Buffett/Berkshire - general news

[Pellom]

2 hours ago, gfp said:

 

that's exactly right.  All his shares will be sold, none will be sold by him, and he has modestly accelerated the process.  If he lives a couple more years, we should see all his shares converted and sold by 12-15 years from now.  (it will be hard to hit the 10 year thing exactly so there is probably some leeway there)

 

Much like interest rates aren't set by the supply of government borrowing, I don't think Buffett's shares coming into the market will be the defining factor on Berkshire's trading price.

 

Index weightings will gradually increase as the "free float" increases.  Berkshire will repurchase shares.  The stock will trade on its merits as an investment.

 

2 hours ago, sleepydragon said:

Not necessarily, cuz the weight of various index of brk will increase due to more shares become free float, providing support to the stocks has etfs will have to buy more brk to minic the index

Got it. Market mechanics are over my head. 

 

Could be a pretty interesting way to round trip all the cash Berkshire has -- start buying back shares around the time the kids' foundations start selling. 

[John Hjorth]

29 minutes ago, Charlie said:

Mohnish Pabrai has a bad reputation here, but I often find he says interesting things:

 

"One thing Warren Buffett says is that you get a punch card, which you can

punch 20 times in your lifetime. Each time you buy a stock, one punch is

gone. What Warren is saying is that if there were a rule that said that you

cannot buy more than 20 stocks in your whole life, you would be thoughtful

about what you bought. Those decisions might be good because you only

have 19 left and then 18 left, and so on.

In venture investing, a small sliver of companies that venture capitalists

invest in do well. If we look at the stock market, 4% of listed companies

generate 90% of the return. Most companies that we may think about

investing in are likely not to do well for us. It is a 96% odds, and that is why

the index is so important. When you buy the index, you buy that 4%. If you

go pick stocks, you have about a one in 25 chance of getting one of those

4%."

"Warren Buffett has said that over his 50 years of running Berkshire

Hathaway, he has made hundreds of investments, and only 12 have moved

the needle for Berkshire Hathaway. It is the same 3 or 4% rule, where if we

say that Warren made 300 investments (he probably made more than 300),

only 12 have resulted in what we see as Berkshire Hathaway today. The

important thing was not the buy decision on those 12; it was never selling

them."

 

"The S&P has plenty of periods where it does nothing. It is somewhat

overheated right now. But if you have a long enough time horizon and you

are dollar-cost averaging in, it is perfectly okay. What you could also do as

an alternative is buy Berkshire Hathaway. That is a stock, BRK.B. You could

tell these people to just put it into Berkshire Hathaway. It is like an index.

Again, it is a “set it and forget it” approach. You do not need to think about

the investing side. You focus on the yellow, and keep putting this little

money away on the side, and it is going to compound. Let us go over this

example. At 18, you put away $5,000, with a 10% return on the money. Fast

forward to when you are 68, 50 years later. Let us say every seven years,

your money doubles. Using the Rule of 72, if you divide 70 by 10, that is

seven, 50 years is seven doubles. Seven times seven is 49. Two to the power

of seven is 128. We can throw away the 28 to keep it simple. You are going

to have a hundred times what you started with. So the 5,000 at 18 is going

to be 500,000 at 68. At 19, if you put in another 5,000, that is another

500,000. At 20, you might have 10,000 you can put in. You can start seeing

that over a lifetime, you are going to have too much money.

 

http://www.chaiwithpabrai.com/uploads/5/5/1/3/55139655/20250917_mohnish_pabrais_session_at_the_diary_of_a_ceo_on_july_13_2025_v3.pdf

 

 

Cheers!

 

Cheers @Charlie,

 

Which brings us back to what Monish is actually doing with his own, and client money, which is totally different than what he is preaching, after which we are going full cricle in the wrong topic.

[gfp]

Some of the younger members of this board probably don't remember that Berkshire stock actually goes up from time to time

[John Hjorth]

1 minute ago, gfp said:

Some of the younger members of this board probably don't remember that Berkshire stock actually goes up from time to time

 

*chuckle*  - I personally learn a lot about southern US humor here on CofB&F!

