gfp

This quote from a site below kind of sums up why US investors are just recently worrying about it. There were changes in the last few years that alerted folks to the issue -- "The FATCA legislation not only requires new self-reporting on PFICs and other foreign held financial assets, but also requires all “foreign financial institutions” to report on the assets held by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents directly to the IRS by 2014. While it may seem hard to believe that foreign financial institutions would willingly comply with such reporting requirements, the fact is that industry observers expect nearly universal compliance with the new rules by banks, brokerages, insurance companies, mutual funds (anything “financial”) around the world, because of the severe sanctions the FATCA law imposed on non-compliant financial institutions. The point is that all U.S. citizens must assume that as of 2014, the IRS will have a direct and easily accessible window onto their holdings in foreign financial institutions. It will be easy to cross-reference direct reports by these institutions to the IRS with self-filed form 8938 and 8621 and determine whether or not your PFIC investments have been properly reported and the tax properly calculated and paid." http://thunfinancial.com/why-americans-should-never-ever-own-shares-in-a-non-us-incorporated-mutual-fund/

... Berkshire_Hathaway_Inc._1983-Part_1.pdf Berkshire_Hathaway_Inc._1983-Part_2.pdf Berkshire_Hathaway_Inc._1983-Part_3.pdf Berkshire_Hathaway_Inc._1983-Part_4.pdf Berkshire_Hathaway_Inc._1984-Part_1.pdf Berkshire_Hathaway_Inc._1984-Part_2.pdf Berkshire_Hathaway_Inc._1984-Part_3.pdf Berkshire_Hathaway_Inc._1985-Part_1.pdf Berkshire_Hathaway_Inc._1985-Part_2.pdf Berkshire_Hathaway_Inc._1985-Part_3.pdf

(the part 1, 2, etc... is due to a 10mb file size limit over at chucks_angels) Berkshire_Hathaway_Inc._1981-Part_1.pdf Berkshire_Hathaway_Inc._1981-Part_2.pdf Berkshire_Hathaway_Inc._1981-Part_3.pdf Berkshire_Hathaway_Inc._1981-Part_4.pdf Berkshire_Hathaway_Inc._1982.PDF

I have some of them, courtesy of Prem Jain on the chucks_angels yahoo board. Berkshire_Hathaway_Inc._1974.PDF Berkshire_Hathaway_Inc._1975.PDF Berkshire_Hathaway_Inc._1976.PDF Berkshire_Hathaway_Inc._1977.PDF Berkshire_Hathaway_Inc._1978.PDF Berkshire_Hathaway_Inc._1979-Part_1.pdf Berkshire_Hathaway_Inc._1979-Part_2.pdf Berkshire_Hathaway_Inc._1979-Part_3.pdf Berkshire_Hathaway_Inc._1980-Part_1.pdf Berkshire_Hathaway_Inc._1980-Part_2.pdf Berkshire_Hathaway_Inc._1980-Part_3.pdf

I realize it is way off topic here, but why is there a rather hard floor at 1.3x? Unless BVPS has gone up significantly last quarter, it is still sporting one of the highest multiples it has had in recent memory. Somewhere at 1.4X range, we'll see more precisely at Q1. I did not adjust for HNZ/KRFT. It's not very cheap, but considering a rather hard floor at 1.3, it's possibly unlikely that one can get BRK much cheaper. Whether it's worth paying 1.4X is something people have to decide for themselves. :)

It's his standard comment that Burger King paid ~$12Billion for Tim Hortons. "Why would you spend 12 billion to save 30 million"... I can't say anything about the exact US federal cash taxes that BKW has paid, but BKW doesn't have "earnings" anywhere close to $12 billion. I suspect there was some kind of a typo here or misunderstanding.

He's talking about realized loss as a percentage of total net worth of the firm. I've seen him say this more than once, but is this really true? Looking at http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2014ltr.pdf , 2008 shows 9.6% book value drop, 2001 shows 6.2% book value drop. Are these not related to portfolio drops? (I guess they might be operating business goodwill writedowns - 2001 could be GenRe, I'd have to look up...). Also didn't he have Washington Post drop over 50% as he was buying it and wasn't that a large part of his portfolio? It is still very surprising that he never suffered higher than 2% loss per year in his portfolio - if that's what he means. I don't think there's anyone else who has this kind of record...

Here is Clayton's initial response: http://www.omaha.com/clayton-homes-statement-on-mobile-home-buyer-investigation/article_7052e0c4-da3b-11e4-8abd-5f0b53380837.html

redheads, asians, blondes... Charlie Rose must feel awful special

"1. They have stated they plan to buy in the $8B Berkshire preferreds in 2016 (these yield 9%! - that is an after tax cost to common shareholders) using debt issuance (BBB-) of the same amount (so figure, I don't know, something like 4% pre-tax or 3% after tax for the debt for a cash savings for common shareholders of the difference 6% (ie 9% minus 3%) of $8 billion or around $500 million; this is consistent with Kraft's merger presentation where they state savings of $450 to 500 million). All that to say net debt increases from $20 billion in 2015 to $28 billion in 2016 to buy-in the Berkshire held preferreds, however there is an extra 0.5 billion going to common per year because of this planned exchange in 2016." - One thing to remember is that there will be a premium to redeem these preferred shares at their earliest possible date. Prior deals indicate it could be 10-20%. Lets say 10% since 3G are friends, but that is still another $800 million to BRK up front. It could very well be a higher premium, as they usually decline over time and this is the first call opportunity (2016). It's probably safe to model $9 billion in borrowings to replace the $8 billion in BRK pref.

