woodstove

The letters book arrived. Wonderful! And yes, it is the 50 years 1965-2014 letters, which I knew at the time of ordering, so no adverse surprises. Very happy to have the book, 750+ pages of quality reading, comfort of easy chair instead of screen time. Cheers!

Thank you. Ordered the letters book. Look forward to using the search / database from time to time. Best wishes.

Wow, thank you! I listened to it earlier, and even kept an audio copy, but this pdf is much better for sharing with others.

Very good interview. Guess that the interviewer was George Goodman, as he refers to his book Supermoney. A comment at Youtube says interview was recorded in 1984 and aired in 1985. Pretty consistent message from WEB, 1984 to 2022. Consider business behaviour not stock behaviour, can be patient until opportunity just-right. Wow!

Thanks you ComAdv for that Forbes article reprint link. Very enjoyable!

Found in my community book exchange, a copy of Supermoney (1972) by George Goodman (writing as Adam Smith). Pages 177-204 have excellent profiles of Ben Graham and Warren Buffett, written in 1972, when Buffett had left the market. Well before Roger Lowenstein's 2008 biography, Buffett: Making of an American Capitalist (memorable phrase: "Buffett was back"). If you can find Supermoney, I recommend it. 50 years ago, good to remember we were as foolish then as now. Goodman writes well. His closing essay, "Well, Watchman, What of the Night?" (pages 242-295), regarding motivations, is very thoughtful, and relevant to today's circumstances. See other works by Goodman via wiki page. "The Money Game" was reportedly a bestseller. Haven't read that (yet). Merry Christmas and Best Wishes to All!

Thank you Ulti for posting the BHE presentation slides.

gfp... Ok, thanks for clarifying. I did not know that. My main source of BYD news is Mazor's Edge website. BYD seems a company that keeps making good moves, getting market share, etc. I can understand reducing exposure to political risks, if any, but as a valuation call on the business, it seems inconsistent. However, that's why WEB et al are driving this bus!

I'm no expert on BYD, etc, but here's my simplistic take on why a BYD partial sale: -- When originally investing in BYD, WEB/CTM wanted to buy 25 pct position, founder wanted them to limit to 10 pct. -- Over time, due to BYD buybacks I presume, position crept from 10 pct to 20+ pct. Likely WEB/CTM were asked to reduce position to below 20 pct -- their role is to be silent partner. So they sold 1 pct as a courtesy. I do not expect a big further reduction in BYD position, except to keep below some threshold (something between 10 and 20 pct) as a fraction. -- Still a great business, and getting better all the time. Why not continue to hold as big an economic interest as BYD is comfortable with? Interested in others' takes on the business logic, as distinct from tax implications, etc. Unfortunate that had to telegraph the possibility of selling, but I imagine the securities laws in China require a partner who wants to register a holding as available for sale, to register all shares held? Thanks!

gfp - Thanks for that video link re Pilot and Diesel, DEF, Ethanol transport issues with strange Union Pacific actions. I did not know before. It seems outrageous, terrible mis-management at U.P. One thing I do like, I think this gentleman as CEO of Pilot is excellent manager, and I am happy he is on Berkshire team.

Seeing the Bloomberg article was, for me, a reminder of the excellent info provided by this discussion forum. We learned of this BHE presentation over two months ago, courtesy of MMM20's post of lst 23-Nov, and then it was posted on the main BRK website -- appropriate, since it is material to understanding the company's business. Re BYD, I don't see any rationale for monetizing yet -- we are in early days of the fossil-->EV transition it seems. Re another monetization suggestion sometimes made, Apple, I used to be in favour of a partial monetization, reasoning solely from an overall share of the total market cap represented by AAPL and BRK. But now I'm not so sure. I had to consider an assist to a friend wiho has failing eyesight and loves to read serious and diverse material (old newspapers for instance, for historical research), and realized that Apple products would be the base I would trust for providing a trustworthy personal assistant for my friend. And I'm not an Apple fanboy, not even an Apple user at present. But I would not be willing to expose my friend to certain other software app offerings which are, in my opinion, too likely to abuse the trust one would have to place in a personal digital assistant. A bit of an eye-opener for me. So maybe Apple has further to run, as a business. Anyway, back to the point -- good stuff here at this discussion group, it is one of my most valued resources.

That is impressive. $200B in residential real estate sales, 400k home sale transactions (so average $500k selling price per transaction), 46k sales associates. How does that compare with the total US market? What percent of real estate sales is typical revenue and typical profit, to Home Services? What are the synergies and possibilities? The article spoke of "delivering the highest level of customer service while removing any stress and worry from the moving process." Seems like a good focus.

