SlowAppreciation

Much appreciated. Anyone else not on my list you think is worth adding?

I'm building a tool to track the current and historical holdings of famous value investors/funds. Does anyone know the CIK of the following, and also any other investors that they would like to see on the list? Need CIK Arnold Van Den Berg Bill Nasgovitz Bill Nygren Charles Bobrinskoy Christopher Davis David Abrams David Katz Dodge & Cox Team Mairs & Power Mark Hillman Meridian Funds Nelson Peltz Robert Robotti Robert Rodriguez Robert Zagunis Steven Romick Tom Russo Already Have CIK Alan Fournier Alex Roepers Allan Mecham Bill Ackman Bill Miller Boone Pickens Boykin Curry Brian Bares Bruce Berkowitz Carl Icahn Charles Coleman Charles de Vaulx Charlie Munger Chris Hohn Chuck Akre Clifton Robbins Daniel Loeb David Einhorn David Poppe David Rolfe David Tepper David Winters Donald Yacktman Ed Gilhuly & Scott Stuart Ed Wachenheim Eddie Lampert Francis Chou Glenn Furhman & John Phelan Glenn Greenberg Guy Spier Harry Burn Hassan Elmasry Howard Marks Ian Cumming & Joe Steinberg Jake Rosser James Crichton Jean Marie Eveillard Jeffrey Gates Jeffrey Ubben John Griffin John Lewis John Paulson John Rogers Johnathan Auerbach Kahn Brothers Advisors Larry Robbins Lee Ainslie Leon Cooperman Lisa Rapuano Llyod Miller III Lou Simpson Mark Rachesky Mason Hawkins Meryl Witmer Michael Larson Mick McGuire Mohnish Pabrai Paul O'Leary Paul Orfaela & Lance Helfert Prem Watsa Rehan Jaffer & Usman Nabi Richard Breeden Richard Pzena Robert Jaffe Robert Karr Robert Olstein Robert Torray Ronald Muhlenkamp Sam Peters Sandy Nairn Scott Miller Seth Klarman Stephen Clearman & Tushar Shah Stephen Mandel Steve Tanabaum Thornburg Investment Management Toby Symonds Tom Brown Tom Gayner Tweedy Browne Co. Wallace Weitz Warren Buffett Wilbur Ross Will Edwards William Von Mueffling Zeke Ashton

THANK YOU!

There’s no symbol on it. Just company name and CUSIP

Does anyone know where I can find/generate a massive list of all ticker symbols for a given set of CUSIP IDs?

thanks for sharing

I did a ways back but I remember not being thrilled with the way it supported Apple Pencil

I'm curious how everyone here organizes their research? I'm in the midst of changing up my process, and would be curious to hear how others organize their research. Are you all paper? Digital-only? Do you keep a running document? Phyiscal/digital folder per-company? My old process used to entail reading a hard copy of the 10k and writing notes in the margins. But I live in a small apartment so it proved to be untenable and I also never came back to my notes. So I've been trying to go digital, and am now I'm doing the following: One folder per company, containing ~ 3 files (synced via iCloud Drive): Digital Copy of 10K: Use iPad Pro + Apple Pencil for reading and marking up with PDF Expert or Adobe Acrobat Financial Model: Use Computer + Excel (also synced via OneDrive) Running document of company overview, trends, financials, 10k snippets, etc: Use iWork/Pages to outline what the company does, how they make money, and what's going on in the businesses. I also highlight things I think are worth calling out (e.g, falling international sales, segment margins, restructuring charges, etc.. and add links to other sources like research reports, VIC writeups, CoBF thread links, articles

JAY GELB: Berkshire’s cash and Treasury bill holdings are approaching $100 billion. Warren, a year ago, you said Berkshire might increase its minimum valuation for share buybacks above 1.2 times book value if this occurred. What are your latest thoughts on raising the share with purchase threshold? WARREN: When the time comes—and it could come reasonably soon—even while I’m around, but we really don’t think we can get the money out in a reasonable period of time into things we like. We have to re-examine, then what we do with those funds that we don’t think can be deployed well. And at that time, it would make a decision and it might include both. But it could be repurchases, it could be dividends. There are different inferences that people draw from a dividend policy than from a repurchase policy in terms of expectations that you won’t cut a dividend and that sort of thing. So you have to factor that all in. But if we felt that we had cash that was unlikely to be used—excess cash—in a reasonable period of time and we thought repurchases, at a price that was still attractive to continuing shareholders was feasible in a substantial sum—that could make a lot of sense. At the moment, we’re still optimistic enough about deploying the capital that we wouldn’t be inclined to move to a price much closer where there’s only a narrow spread between an intrinsic value and the repurchase price. But, at a point the burden of proof is definitely on us. I mean, the last thing we like to do is own something that a hundred times earnings where the earnings can’t grow. As you point out, we got almost $100 billion. It’s $90 billion plus invested in a business—we’ll call it a business—where we’re paying almost a hundred times earnings and it’s kind of a lousy business. CHARLIE: It’s more after every tax earnings. WARREN: Yeah, so we don’t like that and we shouldn’t use your money that way for a long period of time. And then, the question is, are we going to be able to deploy it? And I would say that history is on our side, but it would be more fun if the phone would ring instead of just relying on history books. I am sure that sometime in the next 10 years—and it could be next week or it could be nine years from now—there will be markets in which we can do intelligent things on a big scale. But it would be no fun if that happens to be nine years off—and I don’t think it will be—but just based on how humans behave and how governments behave and how the world behaves. But like I say at a point, the burden of proof really shifts to us big time and there’s no way I can come back here three years from now and tell you that we hold $150 billion or so in cash or more snd we think we’re doing something brilliant by doing it. Charlie? CHARLIE: Well, I agree with you and the answer is maybe. WARREN: He does have a tendency to elaborate

