Berkshire Hathaway 2016 Meeting - Live Stream / Saturday

[tooskinneejs]

Here is a link to this year's live stream of the shareholders' meeting.  It is being streamed on Yahoo Finance.  Enjoy.

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/brklivestream

 

The stream starts after the opening movie.  Wish we could see the movie too, but at least we get the rest.

 

[Guest longinvestor]

With streaming, recording video/audio etc. goes with the territory. Something not allowed @ the meeting to date! 

[Gamecock-YT]

Anyone know if there is a replay? Going to be out of tomorrow and interested to see if my question I submitted is going to be asked.

[CorpRaider]

He's going to be on squawk Monday morning for 3 hours too.  If you feel like watching him politely dodge asinine questions and comments from Kernan for a couple of hours.  :D

[fareastwarriors]

who's streaming live  now?

[Jurgis]

Me.

 

Let's have a powwow.

 

We can stay up late, swapping manly stories, and in the morning, I'm making waffles!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0126029/quotes

[Jurgis]

Sorry but Coke answers from Warren and Charlie are again totally biased. You'd think they'd be rational. Warren is skirting the issue again by going anecdotal and joking. And Charlie... come on "benefit"? Loading fizzy water with tons of carbs is not benefit. Comparing that to deaths in air travel is stupid (sic. I'm free to use the word he used).

[fareastwarriors]

Sorry but Coke answers from Warren and Charlie are again totally biased. You'd think they'd be rational. Warren is skirting the issue again by going anecdotal and joking. And Charlie... come on "benefit"? Loading fizzy water with tons of carbs is not benefit. Comparing that to deaths in air travel is stupid (sic. I'm free to use the word he used).

 

I agree it was such BS. I don't think there will ever be clear answers from them regarding this topic.

[Jurgis]

To balance: /support Buffett on renewables

[doughishere]

His reinsurance comments were good.

[doughishere]

Good comments on Sequoia and the whole valeant thing.

[netnet]

I think Buffett's mention crashed the longbets.org site, blank screen now.

[doughishere]

I think Buffett's mention crashed the longbets.org site, blank screen now.

 

lol

[Mephistopheles]

Sorry but Coke answers from Warren and Charlie are again totally biased. You'd think they'd be rational. Warren is skirting the issue again by going anecdotal and joking. And Charlie... come on "benefit"? Loading fizzy water with tons of carbs is not benefit. Comparing that to deaths in air travel is stupid (sic. I'm free to use the word he used).

 

I think Charlie's was a great answer, perfectly summarizing why they're okay with KO. Everything in life has a trade off and it really is about risks vs benefit, in this case that benefit being the pleasure derived. Why is the air travel comparison stupid?

 

Nothing wrong in indulging. The problems (obesity, diabetes, CV disease) are largely related to overindulging.

 

I agree that Warren's gave a bad answer.

[doughishere]

They are taking more questions right?

[Guest Schwab711]

Sorry but Coke answers from Warren and Charlie are again totally biased. You'd think they'd be rational. Warren is skirting the issue again by going anecdotal and joking. And Charlie... come on "benefit"? Loading fizzy water with tons of carbs is not benefit. Comparing that to deaths in air travel is stupid (sic. I'm free to use the word he used).

 

Why don't folks cite the decline in housewives as a direct cause of increased consumption of processed foods? I could make a similar argument that the shift of populations to the suburbs is another cause of obesity (less walking, longer commutes cause you to be "busier", ect). I think this topic generally covers a more important and broad issue. I don't think every societal issue requires a "fix". I think most would agree that higher rates of working women benefited the country enormously (certainly the net effect was very positive). However, there were still some negative consequences to both of the societal shifts I mentioned. My issue is why is McDonalds and Coca-Cola always singled-out for the rise of obesity? Obviously Coke isn't great for you but these are not the only two companies (or factors) that contributed. I think the fact that people are "busier" is probably the single greatest contributor to obesity (greater % of non-moving jobs is another cause in my opinion). KO probably gets blamed unproportionally relative to their contribution to the problem. I'm guessing he skirts the issue because he truly doesn't believe they are at fault.

 

No one blames Purdue Pharma for the opium issue or Budweiser for the alcohol problem in America. Society generally blames the individual that choose to use drugs. Why doesn't the same logic apply to obesity? You may be right that KO/sugar consumption is the true trigger but I generally don't like when folks attempt to regulate how others live, so it's likely I am biased as well. However, I believe the incidents of obesity is already declining, but that fact doesn't get the same level of coverage (very similar to the incorrect perception of 50%+ divorce rates). I think sentiment regarding KO/sugar will eventually turn as the rates of obesity declines despite KO continuing to grow.

 

Yahoo's production is much better than I expected. I'm pumped that Buffett decided to broadcast the event. Does anyone know if there are more people at the meeting this year or not?

[doughishere]

Masterful at answering the question with out being lead into an answer........

[Jurgis]

Sorry but Coke answers from Warren and Charlie are again totally biased. You'd think they'd be rational. Warren is skirting the issue again by going anecdotal and joking. And Charlie... come on "benefit"? Loading fizzy water with tons of carbs is not benefit. Comparing that to deaths in air travel is stupid (sic. I'm free to use the word he used).

 

I think Charlie's was a great answer, perfectly summarizing why they're okay with KO. Everything in life has a trade off and it really is about risks vs benefit, in this case that benefit being the pleasure derived. Why is the air travel comparison stupid?

 

Air travel provides benefits that would be impossible without it. Business benefits as well as efficiency benefits. This is very different from "pleasure derived" benefits. You are pretty much saying that Coke is like cigarettes and drugs. OK, I'm fine with that, but Buffett explicitly said he won't invest in cigarettes and the questioner even mentioned it directly.

 

Second, air travel was not engineered to add to fatalities just to increase "pleasure derived". Coke pretty much did the same thing as the cigarette companies by pumping extra crap into drinks to make them more attractive and addictive.

 

Third, I could argue that Coke could try to find the way to maintain or increase the "pleasure derived" while increasing health benefits. And perhaps they do it somewhat now that the pressure is on. That might have been a good direction to take this question to.

 

So, yes air travel comparison is stupid since it's completely different. Its defense here is completely Munger-hero-worship bias. If someone else rather than Munger did it, people would say "apples to oranges" and other non-complimentary things.

[Parsad]

Have to say that I fully agree with those shareholders who wanted the AGM to be webcast years ago. 

 

I feel like I'm sitting right there like I regularly used to!  Thanks Warren for webcasting the meeting!

 

Cheers!

[fareastwarriors]

Wished WB specified on why he invested in SRG and its outlook.

[CassiusKing1]

I have some crazy urge to buy Amazon on Monday, lol.

[doughishere]

start learning that mandarin also.

[racemize]

I didn't quite follow Rose's answer to the railroad consolidation question--anyone have an explanation?

[netnet]

That was unbelievably awesome. 

[Jurgis]

Thanks to Buffett for webcasting this.  8)