Post New

Please address two issues and share your current thinking.

At the current valuation of SPY do you still think it's appropriate for anyone to be 90 $ SPY, or would you suggest more diversification?

In view of the current SPY valuation and the fact that spy currently yields a bit above 1 % would this be the appropriate time for brk to issue a quarterly dividend to yield a bit below 1 $ to be an even more reasonable alternative to spy. Obviously, our current cash balance justifies this decision.

Keep in mind that once you pass the Foundations will be selling 5-10 Billion brkb annually for ten plus years. Many other old time brk longs, including me, might be selling as well. The div will help create added demand worldwide, which will help absorb all that selling.

Thank you for being the most unselfish CEO and control person of a public company in the 50 plus years I've followed the markets, perhaps in the history of capitalism. Not a bad legacy partner, our kids, grandkids, and heirs all thank you! Hopefully you make it to 100 and I hang on to see it!

Happy Holidays to you and the family. hc

for anyone to be 90 $ SPY, or would you suggest more diversification?

90 percent SPY.

At the current valuation of SPY do you still think it's appropriate for anyone to be 90 $ SPY, or would you suggest more diversification?

In view of the current SPY valuation and the fact that spy currently yields a bit above 1 % would this be the appropriate time for brk to issue a quarterly dividend to yield a bit below 1 $ to be an even more reasonable alternative to spy. Obviously, our current cash balance justifies this decision

Dear Mr. Vegas:

Thanks for your inquiry. Normally I don’t respond to individual questions, but I do have more time on my hands these days, so here goes:

1. Do what you want. Personally I feel better about Berkshire’s prospects than SPY in the event of a market bump, but as the kids say, “your mileage may vary.”

2. No dividend. If you want a dividend, sell a share or two. The effect is exactly the same on the stock remaining in your portfolio. If you get $1 in dividend, the share price is reduced by $1. The only difference is that you will pay taxes on the $1, and at your current rate, which is probably higher than the long term capital gains rate if you sell a share. If you do sell a share or two, you will have some cash and you will pay less in taxes.

Don’t misunderstand, I love the United States, and believe in taxation to fund essential services, and even some which are not so essential. That said, I also like to keep the shareholders money in the shareholders’ wallet with the smallest tax consequences possible. If you want more, sell a share. Perhaps two. That has, over time, not been a great strategy, but you are welcome to it if that’s your choice.

Cordially, and always hoping for elephants,

Uncle Warren

I think the discussion about dividends is not in alignment with Mr Vegas's reasoning. I don't think he is looking for steady cash flow. Commencing a dividend would likely boost the stock price. When Apple restarted their dividend the boost was far more than the tax consequences of the dividend. As Munger has said, look at the inverse question. What would happen to Apple stock price if it cut the dividend and held the money for future investment.

If you are an accumulator of BRK, it would not be to your benefit if a dividend was started. For a seller a dividend would help for two reasons. One, there would be more demand for stock. Secondly, there would be less supply as holders would not have to sell stock to get their dividend.

From perplexity

Specifically, when Apple announced the resumption of dividends in 2012, the stock price popped roughly around 5-7% on the announcement day, reflecting investor enthusiasm for the dividend introduction. This dividend resumption marked a significant shift from Apple’s previous policy of not paying dividends and using cash for other purposes such as buybacks and reinvestment.

Aussi

" Cordially, and always hoping for elephants,

Uncle Warren"


Dear Uncle Warren, please don't have your shoeshine boy respond to me, I want our loving uncle, the real deal!

Thank you, hc.

" I think the discussion about dividends is not in alignment with Mr Vegas's reasoning. I don't think he is looking for steady cash flow. Commencing a dividend would likely boost the stock price. When Apple restarted their dividend the boost was far more than the tax consequences of the dividend. As Munger has said, look at the inverse question. What would happen to Apple stock price if it cut the dividend and held the money for future investment."


Oh my, you did it now. IF you need a place to hide, come to Vegas, I have options for you.

Good luck, hc.