[sleepydragon]

8 minutes ago, gfp said:

Some of the younger members of this board probably don't remember that Berkshire stock actually goes up from time to time

I found all the messages from my wife to me complaining about brk’s stock price since july and sent back to her. Among them, my favorite: “brk is as annoying as you”

[John Hjorth]

12 minutes ago, sleepydragon said:

I found all the messages from my wife to me complaining about brk’s stock price since july and sent back to her. Among them, my favorite: “brk is as annoying as you”

 

There is actually nothing like living together with, perhaps even to be married to, the very person that you love, that person also amalgated with the person loving you back! 

Edited November 13, 2025 by John Hjorth

[Munger_Disciple]

Andrew Bary on Berkshire in Barron's:

https://www.barrons.com/articles/warren-buffett-berkshire-hathaway-stock-4a63d0e3?st=aTaSE4&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

 

Not much new, but this caught my eye: Besides Abel, Berkshire’s most important executive is Ajit Jain, 74, the head of insurance operations, a brilliant insurance risk assessor and a Buffett confidant for nearly 40 years. He may retire in the next year or two. Potential replacements are the Berkshire insurance executives Kara Raiguel of reinsurer General Re and Joe Brandon of Alleghany.

 

I hope it is pure speculation by Bary & wish that Ajit stays running insurance biz well into his 80s or longer. 

 

And I don't think Abel will start doing quarterly calls despite Andrew's suggestions. 

[ValueMaven]

Andrew Bary basically runs and re-runs the same article times on Berkshire, as well as a collection of odd-ball businesses.  He does not have any unique insights at all in my view.

[Blugolds]

1 hour ago, ValueMaven said:

Andrew Bary basically runs and re-runs the same article times on Berkshire, as well as a collection of odd-ball businesses.  He does not have any unique insights at all in my view.

Same thought, unremarkable article and borderline lazy. Also some comments he made re “aging shareholder base” and instituting a dividend. Those who have significant wealth in BRK appreciated over decades, including those with him from the beginning will pass on to heirs and I don’t believe they will be in a hurry to sell. Secondly, the div has been brought up previously and has generated a resounding “No” vote from shareholders.
 

 The article does nothing but state the obvious to anyone who is even mildly familiar with BRK. Greg isn’t WB, big shoes to fill, no elephants since Apple stake, what is he gonna do to beat the SP500. 
 

When you have such a significant phenom like WB, even if he is the GOAT, succession always raises the same criticism and skepticism, we saw the same with Steve Jobs vs Tim Cook “you can’t replace a Steve Jobs, he’s 1 in a million, he’s the GOAT” etc. 

 

 

[John Hjorth]

2 hours ago, ValueMaven said:

Andrew Bary basically runs and re-runs the same article times on Berkshire, as well as a collection of odd-ball businesses.  He does not have any unique insights at all in my view.

 

@ValueMaven,

 

lol! - Thinking about it, it actually appears not appalling to me, but more like some kind of sad. I must be out of my mind! 'I'm in the' print - reprint' business, and it works great!' - Please give me a break here! 

[Munger_Disciple]

54 minutes ago, Blugolds said:

Same thought, unremarkable article and borderline lazy. Also some comments he made re “aging shareholder base” and instituting a dividend. Those who have significant wealth in BRK appreciated over decades, including those with him from the beginning will pass on to heirs and I don’t believe they will be in a hurry to sell. Secondly, the div has been brought up previously and has generated a resounding “No” vote from shareholders.
 

 The article does nothing but state the obvious to anyone who is even mildly familiar with BRK. Greg isn’t WB, big shoes to fill, no elephants since Apple stake, what is he gonna do to beat the SP500. 
 

When you have such a significant phenom like WB, even if he is the GOAT, succession always raises the same criticism and skepticism, we saw the same with Steve Jobs vs Tim Cook “you can’t replace a Steve Jobs, he’s 1 in a million, he’s the GOAT” etc. 

