gfp

Cheers! And thanks for posting your best idea.

Why is the "yield to maturity" lower than the "current yield" if it trades at a discount to par value? Maybe we should just pick one of the several threads you have started on this bond and reply there instead of making a new thread and copying and pasting the text from your old thread?

I don't know. You tell me! What is your expectation? Separately - does that math look right on a fully diluted market cap today? Around $28 Billion fiat dollars? Or is the future so bright you don't even bother with such details?

What is today's fully diluted market cap of MSTR compared to the $13 Billion USD worth BTC they own? (I tried to figure it out on my own. Best I can come up with is fully diluted $28 Billion market cap for $13 Billion worth of BTC currently.)

Well I'm just impressed that Weston Hicks commented on his article. I assume it was the real Weston Hicks.

Best bet is for two Canadian financials to merge or someone gets bought out, creating an open spot. Fairfax could be pretty undeniably huge by the time they enter.

And honestly nobody cares about the Dow Jones Industrial Average anymore. How much money is even indexed to it?

The index - https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/indices/equity/sp-tsx-60-index/#overview

I'm just listening to this one now. Mosler isn't usually a great podcast guest but he sure is correct about fiscal reality. Wabuffo directed me to Mosler years ago as the best way to get my head around the macro plumbing of the actual financial system we have - not some hypothetical one that people wish we had or some flawed federal-government-as-household model. Warren has it right - the current Fed policy rate is inflationary on balance. Powell has it backwards for all of the reasons Mosler has been harping on for years. The CPI or PCE or whatever tends to gravitate towards the effective interest rate on government debt and Warren likens this to a stock dividend (not a cash dividend but a dividend of additional shares). When Mosler talks about how insanely regressive the stimulus of the current t-bill rates are - just picture Buffett at Berkshire as exhibit number 1.

Very interesting- thanks for posting that. Don’t suppose the same buyer would be permitted to acquire both CCM and peak achievement

Welcome and great first posts! Reminds me of our friend dealraker (Charlie). Maybe having more of your investment capital in tax-deferred accounts would have hurt your overall results since without that tax bill hanging over you it is much easier to make the mistake of exiting your wonderful long term holdings like BRK, AAPL, HD, MSFT and FRFHF. I'm a firm believer that the tax bill can make people better long term investors who might be otherwise tempted to meddle.

I think in Graham's time the price to book value or book value in general was more important than it is today. In some industries, book value is still useful and important but for many modern firms the book value is almost meaningless. Berkshire's book value is useful. Fairfax's book value is useful. Apple's book value is headed towards zero and of basically no use. Graham liked to use his multiplier concept to allow higher price to book stocks to make it past his filters if they traded sufficiently cheap relative to their earnings. He didn't want people paying over 20x earnings or 1.5x book but he was willing to bend his price to book guidelines for a company where the value could be justified by the earnings (and vice versa if something was very cheap on liquidation value but wasn't currently showing a lot of earnings). No standard ratio is going to tell you how to value a company. Every company is unique and the art of this thing is trying to determine the earning power over time, what the management is likely to do with those earnings, and what you are interested in paying for that combination. You might think a cyclical stock at 4x earnings is a slam dunk only to realize you were buying the peak. Same with PE 1000 stocks or no PE stocks that could end up being fantastic investments. Focusing too much on the popular ratios (especially in the age of websites publishing wildly inaccurate ratios based on garbage data in the first place) is a mistake.

Now's your chance! A few lucky folks managed to get in at $270 per share ($222 Billion market cap before they do their first roll-up). https://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=QXO&insttype=Stock https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-06-17/qxo-doesn-t-have-enough-stock

A single weak civil lawsuit that will be promptly dismissed. This is not some SEC / DOJ bombshell.

I think that is the gist - this $5 million donation is from Mr. Prem Watsa. Also, Fairfax has pledged to support this cutting edge research (likely through smaller gifts).

it is Prem’s own (personal) money, although it follows a recent sale of Fairfax shares back to the company.

One can hope it is connected with a successful deal for IDBI Bank on good terms now that the election is finished

So most of those foreign government bonds are regulatory capital for writing insurance business in those jurisdictions - it used to be primarily in General Re but I'm sure BHSI has plenty of global business as well. I don't think he has much of a choice so even when German yields (as one example) are tiny he still has to own some of it. As you can see, the duration is usually pretty short. The Fannie and Freddie agency stuff Berkshire holds is almost entirely from purchases in 2007. It is just the tag end of un-refinanced mortgages from way back. Most of the corporate bonds they own were purchased in 2002 or 2003. They own Kinder Morgan Inc bonds they bought in Q1 2003 for 53-57 cents on the dollar - 2030-2032 maturities. They own Williams Companies bonds they purchased in 2002 at 42 cents on the dollar, also 2031 maturity. Huge yields. They still show Washington Mutual bonds on their books that appear to have defaulted, written down to zero, purchased in 2008-2009. Berkshire does own a little more in corporate bonds than it appears on their SEC filings because Berkshire's insurance companies invest in the public bonds of some of Berkshire's subsidiaries. National Indemnity owns Lubrizol, BNSF and BHE bonds as investments - but these are eliminated in consolidation on BRK's SEC filings. I guess Warren has a hunch they are good for it.

I would have loved if that had happened a long time ago. Today I don't think the government would allow it, regardless of combined market share. Maybe a different government in the future would allow it but PGR isn't getting any cheaper.

I see the trades but no clue what went down. The only news I found was about Bangalore needing a second airport (and KIA getting a new taxiway). I doubt that is the reason for the trading. Hopefully we will learn something interesting soon

Hard to tell for sure but it wouldn't surprise me if that was essentially Berkshire's position. Inside NICO, these were the share counts owned at year-end 2023 and they are close -

It didn’t. But a lot of people misread a press release.

Looks like they included the link to www.mapchart.net in their post. Looks like US counties.

Berkshire reported selling another ~12 million BYD shares in a recent HK filing https://di.hkex.com.hk/di/NSAllFormList.aspx?sa2=an&sid=2508&corpn=BYD+Co.+Ltd.++-+H+Shares&sd=17/06/2023&ed=17/06/2024&cid=2&sa1=cl&scsd=17%2f06%2f2023&sced=17%2f06%2f2024&sc=01211&src=MAIN&lang=EN&g_lang=en& (approximately $350 million USD worth)

Good stuff, thanks for sharing that.