Buffett/Berkshire - general news

[Parsad]

16 hours ago, Eldad said:

Legal concept of Standing disagrees with you. 
 

His lenders said they did not materially disagree with his personal financial statements and would make the loans again. The decision was horrible, whatever you think of Trump. 

 

I'm sure the bankers for Enron also didn't have any issue with the statements provided by Arthur Anderson when they were lending money as well.  Legal concept of Standing disagreed there as well!  Cheers!

[Dynamic]

3 hours ago, scorpioncapital said:

anybody know on what date the mystery non 13-f disclosed investment(s) brk has made is coming out?

 

I'm pretty sure nobody knows. If they complete their activity in the confidential treatment they may have the full filing published at any time, possibly via a revised 13F-HR filing for each period or at least the most recent.

 

The other trigger might be reaching a reporting threshold such as 5% ownership or 10% ownership though I'm not certain if they can request that the Form 4 and 13D or 13G filings they submit to the SEC also remain confidential to them and aren't published until later. I expect @gfp would be our expert on this. I've only read some of the rules about confidential treatment.

 

Eventually, either they cease to apply for confidential treatment or it is denied, presumably because the public interest in disclosure is deemed to outweigh the commercial interest in confidentiality..

 

The 13F-HR must be filed within 45 days of a calendar quarter ending and Berkshire uses the full 45 days, so the 31st March filing will be out on 15th May. Every other quarter comes out on the 14th of a month, being August, November or February, so if it remains confidential we'll find out on May 15th

Edited March 21 by Dynamic

[Eldad]

1 hour ago, Parsad said:

 

I'm sure the bankers for Enron also didn't have any issue with the statements provided by Arthur Anderson when they were lending money as well.  Legal concept of Standing disagreed there as well!  Cheers!

Enron’s lenders and investors had no issue with AAs financial statements after the fact? 
 

Trump’s lenders have no issue presently. As in after the alleged fraud. The bankers basically say no fraud. The loans have already been paid off. They took his unaudited PFS and did their own DD as to the subjective values. Like all bankers should. They testified that they had no issue with his values in this trial and the state of NY still did what they did. 
 

Standing: a case cannot be brought by an unharmed party. 
 

Sorry but your point makes no sense and is in no way analogous. 

[Eldad]

3 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

I'm sure the bankers for Enron also didn't have any issue with the statements provided by Arthur Anderson when they were lending money as well.  Legal concept of Standing disagreed there as well!  Cheers!

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-lawsuit-trial-new-york-53313f64d57b0aa99f756c2c791d29ab
 

The banker in question saying no fraud, no harm. 

[LC]

We need a "Trump financial news" thread. My two cents - after seeing this guy skirt the law and fleece anyone he could simply because he had power over them, for DECADES in NY...I do think it's hilarious that he is on the receiving end.

 

Do I with the law was transparent and principled and we all played by the same set of rules and the various systems of justice enforced it all equally? Of course. But sadly it isn't...as Trump himself fully knows. To me it looks like he played his hand too strong and it's biting him in the ass. 

 

But don't fret - I'm sure daddy Putin or whomever will come to his aid and let the courts play out this charade another few years  

[Eldad]

11 minutes ago, LC said:

We need a "Trump financial news" thread. My two cents - after seeing this guy skirt the law and fleece anyone he could simply because he had power over them, for DECADES in NY...I do think it's hilarious that he is on the receiving end.

 

Do I with the law was transparent and principled and we all played by the same set of rules and the various systems of justice enforced it all equally? Of course. But sadly it isn't...as Trump himself fully knows. To me it looks like he played his hand too strong and it's biting him in the ass. 

 

But don't fret - I'm sure daddy Putin or whomever will come to his aid and let the courts play out this charade another few years  

Exactly, this judgement is a bill of attainder for all of Trumps past sins and has nothing to do with the facts of the case. 
 

Plus an extremely excessive and unconstitutional fine. If NY starts seizing assets, I think Trump wins. And then its payback time and the “American tailwind” may be over for BRK holders. 

[LC]

And Capone went to jail for tax evasion. None of this is new. 

[Eldad]

9 minutes ago, LC said:

And Capone went to jail for tax evasion. None of this is new. 

Haha he is an ex-president of the US being actively hunted by the political opposition on every front. 
 

Not saying Trump hasn’t done his part, but all of this is definitely completely new for the US. 

[villainx]

1 hour ago, LC said:

I do think it's hilarious that he is on the receiving end.

 

As someone who cannot stand Trump, and identify as extremely liberal, I'll say what NY AG did was awful.   I'd go so far as say it's stomach turning disgusting.  

Edited March 22 by villainx

[Cigarbutt]

23 hours ago, Eldad said:

Legal concept of Standing disagrees with you. 
His lenders said they did not materially disagree with his personal financial statements and would make the loans again. The decision was horrible, whatever you think of Trump. 

