SlowAppreciation Posted April 10, 2017 Posted April 10, 2017 Does anyone have this data handy? I know it's available in all the annual reports, but I won't have time to dig through them until later in the week. This is what I have so far from quick checks: 2000 $918.66 2001 $(47) 2002 $3,903 2003 2004 2005 $2,441 2006 $3,625 2007 $4,093 2008 $3,921 2009 2010 $5,926 2011 $6,990 2012 $8,085 2013 $9,116 2014 $12,400 2015 $12,430 2016 $12,835
Guest longinvestor Posted April 10, 2017 Posted April 10, 2017 Does anyone have this data handy? I know it's available in all the annual reports, but I won't have time to dig through them until later in the week. This is what I have so far from quick checks: 2000 $918.66 2001 $(47) 2002 $3,903 2003 2004 2005 $2,441 2006 $3,625 2007 $4,093 2008 $3,921 2009 2010 $5,926 2011 $6,990 2012 $8,085 2013 $9,116 2014 $12,400 2015 $12,430 2016 $12,835 Earnings per share is the one to keep an eye on. Surely you've read this year's annual letter, page 5 has a breakout of operating earnings and capital gains. It has replaced the previous, almost boiler plate section subtitled Intrinsic Value.. This table goes back to1999 which Buffett uses as a marker of the substantial redirection to wholly owning subsidiaries. CAGR is approximately 20%. Last year, Market value was added to the BV table. Buffett is signaling the growing importance of earnings against the diminishing significance of BV in estimating IV. In an oblique way, given MV and IV converge over the very long term, we've to let Mr. Market do his part. No need to calculate IV, ha. But how about the mathematical and accounting minds here, that would be heretical. I'd imagine that some of the hometown boys from Omaha have never calculated IV or anything like that, yet they are billionaires...hmmm. Being a busy body pay well? Alas, the very long term is also boring, especially to us message board posters, ha!
John Hjorth Posted April 10, 2017 Posted April 10, 2017 SlowAppreciation, Why are you looking at Berkshire earnings pre tax?
SlowAppreciation Posted April 11, 2017 Author Posted April 11, 2017 Does anyone have this data handy? I know it's available in all the annual reports, but I won't have time to dig through them until later in the week. This is what I have so far from quick checks: 2000 $918.66 2001 $(47) 2002 $3,903 2003 2004 2005 $2,441 2006 $3,625 2007 $4,093 2008 $3,921 2009 2010 $5,926 2011 $6,990 2012 $8,085 2013 $9,116 2014 $12,400 2015 $12,430 2016 $12,835 Earnings per share is the one to keep an eye on. Surely you've read this year's annual letter, page 5 has a breakout of operating earnings and capital gains. It has replaced the previous, almost boiler plate section subtitled Intrinsic Value.. This table goes back to1999 which Buffett uses as a marker of the substantial redirection to wholly owning subsidiaries. CAGR is approximately 20%. Last year, Market value was added to the BV table. Buffett is signaling the growing importance of earnings against the diminishing significance of BV in estimating IV. In an oblique way, given MV and IV converge over the very long term, we've to let Mr. Market do his part. No need to calculate IV, ha. But how about the mathematical and accounting minds here, that would be heretical. I'd imagine that some of the hometown boys from Omaha have never calculated IV or anything like that, yet they are billionaires...hmmm. Being a busy body pay well? Alas, the very long term is also boring, especially to us message board posters, ha! How quickly I forgot about the change in presentation :P Much appreciated for reminding me. I'm working on a writeup arguing that that operating piece of the business is quite undervalued at 7x earnings. Berkshire just seems like a flat our no brainer to me here...
SlowAppreciation Posted April 11, 2017 Author Posted April 11, 2017 SlowAppreciation, Why are you looking at Berkshire earnings pre tax? Buffett used to highlight the pre-tax earnings per share in his annual letters, mostly because the marginal rate isn't representative of true economic activity. BRK defers billions of cap gains and BHE/BNSF also let them defer billions more. So pre-tax + ~15% tax rate is probably more realistic of BRK's earning power.
Guest longinvestor Posted April 11, 2017 Posted April 11, 2017 Does anyone have this data handy? I know it's available in all the annual reports, but I won't have time to dig through them until later in the week. This is what I have so far from quick checks: 2000 $918.66 2001 $(47) 2002 $3,903 2003 2004 2005 $2,441 2006 $3,625 2007 $4,093 2008 $3,921 2009 2010 $5,926 2011 $6,990 2012 $8,085 2013 $9,116 2014 $12,400 2015 $12,430 2016 $12,835 Earnings per share is the one to keep an eye on. Surely you've read this year's annual letter, page 5 has a breakout of operating earnings and capital gains. It has replaced the previous, almost boiler plate section subtitled Intrinsic Value.. This table goes back to1999 which Buffett uses as a marker of the substantial redirection to wholly owning subsidiaries. CAGR is approximately 20%. Last year, Market value was added to the BV table. Buffett is signaling the growing importance of earnings against the diminishing significance of BV in estimating IV. In an oblique way, given MV and IV converge over the very long term, we've to let Mr. Market do his part. No need to calculate IV, ha. But how about the mathematical and accounting minds here, that would be heretical. I'd imagine that some of the hometown boys from Omaha have never calculated IV or anything like that, yet they are billionaires...hmmm. Being a busy body pay well? Alas, the very long term is also boring, especially to us message board posters, ha! How quickly I forgot about the change in presentation :P Much appreciated for reminding me. I'm working on a writeup arguing that that operating piece of the business is quite undervalued at 7x earnings. Berkshire just seems like a flat our no brainer to me here... Look forward to your write-up. I think Mr. Market is missing it largely. So much anchoring around BV
John Hjorth Posted April 11, 2017 Posted April 11, 2017 I certainly agree with longinvestor here, with regard to BV anchoring. I still don't fully get your reasoning, SlowAppreciation. I will - like longinvestor - just await the write up. I bought a bit more today, by the way.
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