No. of Recommendations: 6
Some here may have the length of participation to remember some of the posters of previous boards who were not popular, a tad on the cantankerous (spelling?) side, yet they were pretty much "right" on the investment outcome of their posts. What happened over time was that the Berkshire board became very dysfunctional, led by its leaders.
We got there because of intolerance, utter cult behavior. Nothing more and nothing less. The theme(s) got more and more narrow beginning with Berk is cheap while S & P isn't (something I still pretty much agree with) but tagging along was the "own Berk and a couple other stocks and wait for the big collapse in the market."
Years passed and two things evolved: 1) Berk didn't outperform as we (me included) thought. 2) The stocks chosen by the leaders of the board were simply awful selections.
Variety of thought should be accepted and disagreement as to ideas welcomed. The concept that best investments are often made in a room along isn't a new-new thing, it is simply the test of time proven.
dealrakers hate here isn't new for me. I have been president of the investment club I'm a part of, one begun in 1954, twice. Each time I was elected president was after huge market collapses when the club cult faltered. But during the club cult? Some members despised me, I offered a different view, and I wasn't of course totally right but in the end more right than the cult which of course all members acknowledged begrudgingly as years passed.
On the Brookfield board or the Berkshire board posting on Brookfield, I questioned Brookfield Property for years. If you think the hate for me here is extreme, get past posts on the MF and check that out. In more recent times I've questioned both FFO (free form originality) and DO while stating that interest rates were not certain to go back low like Bruce assure you...that Brookfield's plan value was simply crazy. Brookfield has a debt situation that makes its property business very fragile because of interest payments they say is fixed (?) and propery income that they say is 70% tied to inflation even more uncertain (not tied to inflation). And the subs are in my view not superior, not superior because the parent is constantly slicing out more fees. Investors scream buy the fee business while ignoring where the fees originate. Joe and Bob originated a real estate business and then began a fee business within the real estate business screaming its fees made all of it more valuable. Logic?
Investment boards should welcome thought, and not shut down into a one pigeon hole. Concepts like "return on equity"? Oh my, with long tail insurance entities and stock buybacks ROE is one of the most bizarre mis-concepts available to value anything.
Oh, and by the way, as I've mentioned many times. Sell DG and buy Fairfax. And KMX? Oh lordy.
