DooDiligence

"If a capitalist had been present at Kitty Hawk back in the early 1900s, he should have shot Orville Wright. He would have saved his progeny money." Buffett quote from a 2013 Forbes article (not an interview but I'm guessing if it'd been an interview he'd have confirmed the quote...) This wouldn't be the first high mainenance capex, highly competitive, zero pricing power biz Berkshire has ever bought into...

"I have an 800 number now that I call if I get the urge to buy an airline stock. I call at two in the morning and I say: ‘My name is Warren and I’m an aeroholic.’ And then they talk me down.” Did he go off the wagon?

This could be Trumps chance at redemption for being such a turd his entire life. Personally I'm skeptical...

I was actually curious if this was true--interpreting it as "social mobility is higher now than it used to be"--not quite the same thing, but in the same ballpark. My reading, based on this and a couple other search results, is that post-war, there was a large surge in absolute mobility, caused by the structure of the workforce changing (people naturally moving into more valuable jobs), but the relative social mobility--the chance that two people in different classes ending up in different class destinations than the rest of their class--was small. So, I interpret that as--people in general are richer on average because a tide has lifted all boats. However, the chance of them becoming rich isn't actually any easier relative to what it used to be. I find that super surprising. Though I'd also say, I'm not that confident (in my expert 5-minute investigation ;)) that they truly have the historical data to be confident in their conclusions. It'd be really cool if some underpriviledged student wrote their masters thesis on this subject & subsequently went on to become a major entrepreneur! Personally; I came from a middle class family & although I'm not what I'd consider wealthy, I have carved out a very comfortable life. Someone here made a comment about income equality & Lenin & I'm inclined to agree (at the risk of sounding like a douch) that equality is a dubious goal in a meritocracy. The best, brightest & most driven, do what they do & create opportunities for people like me. We all do what we do within our abilities & we do it to the extent that we are motivated. Those who sit in front of an xbox an inordinate amount of time deserve exactly what they get. I believe (wrapped in my dubious shield of white skin) that we in the developed world, all have the possibility of mobility if we are sufficiently active & possessed of a thick hide. Tthere are those who climb the highest mountains & the rest of us who find our niche on the slopes. We can contribute to the overall fund which sends entitlements (to assist in upward mobility & to simply assist) to those left on the floor of the valley and/or we can arm ourselves with heavy objects to drop upon the heads of those who try to snatch our stuff from below (preferably the dropped rocks won't hit those individuals who are trying to rise up & create new legitimate opportunities or participate in the system.) It's a slippery slope for all...

Too many variables for me to guess. My rationale for owning BBH, XBI & NVO are that we've been pounding roots & such for 1000's of years & we'll continue to do so. BBH gives me exposure to large cap & XBI takes care of small & mid cap. I believe that the world is getting fatter & I like Novo's focus (wish it'd keep dropping so I could round out my position...) I don't even factor in government intervention (it's a leap of faith...)

Well... Firstly, I don't think spinouts are a good idea because a lot of the subs are more valuable inside of BRK as opposed to outside. So doing spinouts would destroy value. Secondly, it's nearly impossible to do spinouts because the insurance cos own a lot of the subs. So really it's a moot point. I guess I was just thinking about the whole "working with less capital" thing & kind of doing a "start over" in the partnership mold (just pondering & learning...)

Agreed... Please be gentle with me here (what are your thoughts on shrinking the company by spinning out divisions & setting the wayback machine to 1970 for a restart?) Consider this a thought experiment (or a thoughtless one, whichever you prefer...) I don't think anyone could, even if they wanted to, due to where the assets sit. I think it would trigger large tax bills. It's part of the reason 1.2x P/B is more reflective of conservative value, not 1.0x. They need dividends/buybacks to realize the underlying ROE. So he evolved from the partnership's strategy to the BRK strategy & maybe now he'll start returning capital to shareholders? It must be awesome to build something so intelligent & to remain strong throughout all the cycles & then to see it mature (and then to pass on before your child...)