"I think the discussion about dividends is not in alignment with Mr Vegas's reasoning. I don't think he is looking for steady cash flow. Commencing a dividend would likely boost the stock price. When Apple restarted their dividend the boost was far more than the tax consequences of the dividend. As Munger has said, look at the inverse question. What would happen to Apple stock price if it cut the dividend and held the money for future investment.

If you are an accumulator of BRK, it would not be to your benefit if a dividend was started. For a seller a dividend would help for two reasons. One, there would be more demand for stock. Secondly, there would be less supply as holders would not have to sell stock to get their dividend."

What Harold keeps ignoring is that starting a dividend just to influence the stock price goes against everything Buffett believes in and should send smart investors running for the exits.

Any company where the CEO and BoD does things purely to influence the price of the stock is not a company a person should want to invest in. If the BoD and CEO are willing to influence the price of the stock through a dividend, what other methods are they using to influence the price of the stock that you do not know about?

The CEO and BoD should be worried about running the company, not influencing the stock price.

Any company where the CEO and BoD does things purely to influence the price of the stock is not a company a person should want to invest in.

I don't know what the word "pure" is doing in that sentence.
It's the job of the board of directors to be responsible to shareholders. If you think paying dividends increases your stock price, long-term, then pay the friggin dividend. Maybe the shareholders don't believe that you will invest the money as well as Warren Buffett did, and they can invest it better.

Number go up heap better than number go down. Anything else is theoretical nonsense.

You've put your money into something that is spectacularly famous for not paying a dividend, and you now desperately want a dividend.
If you love Berkshire's portfolio, notably the dividend payers that Mr Buffett buys, maybe you should consider putting your money into OMAH?
To overgeneralize, it's a portfolio of ~10% Berkshire plus Berkshire's holdings, and a covered call writing overlay, promising a 15% yield. Or, rather, overpromising. *

It doesn't sound like a great investment to me, but it does promise a yield. For someone who prefers a yield to maximizing total return.

Jim

* The underlying yield of the portfolio seems to be about 1.47%, and the expense ratio is 0.95%, so presumably the other 14.5% they need comes from returning capital and all that "free money" the options market is famous for.

" You've put your money into something that is spectacularly famous for not paying a dividend, and you now desperately want a dividend."

Good morning, bud, I also bought a stock that didn't have an authorized buyback in place either right? Do you still oppose a buyback at material discounts to IV? Was the buyback ten years late? We aren't talking the ten commandments here, we are talking educated responses to market conditions.

Next year brkb will authorize a quarterly dividend and the regulars here will be proven wrong, again, watch. PLUS, the silence will be deafening.

Happy Holidays to you and yours old friend. hc

" Any company where the CEO and BoD does things purely to influence the price of the stock is not a company a person should want to invest in."


Imagin, thinking you understand Buffett and brk and still not understanding WHY Buffett originally authorized the buyback with a 1.1 xs BV limit for an obvious reason.



I guess Buffett was afraid he and Charlie might go on a drinking binge and at a moment of serious intoxication he would grossly overpay for brkb.

Shocking posts on this board, just shocking. Carry on.

I think the discussion about dividends is not in alignment with Mr Vegas's reasoning. I don't think he is looking for steady cash flow. Commencing a dividend would likely boost the stock price. When Apple restarted their dividend the boost was far more than the tax consequences of the dividend. As Munger has said, look at the inverse question. What would happen to Apple stock price if it cut the dividend and held the money for future investment.

I believe the thesis of your argument starts off in error, and continues down that path to making it worse with every sentence.

Apple operates in a narrow, if lucrative niche market. Their opportunities for expansion are somewhat limited to the technology field, and even certain narrow sectors in that. (We would not, for example, expect to see them trying to market internet-attached refrigerators.) Because they have been so (wildly) successful they have astonishing profits, and not really a lot to do with them except return some money to shareholders. This was a conscious decision, made at the time when they were even (allegedly) considering automotive or other possible markets.

Berkshire, by contrast, has the entire world available, although because of size they are limited to a subset of “big enough” investments that make sense. (In some ways so is Apple.) They have furniture, they have chocolate, they have railroads and energy, they have insurance and more insurance, and equity portfolios comprising everything from banking to soda pop to, uh, Apple.

