Eldad Posted March 2 Posted March 2 15 minutes ago, charlieruane said: I think the setup/plan is pretty simple: -Grow what we own as best we can -Bolt-ons -When recession hits, try to make 1-3 giant investments -Hit the buybacks hard when they make sense That's really all they have to do... and over the next 10 years, Berkshire will probably get to do all of these activities. It's not crazy to hold off on dividends. Probably true. Maybe Greg’s super power, that WB and CM liked so much, is not being a massive genius or philosopher king, but a guy with incredible strike zone discipline. Maybe that’s why he never buys any BRK stock haha.
Maverick47 Posted March 2 Posted March 2 On 3/1/2026 at 8:17 AM, Hamburg Investor said: The small errors highlighted here by some of you might be a bad sign, but I don’t think so. At least for now. But definitely something to have an eye on in the future. For now I am much more happy with that than getting some AI „enhanced“ text. To me it seems he’s showing himself and his view and that’s a good sign. It‘s hard to follow after Buffett. I wish him all the best! Agreed! It was quite a while before I learned that Carol Loomis had been editing Buffett’s letters for years. We all benefited from having a business journalist polish things up. At 96, she is not in a position to do the same for Greg. As time passes, he may find someone like her to assist him, but I also am much happier getting unvarnished Greg writing to us than pure management and investment relations meaningless drivel.
Parsad Posted March 2 Posted March 2 35 minutes ago, charlieruane said: I think the setup/plan is pretty simple: -Grow what we own as best we can -Bolt-ons -When recession hits, try to make 1-3 giant investments -Hit the buybacks hard when they make sense That's really all they have to do... and over the next 10 years, Berkshire will probably get to do all of these activities. It's not crazy to hold off on dividends. +1! Yup. And when the cash does get overwhelming...because it does come in like a gusher...they can institute a dividend plan at some point. Cheers!
Parsad Posted March 2 Posted March 2 17 minutes ago, Eldad said: Probably true. Maybe Greg’s super power, that WB and CM liked so much, is not being a massive genius or philosopher king, but a guy with incredible strike zone discipline. Maybe that’s why he never buys any BRK stock haha. I think the bigger question is who oversees insurance when Ajit is no longer with Berkshire? That's a pretty big engine that needs a conductor. I'm assuming Greg's other talents with large capex companies will keep different engines burning. While insurance will remain the biggest, it won't be as encompassing to total revenues. Cheers!
Hsmpanl Posted March 2 Posted March 2 57 minutes ago, Parsad said: I think the bigger question is who oversees insurance when Ajit is no longer with Berkshire? That's a pretty big engine that needs a conductor. I'm assuming Greg's other talents with large capex companies will keep different engines burning. While insurance will remain the biggest, it won't be as encompassing to total revenues. Cheers! No one is Ajit but seems the insurance bench is pretty deep, even more so with the Allegheny acquisition. I think it comes back to the investment portfolio and what Ted and Greg can do with all the capital they have. Hopefully their patience pays off at some point in the future and Ted can get us some of his Roth IRA type returns….
Buckeye Posted March 3 Posted March 3 1 hour ago, Parsad said: I think the bigger question is who oversees insurance when Ajit is no longer with Berkshire? That's a pretty big engine that needs a conductor. I'm assuming Greg's other talents with large capex companies will keep different engines burning. While insurance will remain the biggest, it won't be as encompassing to total revenues. Cheers! https://www.genre.com/us/knowledge/contributors/kara-raiguel?page=1&facet=all
SMIS Posted March 3 Posted March 3 Is there any reason they didn't buy back stock other than they think it's currently not an attractive return?
