Buffett/Berkshire - general news

[73 Reds]

35 minutes ago, Pellom said:

I think he gave Greg cover to sell off some of the lesser performing business lines.

The letter was in one way very perplexing.  He continues to blame Berkshire's size for the chance of outsized future performance, which begs the question why Berkshire needs to retain its current size.  Would breaking up the company add to shareholder value?  Is there anything wrong with creating more shareholder value?  Some may read his thoughts as to suggest that his current asset allocators are not really up for the job.  Greg, Ted and Todd may read his letter and ask themselves what they are even doing at Berkshire if Buffett's predictions about future performance are indeed true. 

[yesman182]

Looks like WEB’s charity also extends to offering to cut the interest to LEE for the next 5 years. WEB knows just how hard it is for Newspapers. I think LEE still owes BRK something like 450m. Offering them a loan rate only slighting above a T bill rate seems like total charity, but I know he really wants them to succeed.  Not sure who would want to participate in this rights offer. 

https://investors.lee.net/news-releases/news-release-details/lee-enterprises-announces-intent-pursue-rights-offering

 

 

[CassiusKing1]

I think Warren is trying to hand off Berkshire to Greg in a fashion so that he has little to no obstacles at all to start with.

Trimming the Apple position so he's not asked about that right away.  A fortress of cash.

 

I think the letter was directed at us shareholders.  No one is perfect, strive to be better everyday.  Please give Greg a long runway and be understanding as he takes over the helm.

[John Hjorth]

6 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

The letter was in one way very perplexing.  He continues to blame Berkshire's size for the chance of outsized future performance, which begs the question why Berkshire needs to retain its current size.  Would breaking up the company add to shareholder value?  Is there anything wrong with creating more shareholder value?  Some may read his thoughts as to suggest that his current asset allocators are not really up for the job.  Greg, Ted and Todd may read his letter and ask themselves what they are even doing at Berkshire if Buffett's predictions about future performance are indeed true. 

 

1 hour ago, CassiusKing1 said:

I think Warren is trying to hand off Berkshire to Greg in a fashion so that he has little to no obstacles at all to start with.

Trimming the Apple position so he's not asked about that right away.  A fortress of cash.

 

I think the letter was directed at us shareholders.  No one is perfect, strive to be better everyday.  Please give Greg a long runway and be understanding as he takes over the helm.

 

I'm still chewing on it.

 

I find @73 Redss post above really thought provoking good food for thought, and I can certainly see what's on @73 Reds's mind here.

 

I really like @CassiusKing1 s post, too. It's a gargantuan task to take on for Greg Abel. Errors of omission and commission in size two digit USD may continue to happen now and then.

 

Here, I'm taking the freedom to ask the question :'Am I the the only person here on CofB&F sensing deep felt concerns between the lines from Mr. Buffett about what is going on in USA these days?'?, -without this question should lead to this topic getting infected by politics, that is!, and thanks!

Edited November 11, 2025 by John Hjorth

[Pellom]

1 hour ago, CassiusKing1 said:

I think Warren is trying to hand off Berkshire to Greg in a fashion so that he has little to no obstacles at all to start with.

Trimming the Apple position so he's not asked about that right away.  A fortress of cash.

 

I think the letter was directed at us shareholders.  No one is perfect, strive to be better everyday.  Please give Greg a long runway and be understanding as he takes over the helm.

 

Agreed. He has clearly been laying the framework for Berkshire to be thought of as an operating business, not an equity investing business. (This has been happening for decades, of course.) 

 

[73 Reds]

19 minutes ago, John Hjorth said:

 

 

I'm still chewing on it.

 

I find @73 Redss post above really thought provoking good food for thought, and I can certainly see what's on @73 Reds's mind here.

 

I really like @CassiusKing1 s post, too. It's a gargantuan task to take on for Greg Abel. Errors of omission and commission in size two digit USD may continue to happen now and then.

 

Here, I'm taking the freedom to ask the question :'Am I the the only person here on CofB&F sensing deep felt concerns between the lines from Mr. Buffett about what is going USA these days?'?, -without this question should lead to this topic getting infected by politics, that is!, and thanks!