Huge difference. And not that it matters, but “issuing a dividend” became trendy among the tech leaders in the early 2000’s, with Apple, Microsoft, and Google all deciding to do so within a year or two of each other - perhaps after realizing that their uses for the cash hoards piling up were limited. Perhaps Berkshire’s is too, but in such a different ball game it seems BRK is more likely to come up with a use than the aforementioned tech trio is. (I admit they have found a way to throw endless gobs of money at AI, but it remains to be seen whether that’s even a market that can be profitable, so it’s not the kind of thing Berkshire would even entertain.)

OK, so there are some funds which can’t buy BRK because it doesn’t have a dividend. Is that so important as to change how all the other current holders have viewed the stock over the past five decades? Seems fraught, at least to me.

" Any company where the CEO and BoD does things purely to influence the price of the stock is not a company a person should want to invest in."
..
Imagin, thinking you understand Buffett and brk and still not understanding WHY Buffett originally authorized the buyback with a 1.1 xs BV limit for an obvious reason.


The obvious reason is that it was a good investment at that price. Umm, obviously. A good allocation of capital given the alternatives of the time.
You think it was stock price manipulation? If so, you should sell. Nobody sensible would want to own shares in a company run by someone of base and pointless motivations.

Jim

" The obvious reason is that it was a good investment at that price. Umm, obviously. A good allocation of capital given the alternatives of the time.
You think it was stock price manipulation? If so, you should sell. Nobody sensible would want to own shares in a company run by someone of base and pointless motivations.

Jim"

I thought you sold brk and most things American many months ago, no?

Anyway, time for a real time call.

I say brkb is paying a quarterly div in 2026, what say you? Thank you.

"Any company where the CEO and BoD does things purely to influence the price of the stock is not a company a person should want to invest in." - Umm

"I don't know what the word "pure" is doing in that sentence." - knightof3

I think it is pretty clear. If the dividend is being initiated just to influence the price of the stock. on the other hand, if the BoD and CEO initiate a dividend because the company has excess cash and no prospects of future investment, then they are doing so for reasons other than influencing the price of the stock.

"It's the job of the board of directors to be responsible to shareholders. If you think paying dividends increases your stock price, long-term, then pay the friggin dividend." - knightof3

Those are words that lead down a very dangerous path. If the BoD and CEO think fiddling with the reserves each quarter in order to smooth out earnings increases the stock price, long term, then they should do it? After all, it is being responsible to shareholders.......

Nope. That is the wrong path. CEO and BoD should be worried about capital allocation and running the company to make the most money (legally) long term, not the stock price. The market should worry about the stock price.

I thought the lesson was clear to anyone reading this board for any length of time. We ignore posters who post repeatedly about the same thing. And who refuse to accept the information that is clearly presented to all. For those people, whether intentional or not, are behaving as trolls. And we don't feed the trolls.

I have had a good number of poster on ignore since very early on here at Shrewdom. Sadly, too many folks engage with these posters. No need. They will never learn. They just want attention. Why give them any satisfaction?

I try to keep my complaints to a minimum, so consider this maybe my annual complaint. Let's all try and be better!

Cheers,

SD

Yikes, Cramer talking high dividend yielders for those over 50. Has he gone mad?

Umm suggested:
Any company where the CEO and BoD does things purely to influence the price of the stock is not a company a person should want to invest in. If the BoD and CEO are willing to influence the price of the stock through a dividend, what other methods are they using to influence the price of the stock that you do not know about?

Not at all sure why everybody is just going along with this.

The only reason a CEO and a BOD should not do something that will raise the price of the stock is if in the longer run it will lower the price of the stock!

<cafe_americain>I am shocked, shocked I tell you, to see that public companies are in the business of raising their stock prices!</cafe_americain>


The General has been shot!,
R:)

"Umm suggested:
Any company where the CEO and BoD does things purely to influence the price of the stock is not a company a person should want to invest in. If the BoD and CEO are willing to influence the price of the stock through a dividend, what other methods are they using to influence the price of the stock that you do not know about?"

