Parsad

I'll do better...I'll give them all to you...in order: FFH, META, ATCO, GOOGL, AMZN, BAC, JEF, OSTK, GE I estimate the portfolio will rise 30-50% in a year or so...50-80% over 2-3 years. At least my expectations say so...reality is another thing! Cheers!

Could be right! In a worse case scenario when I'm out of cash and markets keep falling, I keep trading down to lower and lower P/E's...tightening the spring on the way back up. That's what I did in 2008/2009 and March/April 2020...works like a charm. In March/April of 2020, I even tapped into my line of credit to leverage up as things became stupid cheap! Cheers!

Forget humble! Cheers!

I was nearly 60% cash back in November 2021, and now finally I'm getting close to 100% invested...probably about 95% right now. That usually happens as we approach the bottom...I'm usually early, but we must be starting to get close if I have that many ideas in my portfolio! Cheers! https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jpmorgan-says-retail-investors-finally-125001587.html

Rising rates are terrific for banks, especially with large deposit bases like BAC or JPM. I believe every 25 basis point rise in rates means another $2-3B more in interest income for BAC. Cheers!

That's how it all starts! Enjoy...and keep learning. I've been doing it for almost 25 years now since I first heard of Berkshire back in 1998, bought my first B share in 1999, and then started the original version of this site in 2002...20 years ago February! Cheers!

Lots of ATCO - Atlas Corp. Cheap, cheap, cheap! Cheers!

The one thing I find with all of the streaming channels now is that the percentage of quality programming has declined. While each streamer has a bunch of quality shows that develop great followings, there is whole lotta crap being developed too! It seems as though almost every actor in Hollywood, including fringe stars, now have their own production vehicle, series or movie on Netflix, Amazon, Paramount or Disney. Before, if you were a cable executive, you would have to try and fill your prime time slots, whether day or night, with winners, because you had limited slots. Now, there is shit all over the place and I can't imagine that everyone watches all of this crap. I'm lucky if I can find one good show/movie a week on each of these streaming networks! Cheers!

Stranger Things started off a bit slow, but this first half ended with a bang! I get a huge kick out of how the Duffer brothers get the 90's schtick and atmosphere so correct. Cheers!

Frankly, I think it should be trading around $800 CDN already. I think Prem's comment about getting the share price to $1,000 may have been prescient, as I can see that happening a couple of years from now. Cheers!

This Len Dawson?! It's like when Guy LaFleur would smoke in between periods for the Montreal Canadiens, and then go out and score a hat-trick! Cheers!

Blockchain would allow transactions with no intermediary...no merchant fees, no delay, direct one-to-one transactions. You pay the merchant directly...no intermediary charging the merchant 2-3% on each transaction. The funds would transfer instantaneously with no withholding or delay to the merchant. The transaction would be completely secure. There may be nominal fees from the blockchain company holding your wallet, but the fees would be far less than the 2-3% charged by V, MA and AXP now...or the fees charged by Paypal, Square, etc. Where the credit card companies/financial institutions would still rule is on the ability to use credit cards. Those that don't have enough in income or capital in their wallets, would continue to borrow on their credit cards. An exchange organization like Interac would be ideal for blockchain, since they have access to all of the merchants and already charge a nominal fee far less than credit card companies. The lower risk of contingent liability reduces transactional costs even further using blockchain. Recommend reading this article: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbloc.2020.00024/full There are a number of other articles/studies out there also worth reading. The one thing almost certain is that blockchain will reduce transactional costs dramatically. Cheers!

Absolutely! This is where the likes of blockchain will disrupt the huge moats of financial institutions, clearing houses, brokers, etc over the next 20 years. Even businesses like Paypal, Square, etc will be vulnerable. These financial institutions will have to offer more than just transactional benefits, but other services that would not have been disrupted or new services to lock-in their client base. That's what Apple, Google, Meta, American Express, Visa, etc, are all doing...they are locking in the users of their current services with other unique services. But the shift to blockchain will be the main disrupting influence...direct transactions...zero/nominal cost...instantaneous...fraud proof. Ironically, banks may be more shielded than the likes of AXP, V, MA, because consumers will still need savings accounts/deposits and mortgages/lending. Cheers!