Interestingly it sounds like quite a few of the international brand licenses that they put inside Mondelez in the separation will ultimately revert to Kraft over time (by 2020 it sounds like for most?). No factories come back, but Heinz has many facilities around the world to use. I hope Philly cream cheese comes back over.

Kraft Heinz will be public going forward. Berkshire will own something like 26%, 3G 25% and former KRFT shareholders get 49% and their $16.50 per share cash dividend.

I think you'll find that Berkshire owns 192,666 shares of Kraft before the deal.

I was looking at this too and listening to what Buffett said on CNBC this morning. It basically looks like a double, DAY 1! That certainly seems like a hell of a deal for Berkshire. I think it's more like a double, Year 2. Also, on the "2. Over the longer-term, Kraft should be able to leverage Heinz's international distribution. " point - there are certain brands - Philadelphia Cream cheese for example - that Kraft did not retain the International rights to. Perhaps Mondelez will make a deal to send them back to Kraft, but there may be a few brands like Philly that can't just be plugged in to the Heinz international distribution network.

Berkshire will end up with $9.5 Billion cost basis on 320 million KRFT shares after (not receiving) the 16.5 dividend. Looks like that stock will be worth over $20 billion and pay a decent dividend. No mention of the preferred, but I bet it's still there earning him 9%. Interesting deal! He said it came about in 4 weeks.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/kraft-in-talks-to-be-acquired-by-3g-capital-1427238184?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories Bloomberg reporting it may be merged with Heinz - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-25/3g-capital-said-to-be-in-advanced-talks-to-acquire-kraft-foods NYT picking up the Heinz possibility as well - http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/25/business/dealbook/h-j-heinz-said-to-be-in-talks-to-buy-kraft-foods.html?_r=0

I'm no defender, but here are some obvious inaccuracies / deliberately misleading comparisons - * Comparing total compensation including investment incentive fees to operating earnings (which don't include investment gains). Either include all gains in the comparison or compare operating earnings to his pay excluding Lion Fund allocation. * Saying he sold BCC to BH for $4.2 million and bought it back for $1.7 million. Reality is more like sold BCC to BH for one dollar, repurchased it for $1.7 million. * Saying BH shares only gained 8% in the past five years, which ignores rights offerings which, if not exercised could be sold in the market adding to the return. If exercised, they would also add to the return.

The letter is going to be shiny this year. Warren must feel we can finally afford one year of bling before returning to the plain paper next year. No sense going crazy. http://www.omaha.com/money/warren-watch-buffett-s-german-scout-on-the-hunt/article_92a927bd-1a7f-5436-9cec-f02372c24fd6.html (scroll down to second story for Annual Report details) "Those annual reports headed to Berkshire shareholders have a satiny gold cover with an embossed seal that says, “Berkshire Hathaway Inc. 50 Years as a Profitable Partnership.” It’s a fancy touch for the normally plain report. The 50th anniversary edition’s first 44 pages are high-gloss paper for Buffett’s annual letter and essays that he and Vice Chairman Charlie Munger wrote about Berkshire’s past and future. The following 97 pages, with more mundane content, are on regular paper."

The closest you will get to an electronic contact form is to email and ask for it. It will be mailed to shareholders, so I assume that doesn't include you or you are already covered. siheck@brka.com or dabosanek@brka.com

If you want the 10-K, you can write to the secretary below or print it from the SEC website. The annual report with the letter to shareholders and the colored cover will be mailed to shareholders as always. "A copy of the 2014 Form 10-K report as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, excluding exhibits, will be mailed to shareholders without charge upon written request to: Sharon L. Heck, Secretary, Berkshire Hathaway Inc., 3555 Farnam Street, Omaha, NE 68131. Such request must set forth a good-faith representation that the requesting party was either a holder of record or a beneficial owner of Class A or Class B Stock of the Corporation on March 4, 2015. Exhibits to the Form 10-K will be mailed upon similar request and payment of specified fees. The 2014 Form 10-K is also available through the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Web site (www.sec.gov)."

They will still mail the Annual Report. You just have to request a printed version of the 10-K if you want it. Berkshire's printed "Annual Report" is not the same as their SEC 10-K, even though both carry the name annual report.

Here is the page from the 10Q with the most detail - pg_10Q_batteries.pdf

They are not broken out separately in P&G's financial statements. They are referred to as "Personal Power" within Fabric and Home Care. They have about 25% market share, I believe, and you may be able to glean some useful information from Energizer's financials. Reports have said that Duracell has about $2.2 Billion in annual sales and low to zero growth. They will be buried within Marmon's results after the acquisition, so it will be hard to ever get exact figures. I suspect they were purchased for a low multiple to free cash flow after all the tax savings and cash are accounted for. from P&G's announcement: "Berkshire’s stock ownership is currently valued at approximately $4.7 billion. P&G said it expects to contribute approximately $1.8 billion in cash to the Duracell Company in the pre-transaction recapitalization. P&G said the transaction maximizes the after-tax value of the Duracell business and is tax efficient for P&G. The value received for Duracell in the exchange is approximately 7-times fiscal year 2014 adjusted EBITDA. This equates to a cash sale valued at approximately 9-times adjusted EBITDA." You could check the P&G 4th quarter filing to see if there is detail to be learned from Discontinued Operations.

I think he passed a week and a half ago. RIP Irving.

I think I read it in the WSJ. This isn't the exact article I read, but it echoes the comment - http://www.wsj.com/articles/gdf-suez-issues-zero-coupon-bond-1425486189 "The Omaha, Neb., conglomerate is looking for acquisitions in Europe, but Mr. Buffett has yet to find a deal he likes. In the meantime, the company will convert the euros to dollars and pocket the cash until it is ready to buy, the person added."