Proactivity minimizes fear of pain or loss & requires confidence in your abilities & ideas. Reactivity is a defensive posture exhibited by those who have been surprised & lack the courage of their convictions.

I prefer proactive to reactive...

Ackman's admiration for Valeant causes me to question anything he says. Did anyone see Stephen Colbert last night as he made a fearful apology to the Donald (and then followed it up with "...is what a pu55y would have said.") That sums up what Ackman said (someone was waiting off stage with a warm towel to wipe off his chin.) (Buffet's not a pu55y...)

What happened to good old fashioned value? Or is Berkshire not a value shop anymore? Also owning the whole company provides tax benefits as opposed to owning large public stakes. KO is no go cause of the price. Even if it's reasonably priced now, to take it out BRK would have to pay a hefty premium. I also think that BRK would probably prefer a company that likes to gobble up capital as opposed to a prodigious cash generator like KO. We need to get serious here though. At the rate that BRK generates cash there's a limited set of opportunities. There are simply not that many private companies out there. 10 years ago buying Iscar was a big deal. Today they can have Iscar as an appetizer and still be eagerly awaiting the main course. There's gonna be an evolution in acquisition strategy or it's dividend/buyback time. Agreed... Please be gentle with me here (what are your thoughts on shrinking the company by spinning out divisions & setting the wayback machine to 1970 for a restart?) Consider this a thought experiment (or a thoughtless one, whichever you prefer...)

Trolls will be trolls but as his analysis on many other topics has been valuable (Hillary rant aside) I say we give him a pass (my belief is that he'll rethink this one & change posture with unflinching & admirable ability...) The subject was simply out of his wheelhouse...

I actually sold a few issues the end of last week & on Monday (locked in roughly a 40% gain - not total portfolio.) Not because I feared a market move post election but because I need the cash for a renovation project (better risk / reward.) Even though I'm not onboard with the majority of Sanders ideas, I'm glad we have a pitbull yanking from the far left so things will hopefully get centered...

"a rut ain't nuthin but a grave with both ends kicked out" - ZZ

Fiscal conservative & Ayn Rand (as Greenspan learned, the 2 have very little in common...) The only thing she did worth reading was Anthem

Bang on Bernie!

I feel compelled to feed the trolls too (gonna work on that - in another 5 or 10 posts...) Thou art admin

Lest we all forget the motivation of the OP (that'd be me) for starting this sexist (yet definitely not misogynistic) thread. BTW the last part of the quote doesn't apply to you Scott (BTBTW your obvious intelligence & bare naked candor qualify you as the ONLY troll I'd ever actually defend in his right to exist "under the bridge.")

Gimme a break! You're fishing for a reaction. I'll bet when you were a kid you got the shit kicked out of you on a daily basis...

DooDiligence, Have to learn from the history. Look at the way the Spaniards approached the conquest. Rape, pillage and plunder. Yes you can conquer the population but its hard to control and scale because of the constant resistance. On the other hand the British let the colonies live their way of life but savagely attacked their ideology and belief system and they were able to conquer the world with such a little effort. BTW your attempt to defuse the tension by way of humor on every thread is refreshing. Thanks for that bit of history & your appreciation of the refreshments...

He can be led by his ego & he's not intelligent enough to see where the path winds up! valcont you're an evil genius...

That's the Donalds preference. I go for the dark & lovelies...

Ik lekker moi!

Boohahahahahaha! My plot is succeeding...

But they are not going to be any better off. They are going to be worse off, if the new government enacts protectionism. Rust belt jobs as they were are not coming back anywhere on Earth. I think we can all agree on that. Now if your new pres. and congress can think forward and: - get good affordable education for his voters - get good affordable health care for same. - help out with modern infrastructure (nationwide free wifi, not roads and bridges) - assist the private sector - jump start in a huge way renewable energy conversion. Their lot might improve. But hes not going to do that is he. He, and his aides are going to get really quickly mired in scandals that make your last few governments look downright pristine. Thats because he is what he is... a con artist and a scammer. At 70 years old he isn't going to change suddenly, is he? Infrastructure means golf courses!