are comparing how someone would value a mutual fund v/s a company. Isnt that a really dumb way of viewing it? When you buy shares in a company run by an exceptional manager you pay a premium not for the assets of the company but for the manager. There are a limited no of shares of the company it doesn't create shares (like a mutual fund) just because you want to invest some money in. You also cant match future buys and sells at the exact same price as the manager so you can never track the returns exactly. you can only match buys and sells after they are reported and for the best managers with special exemptions like Buffett/Berkowitz/Ackman that could be months after they build their position and the stock has run up. If 2 companies have the same amount of assets say 1 Billion and hold all their assets into just one company - Bank of Ireland shares for example but one is run by someone like Buffett/Berkowitz/Watsa/Pabrai and the other company is run by XYZ would they sell for the same price? Also think about this, would you have avoided buying Berkshire/Leucadia 30 Years ago if it had traded at a premium to book value of assets held?

My largest and only TV is 32" too. I guess we're TV brothers :D Only on a value investing board would you find such people, every house I go in besides mine has a monster TV hanging on the wall in every living room. My kids were literately jumping for joy and high-fiving one another when we replaced one of our 2 tube TVs with that 32" HDTV two years ago. We still have the tube TV in the other living room though, I didn't want to get too crazy. That's my experience too. Even the poorest people I know have cable (which we don't have) and a TV larger than 45 inches. We actually bought our 32" as a floor demo with a small scratch on the non-screen part, so we got a discount. It was a good value... I still don't have a flat screen TV, still using an old tube TV. Prices are dropping to the point where I think it's worth it for me to upgrade. My wife really wants one :) What do you guys watch on tube TVs ?

As I imagined, you haven’t added anything I hadn’t already thought about BH… And I firmly believe you are wrong about it. Gio Since you have thought about it would you kindly share why Management should control a company and not shareholders. Can you also share what's so special about any CEO compared to the ones I mentioned that he needs to be made to feel safe to carry on long term plan for value creation, which by the way is every CEO's job.

adesigar, I think I know the difference between owners and management… But, as I have said, there are very few general rules in business, and each situation requires its own right course of actions. Therefore, let me ask you: do you know BH? Have you studied the company? Its businesses? Do you feel comfortable your knowledge of BH is clear and deep enough? If your answers are: yes! Then tell me why you should prefer to put Biglari in the same position as the average manager. Instead of making him feel safe and able to carry on his long term plan for value creation. Who knows? You might even tell me something I had not thought before… ;) Gio Id have any CEO in that position Buffett, Munger, Cummins & Steinberg, Gates, Jobs, Bezos, Dimon, Sinegal you name it. You can do a google search for any top CEOs select a name and add it to the list. They want control they need to own greater than 50%. If your blanket is too short to cover your toes and shoulders the ideal solution is to bend the knees, don't try to grab someone elses blanket :) . Similarly if your funds are too low to gain majority control of a large company buy a smaller one and work up from there. The only reason (that I can think of) to take control of as large a company as possible with limited funds is to maximize personal gains. The larger the company the more management gets paid. 100 million dollar companies don't give CEOS 10 million paycheques Billion Dollar companies do.

The problem imo is very simple and clear: you are going on and on comparing Biglari to Buffett, he instead seems to suggest “if you are looking for the next Berkshire, look somewhere else!”. Biglari knows very well that in business each situation is different, and the right course of action each time is different. Buffett never had to deal with control. Munger referred to Buffett in the early days calling him “the serial acquirer”, but evidently to buy a very large percentage of Berkshire back then was not so expensive as to buy the same percentage of BH today. There is simply no way Biglari could get control over BH buying its equity today. Yet, control is crucial. Anyone who runs a business finds out pretty soon how crucial control actually is! And, as I have always said, I want him to be in charge and to feel safe. The less time he worries about his position and about someone buying a lot of BH and starting questioning his business decisions and actions, the more time he can devote to enhance value. Gio The problem imo is very simple and clear: you are confused on the difference between the owners and the management. You do understand what a shareholder is right? Each share of a class gives equal rights and equal control. IMO anyone trying to gain control of a company without having majority ownership would be basically stealing shareholder rights. The business belongs to the shareholders NOT THE MANAGEMENT. Management is in charge of the company but The shareholders are in charge of Management. Management is not supposed to be so "safe" that the owners (shareholders) cant remove them or are forced to pay to remove management.