"Not at all sure why everybody is just going along with this.

The only reason a CEO and a BOD should not do something that will raise the price of the stock is if in the longer run it will lower the price of the stock!" - Ralph

I think you missed the phrase "purely influence".

Of course the CEO and board should do things that will raise the price of the stock, like grow revenues and earnings, etc. That isn't what I was talking about though. I was talking about doing things that are not about the business, but are instead done just to influence the price of the stock.

Umm:
Of course the CEO and board should do things that will raise the price of the stock, like grow revenues and earnings, etc. That isn't what I was talking about though. I was talking about doing things that are not about the business, but are instead done just to influence the price of the stock.

So you are against CEOs having quarterly conference calls with stock brokers and holders? You are against CEOs or board members participating in interviews in print or audio or TV? Or do you somehow think they are doing this for some reason other than increasing the value of their stock? Please note, if your answer is "well its their job to keep stockholder's informed about how the business is doing, they don't do it to keep the stock price up" then please think: why is that their job? Does it somehow improve the return on their stock holder's investments? And if that is why it is their job, then isn't it ultimately that they are supposed to keep us informed so people don't dump their stock because they don't understand why they should keep it?

It is not at all clear to me that ANYTHING that influences the price of the stock is not also about the business. Either it is keeping the stock high enough to reflect the actual value of the stock, and thus fulfilling their requirement to maximize shareholder's return, or they are flogging the stock so that people are tricked into paying too much for the stock, in which case they risk having a lower stock price in the future because nobody believes them anymore.

Do you think Buffett's amazing annual meetings are BAD for the stock price? I certainly don't think so. Do they help the businesses run better? Well they certainly take a lot of insanely valuable resources such as Buffett's time and the time of board members and Greg and Abel and so on away from figuring out how much more sugar to put in the blizzards or whether to use real chocolate or not in the See's candies.

Even Warren Buffett does stuff to keep the stock price up. Including selling hard the idea that he wants only to keep the stock price reflecting the true value of the company, because, you know what? That will keep the stock price highest in the long run. And if you don't think that is true, well, have you looked at a time series of the price of BRK stock lately?

Keeping the stock price up is the JOB of the board and the C-suite. It is why people buy stock in the first place. The only time you should not do something to keep the stock price up is when it won't actually work in the long run.

So if someone issues dividends because it will make the stockholders happy, they are at least trying to do their job. Maybe they are not doing good job, but maybe they ARE doing a good job. I buy AAPL. I buy NVDA. Their trivial little dividends cost less than a coat of paint or a thank you note in the long run, I'd be a fool not to buy these stocks if they are going to go up.

And if someone like me does actual math to see whether retaining earnings has been keeping the stock price high or not, then I am doing my job at supporting Warren et al. in doing their job of having policies that keep their stock price up.

R:)

You've put your money into something that is spectacularly famous for not paying a dividend, and you now desperately want a dividend.

Not being a dividend payer should not be a dogma. Berkshire currently does not pay a dividend because Buffett believes that he can invest that money far better than the individual shareholders, especially after dividend taxes. There is no reason the next management should have the same hubris and they definitely don't have the same proven record.
The dividend decision must be taken on rational economic reasons, not some blind tradition.
I am not desperate for a dividend. I am saying it makes more sense than building up a war chest of $350 billion doing nothing. Of course, I am willing to give them time, but not infinite time and patience. I have a finite lifetime and I want to see the rewards from Berkshire either in increased stock price or dividends.

" You've put your money into something that is spectacularly famous for not paying a dividend, and you now desperately want a dividend."

I bought a stock that didn't have an authorized buyback in place too, right? In 2006 the appropriate time had come to authorize buybacks at material discounts to IV, period. Better late than never.

In 2006 I suggested that brkb acquire the, right of first refusal on ALL Foundations sales, brkb still has not acquired that right, a huge error.

Last year I asked Buffett to spin out the apple to shareholders or reduce our exposure to the name by selling half, he agreed.