I'd agree here (and thanks for the compliment). It's not going to compound at 20%/yr, but I think 8-12% is spot on. And that's nothing to sneeze at. If you have $500k today and it compounds at 10%/yr for the next 30 years you can easily retire....

May the analysts keep publishing wrong reports and Mr. Market continue to remain in the wrong until the day I retire. May BRK instantly trade above IV starting that day. The 10% growth in IV thereafter will be quite satisfactory. Amen. How much of a discount to IV do you think BRK trades at currently? 15%? At least as much as the SemperAugustus report had it as the most likely scenario at the end of 2016. Some 36% headroom to IV. Likely more since more value has been added to the coffers since. I like it that they used "as if BRK was trading at IV" numbers in the table to project out to 2026. Few others do that. And yet conservative. You did not answer the question on how you came up with 10x. Oh sorry, I didn't know that was addressed to me haha. Don't get too hung up on the 10x pre-tax. It's just back of the napkin stuff, and based on Buffett and Charlie saying that's what they look to pay when buying a business (10x operating earnings / 15x net income). I personally think BRK's operating businesses are worth closer to 20x post-tax all things considered, and my valuation model puts a pre-tax multiple on each segment (ranging from 8x - 16x). We can quibble over what multiple to use, but I don't think it really detracts from our shared conclusion: BRK looks undervalued. So we have a very conservative multiple estimate for a company which is conservatively run, employs conservative accounting, and has hidden value obfuscated by GAAP accounting (e.g., LT deferred tax liabilities, KHC not being marked to market, BAC warrants, etc). Using all these extremely conservative scenarios, BRK is still undervalued by 15-20%. And best case is maybe 2x that. Either way, it doesn't really matter to me as Berkshire is a large position of mine that I'm comfortable holding for a very long time. Said more simply, we don't need to know a man's precise weight to know he's obese.

May the analysts keep publishing wrong reports and Mr. Market continue to remain in the wrong until the day I retire. May BRK instantly trade above IV starting that day. The 10% growth in IV thereafter will be quite satisfactory. Amen. How much of a discount to IV do you think BRK trades at currently? 15%?

Right, I remember then laying out all 4 but they say "sum of the Parts and GAAP Adjusted Financials are our most reliable methodologies". I think the basis of their sum of the parts valuation was applying a multiple to a slightly-adjusted earnings # per segment. For example, MSR gets 20x whereas insurance underwriting may get 10x. I was just hoping longinvestor could clarify his/her point re: applying multiples being incorrect. Applying a 10x multiple is what I was talking about. Why 10x? Why not 9x or 11x or 15x? What assumptions go into that? Does the S&P at 26x square with BRK's 10x? Ah gotcha, thanks for clarifying.

Right, I remember then laying out all 4 but they say "sum of the Parts and GAAP Adjusted Financials are our most reliable methodologies". I think the basis of their sum of the parts valuation was applying a multiple to a slightly-adjusted earnings # per segment. For example, MSR gets 20x whereas insurance underwriting may get 10x. I was just hoping longinvestor could clarify his/her point re: applying multiples being incorrect.

Would you mind clarifying this a bit point a more? If memory serves me correctly, the Semper Augustus valuation was a sum-of-the-parts one, where they applied a multiple to each line of business. So are you saying that any "let's put a multiple on earnings" valuation is wrong, or only when doing it to BRK's overall GAAP # (which includes both realized cap gains/dividends and op earnings)?

Just read slow appreciation's piece. It's pretty well written. One big flaw is that in the valuation it ignores the float. While the value of that liability is less then book, it is definitely far from zero. There's more than one way to skin a cat. I know one can do a float-based valuation of BRK, but felt it was the least-approachable from a casual reader perspective and also the one I'm least confident in doing accurately. So I left it out. I don't think it changes things all that much, and there's nothing wrong with baking in further conservatism to one's model. Well you count the securities per share but ignore the associated liability that finances those assets. Under this method every insurance company, indeed every financial institution on the planet is grossly undervalued. Sorry, I misunderstood your original post. This is a fair point, though I don't recall Buffett subtracting the liabilities when using the "two-column" valuation method. Curious why that might be.