Everything is not awesome.

Thats the IMO dumb plan it seems like. Lets hurt the sensible people who saved. Lets force them to spend, inflate real estate/stock/bond prices.

Yes. I'm glad that Draghi realizes that Europe's main risk is in fact deflation and acts accordingly – and independently from Germany's stupid position. Yep, there is a German professor who is stirring the public debate against mutualizing some of the peripheral debts. The German public needs to understand that their high level of employment depends on selling goods to some people that can't afford to pay them back. Seriously? You are saying its the Germans fault that there are countries and their citizens who have been spending money they don't have and buying things they cant afford?

So it's entirely in character for him, then :) I get that this is a value investing board but its not always about the money. How many of you have bought a useless/worthless pieces of carbon and paid thousands or even tens of thousands?

Yup they needed 55 seats just to be leader of opposition.

Is that a modified version of Einsteins quote ?

Thanks

First time Ive heard of this company. Anyone know more details or have an opinion on it ? http://www.bbc.com/news/business-27372402 http://www.fosun.com/en/news/detail.html?id=1261

Thanks nice notes Answer to Question 9 Buffett says "We are spending close to $3bil on a Canadian company, and we will be better off and that was best thing to do that day with that $3bil." Interesting

Most Valuable company in history. http://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/entertainment-articles/whats-richest-company-world-youd-surprised/

I don't think there is a easy way to go to the last page. Clicking on the encircled arrow link only takes you back to last viewed page +1 (or the last page if there is no next page). To skip intervening pages I just click the dropdown next to "Goto page" at the bottom & then choose the last page number. For some threads which have a lot of pages, the scrolling can get excessive. Overall, the mobile format is pretty cool, I think I like it better than the desktop version. Yup I really like reading using the mobile format its nice on the phone but best on Ipad. While scrolling through numbers 1-528 for the SHLD page I thought im missing something obvious. Its a very minor thing and only on threads with a ton of pages.

Sorry for what is probably a dumb question What is the quickest way to go to the last page of a thread on the mobile version of the forums?

Just to solidify your image of me as an a-hole, I'll point out that you forgot a comma after 'inappropriate.' My references to adesigar's apparent net worth were to demonstrate his relative lack of investing experience and success. A relatively inexperienced investor criticizing one of the all-time greats for not knowing that Coca-Cola was obviously overvalued in 1998 is rather humorous. You essentially made the same argument in your post. Buffett probably held on for tax reasons, but he must have expected more than the ~2% annual return since June 1998. Hindsight is a gem. So you are saying you couldn't find a valid argument so you thought a persons net worth are somehow linked to the validity of his question. Buffett answers questions from students so why not from small shareholders. You completely ignored the main point of contention which was not KO and 2008 decisions it was that small shareholders should not have to make a pilgrimage or attend what has become a circus or over pay for flights/hotels to get access to management because they have some bias against shareholders accessing it from the internet/phone. Some of my sample questions shareholders might want to ask were answered recently Check Question 15 and Question 17 in the pdf linked in the topic below. http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/berkshire-hathaway/web-talks-to-students-transcript-20140131/ About 2008/09. Its not hindsight because I remember being really annoyed by some of the Bond deals back then but no increase in BRK stock holdings. About KO. Buffett has acknowledged he made a mistake not selling KO. The question again was Why? Tax could be one reason but my personal thinking is he has an attachment to KO that prevented him from selling even though he knew it was overvalued. I know I did the same thing with regards to LUK. Didn't sell when it was $50. Followup question would be, How to avoid this?