charlieruane Posted March 3 Posted March 3 (edited) 3 hours ago, Parsad said: I think the bigger question is who oversees insurance when Ajit is no longer with Berkshire? That's a pretty big engine that needs a conductor. Yeah, I was thinking about this... what % of the current insurance float do we think is purely attributable to Ajit? Or, how much float goes away with him not at the helm? For example, Geico won't really suffer without Ajit around, and that's a big chunk o'the float. It's the more sui generis/exotic/giant reinsurance-y risks that'll be harder for Berkshire to underwrite... those premia might just go away for good. But overall I think Berkshire sans Ajit still has a ton of safe float to play around with. Sort of like Berkshire losing Buffett on the investment side: yeah, you lose the greatest decision-maker in that domain, but the unique-to-Berkshire framework for rational decision-making in that domain lives on, and that framework in and of itself constitutes an edge. (In insurance, Berkshire's key differentiating factor is its willingness not to write business when prices are bad. There's no reason that structural edge will disappear without Ajit, and that's just one of a few structural edges Berkshire's honed.) Edited March 3 by charlieruane
Parsad Posted March 3 Posted March 3 33 minutes ago, SMIS said: Is there any reason they didn't buy back stock other than they think it's currently not an attractive return? Funny...and I think Berkshire is starting to look cheaper again! Cheers!
Parsad Posted March 3 Posted March 3 4 minutes ago, charlieruane said: Yeah, I was thinking about this... what % of the current insurance float do we think is purely attributable to Ajit? Or, how much float goes away with him not at the helm? For example, Geico won't really suffer without Ajit around, and that's a big chunk o'the float. It's the more sui generis/exotic/giant reinsurance-y risks that'll be harder for Berkshire to underwrite... those premia might just go away for good. But overall I think Berkshire sans Ajit still has a ton of safe float to play around with. Sort of like Berkshire losing Buffett on the investment side: yeah, you lose the greatest decision-maker in that domain, but the unique-to-Berkshire framework for rational decision-making in that domain lives on, and that framework in and of itself constitutes an edge. (In insurance, Berkshire's key differentiating factor is its willingness not to write business when prices are bad. There's no reason that structural edge will disappear without Ajit, and that's just one of a few structural edges Berkshire's honed.) Yeah, it's not so much about how much he's allocating, but maintaining that culture of good underwriting and discipline across the entire insurance group. Kind of like Fairfax without Andy Barnard...same thing! It will still be good...but will it be great? Cheers!
charlieruane Posted March 3 Posted March 3 (edited) 1 minute ago, Parsad said: but maintaining that culture of good underwriting and discipline across the entire insurance group. Yup. His comments to Berkshire underwriters advising them to assume that every cyber policy they write will be money-losing come to mind... Edited March 3 by charlieruane
longterminvestor Posted March 3 Posted March 3 7 hours ago, sleepydragon said: Interesting. So greg maybe thinking about buyback and he asked warren? "Chairman of the Board" is Mr. Buffett for now but not forever. Will watch that sentence in 10K for the years to come. Thanks for sharing
longterminvestor Posted March 3 Posted March 3 2 hours ago, charlieruane said: Yeah, I was thinking about this... what % of the current insurance float do we think is purely attributable to Ajit? Or, how much float goes away with him not at the helm? For example, Geico won't really suffer without Ajit around, and that's a big chunk o'the float. It's the more sui generis/exotic/giant reinsurance-y risks that'll be harder for Berkshire to underwrite... those premia might just go away for good. But overall I think Berkshire sans Ajit still has a ton of safe float to play around with. Sort of like Berkshire losing Buffett on the investment side: yeah, you lose the greatest decision-maker in that domain, but the unique-to-Berkshire framework for rational decision-making in that domain lives on, and that framework in and of itself constitutes an edge. (In insurance, Berkshire's key differentiating factor is its willingness not to write business when prices are bad. There's no reason that structural edge will disappear without Ajit, and that's just one of a few structural edges Berkshire's honed.) Funny you bring up GEICO float vs. the rest of the book's float. I used to discounted GEICO float for a long time and focused on the CAT/Super CAT re-insurance business. I was looking at size only, the large numbers were awesome. I was not keying in on consistency/growth and other factors with reference to float. True, the CAT/Super CAT float is larger but lumpy vs. GEICO float. GEICO float is basically "take to the bank" float with very little surprises (sans hurricane/quake/COVID-19 payback). My study of GEICO has led me to Progressive and what they are doing (really interesting). Seems like GEICO is back in the game, had to do a lot of things to get that "car back on the road", seems like Todd had to be the bad guy and now new guy gets to take all the credit for Todd's hard work. I have thought deeply about float in general. and my study is pretty simple, float is easy to find. all you have to do is mis-price risk and float will find you. the key to enduring float is pricing the risk "your way" and then whatever comes in, is good business and the deserved results will find you. There are classes of insurance business with loss ratios sub 30% or even sub 40% but you can not build an enduring business on that class, its too competitive. Too many people shooting at it to drive the price down. Those lines of business are also not that large, relatively small. Again, back to the size problem, if Berkshire wants to build a business, the TAM has to be big. That's why Berkshire loves the personal auto market, because its predictable and the TAM is super large.
