gary17 Posted May 4 Posted May 4 31 minutes ago, blakehampton said: Buffett's point on corporate taxes is spot-on. A historically low rate during a time of record fiscal deficits is simply crazy. love how he, and many great leaders like him, can explain and describe something as politically sensitive as taxataion / fairness in society as he can, and without really offending anyone.
gfp Posted May 4 Posted May 4 I don't know what they are feeding you Germans, but you guys sure know how to get your questions into the meeting!
schin Posted May 4 Posted May 4 Does anyone find it funny that Ajit has "salty nuts" for his See's item? LOL
schin Posted May 4 Posted May 4 (edited) Also, Warren mentioned "Pleased, but not satisfied".... which is David Sokol's book. Easter eggs? LOL Edited May 4 by schin
gfp Posted May 4 Posted May 4 13 minutes ago, schin said: Also, Warren mentioned "Pleased, but not satisfied".... which is David Sokol's book. Easter eggs? LOL Well Sokol got it from Peter Kiewit, which is who Warren was quoting
Xerxes Posted May 4 Posted May 4 1 hour ago, gfp said: I don't know what they are feeding you Germans, but you guys sure know how to get your questions into the meeting! 1 more just now !
longterminvestor Posted May 4 Posted May 4 Mr. Buffett has mentioned before and continues to compare during the AGM Artificial Intelligence effects on society are similar to how the Atom Bomb changed the world writ large. My take away is I have been under estimating AI's future - either good or bad.
yesman182 Posted May 4 Posted May 4 4 hours ago, gfp said: My impression is that he has continued to sell Apple shares after quarter-end since he seemed very confident that the $182 cash figure would be $200 billion at June 30. That was my thought as well.
yesman182 Posted May 4 Posted May 4 Fairfax crossed my mind when he said he is looking at something up in Canada…. Not going to happen, but fun to think about.
gary17 Posted May 4 Posted May 4 33 minutes ago, Xerxes said: 1 more just now ! all germans ? lol i saw at least four
Charlie Posted May 4 Posted May 4 10 hours ago, gfp said: I don't know what they are feeding you Germans, but you guys sure know how to get your questions into the meeting! When you are traveling that long, you are quite motivated to get the most out of the meeting. 20 years ago I did that too and managed to ask 2 questions. But not anymore.
gfp Posted May 4 Posted May 4 If you are like me and were curious after hearing Devon Spurgeon's question, asked through Becky near the end of the meeting, that referenced the Codicils of Charlie's Will as filed with L.A. County - I decided to go download them and am posting them here. These are public record, nothing creepy. Charlie knew these would be public. O89305673.pdf O89305672.pdf O89305671.pdf
wescobrk Posted May 5 Posted May 5 If Greg will have final say on all capital allocation, including stocks as Buffett said, what does that mean for Ted and Todd?
Xerxes Posted May 5 Posted May 5 I thought clarifying Greg A. as the end-all capital allocator was important. Clearly ahead of T&T. It is a company for Christ's sake with a CEO as the top dog, not a socialist political party with different fiefdoms, where grey zone (potential conflict) could exists between T&Ts and Greg in the post-Buffett era. T&Ts are in fact legacy of the Ancien régime, where Buffett needed help with getting ideas, to incubate and seed large positions. In fact, the entirety of equity investment portfolio besides the very large 4-5 and Japanese positions are not really worth keeping and/or spending time. Greg may or may not keep them, but it is his call to make. I would clear the deck in year 1. Buffett had the best-in-class lieutenants during his time as the benevolent CEO, so he had free time chasing Paramount, Activision and Cable cowboy's tracking stocks etc. Totally insignificant, but it kept him busy. The fact that they exist is a historical to how Berkshire came to be. Greg would be running the business as an industrialist-operator and not as a founder-equity-investor. No time for trading stocks.
CanadianMunger Posted May 5 Posted May 5 3 hours ago, gfp said: If you are like me and were curious after hearing Devon Spurgeon's question, asked through Becky near the end of the meeting, that referenced the Codicils of Charlie's Will as filed with L.A. County - I decided to go download them and am posting them here. These are public record, nothing creepy. Charlie knew these would be public. O89305673.pdf 1.35 MB · 46 downloads O89305672.pdf 576.13 kB · 30 downloads O89305671.pdf 524.2 kB · 28 downloads Thanks gfp. Can you or someone else explain the "First" paragraph and what it means that Charlie left everything to the Munger Community Property trust please? Does "priority to duty over property" indicate some sort of merit based system of distributing assets?