Hmm let me think of a few quick ones. They may have been asked and answered but I don't remember them. 1. Why change the 5 year rolling period comparison changed to cycle for 2013? 2. Why was the buyback raise from 1.1x to 1.2x book not informed to all shareholders before the 1.2 Billion buyback from the "long-time shareholder"? Why were no shares bought on the open market? Will the increase in buyback to 1.3x book happen when another "long-time shareholder" needs to sell? 3. Why was BRK investing in bonds at the bottom of a generational low instead of loading up on stocks? 4. What was the thinking behind not selling KO in 1998 ? (I seriously cant believe that he didn't see it as overvalued then) 5. Why are we using the Berkshire Hathaway name for Home services? One subsidiary's success/failure/mistake/etc could affect the Brand Value of the entire company. Question 1 will be asked. Question 2 is unimportant. Bought in a privately-negotiated sale for 1.16x book. Anyone who wanted more money for their shares could have simply not sold on the open market. Questions 3&4: LOL. A guy with fewer than 100 shares who cannot afford to go to Omaha is questioning Buffett's investing acumen (in hindsight, no less). Question 5: Might be asked, but not an actual threat. Are people really going to stop flying NetJets because of a scandal at Home Services? There: all your questions for Buffett answered and you didn't even have to fly to Omaha :) Firstly this was in response to what questions are left to ask and I came up with those in 5 mins. Secondly you didn't answer anything. Question 1 - We shall see if its asked and if it gets a genuine answer. Question 2 is important. Buffett has said he never purchased in the past because he wanted to let all shareholders know BEFORE he made any transaction and the resulting increase would make it impossible to actually do the buyback. So why this arbitrary increase and special treatment for just 1 shareholder? Question 3,4 - You assume I own fewer than 100 shares and that I cannot afford to go to the annual meeting. It takes one share to attend the Bekshire meeting. A Shareholder is a Shareholder. And Its not hindsight. I was wondering why BRK wasn't buying shares when GE, AXP, GS, WFC etc etc were at all time lows. It annoyed me that BRK wasted an amazing opportunity in 08-09. Question 5 - Its not a question of actual threat as I said in comment its also success. Question is why? Does the name help bring in more business and is the increase in business or possible increase in brand value worth the possible risk. I personally used Homeservices when I bought my current home and was very happy. Also something I noticed it might not be accurate but every subsidiary company used to identify themselves as a Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary. I think after this name change of Homeservices that reference to "A Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary" seems to be missing. Personally Id rather take my kids to Disneyland than attend the meeting although for some on this Board the BRK annual meeting might be Disneyland :) .

Hmm let me think of a few quick ones. They may have been asked and answered but I don't remember them. 1. Why change the 5 year rolling period comparison changed to cycle for 2013? 2. Why was the buyback raise from 1.1x to 1.2x book not informed to all shareholders before the 1.2 Billion buyback from the "long-time shareholder"? Why were no shares bought on the open market? Will the increase in buyback to 1.3x book happen when another "long-time shareholder" needs to sell? 3. Why was BRK investing in bonds at the bottom of a generational low instead of loading up on stocks? 4. What was the thinking behind not selling KO in 1998 ? (I seriously cant believe that he didn't see it as overvalued then) 5. Why are we using the Berkshire Hathaway name for Home services? One subsidiary's success/failure/mistake/etc could affect the Brand Value of the entire company.

This is one of the few things about Buffett that I simply do not understand. I know this is a board of BRK fans and while I like the company (25% of my portfolio) I think not having access to the Q&A via the phone or the internet for shareholders is a dumb/selfish decision on the part of Buffett. Is he seriously just now realizing that there are lots of small shareholders for whom spending the money to attend in person is a waste and would be better used to just buy more shares? The rich shareholders are better/more important than the little guy with maybe 10-100 shares?

I selected 0-50 hours. I usually don't generate my own ideas but look at holdings of other value investors. If I really like something which is in the 0-50hrs, I buy a small amount (under 100 shares) to keep the stock on my radar(initial investing). But to make it a full sized position (10% or higher) I will spend upwards of a few hundred hours over a period of months reading everything I can about the company. As I learn more, understand more and like it more I become more comfortable with the idea and add more.

This is what Bruce Berkowitz said when he valued Markel in 2000 in an interview with businessweek.

You can do this easily yourself. Instead of a sub forum start a thread. Reserve the first few posts for yourself for later use. Ask people to recommend interesting topics/posts and add links to them into the first few posts.

Doesn't affect me one bit. I make a few trades a year between 5-10. I place a buy order with a limit price set a few cents above ask. I place a sell with a limit price set a few cents below bid. I fell that missing the opportunity to do the buy/sell is a lot worse that losing a few cents on shares that I will hold for years.