Jump to content

Buffett/Berkshire - general news


Recommended Posts

I suspect real estate returns are lower than equity, AAPL or even BRK repurchase at today's prices likely yield higher returns. Guessing they won't be using their capital on this.

 

If they don't purchase it, it will not be for ROE reasons. $20 million is a drop in the bucket, and the purchase would be more for sentimental reasons kind of like the local newspapers. Having said that I am sure $20 m overvalues the building. Having Berkshire as a tenant means people might be willing to pay up for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect real estate returns are lower than equity, AAPL or even BRK repurchase at today's prices likely yield higher returns. Guessing they won't be using their capital on this.

 

If they don't purchase it, it will not be for ROE reasons. $20 million is a drop in the bucket, and the purchase would be more for sentimental reasons kind of like the local newspapers. Having said that I am sure $20 m overvalues the building. Having Berkshire as a tenant means people might be willing to pay up for it.

 

You know, that's a good point - if people are willing to pay $3M to have lunch with Warren, why not buy the building, you might

get to have lunch with him a lot more often!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect real estate returns are lower than equity, AAPL or even BRK repurchase at today's prices likely yield higher returns. Guessing they won't be using their capital on this.

 

If they don't purchase it, it will not be for ROE reasons. $20 million is a drop in the bucket, and the purchase would be more for sentimental reasons kind of like the local newspapers. Having said that I am sure $20 m overvalues the building. Having Berkshire as a tenant means people might be willing to pay up for it.

 

You know, that's a good point - if people are willing to pay $3M to have lunch with Warren, why not buy the building, you might

get to have lunch with him a lot more often!

 

Buy the building and install listening devices? Haha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He always says he loves the management and assets.  So that leaves valuation.  But, then again, Warren tends to keep his critical thoughts to himself - at least for a while.  If I had to guess, I would guess valuation.  Or maybe he wants to be below 5% for some other reason and will stand pat here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of their assets might be cyclicals at peak earnings. I haven't followed this closely, but their 50% interest in wood river is a big heavy oil refinery in Illinois. It is making money on the spread between canadian heavy (WCS) and WTI. That spread has been at historical highs due to pipeline and rail constraints.

 

While transmountain may or may not get built, the line 3 expansion probably will, and rail is ramping up. A lower differential will lower their profits at wood river.

 

I'm not sure how big a piece of their business refining is anymore, but thought I'd mention that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Guest longinvestor

It could also mean that BNSF doesn’t need a replacement for Matt Rose’s post. Carl Ice can work with Greg Abel on strategic initiatives. BNSF needs for capital are modest relative to BHE. Anyone want $5 Billion annually?😀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...