John, clearly Buffett is no fan of current politics; he writes in his letter "Don't despair, America will come back and so will Berkshire shares".  His opinion of the present state of things requires little in the way of imagination.  That aside, taking Buffett at his word, what incentive would someone have to become a shareholder for the first time?  If safety/security is your number one objective, arguably owning the S&P 500 index (or an equivalent) is even better because poor-performing companies and even entire industries can and will be replaced.  Meanwhile you get all the great performing new era companies and industries during their times of peak mature performance.  I genuinely question why it should be a shareholder priority for Berkshire's existence to be a an asset to the United States (particularly for any non-US citizens)?  Of course there is nothing wrong with helping the US in times of trouble but banks, energy companies, tech companies and many companies have and will offer assistance as needed without it being something the company Chairman has to focus on.  "Moderately better than average" future performance is not going to attract much in the way of buying excitement.  If Charlie were still alive, I don't think he would have approved.  

[gfp]

1 minute ago, 73 Reds said:

"Don't despair, America will come back and so will Berkshire shares"

 

I believe the context of this statement is what to do/feel when Berkshire's stock price falls by 50% or so, as has happened previously.

 

Not a comment on the current state of affairs with stocks near all time highs and Berkshire too overpriced to repurchase.

[Cigarbutt]

43 minutes ago, John Hjorth said:

Am I the the only person here on CofB&F sensing deep felt concerns between the lines from Mr. Buffett about what is going USA these days?

You are not the only person.

[Munger_Disciple]

41 minutes ago, gfp said:

 

I believe the context of this statement is what to do/feel when Berkshire's stock price falls by 50% or so, as has happened previously.

 

Not a comment on the current state of affairs with stocks near all time highs and Berkshire too overpriced to repurchase.

 

Warren communicated to us that he thinks the overall market is currently overvalued: "Because of Berkshire's size and because of market levels, ideas are few - but not zero."  (underlining mine)

Edited November 11, 2025 by Munger_Disciple

[John Hjorth]

37 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

John, clearly Buffett is no fan of current politics; he writes in his letter "Don't despair, America will come back and so will Berkshire shares".  His opinion of the present state of things requires little in the way of imagination.  That aside, taking Buffett at his word, what incentive would someone have to become a shareholder for the first time?  If safety/security is your number one objective, arguably owning the S&P 500 index (or an equivalent) is even better because poor-performing companies and even entire industries can and will be replaced.  Meanwhile you get all the great performing new era companies and industries during their times of peak mature performance.  I genuinely question why it should be a shareholder priority for Berkshire's existence to be a an asset to the United States (particularly for any non-US citizens)?  Of course there is nothing wrong with helping the US in times of trouble but banks, energy companies, tech companies and many companies have and will offer assistance as needed without it being something the company Chairman has to focus on.  "Moderately better than average" future performance is not going to attract much in the way of buying excitement.  If Charlie were still alive, I don't think he would have approved.  

 

Thank you, @73 Reds,

 

Your observation that it's not between the lines but in the lines is to me now indisputable. I simply need to do myself the service and favour of reading it - the letter - again. I will tomorrow do so, before posting much more here, however, with one exception today. I simply also need more time to think about the content of your post in this topic, in the post of yours quoted by hereby me.

 

Great input!

[John Hjorth]

1 hour ago, Cigarbutt said:

You are not the only person.

 

Do you, @Cigarbutt and @73 Reds think [speculate] it is eventually may be about building up cash reserves to getting orderly prepared for 'next time'? for such action in the next serious downturn. The mother of all crises sholpping spree's! - Perhaps eventually posthumously? - That would really be morbid!

[73 Reds]

1 hour ago, John Hjorth said:

 

Thank you, @73 Reds,

 

Your observation that it's not between the lines but in the lines is to me now indisputable. I simply need to do myself the service and favour of reading it - the letter - again. I will tomorrow do so, before posting much more here, however, with one exception today. I simply also need more time to think about the content of your post in this topic, in the post of yours quoted by hereby me.

 

Great input!

I dunno, John but I wish Charlie were still here.  Buffett seems very much in a quandry, to wit, he is keeping "a significant" number of A shares until shareholders become comfortable with Greg.  What the heck does that mean?   Buffett was the very best at running Berkshire and capital allocation and he is one of the best at judging character, but this whole stepping down and relinquishing control thing is a case of first impression for him and frankly he is not very good at it IMO.  Not a criticism, just my own opinion.  FWIW, I don't think some of his estate planning advice to the masses is wise either, even though it may work well for him and his family. 