Note: slippery slope for 'discussion' here but the angle is why BRK (this was likely a CEO decision) declined to 'participate' (for a potential profit) in the surety bond.

Above was mentioned that a surety bond of that nature is equivalent to a bond (lending agreement) where capital, capacity, collateral and character assessment play inter-dependent roles (one criteria could compensate for another but one criteria may be enough to decline). Character assessment is one of Mr. Buffett's strength but he's been recently disappointed (alluded to in last annual report) and likely increased the margin of safety required for that part. There are times when the risk-return profile is simply not adequate given the type of risk involved. As far as collateral, liquid assets are normally required for this kind of 'bond' and real estate does not fit the bill.

Now, as far as the outcome of the appeal, which is another consideration, a criminal offense of fraud does not require a victim. There is legal context for this and recognized criteria but common sense will tell you that, if you are caught crossing a red light with your car, a defense implying that there was no victim or harm may not be your best legal strategy to invalidate the infraction.

There is out there some discussion about the origin of the legal concept of Standing which involves a balance between community and individual autonomy as well as the efficient functioning of courts but the following is a balanced (opinion) view from a reasonable group (moderate-center, objective, high level of fact checking) which assesses the odds of success for appeal:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4690963

[Eldad]

9 hours ago, Cigarbutt said:

Note: slippery slope for 'discussion' here but the angle is why BRK (this was likely a CEO decision) declined to 'participate' (for a potential profit) in the surety bond.

Above was mentioned that a surety bond of that nature is equivalent to a bond (lending agreement) where capital, capacity, collateral and character assessment play inter-dependent roles (one criteria could compensate for another but one criteria may be enough to decline). Character assessment is one of Mr. Buffett's strength but he's been recently disappointed (alluded to in last annual report) and likely increased the margin of safety required for that part. There are times when the risk-return profile is simply not adequate given the type of risk involved. As far as collateral, liquid assets are normally required for this kind of 'bond' and real estate does not fit the bill.

Now, as far as the outcome of the appeal, which is another consideration, a criminal offense of fraud does not require a victim. There is legal context for this and recognized criteria but common sense will tell you that, if you are caught crossing a red light with your car, a defense implying that there was no victim or harm may not be your best legal strategy to invalidate the infraction.

There is out there some discussion about the origin of the legal concept of Standing which involves a balance between community and individual autonomy as well as the efficient functioning of courts but the following is a balanced (opinion) view from a reasonable group (moderate-center, objective, high level of fact checking) which assesses the odds of success for appeal:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4690963

NY is claiming he hurt the integrity of NY business generally as the standing. 
 

Very abstract and far-fetched when the lender testifies on behalf of the defense. Combine that with the over the top fine and it’s just a complete joke. 
 

Anyway, sorry to derail the thread. As BRK shareholder I want no part of it for BRK. 

[omahafloat]

Pls move the Law/Trump discussion of the Berkshire thread.  Thank you!

[Parsad]

On 3/21/2024 at 2:41 PM, Eldad said:

Enron’s lenders and investors had no issue with AAs financial statements after the fact? 
 

Trump’s lenders have no issue presently. As in after the alleged fraud. The bankers basically say no fraud. The loans have already been paid off. They took his unaudited PFS and did their own DD as to the subjective values. Like all bankers should. They testified that they had no issue with his values in this trial and the state of NY still did what they did. 
 

Standing: a case cannot be brought by an unharmed party. 
 

Sorry but your point makes no sense and is in no way analogous. 

 

Sorry, but so far all levels of the legal system disagree with you.

 

23 hours ago, Eldad said:

Haha he is an ex-president of the US being actively hunted by the political opposition on every front. 
 

Not saying Trump hasn’t done his part, but all of this is definitely completely new for the US. 

 

There was Richard Nixon.  Also, how is it any different than the target on Biden or his son?  This is all nonsense.

 

If Trump defrauded the system...he goes to jail.  If Hunter Biden defrauded the system or is charged with contempt...he goes to jail.

 

Pretty easy to understand.  So let's not assume that BRK's actions were politically-related, and simply not based on risk.  Cheers!

[Eldad]

10 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

Sorry, but so far all levels of the legal system disagree with you.

 

 

There was Richard Nixon.  Also, how is it any different than the target on Biden or his son?  This is all nonsense.

 

If Trump defrauded the system...he goes to jail.  If Hunter Biden defrauded the system or is charged with contempt...he goes to jail.

 

Pretty easy to understand.  So let's not assume that BRK's actions were politically-related, and simply not based on risk.  Cheers!

It’s a little bit more complex than that. Stealing 450M for something that happened in an amicable business dealing in which neither party brought suit will hurt American financial markets and specifically New York as Cubfan originally said. 

