Berkshire Posts 25% Intel Gain by Shunning Buy-and-Hold

[dcollon]

I know it's mentioned in the article, but how long do you think it will be before commentators stop saying that "buffett bought" this or that when it really isn't him.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-14/berkshire-posts-25-intel-gain-by-shunning-buy-and-hold.html

 

[Kraven]

I know it's mentioned in the article, but how long do you think it will be before commentators stop saying that "buffett bought" this or that when it really isn't him.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-14/berkshire-posts-25-intel-gain-by-shunning-buy-and-hold.html

 

One to two years after his death.

[cayale]

My guess is there was an intent (probably by Combs) to buy and hold but his thesis changed.  None of the triumvirate appear to be traders.

[AZ_Value]

I know it's mentioned in the article, but how long do you think it will be before commentators stop saying that "buffett bought" this or that when it really isn't him.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-14/berkshire-posts-25-intel-gain-by-shunning-buy-and-hold.html

 

One to two years after his death.

 

Sounds about right

[zarley]

My guess is there was an intent (probably by Combs) to buy and hold but his thesis changed.  None of the triumvirate appear to be traders.

 

I agree.  But that does raise the question of how/why did they build a significant position and then change course.  I haven't looked at the timing, but perhaps related to the IBM purchase?  It's not a red flag for me at this point, but there has been more turnover in the portfolio this past year than we're used to.  It may settle down once Combs and Wechler have been around for a while.  Or, it may be the new normal given the new guys are recent hedge fund managers and less inclined to hold indefinitely.

[Uccmal]

My guess is there was an intent (probably by Combs) to buy and hold but his thesis changed.  None of the triumvirate appear to be traders.

 

I agree.  But that does raise the question of how/why did they build a significant position and then change course.  I haven't looked at the timing, but perhaps related to the IBM purchase?  It's not a red flag for me at this point, but there has been more turnover in the portfolio this past year than we're used to.  It may settle down once Combs and Wechler have been around for a while.  Or, it may be the new normal given the new guys are recent hedge fund managers and less inclined to hold indefinitely.

 

Buffett has always been an opportunistic investor.  There are multiple times in his career when he has bought and sold dozens of stocks, and times when he has sold virtually everything.  Aside from wholly owned or controlled companies there are only a handful that have never been sold. 

[Palantir]

Yes, if anything, this is the traditional style of value investing, you sell when the business rises to its intrinsic value, or when you start seeing better opportunities for that cash locked up in the investment. People mistakenly think that Buffet tries to hold his stocks forever, when in reality only a few stocks are worth holding forever.