Munger_Disciple Posted March 3 Posted March 3 (edited) 2 hours ago, charlieruane said: Yup. His comments to Berkshire underwriters advising them to assume that every cyber policy they write will be money-losing come to mind... Yeah. I think's Ajit value to Berkshire is enormous (as Buffett repeatedly told us) and he is basically irreplaceable. When he retires, I think Berkshire will just stop underwriting certain risks that they only trust Ajit with. But they sure will miss his leadership across the board. My hope is that Ajit continues to work for Berkshire well past 80 and serves the role of Charlie for Greg after that. Edited March 3 by Munger_Disciple
Parsad Posted March 3 Posted March 3 3 hours ago, Munger_Disciple said: Yeah. I think's Ajit value to Berkshire is enormous (as Buffett repeatedly told us) and he is basically irreplaceable. When he retires, I think Berkshire will just stop underwriting certain risks that they only trust Ajit with. But they sure will miss his leadership across the board. My hope is that Ajit continues to work for Berkshire well past 80 and serves the role of Charlie for Greg after that. +1! Cheers!
scorpioncapital Posted March 9 Posted March 9 What competitive advantage does Berkshire have to grow/match the SP500? Cash is not really an advantage, cash is trash, everyone has it, otherwise they'd have nothing to invest. If you mean they are not 'fully invested' for decades, well anyone can also choose to have a 60-40 portfolio.
Spooky Posted March 9 Posted March 9 33 minutes ago, scorpioncapital said: What competitive advantage does Berkshire have to grow/match the SP500? Cash is not really an advantage, cash is trash, everyone has it, otherwise they'd have nothing to invest. If you mean they are not 'fully invested' for decades, well anyone can also choose to have a 60-40 portfolio. Cash could become king again… we will see.
Pellom Posted March 9 Posted March 9 1 hour ago, scorpioncapital said: What competitive advantage does Berkshire have to grow/match the SP500? Cash is not really an advantage, cash is trash, everyone has it, otherwise they'd have nothing to invest. If you mean they are not 'fully invested' for decades, well anyone can also choose to have a 60-40 portfolio. Everyone has cash? Bank of America's global fund manager survey released Tuesday points to all-time low cash levels of just 3.3%, down from 3.7% in November. Such bullish positioning, notes the report's author Michael Hartnett, represents the biggest headwind for risk assets. Investors are all-in already. FMS cash level drops to record low 3.3% Fund managers hold record low in cash as sentiment hits four-year high | Morningstar
KPO Posted March 10 Posted March 10 https://www.barrons.com/articles/berkshire-buyback-news-undercut-ability-repurchase-stock-cheaply-5d4e9c2e?mod=djem_b_Weekly Barrons feed for last 24 hours Not to nitpick, but this is what I was getting at last week. Another question this brings up is whether they would/should focus on A share buybacks in general to help stave off activists. If shares aren’t canceled who gets to vote them? I’m fairly certain the answer is no one….. until they get reissued. I think this might support a more material A premium as I’d focus intensely there if I’m Greg in order to cement control. @gfp what’s your take here in terms of this being a future activist blocker?
boilermaker75 Posted March 10 Posted March 10 8 hours ago, Pellom said: Everyone has cash? Bank of America's global fund manager survey released Tuesday points to all-time low cash levels of just 3.3%, down from 3.7% in November. Such bullish positioning, notes the report's author Michael Hartnett, represents the biggest headwind for risk assets. Investors are all-in already. FMS cash level drops to record low 3.3% Fund managers hold record low in cash as sentiment hits four-year high | Morningstar How can the total amount of cash change? If someone buys shares that I sell to them then I have the cash.