 

 

 

I agree it's one of the worse articles by Bary. The dividend emphasis is crazy; most BRK holders want anything but a dividend. Many months ago, I pointed out an error to him via email in his (at that time) latest article & he didn't thank me or anything. He initially insisted he was right until I sent him backup material when he reluctantly admitted the error. 

 

Bary also seems to be making up stuff about Ajit's retirement w/o any hard work talking to reliable sources etc that a good reporter is supposed to. Ajit is made from the same cloth as Warren & shareholders are lucky that he loves his job & continues to add huge value to BRK. I hope he keeps on working for at least a decade. 

Edited November 14, 2025 by Munger_Disciple

[Buckeye]

I am surprised by the "blowback" from the recent Barron's article by Andrew Bary.  I didn't think it was that bad of an article and actually think he brought up a few valid points.  I try to remind myself that these articles are usually written for the less-informed shareholders, and not us BRK junkies who hang on every punctuation of every press release.  These articles help show me what the average person may be thinking about the business.

 

Re: Ajit retirement - Of course this is pure speculation, but that doesn't make it wrong, does it?  It's a very valid concern (and one that I hadn't been thinking about lately, TBH) and one that may need addressed in the near future.  Perhaps this is another reason the stock has underperformed, or one reason it may underperform in the near future.  Perhaps Andrew mentioning it, could give a little nudge/hint to Warren and Greg, that this topic may need addressed. 

 

And since we're speculating, what's everyone's take on Ajit's future with the company?  I know he recently had some stock sales, which prompted a discussion on this topic at this time, so it's not like it's a controversial topic.  I'm sure most shareholders, like myself, would love for Ajit to stay on for many years and decades to come, but at the same time, I wouldn't be surprised to see him retire in the next 3-5 years either.     

 

Re: Dividend - In the past, most shareholders have been adamantly against paying a dividend.  And rightfully so!  But things are changing and we are about to lose one the the best capital allocators in the world.  With this new development, paying a dividend doesn't seem so "wrong" to me now.  We know that perhaps paying a regular dividend could potentially hamstring the business if the capital is needed elsewhere, but a special dividend (A la Costco) could make financial sense to me.  Am I the only one who believes that BRKB may begin to trade at a higher multiple, if it were to pay a dividend?  Also, couldn't the argument be made that paying a few small dividends in the past could have potentially reduced the "issue" we have now of too much capital, with not many options for its use?  And if so, then wouldn't starting to pay a dividend now, help alleviate the issue from getting "worse" in the future?

 

Re: Quarterly Calls - Personally, I don't really care one way or the other, but it's not a horrible suggestions IMO.  It would give us shareholders 4 more times each year to hear from our new CEO.  I would like that.  Fairfax holds quarterly calls and it appears as though they provide a lot of additional valuable information.

 

Re: Aging shareholder base - Sure, most longtime shareholders won't sell because of this transition, but we do know that the largest shareholder will be essentially liquidating his entire position within the next 10-15 years.  Hopefully BRK will hoover up as many as these newly released shares, but we will certainly want/need some new shareholders to help pick up the torch.

 

Edited November 14, 2025 by Buckeye

[73 Reds]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

I am surprised by the "blowback" from the recent Barron's article by Andrew Bary.  I didn't think it was that bad of an article and actually think he brought up a few valid points.  I try to remind myself that these articles are usually written for the less-informed shareholders, and not us BRK junkies who hang on every punctuation of every press release.  These articles help show me what the average person may be thinking about the business.

 

Re: Ajit retirement - Of course this is pure speculation, but that doesn't make it wrong, does it?  It's a very valid concern (and one that I hadn't been thinking about lately, TBH) and one that may need addressed in the near future.  Perhaps this is another reason the stock has underperformed, or one reason it may underperform in the near future.  Perhaps Andrew mentioning it, could give a little nudge/hint to Warren and Greg, that this topic may need addressed. 

 

And since we're speculating, what's everyone's take on Ajit's future with the company?  I know he recently had some stock sales, which prompted a discussion on this topic at this time, so it's not like it's a controversial topic.  I'm sure most shareholders, like myself, would love for Ajit to stay on for many years and decades to come, but at the same time, I wouldn't be surprised to see him retire in the next 3-5 years either.     