One can wonder if it is a long-overdue recognition of value? Or one can wonder if it is a shift from bubble-fluff to solid value. Maybe those are the same concept? Anyway, seems to be an ongoing rationale for holding BRK. Although to be frank, a pullback from recent rise (new high??) may happen, if one is so risk-committed that he wants to trade out and hope to be able to come back in at better price. What is the tradeoff between APPL and BRK? If one is long APPL and does not need the dividends, does it make sense to sell some APPL and buy more BRK to gain value? Haven't done the math but seems there might be a bit of that going on. Well, interesting.

Does someone know the status of BHE's offer to provide Texas with a standby generation capability? As of last May, it sounded like the offer was still on the table, but maybe others were underbidding. Likely it is now clarified? I haven't heard but surely some of you who follow energy topics more carefully will know. My question: Do Texans have some actual (tangible, physical, not just financial or other compensating payments) energy security going into next winter, to offset risk of another loss of supply?

Very interesting statement. Blocked in 1995 a similar transaction, they say, so this is 26 years later.

For sure, WEB knows all about how/when to use leverage !

Very interesting discussion. That Damodaran talk was excellent. What came through as desirable was repricing power re keep up with inflation. I think Berkshire positioning is fine.

A couple of macro comments re the AGM: - It was really positive to have all four people at the table for the Q&A - the heart of the meeting. The discussion at some points showed the open sharing of differing views which is characteristic of healthy organizations. Also the Ron Olson interview prior to meeting was reassuring. Nice to know that such good discussions go on at Berkshire. - The formal part of the meeting was a disappointment. I see one of the risks to the businesss as the elbow-jostling of people with a social agenda. Berkshire is working on real tasks of stabilizing and improving society (energy distribution and reliability, health care access and quality, honest provision of goods and services instead of extortion). It is frightening to think that agenda-driven smoothies or hare-brained flamboyants can muster 25 percent of votes.

About the ghost posts - for a couple of days, my browser bookmark for the COBF forum website address was resolving to "dev" prefix in front of the regular address. I assumed it was some sort of testing, left in place perhaps by oversight. Not many posts that period, gfp's was the only post I saw in Brk category.

Happiness ... Interesting topic, very important. Here is the best guideline I've encountered -- a quote from Bertrand Russell: "The secret of happiness is this: let your interests be as wide as possible, and let your reactions to the things and persons that interest you be as far as possible friendly rather than hostile." Meaningful enough for me, that I printed it out and keep it in my "desktop to-do folder" where I re-read it about once a week. I haven't always managed such lofty behaviour, but I recognize the merits of Russell's advice. So how did I encounter that: A guy who goes by the nickname of KrazyDad has an online puzzle website, and when one solves a puzzle, up pops a neat saying. Cheers, ws

Interesting post LTI. Well, just thinking laterally -- Apple could acquire BH and thereby achieve a big stock buyback. Would that resolve the deferred tax liability?

There was an interview with Ackman on Bloomberg yesterday, in which he mentioned an interesting valuation method for epidemic impairment to value: For a business that is survivable (ie, not risk of debt default or forced restructuring), assume loss of next 12-18 months of normal-conditions earnings. Then value the business based upon your customary model. That may suggest a way to think about BRK intrinsic value, and also value of the portfolio aside from market quotes.

My guess is that most of the selling of BRK is index fund and similar auto-managed portfolios, and WEB has been educating shareholders to hold on as business is more or less the same now as two weeks ago. The unknown for us is whether BRK or others (eg, just in the DJIA) are more advantageous. Who woulda thought there would be another opportunity!

Thanks for that link to a summary of the proposed rule. It seems to me that there is costly risk exposure, due to discretion of regulators in applying rule, interpretation, etc. Realistic low-risk behaviour will be to not go over 10 percent, I think. So be it. Still lots of fish in barrel.

The trade issues between China and US haven't been something I've looked at much, but this morning's news sounds interesting. I gather the details of the deal are to be kept confidential, but one achievement for the Trump admin is an agreement that China will take about $50B/yr of US agricultural exports. That is said to be about 70 pct higher than prior max annual exports to China. But is it such a bad deal for China? I think not. Recycles some USD holdings, which must be used to buy something, sometime, particularly if China is in a position to stabilize currencies a bit more in future and hence needs to hold less USD reserves. I think the news of a deal makes sense. Good for China to get the deal, if can be presented as smart move domestically. Good for US and Trump admin to get the deal as it addresses economics of Trump electoral base, and also provides "we won" way to back out of troublesome situation. Good for non-ag business too. So it's ok and maybe even real deal.