dealraker Posted August 28 Posted August 28 Slinging this out off the cuff so it may be off but it won't be too far off: Andrew Bary's tongue-in-cheek Nov 1999 cover of Barron's was: WARREN: WHAT's WRONG? It hangs on the wall framed in my office. The article from the above headline highlighted how popular GE's Welch and AIG's Greenberg were vs how out-of-it Buffett was. Bary's writing basically was stating that he did not believe this would last. 1999 or 2000? GE's sales were 120 bil and earnings about 12 bil. Berkshire's sales were 30 bil and earnings about 1 bil. Now what's the combo of GE entities sales and earnings vs. Berk? Same for AIG! Oh my did we just moon walk on the heads of those guys!
Buffett_Groupie Posted August 29 Posted August 29 11 hours ago, Blugolds said: Honestly as someone with the majority of my NW in BRK it does nothing for me really, if anything its kind of a bummer as selfishly I would be much happier if BRK was to get trounced while the cash pool in Omaha is so deep and Buffett let the buyback cannon fire for effect! I do expect an eventual retrace but it's fun to watch. A headline that said, "Buffett record buybacks last quarter" would make me much happier than BRK $1T. Reinforcing my confirmation bias: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/28/buffetts-berkshire-hathaway-hits-1-trillion-market-value-first-us-company-outside-of-tech-to-do-so.html
Xerxes Posted August 29 Posted August 29 saw this on Twitter. I didn’t realize Tesla is off the list. For a while now, it seems. However, its gas guzzling nemesis, Aramco is there.
Xerxes Posted August 29 Posted August 29 I also find it silly that after +10 years, still in the new media world, they find it necessary to tell us that Alphabet is the parent company of Google. Meta seem to get away with it. Even though the rebranding happened only a few years ago.
John Hjorth Posted August 29 Posted August 29 1 hour ago, Xerxes said: saw this on Twitter. I didn’t realize Tesla is off the list. For a while now, it seems. However, its gas guzzling nemesis, Aramco is there. 1 hour ago, Xerxes said: I also find it silly that after +10 years, still in the new media world, they find it necessary to tell us that Alphabet is the parent company of Google. Meta seem to get away with it. Even though the rebranding happened only a few years ago. @Xerxes, It's more like number 8 now, 7 to go. [I think we never talk about Aramco here on CoBF, which we perhaps should].
dartmonkey Posted August 29 Posted August 29 2 hours ago, Xerxes said: its gas guzzling nemesis, Aramco is there gas guzzling? we guzzle, and they furnish the oil that we guzzle
Eldad Posted August 29 Posted August 29 (edited) 28 minutes ago, dartmonkey said: gas guzzling? we guzzle, and they furnish the oil that we guzzle My mom and dad have a good amount of oil and gas working interest. Maybe 15 years ago when people first started talking about carbon footprints my mom said “well I have a negative footprint because I supply more oil than I consume.” Hahaha I said unfortunately I don’t think that’s how it works. You are more like the drug dealer or the war profiteer in this paradigm. Edited August 29 by Eldad
Xerxes Posted August 29 Posted August 29 54 minutes ago, dartmonkey said: gas guzzling? we guzzle, and they furnish the oil that we guzzle yes. got that in reverse lol
73 Reds Posted August 29 Posted August 29 3 hours ago, Eldad said: Market could be anticipating a massive special dividend. Please NO! Rather see WEB use the shares as currency for an acquisition.
Munger_Disciple Posted August 29 Posted August 29 (edited) 32 minutes ago, 73 Reds said: Please NO! Rather see WEB use the shares as currency for an acquisition. There is zero chance of that happening while Buffett is in charge. Afterwards, I hope the board considers a small variable annual dividend as opposed to a large special one as the last resort if stock buybacks are not value additive after all the internal capital needs and potential acquisitions are funded. Edited August 29 by Munger_Disciple
Eldad Posted August 29 Posted August 29 8 minutes ago, Munger_Disciple said: There is zero chance of that happening while Buffett is in charge. Afterwards, I hope the board considers a small variable annual dividend as opposed to a large special one as the last resort if stock buybacks are not value additive after all the internal capital needs and potential acquisitions are funded. I was just throwing it out there. I’m not trying to be mean or anything but I think it’s probably a long shot that he can deploy anywhere close to that in his remaining working life. You are going to saddle Greg with a 300B anchor on his balance sheet on day one?
Munger_Disciple Posted August 29 Posted August 29 17 minutes ago, Eldad said: I was just throwing it out there. I’m not trying to be mean or anything but I think it’s probably a long shot that he can deploy anywhere close to that in his remaining working life. You are going to saddle Greg with a 300B anchor on his balance sheet on day one? Yes, I would rather Greg have T-Bills than Apple stock at 33X.
John Hjorth Posted August 29 Posted August 29 17 minutes ago, Eldad said: I was just throwing it out there. I’m not trying to be mean or anything but I think it’s probably a long shot that he can deploy anywhere close to that in his remaining working life. You are going to saddle Greg with a 300B anchor on his balance sheet on day one? And it's all speculative, and just that : speculative. None of us actually know what papers - and about what - are laying on Mr. Buffetts office desk and what may have his attention by now - today -, and what he might be messing around with, - or any day, for that sake.
