AzCactus

I think reducing or returning fees during periods of under-performance is a very admirable trait. Additionally, being in business since 1987 (30 years) is an awesome accomplishment by itself. With that said calculating the returns based on if you had acquired units in his worst years can start to sound a little like trying to time things. His return is what is---good years are factored in and bad years are factored in---they all matter.

His returns were better in the partnership days. That's not to say he was a "better" investor as he probably couldn't have deployed tens of billions of dollars in that strategy, but none of us have that problem. His early days are probably the best one for aspiring managers to emulate and leave the Berkshire model as the road map to corporate investments. His strategy had to fundamentally change. If memory serves during the partnership days he categorized holdings into three categories: generals, control situations and arbitrage. My guess is he changed the % of each based on the environment he was in. However at this point, the overwhelming majority of holdings are subsidiaries with some generals. At this point arbitrage is probably no longer a relevant part of Berkshire's strategy.

I am quickly realizing that based on the preliminary research I am doing that using IBKR makes more sense then either option. They appear to be like 75% cheaper. Please advise if I am missing the obvious here.

Per Reuters article http://www.reuters.com/article/us-berkshire-buffett-failure-idUSN2921504820080301 this was 1.6% of Berkshire if I understand correctly. I don't think 1.6% is anything near a blow up. The guys who lost in SHLD, VRX and ZINC oftentimes made it a larger or their largest position.

I think I heard it was something like either 1/15 or a flat 2.25% or something.

Jurgis, unless you are kicking the bucket soon you will see more than one :)

well we all know that nearly two decades ago (early 2000's) stocks didn't do very well. In may seem that as Americans get more optimistic the expected return goes down. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-28/american-household-optimism-about-stocks-at-17-year-high-chart

Thanks...Possibly the most selfless post of the day :)

Thanks for doing this research. Very much appreciated :)

It looks like the bottom line (thus far) is that about 44% of the people find the event too far or haven't attended before....With an event this size it might be possible for someone curious to contact members and see what they specifically say. My hunch tells me that there are WAY more board members than actually attendees of this dinner.

Two main takeaways for me: 1. Don't make your largest holding an 85% position (123 mm/145 mm) This math is not precise but either way this position appears to have been well north of 60% 2. Don't invest in companies that are irresponsible or otherwise have too much debt. Best of luck to this guy. Hope he bounces back.

At least this part in bold is free.

FAST

I"ll second that please.

I'm not really into politics but it sounds like most people would be better served using their mental energy for other endeavors.

I'm probably missing something here but isn't 2907 days about 8 years. Does this assume he gets re-elected after less than a month in office ?

I get that this is the general discussion thread. That said, what's the point ? We already know that he's in office. Can't we all just get along and accept it...I would be interested to see if a similar thread existed for Obama during either of his terms.

As food, I think anything at Mcdonalds is a cigar butt.

I wasn't 11 but I was 18 so not much of a 10 year track record. Though given how poor I was at 18 my net worth has zoomed up quite a bit :)

Yes, the DOW will increase 50% at some point in time. It may also drop 50% to 10,000 also.

Guys, I thought this article was pretty interesting. I am not too big into politics but a pattern that goes back to World War II grabbed my attention. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-21/republican-presidents-and-recessions-a-pattern-trump-would-like-to-break

I don't think that you're necessarily a bad capital allocator. May somewhat inefficient. But so what? Strip malls and parking lots exist because they are efficient (read cheap) but they're ugly as balls and make your life worse so in the end not such a good thing despite efficiency. Yes maybe you can leverage your house and use the extra funds to make some smart investments and in the end you'll end up a bit richer. Bu then you'll have to monitor and balance your leverage, etc, basically more headaches. Alternatively one can be less capital efficient, have peace of mind, enjoy life and have no worries regarding having to put one's home back to the bank or not. What if you get rich enough and don't need the extra funds? Wasn't that a waste of time? This +1

Debt generally adds risk. Maybe not so much at that interest rate. But that rate probably won't be available forever. Furthermore, debts such as credit cards and student loans can be a huge burden and in some cases never get paid off. There are reasons that banks have very nice buildings and most people have a pretty negligible net worth.

My thought at a quick glance is that you have a company with solid management, a more conservative culture financially and a focus on the long term. While I don't have a position it seems to check a few of the more important boxes.

I thought this was worth sharing : https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-30/opec-said-to-agree-oil-production-cuts-as-saudis-soften-on-iran