No. of Recommendations: 39
"However, I think a more accurate description of your attitude would be to say that "this is a Trump backed initiative and [so "I am presuming that] his motivations for less reporting are FAR more sinister". I think it is a mistake to presume that anything that is backed by Trump must therefore be sinister, even if some things are."
I appreciate your reply but that would not be an accurate description of my attitude on the subject. Please allow me to clarify......
1. As I mentioned, I do believe this would be a non issue with a company like Berkshire because the company has earned rock solid trust with investors so we really don't need quarterly reporting. In addition, every Berkshire investor knows we don't make short term decisions so quarterly reporting is in fact onerous. Once we started having to mark to market our long term stock holdings quarterly earnings became not only useless but downright deceptive to the non Berkshire long term investor. We know to focus on operating earnings but to the non Berkshire die hard (that may own or be thinking about buying or selling the stock), they would be susceptible to misleading headlines. So again, in the case of Berkshire quarterly reporting is not a good thing but that's an entirely different case for the broader market......
2. Regarding Trump's support of bi annual reporting it may be a presumption, but that presumption is based on a host of facts that allow me to presume his intentions are far more sinister. I grew up on Long Island so he has been in my life basically since the age of adult consciousness (I'm 58). The old adage "fool me once shame on you, fool me....." 8 zillion times shame on me! I can recall at the drop of a dime his "John Barron" days calling the tabloids with grandiose false claims about his ego (note, I said ego and not alter), each of the bankruptcies as he wracked up incredulous debts, not paying contractors that completed work, Roy Cohn, the Burger King commercials and the cruelty & shallow insults he's displayed his whole life. And I have even mentioned the modern transgressions- crypto, "gifts" from foreign nations, Kushner making deals around the globe, pay for play, etc. A simple rendering of these facts (and they are facts) provides me with enough insight to presume that the only reason he supports less reporting is because he believes it benefits him and gives him more room to deceive regardless of whether or not this is good for US markets as a whole. Please do not take this as an attack on you. It is not! I have in fact enjoyed reading your takes and find them extremely worthwhile.
3. Less reporting is not good for the market as a whole. I'll take the extra red tape if it helps uncover more crucial information about a stock. Every earnings call, every filing and every time a company has to disclose information it is an advantage for the individual investor to learn something knew. It has been a rule for 55 years and I don't think it's hurt us all that much in that time. So if it ain't broke why fix it?