 

Re: Dividend - In the past, most shareholders have been adamantly against paying a dividend.  And rightfully so!  But things are changing and we are about to lose one the the best capital allocators in the world.  With this new development, paying a dividend doesn't seem so "wrong" to me now.  We know that perhaps paying a regular dividend could potentially hamstring the business if the capital is needed elsewhere, but a special dividend (A la Costco) could make financial sense to me.  Am I the only one who believes that BRKB may begin to trade at a higher multiple, if it were to pay a dividend?  Also, couldn't the argument be made that paying a few small dividends in the past could have potentially reduced the "issue" we have now of too much capital, with not many options for its use?  And if so, then wouldn't starting to pay a dividend now, help alleviate the issue from getting "worse" in the future?

 

Re: Quarterly Calls - Personally, I don't really care one way or the other, but it's not a horrible suggestions IMO.  It would give us shareholders 4 more times each year to hear from our new CEO.  I would like that.  Fairfax holds quarterly calls and it appears as though they provide a lot of additional valuable information.

 

Re: Aging shareholder base - Sure, most longtime shareholders won't sell because of this transition, but we do know that the largest shareholder will be essentially liquidating his entire position within the next 10-15 years.  Hopefully BRK will hoover up as many as these newly released shares, but we will certainly want/need some new shareholders to help pick up the torch.

 

Couldn't read the article (paywall) but your points are valid.  Re: a dividend, how many more times and ways does Buffett have to tell us that his investment options are limited?  If so, isn't that the reason for a dividend?  It also creates demand for the stock; anyone have a problem with that?  As a 40+ year shareholder I've never wanted a dividend and if new management changes its tune about lack of feasible investments I still don't want one.  Otherwise, a dividend is better than the return on T-Bills. 

[zzzyx]

27 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Re: a dividend, how many more times and ways does Buffett have to tell us that his investment options are limited?  If so, isn't that the reason for a dividend?  It also creates demand for the stock; anyone have a problem with that?  As a 40+ year shareholder I've never wanted a dividend and if new management changes its tune about lack of feasible investments I still don't want one.  Otherwise, a dividend is better than the return on T-Bills. 

Agree....with the change command and the now enormous size I would not be disappointed at all if BRK started paying a reasonable dividend.   Makes sense in a lot of different ways and takes some pressure off Abel to place all the cash.

[DooDiligence]

1 minute ago, zzzyx said:

Agree....with the change command and the now enormous size I would not be disappointed at all if BRK started paying a reasonable dividend.   Makes sense in a lot of different ways and takes some pressure off Abel to place all the cash.

 

Also agree. Never could understand the morbid fear of a dividend.

[gfp]

I would be shocked if they paid a dividend before Warren passes.  Once his shares are in the foundations they can pay dividends all they please.

 

Does that policy make sense for all shareholder?  Maybe not.  But you can sell BRK stock any time you want at a premium to book value per share and a cash dividend is worse than that.

[John Hjorth]

7 minutes ago, DooDiligence said:

Also agree. Never could understand the morbid fear of a dividend.

 

Are your Berkshire shares in a taxable account, or tax deferred account, or some mixed allocation, @Jeff [ @DooDiligence ] ?

[John Hjorth]

4 minutes ago, gfp said:

I would be shocked if they paid a dividend before Warren passes.  Once his shares are in the foundations they can pay dividends all they please.

 

Does that policy make sense for all shareholder?  Maybe not.  But you can sell BRK stock any time you want at a premium to book value per share and a cash dividend is worse than that.

 

Exactly. Thanks @gfp.

[DooDiligence]

1 minute ago, John Hjorth said:

 

Are your Berkshire shares in a taxable account, or tax deferred account, or some mixed allocation, @Jeff [ @DooDiligence ] ?

 

Mixed. Also never could understand the morbid fear of taxes. I wish I paid $1,000,000 a year in taxes.

[Buckeye]

28 minutes ago, gfp said:

I would be shocked if they paid a dividend before Warren passes.  Once his shares are in the foundations they can pay dividends all they please.

