gfp

Are you assuming $5 per share is the incremental earning power of the additional $2 Billion loan investment (if it actually gets invested, this is just a commitment, not deployed) over that hypothetical $2 Billion being invested in a T-bill currently or are you assuming that hypothetical $2 Billion loan investment is earning zero currently?

Phew, I was confused for a sec. Maybe someday we won't have to write "X, formerly known as twitter" anymore

WSJ has a brief article on the Haslam dust-up. Not much new but a couple of quotes from outside observers on misaligned incentives https://www.wsj.com/business/warren-buffett-berkshire-hathaway-jimmy-haslam-pilot-lawsuit-70ef0413?mod=hp_lead_pos8 The case illustrates the difficulty of crafting incentives in complex corporate structures so that everyone is rowing in the same direction, said Jordan Barry, a law professor at the University of Southern California. For instance, EBIT clauses, such as the one at PTC, can have a positive influence, by encouraging growth. “But you do have this issue where, when you pay out based on a particular year’s EBIT, that encourages people to try and load that one year up with as much earnings as possible,” Barry said. “And if that comes at the expense of other years, that’s not good.” Barry gave a hypothetical example of how getting paid based on a multiple of 10 times EBIT could incentivize a company being bought to accept lower prices on contracts just to get them booked in the current year. “Let’s say this contract would make you $100,000 normally, but you close this year if you’re willing to do it at $80,000,” Barry said. “That’s not usually a great trade. You just lost $20,000.” But, because the company is being sold, that contract is then worth $800,000. “That’s a great trade for you,” he said.

Highly doubt it unless it somehow came through OXY. Even that would be hard to believe.

He's talking about Money-weighted rate of return, you can google it. I actually think he was calling out his friend Mohnish in that segment!

Read my post above yours. I linked to both Kennedy Wilson 8-Ks

Here are the two KW filings for those that can't read the small print in netcash1's post. SJ, I thought 10% Pacificorp debt sounded pretty wild even with the wildfire liabilities but realized you meant PacWest LOL... https://otp.investis.com/clients/us/kennedy_wilson1/SEC/sec-show.aspx?Type=html&FilingId=17105470&CIK=0001408100&Index=10000 https://otp.investis.com/clients/us/kennedy_wilson1/SEC/sec-show.aspx?Type=html&FilingId=17105435&CIK=0001408100&Index=10000

Partial settlement of some Pacificorp wildfire liabilities (far from all of it) https://finance.yahoo.com/news/berkshire-utility-reaches-299-million-223219342.html

As I mentioned on another board previously - Haslam fully admits that he incentivized his top executives to game the 2022 EBIT to maximize the price Berkshire would pay for their early 2022 equity purchase. They called it "Special Distribution Growth Units" under their "Growth Partners Plan." A bunch of decisions resulting in maximized reported EBIT to feed into their formula and then payment of cash bonuses - "Special Distribution" awards based on the price Berkshire was forced to pay. These types of short term decisions at the expense of both Berkshire and PTC's long term profitability are why Berkshire was so annoyed to begin with and immediately fired the CEO and CFO and exited several newer lines of business.

So my take on this is that the Haslams sued Berkshire when no harm had been done to them because they want to know the exact number they will receive if they exercise their put contract before they commit to exercising it. Berkshire's 10-Q shows the redeemable interest at approximately the correct amount the Haslam's want and they can just use that figure to decide when to Put the remaining 20% to BRK. The LLC agreement and the investor rights agreement and associated dispute resolution procedures govern any disagreements over the calculation of the payment Haslams would receive for their remaining 20%. In bringing this un-needed lawsuit they have poked the bear and are now likely in trouble for what Berkshire has discovered. The Haslams messed up here as previously Berkshire was just annoyed that they had been gamed by the incentives imbedded in their contract by counterparts less honorable than themselves. Berkshire is now "more than annoyed." The Haslams were not going to be screwed over by BRK on their final payment. They just wanted PTC to keep two sets of books so they could know the exact figure the formula spit out before they made their decision.

I'll put the original Haslam suit against Berkshire / Abel here as well (attached) pilotvberkshire.pdf

Some might be interested in reading Berkshire's counter claim in its original form instead of relying on press accounts. Attached here as a pdf counterclaim.pdf

For those interested in still following along with how SeaSpan / Atlas / Poseidon are developing, here is a press release on the order of their first car/truck carrier, a dual fuel LNG or ammonia/methane new build to be leased to Hyundai Glovis. https://ir.atlascorporation.com/2023-12-05-Seaspan-Corporation-enters-new-market-segment-with-strategic-order-of-new-dual-fuel-LNG-Pure-Car-and-Truck-Carrier-vessels

Why do you folks think Ron Olson has a several billion dollar net worth? That would certainly be news to me.

Apologies if this was already posted, but here is what Li Lu wrote to honor Charlie: https://www.facebook.com/li.lu.376043/posts/pfbid0C6WjUbMLt5GD5dadMrkeftL24tRxuQsPjs5Xk3rBdD2Y47ZNYFBFwk95ix4N1Q4ol