I think almost all of the insurance businesses are also carried for much less than they would get...the 10% sale of ORH was a good example. I would guess that book value of the company is underestimated by at least 20%-30%...that's how much more they would get if they sold the insurance businesses and other little pockets of value like Digit, BIAL, etc. Cheers!

I believe Ted paid $5M for two lunches...so he got an even better bargain per lunch, plus the job! In terms of who I would pay to have dinner with...Einstein and Gandhi, yes...Jordan, no. Would rather lunch with Steph Curry, Patrick Mahomes or Peyton Manning...they would be fun! Would also pay to lunch with Roger Federer or Nadal. I did buy a lunch and round of golf with Gretzky, but then the damn pandemic came and never got to enjoy it! C'est la vie! Cheers!

Buffett's willing to pay higher, but he's not expecting at least an annual return of 15% on those purchases. He's probably aiming closer to 12-13%. Cheers!

I think they can do 12% for the next 10 years...that's why I use a terminal growth rate after that of 6%. Yes, 15% is possible, but certainly wouldn't be a conservative estimate. So based on my reasonable assumptions...$400K/A share is fair value. Anything below that gives you a greater margin of safety. Also, I'm calculating intrinsic value an easy way using a range of earnings on book value. The proper way to value Berkshire is to separate earnings from insurance and non-insurance operating subsidiaries. That will give you a more accurate number, but I bet you that I'm not far off using my more simplified method. Cheers!

Thanks Daphne! Did anyone in their right mind think that the pet insurance business owned by Fairfax was worth $1.4B? I certainly didn't! Cheers!

Berkshire has about $520B in equity...do a discount cash flow analysis at 8% ROE and 12% ROE...that's a reasonable earnings range for Buffett to hit with the size Berkshire is at now. You want a 15% ROI and growth rates on earnings of 12% and 15%, with a terminal growth rate of 6% after 10 years...this assumes that after Buffett, the two Teds and Greg Abel aren't going to be as good as Buffett, but still good. The 15% ROI is your margin of safety. With $120B of debt...you get a low of $413K per A share at 12% earnings growth to $845K per A share at 15% earnings growth. Can they do 15% earnings growth at BRK going forward? At its size, I find it hard to believe, and we know Munger has hinted that Buffett's target is lower now. So 12% is probably the more reasonable target. So Berkshire today at $403K per A share is in the range of fair value with a relatively conservative expectation and a margin of safety. Is it 1999/2000 or 2008/2009 cheap...not even close. Will you get a reasonable return...probably better than the S&P500 long-term...yes. Cheers!

Everything is based on "Graham & Dodd" cheap. That's why Buffett didn't buy Costco as Munger said...he thought it was too expensive. If you are a Ben Graham student, it makes no sense to buy BRK at 1.3 times book when you can buy other stocks at a much cheaper valuation and with a greater margin of safety. Even if they are lesser quality businesses. Graham and Dodd works! By the way, I've owned Berkshire on and off for over 23 years now...I know as well as anyone when it is cheap and when it isn't. And as a Ben Graham student, I can't buy it simply because it is a quality business...it has to be cheap and have a margin of safety. Now if you are buying in a taxable account, then that changes the narrative slightly, because you have taxes to deal with. In that case, buying higher quality, long-term investments may end up being the better alternative to buying cheap stocks and then paying taxes on them as you sell and buy something else. Cheers!

Looks very refreshing! Especially on a nice sunny day. Enjoy! Cheers!

Compared to the hit many other quality companies have taken, BRK is still not cheap. It's about where BRK starts to buy back, but not "margin of safety" cheap. It would have to get closer to book value. Until then, there are other businesses that are much cheaper. Cheers!

+1! Getting cheaper, but not where I would buy yet. Cheers!

Does that cardboard holder carry just one can? I like the frosted mug...no better way to drink beer...or even root beer! Cheers!

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/1-bidding-tops-12-3-162324883.html Cheers!