 

Does that policy make sense for all shareholder?  Maybe not.  But you can sell BRK stock any time you want at a premium to book value per share and a cash dividend is worse than that.

@gfp I have been thinking this same thing along the lines of…Warren is essentially the founder/majority owner of Berkshire. And if Berkshire were to pay out a dividend, while he was alive, he would be on the hook for taxes, for what was essentially him paying himself some of his own money.  I’d be pissed about that if I were him.

 

But for any other shareholder (except for maybe Charlie, when he was alive?), I don’t think we get to have the same argument. I know that financially speaking, we would be in the same “boat,”  whether you own 1 share, or all of the shares, but somehow it feels different.   

Edited November 14, 2025 by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

16 minutes ago, DooDiligence said:

 

Mixed. Also never could understand the morbid fear of taxes. I wish I paid $1,000,000 a year in taxes.

@DooDiligence This is something I have just started to think about too. Can anyone point to, or imagine a scenario where the current BRK shareholders would be in a better position (financially speaking) today, if BRK had paid out some dividends in the past? 
 

Is this an instance that could invoke the “more money has been lost trying to minimize taxes…” argument? Or is that now how the maths, math?

[73 Reds]

Just now, Buckeye said:

@gfp I have been thinking this same thing along the lines of…Warren is essentially the founder/majority owner of Berkshire. And if Berkshire were to pay out a dividend, while he was alive, he would be on the hook for taxes, for what was essentially him paying himself some of his own money.  I’d be pissed about that if I were him.

 

But for any other shareholder (except for Charlie), I don’t think we get to have the same argument. I know that financially speaking, we would be in the same “boat,”  whether you own 1 share, or all of the shares, but somehow it feels different.   

Well, the irony is Buffett and Charlie talked about eventually having to pay a dividend many years back if a certain 5-year return threshold was not met.  I forget the precise details but piling into T-Bills year after year waiting for either a downturn of epic proportions or a gratuitous business owner were not the only investment alternatives available at that time.  To GFP's point, any hint of a dividend by the BOD would certainly be discussed and cleared with Buffett in advance.  

[Hektor]

39 minutes ago, gfp said:

I would be shocked if they paid a dividend before Warren passes.

+1

[Buckeye]

13 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Well, the irony is Buffett and Charlie talked about eventually having to pay a dividend many years back if a certain 5-year return threshold was not met.  I forget the precise details but piling into T-Bills year after year waiting for either a downturn of epic proportions or a gratuitous business owner were not the only investment alternatives available at that time.  To GFP's point, any hint of a dividend by the BOD would certainly be discussed and cleared with Buffett in advance.  

@73 Reds I recall that mention of the threshold too, but for some reason, think it was more (or only) attributed to Charlie? I thought he made some remark about it, but can’t remember if Warren commented on the topic issue as well. Either way, the topic seems to have faded away. 
 

You mentioned up thread that if mgmt were to change its tune about lack of investments, and institute a dividend (I presume), you still wouldn’t want a dividend. Under that scenario, what would you suggest they do with the capital then? If you don’t mind me asking. Thanks. 

[gfp]

27 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

@gfp I have been thinking this same thing along the lines of…Warren is essentially the founder/majority owner of Berkshire. And if Berkshire were to pay out a dividend, while he was alive, he would be on the hook for taxes, for what was essentially him paying himself some of his own money.  I’d be pissed about that if I were him.

 

But for any other shareholder (except for maybe Charlie, when he was alive?), I don’t think we get to have the same argument. I know that financially speaking, we would be in the same “boat,”  whether you own 1 share, or all of the shares, but somehow it feels different.   

 

The shares are neatly destined for charity.  Warren will have essentially never sold a share and it all goes back to society.  The money is inside the shares and going to charity.  A dollar of cash is valued at more than a dollar inside Berkshire according to the market price that has persisted, whether it is 1.2x, 1.5x or whatever.

 

A dollar inside Berkshire is a buck-fifty and just a lowly taxable dollar outside berkshire.  It's like robbing the poor kids in Africa and the ladies trying to find a planned parenthood that's still open!