[adesigar]

Hmmm. The only people that would stay away because of this from American financial markets and New York are going to be people who would like to be able to lie/cheat. I fail to see the downside to this.

 

I’m super happy that Berkshire decided not to take the risk financial and political. 

[omahafloat]

Why is this long discussion persisting on the Berkshire General News thread?  Pls move this to another thread? Cheers.  

[DooDiligence]

37 minutes ago, omahafloat said:

Why is this long discussion persisting on the Berkshire General News thread?  Pls move this to another thread? Cheers.  

 

I know, right? I made a thread specifically for this.

[charlieruane]

I enjoyed this Kingswell transcript of an interview Ajit Jain gave in 2011. Jain's closing comment re: his evolving views on philanthropy is particularly interesting, I haven't quite heard this POV before: 

 

AM: In terms of charity.

 

AJ: It’s a very difficult question. It’s a very personal question. My views have also sort of changed over time. Without getting into a lot of the details — which aren’t relevant to you and your audience — we have a son that has been diagnosed with a serious illness. Before he was diagnosed with the illness, I always sort of thought much like the Buffett philosophy. I always felt, “Gee, I’ve got this fame, I’ve got this wealth, I didn’t deserve it, and it doesn’t belong to me.”

 

But, after my son’s illness, things did change. I felt I didn’t deserve my son’s illness, either. He didn’t deserve what he’s getting.

 

So, in terms of my giving… Again, without getting into too much detail, two things have changed: One is that we focus on a foundation that is trying to find a cure for his illness. And, secondly, I feel guilty in as much as in the earliest days of his life, while he was healthy, I didn’t let him spend money and have a nice time. So I’ve done a u-turn on that and I spend a lot more money a lot more freely than what I used to.

Edited March 25 by charlieruane

[gfp]

2 minutes ago, charlieruane said:

I enjoyed this Kingswell transcript of an interview Ajit Jain gave in 2011. Jain's closing comment re: his evolving views on philanthropy is particularly interesting, I haven't quite heard this POV before: 

 

AM: In terms of charity.

 

AJ: It’s a very difficult question. It’s a very personal question. My views have also sort of changed over time. Without getting into a lot of the details — which aren’t relevant to you and your audience — we have a son that has been diagnosed with a serious illness. Before he was diagnosed with the illness, I always sort of thought much like the Buffett philosophy. I always felt, “Gee, I’ve got this fame, I’ve got this wealth, I didn’t deserve it, and it doesn’t belong to me.”

 

But, after my son’s illness, things did change. I felt I didn’t deserve my son’s illness, either. He didn’t deserve what he’s getting.

 

So, in terms of my giving… Again, without getting into too much detail, two things have changed: One is that we focus on a foundation that is trying to find a cure for his illness. And, secondly, I feel guilty in as much as in the earliest days of his life, while he was healthy, I didn’t let him spend money and have a nice time. So I’ve done a u-turn on that and I spend a lot more money a lot more freely than what I used to.

 

In case folks can't read the entire transcript or have interest in the original video of the interview, someone posted the link to the entire video over on shrewdm board -

 

https://www.ndtv.com/video/shows/ndtv-special-ndtv-profit/buffett-gives-full-freedom-to-work-ajit-jain-194567

[DooDiligence]

Live it up and give it up.

[charlieruane]

@gfp How is shrewdm, generally speaking? Quality material over there? 

[gfp]

33 minutes ago, charlieruane said:

@gfp How is shrewdm, generally speaking? Quality material over there? 

They have tried to recreate the old style of the motley fool boards.  I have mostly just looked at the Berkshire Hathaway board and there are a few great posters that are not on other message boards and some old-timers I remember from back in the day.  Even dealraker shows up occasionally.  I usually learn something and I know a few of them.  It's free, not much to lose checking it out.  The individual topics besides Berkshire are mostly dead as far as I know.  It is a new project so tough to get things going.    It certainly isn't as active and dynamic as CoBF and most Berkshire-related topics will be covered both places pretty well.

[gfp]

Here is an interesting case study on Philadelphia & Reading Corp, an early Ben Graham and Warren Buffett holding.  I found it interesting.

 

This is from Turtle Bay, who is on twitter and this website.  Good BRK content

Case study link:

https://www.turtlebay.io/_files/ugd/f2fd00_f9def6fca1f4401f9d12a071be30352e.pdf

 

Other interesting notes from the website above:

https://www.turtlebay.io/notes

 

Twitter -

https://twitter.com/turtlebay_io

 

 

 

[Hektor]

Thanks for the links, @gfp

[Gamecock-YT]

3 hours ago, charlieruane said:

Big earthquake in Taiwan. Remember when Buffett cited earthquake risk as a reason for backing out of his investment in TSMC?

 

Sounds like TSMC at the very least had to evacuate a bunch of staff, remains to be seen whether this will cause a material delay in production.

 

wasn't it geopolitical risks?