Can someone tell us WHY we have no certainty with respect to WHO bought the googl? I believe it was T and or T, not Buffett. Will Buffett call Becky Monday and clarify WHO bought the googl?

To repeat, look at brks top ten holdings, which Buffett buys do not pay a dividend, this is complicated?

Next year brkb will declare a quarterly 1$$ a share dividend, that's my prediction.

I still think we should acquire the right of first refusal on all Foundation sales.

Happy Holidays to our BODS, partners, and even the trolls.

There is no reason the next management should have the same hubris and they definitely don't have the same proven record.

Certainly true, especially since they have not been alive for a fair part of Buffett’s life, but I asked the Google machine what stocks Todd and Ted have purchased for the portfolio, and got this:

do we know what todd combs and ted weschler bought at berkshire

Berkshire Hathaway's recent portfolio filing indicates that investment managers Todd Combs and Ted Weschler were likely behind the purchase of a new $4.3 billion stake in Alphabet (GOOGL) during the third quarter of 2025. This was a significant technology investment for Berkshire.
While it is not always possible to definitively attribute specific stock picks, here is what is known about Combs' and Weschler's recent activity:

Alphabet (GOOGL): The new position in the Google parent company was likely initiated by one of the two managers.

Chubb: During the second quarter of 2024, Berkshire increased its sizable investment in Chubb, a move that was likely directed by one of the managers.

Ulta Beauty and Heico: In the second quarter of 2024, Berkshire initiated smaller holdings (under $300 million) in Ulta Beauty and Heico. These smaller positions were likely chosen by either Weschler or Combs.

Sirius XM Holdings: It is believed that a purchase of Sirius XM Holdings shares in the third quarter of 2024 was an investment made by Weschler.

Amazon: One of the two managers initiated Berkshire's investment in Amazon back in 2019, and the company still holds those shares.

Apple: Both Combs and Weschler were influential in Berkshire's initial investment in Apple, though the company has been trimming its stake in recent years.

This is hardly a deep dive, it’s Saturday morning and I’m barely into my first cuppa, but I see only one clinker in there. The rest seem pretty good - with the caveat that it’s easy to be good when the market is your friend.

In 2009 the same intellectuals on the boards told me, BRK doesn't have a buyback in place. Stop your bitching for several years, sell brk, and buy a stock with a buyback in place. My brk has done just fine since 2003 thank you. The experts assured us that Buffett can do much better than buying brk common near BV, we don't need a stinking buyback. The rest is history.

Now is the appropriate time to initiate a quarterly dividend which will increase demand for brkb common.

Several of my kids and grandkids live in Cali top tax bracket. If anyone here would sell brkb and give trump 22% and Newsom 13 % of the gains, please help an old man out and make the case to sell.

Thank you. hc, old, who has fallin and can't get up, in need of help!

"So you are against CEOs having quarterly conference calls with stock brokers and holders? You are against CEOs or board members participating in interviews in print or audio or TV?" - Ralph

Depending what they say.... Of course I am not against any of that. That would be silly.

"Or do you somehow think they are doing this for some reason other than increasing the value of their stock? Please note, if your answer is "well its their job to keep stockholder's informed about how the business is doing, they don't do it to keep the stock price up" then please think: why is that their job? Does it somehow improve the return on their stock holder's investments? And if that is why it is their job, then isn't it ultimately that they are supposed to keep us informed so people don't dump their stock because they don't understand why they should keep it?" - Ralph

That is utterly silly. Do you think Buffett sits on stage for hours on end in early spring in JUST to influence the price of the stock? No. Of course not.

"It is not at all clear to me that ANYTHING that influences the price of the stock is not also about the business. Either it is keeping the stock high enough to reflect the actual value of the stock, and thus fulfilling their requirement to maximize shareholder's return, or they are flogging the stock so that people are tricked into paying too much for the stock, in which case they risk having a lower stock price in the future because nobody believes them anymore." - Ralph

Then you haven't actually read this thread all the way through.

Harold (his real name is Harvey, but his "friends" call him Harold), wants Berkshire to pay an extremely small dividend solely because he thinks it will influence the price of the stock. He has admitted it doesn't matter from a business sense.

