Gregmal

+1. It’s also probably not a bad time to put (back) on some macro hedges (SPX puts and the like) if you’re so inclined. But generally speaking, the US is set up in a way that ensures that almost all bad macro events end up being temporary, so if you’re invested in high quality companies and your investment horizon is long enough it’s probably perfectly fine to ignore them. Even if the trade negotiations with China go wrong and end up causing a huge recession, no big deal, it just means Trump will lost the election in 2020 and the tariffs will be taken down by his successor. Agree with everything including the bold. Also like Spekulatius said above with GS. For a split second, you had things that were absurdly cheap. That typically corrects quickly. When it does, you rebalance. You basically got 10-20% moves in anything you could throw a dart at. The next 10% I don't think will be that quick or easy. But it will come.

"I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been." -Wayne Gretzky

Same thing as before... When stocks are cheap, ignore the noise.

I think it all just comes back to focusing on quality stuff. Spekulatius if I remember, was positive on FDX. I don't own it but had the same views. Not too long ago its trading at what? 14x? Nothing really changes, sentiment shifts, fed hikes 25bp. Uhm, now its a 9x??? Sign me up! Either I get it at a depressed multiple and keep buying more. Or, something statistically extraordinary has to happen, IE earnings need to contract like 35%, to justify the current price... These sort of things to me should be common sense for people buying individual names. Myself, I'm not even a huge BRK fanboy, but banks fell like 30%+(BRK is a very safe way to play high quality financials), BRK is a smart capital allocator, insider buying below $200 plus BRK buyback, low PE/P/B in historical context. Do I need to know anything else to pull the trigger at $195???

IDK, I say it with the same common sense conviction I had a month ago; the sky doesn't fall for no reason. So when something like that looks like its occurring you just go to the information available and in that case nothing changed. Easy as that.

I couldn't help but think of the hilarity that was ensuing all but a month ago and the panic that took place. Yes even here, where you'd think people had better temperament and ability to ignore the noise, chaos ensued. An entire year's worth of returns were there for the taking; to be had in a couple weeks, if one just read the situation properly.

Well, to provide you with some modest pushback, very few of the things you listed, actually have anything to do with value investing specifically. They could apply to any strategy and deal more or less with your own temperament when it comes to handling draw-downs. Investing isnt life though, so if it takes up an excessively large portion of your mental space, and you are not comfortable with this, then I applaud you deciding to cut ties.

I love India, and there is so much money to be made investing there. That said, I have not yet found an efficient way to capitalize on this. I'll be eagerly listening to those with ideas.

Are normal 60 year olds worth billions, directly or indirectly? Even if so, does someone representing a hair over 7%(1/14) of potential votes really impact things that much? Like I said, you guys either wrote off something you should've cared about because of your own biases, or, are now giving it more weight than it deserves because of your own biases... Carry one now.

Don't be insulting. You do not know the politics of the people in this thread. Some of them may be conservatives, some of them might not be. This, however, is hardly an issue of one view point vs another on a particular issue. The extremes of both ends of the political spectrum seem to attract wingnuts in spectacular numbers. If Howie had just thrown a few bucks at this like a normal 60 year-old rich guy, this wouldn't even raise an eyebrow. However, Howie's activist behaviour calls into question whether he might be among the extreme, which leads a pragmatic BRK shareholder to question whether he is one of the tin-foil hat whack-jobs or whether he's a normal rich guy with a really weird hobby. So, which is it? Frankly, I don't give a damn about his politics or whether he's a racist; life's far too short to fuss about others' political views or to fuss about whether others are racist. I just have concerns about whether he's a whack-job, particularly given his annointed role of protecting BRK's special culture after WEB and Charlie kick the bucket. SJ Sorry but if Howies political leanings are this much of a shock to you, you failed in your due diligence. It’s much more likely that you disagree politically, but need an outlet more mainstream than pretending to be a hack like EliG. Howard was never qualified, but personally I think it’s ok because Warren built the company and deserves some semblance of a legacy protector. It blows my mind that clowns who shun other investments because of dual class shares or majority board positions whine now about WB having ONE nepotistic director. LOL, shut up. You don't get it. You cannot seem to see past basic political tribalism. My side is good the other side is bad, always and everywhere, end of story. I wish you the best of luck on making a few bucks. cheers SJ Uhm, yea, I don't get it.... You guys forever have been smitten by Warren and the BRK "culture". Howie has never been deserving of his board seat; ANYWHERE. Regardless of where he leans politically. Now, it comes out he has some far right leaning hobbies and its "Oh, I need to evaluate. Oh, we need answers!!!!" And to me, it's like. "Oh the COBF crowd missed the forest for the trees again. Go figure..."

Don't be insulting. You do not know the politics of the people in this thread. Some of them may be conservatives, some of them might not be. This, however, is hardly an issue of one view point vs another on a particular issue. The extremes of both ends of the political spectrum seem to attract wingnuts in spectacular numbers. If Howie had just thrown a few bucks at this like a normal 60 year-old rich guy, this wouldn't even raise an eyebrow. However, Howie's activist behaviour calls into question whether he might be among the extreme, which leads a pragmatic BRK shareholder to question whether he is one of the tin-foil hat whack-jobs or whether he's a normal rich guy with a really weird hobby. So, which is it? Frankly, I don't give a damn about his politics or whether he's a racist; life's far too short to fuss about others' political views or to fuss about whether others are racist. I just have concerns about whether he's a whack-job, particularly given his annointed role of protecting BRK's special culture after WEB and Charlie kick the bucket. SJ Sorry but if Howies political leanings are this much of a shock to you, you failed in your due diligence. It’s much more likely that you disagree politically, but need an outlet more mainstream than pretending to be a hack like EliG. Howard was never qualified, but personally I think it’s ok because Warren built the company and deserves some semblance of a legacy protector. It blows my mind that clowns who shun other investments because of dual class shares or majority board positions whine now about WB having ONE nepotistic director. LOL, shut up.

