Buffett/Berkshire - general news

[John Hjorth]

53 minutes ago, Munger_Disciple said:

I was not referring to you or anyone else by name.  Sorry if you took it the wrong way. In stead, I was discussing people (as a category) who seem to really want a dividend w/o understanding that there is a cost to it, when they can simply manufacture one easily that's far more advantageous for them. This would also enable each shareholder to take the "self manufactured dividend" at a time of their choosing w/o forcing others into it. 

 

Exactly this, expressed so it is bent in neon tubes by @Munger_Disciple.

 

Either by converting A shares to B shares, and then sell some of it, or 'just' by selling B shares, directly, at own discretion.

Edited November 14, 2025 by John Hjorth

[DooDiligence]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

@Munger_Disciple Not sure if you are accusing me mindlessly clamoring for dividends, because that is not at all my position. I am trying understand how I (or we) think the capital is going to be deployed going forward.  

 

Same here. I've never beat on a table about dividends, but would be fine if it happened.

[Buckeye]

2 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

@Buckeye I think the notion of "creating your own dividend" by selling shares misses the point altogether.  First of all, anyone can do this with any stock but hardly anyone does.  The reason is that for most people, stock ownership is a purely passive activity.  Ask yourself how many people would own almost any dividend-paying stocks but not for the dividend.  Which brings us to precisely the issue; that being demand for the stock.  The demand for Berkshire shares during Buffett's tenure has been almost entirely and directly due to Buffett.  Now what after he is gone?  His successor is taking over a company with almost no investment opportunities if he sticks to all the investing principles that Buffett has espoused.  How does anyone predict success?  Why would anyone who does not currently own shares now be interested in becoming a shareholder?  These are ripe issues for discussion now that Buffett is weeks away from stepping down.  

It’s starting to sound like maybe we don’t need to worry attracting new shareholders at this point? Don’t we sort of need fewer shareholders?

Edited November 14, 2025 by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, Munger_Disciple said:

 

I was not referring to you or anyone else by name.  Sorry if you took it the wrong way. In stead, I was discussing people (as a category) who seem to really want a dividend w/o understanding that there is a cost to it, when they can simply manufacture one easily that's far more advantageous for them. This would also enable each shareholder to take the "self manufactured dividend" at a time of their choosing w/o forcing others into it. 

Yep, we’re both on the same page! It’s of course all good problems to have/think about…what to do with all of the money!? 

[Spooky]

13F has them buying some GOOGL. The one that got away...

[Spooky]

1 hour ago, Eldad said:

Greg is such a black box to me. Everything about him screams slick corporate dude that would want to spend 350 Bil on buybacks as soon as humanly possible. But then WB keeps telling me he is not that way. 

 

The guy is a hockey playing Canadian from Alberta...

[Spooky]

Please no dividend! It is more tax efficient for BRK to keep the funds. Also, as a foreigner, I will get hit with withholding tax on top of regular tax since these shares are mostly in taxable accounts. Not paying a dividend is a selling point for me.

Edited November 14, 2025 by Spooky

[valueinvesting101]

1 hour ago, Munger_Disciple said:

 

 Well done @gfp! And you didn't force me to take one either 

There will be some cost basis so not entire $5150 will NOT be taxable. May be it can even offset some losses in other part of the portfolio. 

[Munger_Disciple]

45 minutes ago, valueinvesting101 said:

There will be some cost basis so entire $5150 will NOT be taxable. May be it can even offset some losses in other part of the portfolio. 

 

Yes, that's the additional advantage to your own "manufactured dividend" unlike the one-size-fits-all standard dividend, 100% of which is taxed. 

Edited November 15, 2025 by Munger_Disciple

[John Hjorth]

48 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

It’s starting to sound like maybe we don’t need to worry attracting new shareholders at this point? Don’t we sort of need fewer shareholders?

 

We don't need more Berkshire shareholders, we need more shareholders from the right mold. Let the damn thing sink to what ever, .... 0.7 book value, whatever, and we'll just find more money somewhere to pick up, more!

 

Heck, some day when Warren Buffett is gone, here  on CofB&F, eventually a self grown idea of a SPAC called BHH will a rise from out of nothing, in the articles of association for it will be mentioned, that the purpose of the vehicle is to achieve Berkshire in pratice voting control, so CofB&F will eventually take effective control over the whole thing, the articles of association will also mumble something about a secondary long term goal of word domination. We will naturally appoint @gfp to be CEO of the thing. Entry card will be a tax free swap of your Berkshire shares for BHH shares. All B shares contributed to the thing will be dumped gradually, to pick up A shares for the proceeds from the selling of contributed B shares.

 

It's going to be just great, it simply can't fail, it's simply doomed to become a resounding success, and I think you read it here first. 

Edited November 14, 2025 by John Hjorth

[ValueMaven]

The business generates about ~$40 billion of normalized operating income annually.  Even a modest dividend 1% which would equate to a 25% payout ratio (roughly) and allow the for more then enough fire-power when needed.  Honestly with $360 billion or whatever the number is in T-bills - interest income is a real source of low-risk earnings.  