scorpioncapital Posted March 10 Posted March 10 Doesn't cash come from work, business? So it enters the pool of investable savings via creation of value by people's entrepreneurial and sales activity? But I guess because we have fractional reserve banking, it is not zero sum, someone's earnings are real gains somehow and the cash supply can expand to accommodate that. I never really understood how people getting paid somehow if the money supply expands only by inflation yet money can still be created. It's probably something to do with fractional reserve banking.
longterminvestor Posted March 10 Posted March 10 (edited) 3 hours ago, KPO said: https://www.barrons.com/articles/berkshire-buyback-news-undercut-ability-repurchase-stock-cheaply-5d4e9c2e?mod=djem_b_Weekly Barrons feed for last 24 hours Not to nitpick, but this is what I was getting at last week. Another question this brings up is whether they would/should focus on A share buybacks in general to help stave off activists. If shares aren’t canceled who gets to vote them? I’m fairly certain the answer is no one….. until they get reissued. I think this might support a more material A premium as I’d focus intensely there if I’m Greg in order to cement control. @gfp what’s your take here in terms of this being a future activist blocker? I am gonna give this a go (hold my beer @gfp). All based on recent 10K dated January 31, 2026, latest proxy dated May 3rd, 2025, and Gift letter from Mr. Buffett dated November 10th, 2025. So math below does not account for Mr. Abel's purchases or latest buybacks. Only smoke me in the comments if my underlying thesis is wrong, not basic share counts outstanding pls. As of Jan 31, 2026 10 K shares outstanding 511,820 A kind out (A Share price @ $745,200) 1,389,605,139 B kind out (B Share price @ $497.20) Voting is 1 A share to 10,000 B share Monetary value is 1 A share to 1,500 B share (monetary doesn't mean anything in the voting conversation) Mr. Buffett owned 206,539 A kind as of latest proxy and converted 1,800 A kind into 2,700,000 B kind and then gave them away...leaving him with 204,559 of the A kind as of now. Meaning Mr. Buffett controls 39.9% of the Berkshire vote....between us and Mr. Buffett we control the firm, ha! so...do the math...overtime, if Mr. Buffett's A shares are 100% ALL CONVERTED to B shares based on todays A Shares outstanding (511,820) minus Mr. Buffett's remaining (204,559) only 307,261 A shares will remain. Post 100% convert of Mr. Buffett A shares to converted B shares adding to already outstanding B, Total B will amount to 1,696,443,639. Totals if 100% of Mr. Buffett's A shares are converted to B: 307,261 A kind out - representing 65% of vote 1,696,443,639 B kind out - representing 35% of vote Voting Totals 307,261 A kind out - 307,261 votes (1 for 1) 1,696,443,639 B kind out - 169,644 votes (10,000 for 1) TOTAL VOTES OF ALL - 476,905 total (adding the converted 10,000 to 1 B and 1 for 1 A) Monetary Values (based on $745,200 for A & $497.20 for B) 307,261 A kind out - $228.97B 1,696,443,639 B kind out - $843.47B LETS NOT BURY THE LEDE! Lets say you are Mr. McRich and you want to buy 15% of outstanding votes of Berkshire Hathaway after Mr. Buffett dies. To wrestle just 15% control using A shares only, you have to #1. find them & #2. spend $53.31B! And if those Big A's won't sell to Mr. McRich....then you have to settle for the Baby B kind...you'd spend $355.675B (715.358M B Shares) which would represent 15% voting thru B only. Obviously you could do a combination of both spending less for the same 15%. Congress moves faster than Berkshire shareholders, 15% is not enough to get anything done vs. the remaining 85% "dyed-in-the-wool" Berkshire faithful.....I COULD NOT resist the textile pun there. There's probably and easier way to explain this using better math functions but this is how my brain sees the voting situation at Berkshire post Mr. Buffett. Hope this assessment passes the COBF seal of approval. Edited March 10 by longterminvestor
Pellom Posted March 10 Posted March 10 11 hours ago, KPO said: https://www.barrons.com/articles/berkshire-buyback-news-undercut-ability-repurchase-stock-cheaply-5d4e9c2e?mod=djem_b_Weekly Barrons feed for last 24 hours Not to nitpick, but this is what I was getting at last week. Another question this brings up is whether they would/should focus on A share buybacks in general to help stave off activists. If shares aren’t canceled who gets to vote them? I’m fairly certain the answer is no one….. until they get reissued. I think this might support a more material A premium as I’d focus intensely there if I’m Greg in order to cement control. @gfp what’s your take here in terms of this being a future activist blocker? There was a big volume uptick in A shares on 02/02. Could they have purchased them then?