Obviously then can be business reasons to pay a dividend. The company can determine it has capital in excess of its investment opportunities and want to return some of it to shareholders. Great. But if the dividend is only being done to influence the stock price (as Harvey clearly suggested) then it is a not a good idea and should raise a red flag among investors. Same for buybacks. If the company (CEO and BoD) determines that buying back its stock is a good investment to make with its capital, then that is great and I have no problem with it. However if they are buying back stock JUST to boost the price of the stock, then that should be a huge red flag.

"Do you think Buffett's amazing annual meetings are BAD for the stock price?" - Ralph

Now you are just being dumb and creating strawmen. Come on. I know you and that is not normally you. What's up with this?

I will make it as simple as I can make it:

If management is doing things SOLELY/PURELY/JUST to influence the price of the stock, then it should raise a huge red flag for investors because it means that they are focused on the wrong thing and it could have very dangerous consequences.

I will fully recognize that most actions can fall into a grey area in that they can be done for business reasons or to influence the price of the stock. A vast majority of actions (99.9% or more) fall into this area and it might be reasonable to give management the benefit of the doubt in these cases, but in the rare cases where the motivation is clear (such as being verbalized as somehow being beneficial) then it should be a clear red flag that management is focused on the wrong thing.

Management should be focused on running the business. If they run the business well then a high stock price will eventually naturally follow.

"In 2009 the same intellectuals on the boards told me, BRK doesn't have a buyback in place. Stop your bitching for several years, sell brk, and buy a stock with a buyback in place. My brk has done just fine since 2003 thank you. The experts assured us that Buffett can do much better than buying brk common near BV, we don't need a stinking buyback. The rest is history." - Harold

That is not what was said. You just were not capable of understanding what was said so you are making shit up instead.

If management is doing things SOLELY/PURELY/JUST to influence the price of the stock,

When Boeing put a real-time stock ticker flashing only Boeing trades and stock prices in their executive waiting area I knew they were doomed.

" If management is doing things SOLELY/PURELY/JUST to influence the price of the stock,"


Goofy, simple question, why do you suppose Buffett refuses to disclose which trades are his?

If the press reports the googl buy as a Buffett buy will googl open stronger on Monday then if he was reported as a T buy, in your opinion?

Thank you.

hc:
Goofy, simple question, why do you suppose Buffett refuses to disclose which trades are his?

Well, I'm not Goofy, at least not with a capital-G. But I would think he doesn't report whose trades are which because he is making the point that there is one Berkshire Hathaway and what Berkshire Hathaway buys he supports as the Chairman of the Board whether or not it was his idea.

I think its a leadership thing.

R:

"
Well, I'm not Goofy, at least not with a capital-G. But I would think he doesn't report whose trades are which because he is making the point that there is one Berkshire Hathaway and what Berkshire Hathaway buys he supports as the Chairman of the Board whether or not it was his idea.

I think its a leadership thing.

R:"

Sorry pal, non-responsive so I'll ask the same question again, read it slowly. Thank you.





" If the press reports the googl buy as a Buffett buy will googl open stronger on Monday then if he was reported as a T buy, in your opinion?"

Sorry pal, non-responsive so I'll ask the same question again, read it slowly.

How about this, HC. Don't ask two questions, receive a perfectly direct response to one of them, and call it non-responsive. Maybe it's not the answers that are non-responsive, but the redundant questions themselves. 🤔

We always knew which stocks in the portfolio had been purchased by Lou Simpson.

We always knew which stocks in the portfolio had been purchased by Lou Simpson.

Sure, but only because of a quirk in the 13F reporting regulations. His portfolio was held entirely within a separate entity.

The simple reason that the originators of individual trades are not disclosed is the same reason the length of Mr Buffett's lunch is not disclosed: we have no inherent right to that information, and it could conceivably be to the detriment of the firm somehow if publicised.

The company has a general policy of preferring not to discuss any current positions, and for good reason.