Buckeye Posted May 5 Posted May 5 (edited) 1 hour ago, Xerxes said: I thought clarifying Greg A. as the end-all capital allocator was important. Clearly ahead of T&T. It is a company for Christ's sake with a CEO as the top dog, not a socialist political party with different fiefdoms, where grey zone (potential conflict) could exists between T&Ts and Greg in the post-Buffett era. T&Ts are in fact legacy of the Ancien régime, where Buffett needed help with getting ideas, to incubate and seed large positions. In fact, the entirety of equity investment portfolio besides the very large 4-5 and Japanese positions are not really worth keeping and/or spending time. Greg may or may not keep them, but it is his call to make. I would clear the deck in year 1. Buffett had the best-in-class lieutenants during his time as the benevolent CEO, so he had free time chasing Paramount, Activision and Cable cowboy's tracking stocks etc. Totally insignificant, but it kept him busy. The fact that they exist is a historical to how Berkshire came to be. Greg would be running the business as an industrialist-operator and not as a founder-equity-investor. No time for trading stocks. Very interesting take here with regards to the investments. I had never thought of this as a potential outcome. Edited May 5 by Buckeye
gfp Posted May 5 Posted May 5 1 hour ago, CanadianMunger said: Thanks gfp. Can you or someone else explain the "First" paragraph and what it means that Charlie left everything to the Munger Community Property trust please? Does "priority to duty over property" indicate some sort of merit based system of distributing assets? No I don't think that is what it is. I think it is something he felt he inherited from his parents and grandparents and wants to pass on. The trust is just the document that remains private that spells out who gets what. The trust is private as far as I know. Charlie had also already distributed a large portion of his net worth to his heirs and various charitable causes. He couldn't sign the giving pledge because he had already distributed over half his net worth to his heirs. He wasn't exactly on the same wavelength as Warren when it comes to dynastic wealth.
DooDiligence Posted May 5 Posted May 5 (edited) 6 hours ago, gfp said: If you are like me and were curious after hearing Devon Spurgeon's question, asked through Becky near the end of the meeting, that referenced the Codicils of Charlie's Will as filed with L.A. County - I decided to go download them and am posting them here. These are public record, nothing creepy. Charlie knew these would be public. O89305673.pdf 1.35 MB · 69 downloads O89305672.pdf 576.13 kB · 48 downloads O89305671.pdf 524.2 kB · 45 downloads "Averaged out, my long life has been a favored one, made better by duty imposed by family tradition requiring righteousness and service. Therefore I follow an old practice that I wish was more common now: inserting an ethical bequest that gives priority not to property but to transmission of this duty. I ask that my children and their children carry on our family tradition and pass it, undiminished, to our common posterity." Edited May 5 by DooDiligence
crs223 Posted May 5 Posted May 5 (edited) After reading Warren’s letter I was left with the impression that we (BRK) are simply at the mercy of California/Oregon juries and regulators. I loved hearing Greg (the bulldog) put the states on notice: we’re just gonna start shutting everything down when fire risks rise. And if you want us to add more capacity you can go fuck yourselves. Edited May 5 by crs223
nwoodman Posted May 5 Posted May 5 (edited) 2 hours ago, crs223 said: After reading Warren’s letter I was left with the impression that we (BRK) are simply at the mercy of California/Oregon juries and regulators. I loved hearing Greg (the bulldog) put the states on notice: we’re just gonna start shutting everything down when fire risks rise. And if you want us to add more capacity you can go fuck yourselves. +1 to this. I also got the impression that we will drag this out in the courts until one of us is broke and it won’t be Berkshire. Edited May 5 by nwoodman
Hektor Posted May 5 Posted May 5 16 hours ago, gfp said: If you are like me and were curious after hearing Devon Spurgeon's question, asked through Becky near the end of the meeting, that referenced the Codicils of Charlie's Will as filed with L.A. County - I decided to go download them and am posting them here. These are public record, nothing creepy. Charlie knew these would be public. Thanks @gfp
scorpioncapital Posted May 5 Posted May 5 Why did Buffett say, toward the end of the AGM, something like I'm sorry if Powell hears this, but Berkshire would not necessarily invest if interest rates were 0% or 5%? I do note this happened in Europe too. Rates were 0 to negative and it did not compel investors to start buying businesses. It was a little better in the USA but it seems to me there is some more important criteria than the level of interest for how desirable it is to allocate large sums of capital? Anyone can explain this? Traditional theory would suggest one should go crazy - even on leverage at 0% rates and pull back and 'divest' at 5% or as rates march higher.
Xerxes Posted May 5 Posted May 5 22 minutes ago, scorpioncapital said: Why did Buffett say, toward the end of the AGM, something like I'm sorry if Powell hears this, but Berkshire would not necessarily invest if interest rates were 0% or 5%? I do note this happened in Europe too. Rates were 0 to negative and it did not compel investors to start buying businesses. It was a little better in the USA but it seems to me there is some more important criteria than the level of interest for how desirable it is to allocate large sums of capital? Anyone can explain this? Traditional theory would suggest one should go crazy - even on leverage at 0% rates and pull back and 'divest' at 5% or as rates march higher. He just meant that Berkshire will hold a substantial hoard of treasury bills, whether they pay 1% or 5%. Naturally it would be better for the Fed to get a lower rate, if the buyer would park money in it regardless. It was meant as a joke.
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