[villainx]

7 hours ago, Munger_Disciple said:

A dollar inside Berkshire is a buck-fifty and just a lowly taxable dollar outside berkshire. 

 

Can't say what happens if dividend is instituted, could lead to more demand for stock, and price to book can go higher.  Right?

 

 

[alpha]

On 11/7/2025 at 5:20 AM, gfp said:

 

Hey Dana, he said (I'm clipping out my name)

 

 

gfp should be on stage at next years annual meeting to answer shareholder questions 

[73 Reds]

14 hours ago, Buckeye said:

It’s starting to sound like maybe we don’t need to worry attracting new shareholders at this point? Don’t we sort of need fewer shareholders?

The "Singleton" M/O won't fly.  The problem is there are a relative few longstanding shareholders who will not let the price get too cheap.  But that doesn't make the stock a great investment if it cannot consistently uncover new acquisitions because the upside is limited.  Google shares is a good start but Berkshire generates the cost of all the new Google shares in little over one month's time.  If something changes and size is no longer an "impediment" then no one wants a dividend.  Otherwise, new shareholders mean more demand for the stock.  A dividend would result in most or all growth and income funds buying and maintaining Berkshire shares.  Many individual buyers too would develop a newfound interest in the stock.  In no way would a dividend preclude Berkshire from buying anything it wants; that is a silly excuse.  Nor would it endanger the Berkshire empire, which will continue to grow, albeit a bit slower.  Who invests in Berkshire for more T-Bills?      

[gfp]

Here's an article published in today's Des Moines Register by Greg Abel, honoring Bill Knapp

 

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/iowa-view/2025/11/15/bill-knapp-memories-greg-abel/87292945007/

[ValueMaven]

Does anyone have the Barrons cover story on Berkshire to share possibly?

[John Hjorth]

7 minutes ago, ValueMaven said:

Does anyone have the Barrons cover story on Berkshire to share possibly?

 

Here we go, @ValueMaven,

 

Attatched.

 

Barrons - Berkshire Without Warren Buffett_ What’s Next for the Company and the Stock -20251115.pdf

Edited November 15, 2025 by John Hjorth

[ValueMaven]

@John Hjorth thank you sir!!

[ValueMaven]

wow this is a really bad article.  How do you not include BNSF in the Buyer's Remorse table?  That would be an A+ and was the largest of them all

[bookie71]

This article shows that the market is ready to implode. It mirrors many over the years, he doesn't understand technology, and on and on ad nauseum

.

 

[treasurehunt]

7 hours ago, ValueMaven said:

wow this is a really bad article.  How do you not include BNSF in the Buyer's Remorse table?  That would be an A+ and was the largest of them all

 

Maybe because the table lists acquisitions in the last 15 years and the BNSF purchase is just outside that window? But I agree that it is somewhat misleading.

[Buckeye]

The table being titled “Buyers Remorse” is misleading, as it shouldn’t have included Allegheny and Pilot Co. (or BNSF for that matter). 

[Xerxes]

My major beef with author who write for Barron’s on Berkshire is not so much his grading of Berkshire investment, rather his inability to see Berkshire investment portfolio as an integrated part of an industrial/insurance company. And seeing it totally in isolation as if it was a money management business. 
 

So all his comments on Berkshire buy/sell has a childish tilt to it. Ex: he sold but than it went up. 

[John Hjorth]

1 hour ago, Xerxes said:

My major beef with author who write for Barron’s on Berkshire is not so much his grading of Berkshire investment, rather his inability to see Berkshire investment portfolio as an integrated part of an industrial/insurance company. And seeing it totally in isolation as if it was a money management business. 
 

So all his comments on Berkshire buy/sell has a childish tilt to it. Ex: he sold but than it went up. 

 

After chewing on the content of the article without commenting on it I've come to a very similar, opinion, very much like yours, @Xerxes. We simply view it differently than Andrew Bary, and I'm quite sure it's us, not him, that are holding on in the long end of the rope with regard to understanding the terms and conditions for engagement here.

 

Not one word from Andrew Bary about the really unparallelled structural advantages Berkshire has compared to almost anything else :

• Likely worlds largest and best insurance outfit,
• Large insurance float, running at a typical negative cost in most years [but not all],
• Large [world champion] deferred taxes, financing assets, at zero cost, if corporation tax rates over time are constant, basically simply by doing the same thing for more than 60 years now, year in, year out, mostly just holding on to things, stocks and stuff acquired earlier, in stead of being transactional],
• Exploiting tax advantages from joint taxation of all kinds of American based companies,
• Very low financing costs on debt because of it's rating, based solidity, &
• Basically no bank debt of any materiality in the whole group of Berskhire companies, so no debt to bank [or banks], thus no bank [or banks] ever to say : 'Now I [we] shall tell you what you need to do' [meaning 'To stay in good standing with me [us]', having established an internal bank in stead.

Edited November 16, 2025 by John Hjorth

[ValueMaven]

well said @John Hjorth !!!