KPO Posted March 10 Posted March 10 7 hours ago, longterminvestor said: I am gonna give this a go (hold my beer @gfp). All based on recent 10K dated January 31, 2026, latest proxy dated May 3rd, 2025, and Gift letter from Mr. Buffett dated November 10th, 2025. So math below does not account for Mr. Abel's purchases or latest buybacks. Only smoke me in the comments if my underlying thesis is wrong, not basic share counts outstanding pls. As of Jan 31, 2026 10 K shares outstanding 511,820 A kind out (A Share price @ $745,200) 1,389,605,139 B kind out (B Share price @ $497.20) Voting is 1 A share to 10,000 B share Monetary value is 1 A share to 1,500 B share (monetary doesn't mean anything in the voting conversation) Mr. Buffett owned 206,539 A kind as of latest proxy and converted 1,800 A kind into 2,700,000 B kind and then gave them away...leaving him with 204,559 of the A kind as of now. Meaning Mr. Buffett controls 39.9% of the Berkshire vote....between us and Mr. Buffett we control the firm, ha! so...do the math...overtime, if Mr. Buffett's A shares are 100% ALL CONVERTED to B shares based on todays A Shares outstanding (511,820) minus Mr. Buffett's remaining (204,559) only 307,261 A shares will remain. Post 100% convert of Mr. Buffett A shares to converted B shares adding to already outstanding B, Total B will amount to 1,696,443,639. Totals if 100% of Mr. Buffett's A shares are converted to B: 307,261 A kind out - representing 65% of vote 1,696,443,639 B kind out - representing 35% of vote Voting Totals 307,261 A kind out - 307,261 votes (1 for 1) 1,696,443,639 B kind out - 169,644 votes (10,000 for 1) TOTAL VOTES OF ALL - 476,905 total (adding the converted 10,000 to 1 B and 1 for 1 A) Monetary Values (based on $745,200 for A & $497.20 for B) 307,261 A kind out - $228.97B 1,696,443,639 B kind out - $843.47B LETS NOT BURY THE LEDE! Lets say you are Mr. McRich and you want to buy 15% of outstanding votes of Berkshire Hathaway after Mr. Buffett dies. To wrestle just 15% control using A shares only, you have to #1. find them & #2. spend $53.31B! And if those Big A's won't sell to Mr. McRich....then you have to settle for the Baby B kind...you'd spend $355.675B (715.358M B Shares) which would represent 15% voting thru B only. Obviously you could do a combination of both spending less for the same 15%. Congress moves faster than Berkshire shareholders, 15% is not enough to get anything done vs. the remaining 85% "dyed-in-the-wool" Berkshire faithful.....I COULD NOT resist the textile pun there. There's probably and easier way to explain this using better math functions but this is how my brain sees the voting situation at Berkshire post Mr. Buffett. Hope this assessment passes the COBF seal of approval. Thanks for the analysis. I agree. So if we go with the A buyback concept, once the A’s drop in share count by almost half you’ll have equal voting control between the classes in aggregate. Therefore one could exert substantial control by purchasing a relatively “small” amount of equity in relationship to the total EV. For this reason I’d expect the premium to widen over time. I realize this is a nearly useless thought experiment, but I do think it’s something Greg and the board need to have in the back of their minds as they execute share repurchases.
gfp Posted March 10 Posted March 10 2 minutes ago, Pellom said: There was a big volume uptick in A shares on 02/02. Could they have purchased them then? No, Berkshire didn't purchase and A or B shares before the Annual Report was released. No clue what Feb. 2nd A-share volume was all about but it may not be "real."
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