brk64311

MCO, from 2000 IPO to now, 30plus X

MMM20, I think you are right. I was under the (wrong )impression that rollover IRA is subject to ERISA, which will not allow PFIC holdings. Thank you.

Yes, but the holding size will be limited, since my understanding is that it needs to be a non-rollover IRA for the PFIC to be a non-issue.

Not a concern with the current portfolio holdings, but can FIH become a PFIC somehow? For example, I'd love to continue to own EXOR, but became concerned about its PFIC status as a US investor, after Exor sold PartnerRe.

US EXOR holders - are you considering the tax complication due to PFIC ?

Any view on preferred and bond issued by BEPC(Brookfield Renewable Co): BEP/PRA(about 6.7% yield, 78% of par) and BEPH(about 8% yield and 56% of par)? Good value even in a higher rates for longer environment? Can't seem to find prospectus for BEPH and reached out to BEPC investor relation.

Gregmal, Do you mind sharing your VIX -spike related trade? Thanks.

Posted this under Exor thread as well. Thanks. Will the forming of Stellantis change Exor's PFIC status? My understanding is that Exor can count holdings where it has over 25% ownership as active businesses in the PFIC assets tests(at least 50% active businesses assets) or income tests(at least 75% from active businesses income). Prior to the Stellantis deal, FCA can be counted towards active businesses since Exor's ownership is >25%. Post Stellantis deal, Exor's ownership of Stellantis is < 25%. If we exclude Stellantis assets and earnings in the calculation, the asset and income test might not meet, or getting very close to the 50% and 75% thresholds. Is my understanding correct? Appreciate any feedback US investors might have on this issue.

The letter contains many helpful insights and very thorough analysis of BRK. But anyone else has issue with the way he proves that high growth of Fab 5 is "mathematically impossible" as shown by the tables on P63 and P64? We can discuss/debate all day about many fundamental reasons why Fab 5 will or will not grow at high rates for the next decade or two, but high growth of any company will not mathematically impossible. I believe the set up of the tables were mathematically wrong, as you need to account for the growth of Fab 5 in the first grow of the table, i.e. you can not assume S&P as a whole will only grow 4% when Fab 5 (part of S&P) grow, say 20%, for two decades. The right way is to calculate the first row in the table by assuming all companies other than Fab 5 grow 4% and Fab 5 grow at whatever rates you assume.

Thoughts, especially for P9,10? It is not a bottom-up/fundamental analysis, rather more macro/broad brush. Still curious about what others on the board think. Q2-2019-Horizon-Kinetics-Commentary-_Final-1.pdf