adesigar

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.

Does anyone know any good sites/books/blogs where I can lookup information about farmland, buying from government, historical prices, rents etc etc. Im starting to get interested in it (not because of Buffett), but I have zero knowledge. Its seems like a bubble that could pop. If it pops and prices overshoot to the downside Id like to buy but need to learn about it before I buy. Thanks in advance.

It always depends how much you pay and the location. Real Estate can far outpace stocks IF you buy at the right place at the right price. Example of my current house. using numbers adjusted to 100,000. Purchase price - 100,000 Down payment 10,000 Current price - 140,000 So equity went from 10,000 two and half years ago to 50,000 Assume it increases at 2% ie 2,000 per year that's 20% on my initial investment. Mortgage+HOA+Insurance+Maintenance is less than rent so principal is accumulating as well. Explain how that's a bad investment? I think you may be taking for granted the assertion that "Mortgage+HOA+Insurance+Maintenance is less than rent." I find in many places the mortgage already surpasses rent by a fair amount (15-20%). I find that when the rent is more than the mortgage+et al then appreciation is pretty stagnant 5 years going out. Just empirical though, not a huge sample. Then you have to lump in the frictional costs of buying and selling, as your property value increases so do the corresponding taxes etc... You may have chanced upon a rare case. Incidentally there are (at least to me) more bargains in equities and distressed debts than there are in residential real estate because while some people will shun stocks until the absolute zenith of the bull market, almost everyone is in the market for a house if the price is right. I was just giving the example of my current home. My Mortgage+Rent+Insurance+Maintenance is less than rent. Also even though taxes increase its much less than increase in rent. I just wanted to point out to ukValueInvestor that real estate can do much better than equities IF its bought at the correct price at the correct location.

We have a winner for the cheapest guy on the COBAF message board. After reading your message, I feel like I'm not worthy! SJ LOL I disagree. He decided to get a cab instead of renting a car, asking a friend/family member to pickup or using a airport to home shuttle service. Now if he had hitchhiked home that would IMO qualify for cheapest guy. :P

It always depends how much you pay and the location. Real Estate can far outpace stocks IF you buy at the right place at the right price. Example of my current house. using numbers adjusted to 100,000. Purchase price - 100,000 Down payment 10,000 Current price - 140,000 So equity went from 10,000 two and half years ago to 50,000 Assume it increases at 2% ie 2,000 per year that's 20% on my initial investment. Mortgage+HOA+Insurance+Maintenance is less than rent so principal is accumulating as well. Explain how that's a bad investment?

A lot of times the cheapness is inherited or because of circumstance. In my case like in the case of a lot of others it started with parents. Grandparents and Dad started out as refugees when he was 10. When dad started working could only afford one meal a day for months. Used to walk 10 miles a day because couldn't afford the bus. A ton of other crazy stuff. My 1st job was in 1998 and salary was $100 per month. Makes it really hard to spend money. Amazing luck with wife Cheap about some things 1 - Small house (relatively speaking). 2 - Old Car. 3 - Flip Phone. 4 - Using Slickdeals.com and FatWallet.com when I want to buy something. 5 - Stocking up on kids toys/books during Christmas to give during the year. 6 - Ikea furniture (Quality has improved) 7 - Clothes from Clearance, Costco, Outlet shops 8 - Netflix+Hulu+Amazon Prime instead of Cable 9 - Generic vs Brandname for a lot of items Not with others 1 - Classes for the Kids - Learning a ton of things is the best investment 2 - Eating out - Even though wife is amazing cook one person cant be an expert on Japanese/French/Malaysian/Mexican/Thai 3 - Travel - Memories are always of experiences you have and never of things you buy 4 - Groceries - Organic, non GMO etc 5 - Charity

Someone I know is rolling over a 401k into an IRA. The funds I recommended were US - FAIRX, BRUFX, LLPFX, GOODX, YACKX, FPACX, DODGX, FLPSX, FCNTX. International - WGRNX, SGENX, DODFX, OAKIX. Does anyone know of any other good funds? Especially international funds. Thanks.

What do you mean, they quit before their 401K is vested? No, left the money in their former employer's 401K plan. Kinda like an orphan, unattended and under the watchful eye of plan administrator fees. Depending on the state you live in keeping money in a 401k provides better protection of assets than an IRA.

Watched the BBC documentary. Didn't get what the point was.