Warrens son has been associated with BRK forever. Warrens son supports protecting the borders. Liberals are outraged. Now there’s a problem at Berkshire. LOL.

The Buffetts have always been very patriotic. Warren is always talking about how great America is. Only recently have liberal loonies tried to slant patriotism as something unsavory. It's disgusting.

I don’t really see how this is anything more than a classic example of “rich guy with a weird hobby”....

If I was lazy and didn't want to be thorough with my due diligence? Sure. But in that case I'd be better off buying an index fund. If I'm willing to do the work and do my own deep dive, it is entirely irrelevant.

Welcome to COBF. This stuff happens all the time. It's head scratching. So many self proclaimed "investors" regularly get hung up on totally irrelevant details, fabricate issues, and almost always look for excuses to miss the forest for the trees.

For me, this community is for two things, entertainment, and idea generation/buffering. So in regards to the later, my only concern is making MU-KNEE..... let the truth and the info available take me to where I need to be to make it. I open and welcome any and all ideas and info, it is on me to decipher it and either put it to use or discard it. Lets not worry about judging peoples character on an anonymous Internet forum/community. In a twisted sense, the most honest or transparent folks will be the ones getting assassinated while the opaque(not with standing John Hjorth who I am guessing really is John Hjorth) play judge and jury. Eric used his real name, google him, judge him, execute him. Anonymous poster never gets ridiculed.... If Eric likes pursuing teenagers, thats his prerogative. Doesn't mean he can't provide value to an investing community... Also doesn't mean he doesn't have a side to the story. Frankly I could care less.

After much thought, over quite a long time, I purchased a small position today. To me, the key man risks are outweighed by the sheer quantity of great businesses that run independently, and will IMO eventually be spun off. BRK trades at a discount to these, and IMO the current price, is kind of at the upper end of the "cheap" range. Not slam dunk, but with an IB account, only having to put up ~20% of capital in a margin account, it should either outperform the carry cost, or keep dropping, which will further skew my future expected returns and allow me to add into it with greater size.

Excellent, timely, read on the situation.

A lot of the stupid and redundant stuff is primarily CYA regulatory stuff.

I've never understood this style of shorting the market. It sounds like a good idea and is definitely sexier, but execution is quite difficult, and even then you are still basically timing things. It's quite interesting to look at many of the guys who became legends by shorting the housing crisis. Most of them haven't done too well since. Its not cuz they aren't smart or whatever, but rather the way they make their bets. I'd much rather just take the Tepper approach, where you shift your exposure. I think in mid 2009 he was levered like 3:1 at some point or something to that degree. Whereas when he's been bearish I've seen his portfolio at something like 40% equities. At least this way you still have something going for you if your macro views aren't playing out.

First, this is people posting their returns on the internet, who cares. And two, based on what's provided I'd gander a heavy concentration in high beta energy names. Lastly, agree with you entirely on the last piece.

This is kind of how I see that aspect of it as well. I could look at BRK and even without Buffett, say to myself, these are businesses I want to own. The primary reason I see most people investing in FFH is Watsa. Outside of that, as I said earlier, there isn't much, and even on the insurance side, there's better insurance related investments out there.

How big was their VRX position? I didn't know about that one... I don't recall specifically, and to be 100% forthright I could be thinking of Francis Chou(who seems to mirror Watsa with his portfolio quite a bit) but I'm pretty sure it was FFH, but maybe 1-2 years ago I saw VRX pop up in the filings. It wasn't anywhere near the top. Perhaps when VRX had crashed and was in the 30's or 40's. But the thing that stuck out for me was the pattern. WTF is the obsession with these heavily levered problem child companies? Like, you're bearish on everything; OK. I get it. But then what the heck are you doing allocating money to companies that look like this??? SD, BBRY, RFP, SSW.... Thats the whole portfolio betting on companies that more or less constitute the same sort of macro bet. You don't get home run turn arounds, if the broader market is, as you say it is(ie overvalued and headed towards chaos). That is what I've never been comfortable with. I am ok betting on managers who express differing views than me. I understand others have a circle of competence where I don't. But for the past decade, I can't reconcile the logic used for the FFH portfolio. It just hasn't made sense and the results have more or less been what I'd expect given how out there they are.

I personally view FFH to be uninvestable. This is a company I have really wanted to like for a long time, but could never get comfortable with it simply because there are others who do what they do, but are better at it. The investment decisions for the past decade have been atrocious. Off the top of my heads its what? BBRY, RFP, SHLD, VRX, SD... probably more that I am forgetting, all of which fit the same theme. Troubled companies, with mediocre management, and TONS OF DEBT. The results have been as expected given those things. Not only have these been heavily concentrated positions, but they've collectively shown poor judgment and demonstrated a lack of an ability to locate good investments in a fertile environment. Going off of a comment by rb, how the f*** was ANYONE, let alone a professional, looking at the market in 2010 and calling stocks richly valued????? I can understand having macro concerns, or thinking trouble lays ahead, but richly valued???? "Oh gee, let me short the market with the S&P trading at 13x!" Pure stupidity.