Eldad Posted August 29 Posted August 29 17 minutes ago, Munger_Disciple said: Yes, I would rather Greg have T-Bills than Apple stock at 33X. Ok that’s fair. What about when they cut rates and you are getting 33x on the T-Bills? The rational for BRK not paying a dividend is that they can deploy the capital better than we can. Is that still true? They can’t move the needle with the vast majority of stocks and we can. They have been hesitant lately to buy depressed markets and many of us have not, etc., etc. Many of you believe Greg is an operator more than a public company capital allocator. Will he be trying to make market beating stock purchases? If not why would he need 300 billion? WB is 94. How does that factor into the value of his cash call option?
Munger_Disciple Posted August 29 Posted August 29 55 minutes ago, Eldad said: Ok that’s fair. What about when they cut rates and you are getting 33x on the T-Bills? The rational for BRK not paying a dividend is that they can deploy the capital better than we can. Is that still true? They can’t move the needle with the vast majority of stocks and we can. They have been hesitant lately to buy depressed markets and many of us have not, etc., etc. Many of you believe Greg is an operator more than a public company capital allocator. Will he be trying to make market beating stock purchases? If not why would he need 300 billion? WB is 94. How does that factor into the value of his cash call option? I trust Buffett to manage Berkshire in the best interest of shareholders as he had done for 60 years now. I am also 100% certain that Buffett thought through how Greg would potentially manage Berkshire after he takes over. If you don't believe that, you should sell your stock & move on instead of back seat driving.
Eldad Posted August 29 Posted August 29 Just now, Munger_Disciple said: I trust Buffett to manage Berkshire in the best interest of shareholders as he had done for 60 years now. I am also 100% certain that Buffett thought through how Greg would potentially manage Berkshire after he takes over. If you don't believe that, you should sell your stock & move on instead of back seat driving. I have a very significant portion of my families money in BRK shares. Sorry, I thought my questions were kind of the point of this website.
Eldad Posted August 29 Posted August 29 I mean let’s be straight, why would you ever say I need to sell half my Apple because tax rates are going up? How about you never sell and never pay tax like you have preached forever? Why the weird slight dishonesties all the time?
Jaygo Posted August 30 Posted August 30 I would consider the Apple position too big for shareholders and that is why he is selling. I would not keep 20% of my net worth in Apple so why should he keep 20% of BRK in Apple. I am also fully willing to acknowledge that had i kept 20% in apple for my lifetime I would be far more wealthy than I am now and I could be making a mistake here. It honestly just seems like it makes fiduciary sense to lighten up on it.
Eldad Posted August 30 Posted August 30 18 minutes ago, Jaygo said: I would consider the Apple position too big for shareholders and that is why he is selling. I would not keep 20% of my net worth in Apple so why should he keep 20% of BRK in Apple. I am also fully willing to acknowledge that had i kept 20% in apple for my lifetime I would be far more wealthy than I am now and I could be making a mistake here. It honestly just seems like it makes fiduciary sense to lighten up on it. Yeah I totally get that. Why not say that if your WB? “Well tax rates are going higher blah blah blah” Need some Charlie brutal honesty following his statements.
Eldad Posted August 30 Posted August 30 I mean in 5 years I think it is highly likely WB is retired, they still have a cash problem, and Apple is at $350 plus. I could be wrong.
UK Posted August 30 Posted August 30 (edited) 1 hour ago, Eldad said: Yeah I totally get that. Why not say that if your WB? “Well tax rates are going higher blah blah blah” Need some Charlie brutal honesty following his statements. I think he communicated this way to soften the possible publicity blow of his selling for Apple and/or maybe also because he was/is not done yet. I have no issue with this, this is one of the most easily explainable reasons, very likely not the most important, but not a lie either:). I also do not think special dividend is unthinkable. Maybe it could happen at the time of transition, if not used somehow by then. Just a speculation:) Edited August 30 by UK
UK Posted August 30 Posted August 30 https://www.barrons.com/articles/berkshire-stock-trillion-buffett-birthday-e8c64986 Happy birthday!:)
Charlie Posted August 30 Posted August 30 12 hours ago, Eldad said: I mean in 5 years I think it is highly likely WB is retired, they still have a cash problem, and Apple is at $350 plus. I could be wrong. Statistically probably every 5-10 years there is a correction in the stock market. We are in year 4 since the last correction. So opportunities are coming and things don´t grow to the sky. The elephant gun is loaded for this and Berkshire is very good in investing when everything goes to hell. It is a flaw in human nature to think that the future will look like the recent past. It is still the boom and bust cycle and things can change very fast.
Cigarbutt Posted August 30 Posted August 30 7 hours ago, Charlie said: Statistically probably every 5-10 years there is a correction in the stock market. We are in year 4 since the last correction. So opportunities are coming and things don´t grow to the sky. The elephant gun is loaded for this and Berkshire is very good in investing when everything goes to hell. It is a flaw in human nature to think that the future will look like the recent past. It is still the boom and bust cycle and things can change very fast. Do you mean to say that Mr. Buffett is into market timing?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now