I read latticework so i think Charlie Munger

Most people buy homes more as a place/community to live in and not as an investment. Sometimes you end up losing on the investment but it because you are paying to live in a low crime rate area, send your kids to great public schools, live near friends/family, close to the beach or a hub of activity and you don't have time to wait. That said I drove my wife crazy looking at houses in our area for almost 2 years. We ended up buying our first home in Q3 of 2011, Refinanced Q4 2012. Now the Mortgage+HOA+Taxes+Insurance+Maintenance for our 1700+ Sqft house is less than the rent for a 1100 sqft apartment in my area. Home prices are up 35% since we bought it. Lady luck helped and so did Berkshire Hathaway. Used Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary Homeservices and it was an excellent experience.

Do you need the money? Are you just bored and need something to do? Since you are thinking of a 15 year loan and think that AT&T is really stable could you look up the Price of AT&T 15 years ago? I believe in the “Don’t risk money you have and need for money you don’t have and don’t need.”

500 pages per week would be extremely low. Im really surprised people think 500 per day is a lot to read. 500 pages per day sounds about right for someone who spends a major part of their day reading.

Maybe you should have mentioned in comparison that the territory got freedom from decades of being treated as second class to the main country or that they gave up their defenses on assurances of protection from the people Invading them. That their country has been meddled with since it was formed. So imagine it from the points of view of the Ukranians like you said Invert, always Invert.

Have you thought about what it means to "defend Ukraine's sovereignty"? We are talking about a country which they used to call "little Russia" a century ago. And you think the EU and US would draw the line here, on Russia's front porch, and threaten to go to war over it? What would they have to gain and would it justify the risks? Should the US have some jets circle over Ukraine to project force? What if one got shot down? This is a high stakes game with potentially terrible outcomes and it's very easy to maneuver yourself into a corner. Best not to buy into the game if you're not prepared to see it through to the end (which nobody in the West is). I can guarantee you every actor in this play has carefully considered what they are willing to wager. And Putin's conclusion has been he can make a move. That should tell you all you need to know. I would also reiterate that Crimea is a sideshow because it's pretty clear that it's Russian now and will remain so (nobody can force them to leave by force and they will get a majority of the people to vote to split from Ukraine). The real question is what will happen to Ukraine East of the Dnieper river (and Kiev which sits on top of it..). Just my opinion but in my mind its simple. Every country bordering Russia/China/etc is watching. If Russia gets away with this, it will say to the countries watching that their only defense is Nuclear Weapons and assurances/treaties/documents from the US/UK/France/EU are meaningless. The world can forget Iran/N Korea ever giving up nukes. Rather other countries will try to obtain them for deterrence purposes from countries who have developed such capabilities.

What about it? Do you think the US will go to war with Russia over Ukraine because of a treaty? Do you think the EU will? I think if/when Russia makes a move on Eastern Ukraine, the West will get serious with economic sanctions to put pressure on Russia's oligarchs. What else could they do? If the US/EU don't defend Ukraine's sovereignty do you think any other country will trust a treaty signed by US/EU providing them protection? Do you think any other country will ever consider giving up existing nukes or plans/ability to develop nukes?

As shown by the fact that a lot of people found discussing Buffets Farm purchase as the most interesting topic from the annual letter there was nothing much in the letter, same old same old. Nothing about failing his 5 year period (Its obvious to us why it happened but he should have mentioned it). No explanation about the reason for 1.2x book for Share buybacks. Only points of any interest was Todd and Ted have 7 billion each to manage and they outperformed him by a lot. 3 Billion in bolt on acquisitions was good. Hope for a nice Warren and the 3T's (Todd, Ted, Traci) interview on Monday.

They're averaging 1 per business day this year. Me likey. 56 closings in the first 53 days of 2014. I like that pace. I don't expect that pace to stay at 1/day, but it is nice to see Lampert making significant moves. We cant be sure that every Sears/Kmart closing is being reported online. It might be higher than 56 closings in 53 days. We will find out more in 4 days.

I have a question. If someone is selling a business for 3-4x owner earnings. Why are they doing it? Wouldn't it be better for them to just hold it? This reminded me of a guy I know. He starts restaurants, gets them running till they are doing awesome business and then sells them around 3 years later. Then he starts another restaurant. He is the reason his restaurant does so well. People buy his restaurants but I don't think the restaurants do as well as they did when he was running them.