Subject: Re: Adjusting BRK-centred retirement portfolio
The bigger issue would be the hit to the value (not just price) of
almost all shares globally in the situation that would lead to this
kind of problem at Apple. Ferengi rule of Acquisition #35: Peace is
good for business. In that sense, it's a risk to all firms, whether
they own Apple shares or not. More for firms that own Apple, but the
problem is not limited there.

That's why I don't shrink my Berkshire position because of the huge
Apple/China exposure: I appreciate the risk hugely, but I estimate
that I can live with the worst case scenario. Or, as mentioned, the
portion of the worst case scenario resulting from the large size of
Berkshire's position in Apple. If Apple takes the hit because of (say)
a shooting war in Taiwan, the Apple exposure is not going to be the
decisive issue.

As always, you thoughtful responses are invaluable.

I understand the logic of "if Apple is hit, many other companies will
also take a hit, perhaps staggeringly so." Shooting war, perhaps; or
less violent, a slamming shut of China's gates to "foreign" enterprises.

Another possibility, though, which is not altogether unlikely, is a calculated
and focused decimation of Apple to accomplish several purposes: protect/promote
home-grown competitors; hasten the drive for national tech sufficiency/superiority;
flex the muscles that show that the new and larger kid on the block has arrived
and is punching above his weight (both as a warning to others, and perhaps more
importantly as a matter of pride). No need to damage other companies. They will
get the idea. They will get the idea. Just as foreign investment banks in China
are now reducing their size and footprint in China as they have come to a more
realistic assessment of their medium to long-term prospects.

Apple might find comfort commiserating with the likes TSLA, which might not be
too far behind.

vez