[John Hjorth]

4 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

I dunno, John but I wish Charlie were still here.  Buffett seems very much in a quandry, to wit, he is keeping "a significant" number of A shares until shareholders become comfortable with Greg.  What the heck does that mean?   Buffett was the very best at running Berkshire and capital allocation and he is one of the best at judging character, but this whole stepping down and relinquishing control thing is a case of first impression for him and frankly he is not very good at it IMO.  Not a criticism, just my own opinion.  FWIW, I don't think some of his estate planning advice to the masses is wise either, even though it may work well for him and his family. 

 

@73 Reds,

 

Also that post of yours very well phrased, in my personal opinion.

 

Earlier on, he was preaching - what did Munger call it : 'Delegation verging towards abdication, based on trust', while getting a geriatric he appears more like a 'never let go' control freak, who really cant let go.

 

He is the father of all Berkaholics, the uber-Berkaholic of us all. If somebody would tell him his rights to his office at Berkshire HQ were revoked for other purposes, because he does not not need it any longer as chairman, to meet in regularly at it, were revoked, he would likely wither away pretty fast.

 

And I think he himself has realized, it's so for himself. It will likely not happen, because nor the board, nor Greg Abel likely would do  that to him.

 

So, I would not be surprised at all, if he ends his days sitting at what was his fathers desk, if I'm around longer than him.

 

There are traits of his personalty I really dislike, like getting heartbroken, loosing weight etc. after ridiculing himself and dishonoring both his wifey, mother of his kids, and himself publicly, after which to see himself outcompeted by wifeys tennis coach, likely because his wife wasen't supplied with a pool, thus no pool guy in the first place, to push around her bar wagon and keeping her happy doing miscellaneous stuff, based on a pretty wide job description. All while he already then was preaching 'integrity of management'.

 

Many years ago, I bought a copy of 'Snowball', it's the one and only Berkshire related book, that I'll likely end up never read in full. I hate it. I can't explain why I haven't already got rid of it.

 

His estate planning does not bother me personally much, but that's likely because I'm not the controlling  shareholder of what he calls 'his picture', worlds likely largest conglomerate. I certainly think differently about estate planning than him, not only because of that, like you.

Edited November 12, 2025 by John Hjorth

[charlieruane]

7 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

he is keeping "a significant" number of A shares until shareholders become comfortable with Greg.  What the heck does that mean?

 

Yeah, anyone have thoughts on what this accomplishes?

[Charlie]

3 hours ago, charlieruane said:

10 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

he is keeping "a significant" number of A shares until shareholders become comfortable with Greg.  What the heck does that mean?

 

Yeah, anyone have thoughts on what this accomplishes?

Buffett is and has always been a no-risk guy or as Benjamin Franklin said:

"Distrust and caution are the parents of security."

[73 Reds]

9 hours ago, John Hjorth said:

 

@73 Reds,

 

Also that post of yours very well phrased, in my personal opinion.

 

Earlier on, he was preaching - what did Munger call it : 'Delegation verging towards abdication, based on trust', while getting a geriatric he appears more like a 'never let go' control freak, who really cant let go.

 

He is the father of all Berkaholics, the uber-Berkaholic of us all. If somebody would tell him his rights to his office at Berkshire HQ were revoked for other purposes, because he does not not need it any longer as chairman, to meet in regularly at it, were revoked, he would likely wither away pretty fast.

 

And I think he himself has realized, it's so for himself. It will likely not happen, because nor the board, nor Greg Abel likely would do  that to him.

 

So, I would not be surprised at all, if he ends his days sitting at what was his fathers desk, if I'm around longer than him.

 

There are traits of his personalty I really dislike, like getting heartbroken, loosing weight etc. after ridiculing himself and dishonoring both his wifey, mother of his kids, and himself publicly, after which to see himself outcompeted by wifeys tennis coach, likely because his wife wasen't supplied with a pool, thus no pool guy in the first place, to push around her bar wagon and keeping her happy doing miscellaneous stuff, based on a pretty wide job description. All while he already then was preaching 'integrity of management'.

 

Many years ago, I bought a copy of 'Snowball', it's the one and only Berkshire related book, that I'll likely end up never read in full. I hate it. I can't explain why I haven't already got rid of it.

 

His estate planning does not bother me personally much, but that's likely because I'm not the controlling  shareholder of what he calls 'his picture', worlds likely largest conglomerate. I certainly think differently about estate planning than him, not only because of that, like you.

Well, I hope he sticks around Berkshire HQ as long as he wants, and is able and continues to be helpful.  Just kind of sad that this letter may be his last communication of any consequence.    Re. "Snowball" Alice did a good job profiling the man - the good and not so good.   Even our greatest heroes are anything but in real life.  It's called being human. 