Jim

“ The simple reason that the originators of individual trades are not disclosed is the same reason the length of Mr Buffett's lunch is not disclosed: we have no inherent right to that information, and it could conceivably be to the detriment of the firm somehow if publicised.

The company has a general policy of preferring not to discuss any current positions, and for good reason.

Jim“. Good morning bud, truly remarkable. Carry on.

The simple reason that the originators of individual trades are not disclosed is the same reason the length of Mr Buffett's lunch is not disclosed: we have no inherent right to that information, and it could conceivably be to the detriment of the firm somehow if publicised.

This is absolutely ludicrous. Buffett's lunch is none of my business. Todd or Ted screwing up is absolutely my business. Please. If say Todd Combs (more likely than Ted Weschler) makes dumb decisions, I as a shareholder have a right to demand that Berkshire at least keep a tighter leash on him. Whether they do or not will decide my allocation to Berkshire and indirectly my retirement. This is not a game.

The simple reason that the originators of individual trades are not disclosed is the same reason the length of Mr Buffett's lunch is not disclosed: we have no inherent right to that information, and it could conceivably be to the detriment of the firm somehow if publicised.
...
This is absolutely ludicrous. Buffett's lunch is none of my business. Todd or Ted screwing up is absolutely my business. Please. If say Todd Combs (more likely than Ted Weschler) makes dumb decisions, I as a shareholder have a right to demand that Berkshire at least keep a tighter leash on him. Whether they do or not will decide my allocation to Berkshire and indirectly my retirement. This is not a game.

Of course it's not a game. It's being run for the financial benefit of shareholders, not for your entertainment. It is better for me, and all shareholders, if you don't know who made that purchase, so my suggestion is to just get over it. You'll have to get over it anyway, so might as well be at peace with it : )

Do you know who made the decision on any given purchase for any other company or fund? Nope, only on the rarest of circumstances, when somebody decides to announce something (talking their book, generally). It's for a reason. Ideas are very valuable, and inferences about who is doing what/when erodes the value of those ideas, and by extension the value of a share. For example, in this case, if the decision had been that of Mr Buffett and that had been disclosed, it's likely that many market participants would make assumptions about further purchases in the next quarter and would likely bid up the price. If that was indeed going to happen, it directly hurts the value of a share because those subsequent purchases would be at worse prices.

We get to see the aggregate amount of equity purchases, sales, dividends, and portfolio market value changes. By a quirk of history almost all positions and their sizes are made public as well. That's more than enough.

Simply put, Berkshire has a broad policy of not commenting on current positions or current trades, and we're all better off financially as a result. I'm happy with being better off financially.

Jim

Do you know who made the decision on any given purchase for any other company or fund? Nope

You are right - but Berkshire is a different beast. It´s build on trust. Trust always was and is THE factor when it comes to Berkshire and it's a bit special shareholders.

That trust was build not only on the company structure, but on individuals, namely Warren and Charlie. If Berkshire wants to stay what it always was it's important that the new generation of individuals steering the company build the same trusting relationship with their shareholders --- and that requires not just quarterly company results, but the utmost transparency of those individuals and their decisions.

“Trust”

As a shareholder I have to trust the board, trust management. If decisions are made at lower levels and they weren’t good decisions, I have to ‘trust’ that management will rectify it.

To the extent that Todd or Ted are somewhat talented investors, I do not want their moves broadcast to the world, it’s bad enough that we have the 13Fs to contend with. This is proprietary information.

Despite our policy of candor, we will discuss our activities in marketable securities only to the extent legally required. Good investment ideas are rare, valuable and subject to competitive appropriation just as good product or business acquisition ideas are. Therefore we normally will not talk about our investment ideas. This ban extends even to securities we have sold (because we may purchase them again) and to stocks we are incorrectly rumored to be buying. If we deny those reports but say "no comment" on other occasions, the no-comments become confirmation.

RTFM! Seriously, when you buy something with a manual 😎.

I am only want to know afterwards - and that can be long afterwards (in the Annual Report or whatever) - who was responsible for buying/selling what. And that would influence the markets, would destroy the good ideas? Think again.

Post New

Atheist Shrewds FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.