Just read slow appreciation's piece. It's pretty well written. One big flaw is that in the valuation it ignores the float. While the value of that liability is less then book, it is definitely far from zero. There's more than one way to skin a cat. I know one can do a float-based valuation of BRK, but felt it was the least-approachable from a casual reader perspective and also the one I'm least confident in doing accurately. So I left it out. I don't think it changes things all that much, and there's nothing wrong with baking in further conservatism to one's model.

You get $106/share in Investments/cash, and ~$9/share in earnings. So at $170/share, you're paying around 7x Op earnings per share for a very diverse group of businesses, earning stable, predictable earnings, which have been selected by the greatest capital allocator of all time. The group probably earns 15-20% on capital, and while growth may be limited, I don't expect it to lag the S&P. So as others have said, I think ~11-12% annual return from today's price is a reasonable expectation. This is why I hold Berkshire in my 401k rather than an S&P index fund. This. This piece by SlowAppreciation, combined with the two Semper Augustus Client Letters about intrinsic value of BRK was the documents that gave me conviction to continue to add to BRK going forward. Very much appreciated, SlowAppreciation, thank you for sharing. Damn good work. Please give your GF a gentle hug from me, it appears from your blog, that she is giving you a hand on your work. Thank you, and hug given.

You get $106/share in Investments/cash, and ~$9/share in earnings. So at $170/share, you're paying around 7x Op earnings per share for a very diverse group of businesses, earning stable, predictable earnings, which have been selected by the greatest capital allocator of all time. The group probably earns 15-20% on capital, and while growth may be limited, I don't expect it to lag the S&P. So as others have said, I think ~11-12% annual return from today's price is a reasonable expectation. This is why I hold Berkshire in my 401k rather than an S&P index fund.

Thanks for sharing. Eagerly awaiting part 1. I'll post it here once it's completed. Also, there were a few parts where I couldn't understand what Charlie said or may have misheard him, so if you find any mistakes please let me know.

My pleasure, hope you enjoy. I'll post part 1 when it's done in a few weeks

http://minesafetydisclosures.com/blog/2017/7/11/2017-daily-journal-annual-meeting-qa-with-charlie-munger-part-2

Ha! It's all worthless to anyone but me. But I like it. I tag everything by ticker so I can do a search and find everything I have on a certain company, I highlight key passages so that it's easy to skim and see what each part is about, etc. I like the ability to go back and see what I was really thinking at the time to study past mistakes or missed opportunities, etc. It's digital. Basically just an encrypted Pages document that syncs to all my devices via iCloud, reverse chronological, with today's stuff on top tagged with the date, each part separated by dashes. Very simple. Curious how you structure/organize it (if at all)? Is it just a running daily list with links/quotes/etc that you tag with tickers? Or is there a different overarching structure or tagging system that you use?

I'm not convinced that working capital changes accurately reflect Amazon's underlying earnings. They are a derivative of growth. And if you subtract WC, 1/2 SBC, and capital leases, the number gets very close to NI. And depreciation seems like a more accurate proxy of maintenance capex than CapEx plus capital leases, so I think your life would be easier if you started with net income and then made your adjustments. Then you can add back growth investments which flow through the income statement. This might not be true in your case, but I think many Amazon bulls prefer the FCF number simply because it is higher. -- This is probably obvious in light of Buffett's recent comments... But all the historical data on value versus growth is based on "old school" growth stocks. As Buffett points out, modern growth stocks (Apple, Google, Facebook) are able to rapidly achieve very large markets, with high margins, and enormous ROIC. It took 125 years, for Coca-Cola to reach $7B in net income. It took Google 18 years to reach $20B in net income. In other words, this time really is different. And historical relationships between growth and value might be breaking down. Certainly Google and Apple have been ridiculously underpriced for much of their history. Many value investors would be wise to selectively add some of the "new school" growth stocks to their portfolio. Edit to clarify: What I'm trying to say is that the dynamics of growth stocks versus value stocks isn't any different. A few growth stocks are big winners. Most are losers. But what is different is that the winners are so big, that it might mathematically tip the odds in growth's favour. -- I do worry that Amazon, Tesla, and Netflix might be forming bubbles. But I don't think anyone could argue Facebook, Google, or Apple are egregiously overpriced. I don't disagree with this. While I think there's a bubble around NFLX and TSLA, it's harder to say for Amazon. Bezos seems to purposely obfuscate financial reporting a la John Malone. So it's really hard to say whether their FCF is $7b or $2b. But as crazy as it sounds, I'm not sure it even matters much today. Buying AMZN today is basically taking the bet that they can reinvest 100% of earnings/FCF at 30% ROIC for the next 15 years. I'm not convinced this can happen, but I'm also not convinced it won't. So I'll just keep sitting on the sidelines for now.

Why? Is stock based compensation not an expense? Is property purchased using a capital leases not CapEx? Is float added really profit? SBC is, and I include it in FCF. AMZNs SBC is overstated though because of their shorter employee tenures and back-weighted grants. And yes, I too agree that cap lease payments are a reduction of FCF so I include that too. I just said FCF is more accurate than profit in AMZNs case, and I include both those items in the calculation of FCF (but only ~50% of SBC). So I'm not sure what we're arguing?