[Hektor]

8 hours ago, charlieruane said:

Yeah, anyone have thoughts on what this accomplishes?

Did some large A shareholder(s) express concerns to him about the future leaders? Is he trying to assuage their concerns by saying he will keep his A shares until they are comfortable with the next leadership?

[gfp]

8 hours ago, charlieruane said:

 

Yeah, anyone have thoughts on what this accomplishes?

 

It's just a voting defense against a potential "activist investor," not something based on concerns from other A-share holders.

 

It would be very difficult to win a vote at Berkshire that Buffett didn't support and that has been the case for basically the entire time.  Even though his voting control is down around 30%, he still has de-facto control of the company.  The A-shares are mostly locked up and illiquid, so there is not real opportunity for an activist to accumulate a useful voting position.

[rogermunibond]

I'm glad he's maintaining control of the A shares, but I do wonder what happens when he does pass.

[73 Reds]

7 minutes ago, gfp said:

 

It's just a voting defense against a potential "activist investor," not something based on concerns from other A-share holders.

 

It would be very difficult to win a vote at Berkshire that Buffett didn't support and that has been the case for basically the entire time.  Even though his voting control is down around 30%, he still has de-facto control of the company.  The A-shares are mostly locked up and illiquid, so there is not real opportunity for an activist to accumulate a useful voting position.

Eventually the A shares will be unlocked; its only a matter of time.  Not all activist shareholders have bad intentions.  Brings us back to the Berkshire "culture".  Just what is it and what will it be post-Buffett?  Not sure why it should be anything but creating shareholder value in an ethical way.  

[gfp]

25 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Eventually the A shares will be unlocked; its only a matter of time.  Not all activist shareholders have bad intentions.  Brings us back to the Berkshire "culture".  Just what is it and what will it be post-Buffett?  Not sure why it should be anything but creating shareholder value in an ethical way.  

 

I think the A shares do not end up getting "unlocked" - I think between a combination of the one-way convertibility, Buffett's strong suggestion to long-term holders to convert before donating or offer blocks to the head office, and Berkshire's activity to repurchase A-shares despite their limited liquidity - the A-shares will continue to slowly disappear.

 

I don't see the A-shares as being the way a future "activist investor" disrupts Berkshire (demanding a break-up, dividend, etc)

 

Warren knows where a lot of the tightly held A-shares are.

[73 Reds]

Just now, gfp said:

 

I think the A shares do not end up getting "unlocked" - I think between a combination of the one-way convertibility, Buffett's strong suggestion to long-term holders to convert before donating or offer blocks to the head office, and Berkshire's activity to repurchase A-shares despite their limited liquidity - the A-shares will continue to slowly disappear.

 

I don't see the A-shares as being the way a future "activist investor" disrupts Berkshire (demanding a break-up, dividend, etc)

 

Warren knows where a lot of the tightly held A-shares are.

The A shares are tightly held directly because of Buffett.  But if he tries to hamstring Greg by imposing conditions, restrictions and limitations as to how to create shareholder value, shareholders will not be particularly happy and will ultimately vote with their pocket books.

[gfp]

1 minute ago, 73 Reds said:

The A shares are tightly held directly because of Buffett.  But if he tries to hamstring Greg by imposing conditions, restrictions and limitations as to how to create shareholder value, shareholders will not be particularly happy and will ultimately vote with their pocket books.

 

yeah I don't think that is what is happening or proposed.

[73 Reds]

Just now, gfp said:

 

yeah I don't think that is what is happening or proposed.

That is the part that is confusing.  Greg needs to have the authority and autonomy to act differently and perhaps go against what has been perceived as the Berkshire culture during Buffett's tenure.  

[73 Reds]

16 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

That is the part that is confusing.  Greg needs to have the authority and autonomy to act differently and perhaps go against what has been perceived as the Berkshire culture during Buffett's tenure.  

What I mean by that is Greg is not Buffett.  He does not possess the same capabilities and he is not starting off from a small base with lots of investment opportunities.  Buffett treated Berkshire as an empire to be built to the sky.  Well, its there now and the view from above is not terribly exciting.  If we are in a permanent or semi-permanent period of low interest rates, should we question just how valuable the insurance operation is on a going basis?  Hundreds of billions of dollars of float are wonderful but what can Berkshire do with it in its present iteration?  T-bills?  IMO Ted's and Todd's true talents (Geico aside) are being wasted.  

Edited November 12, 2025 by 73 Reds
word