Post New

Unfortunately, Uncle Warren supports this terrible idea another HUGE mistake.

Dear Partner, call me I'm always here for you. I'd be happy to splain this to you, lucy, and Rickie Ricardo. Even IF this passes brkb should continue to report every 90 days for obvious reasons. Thank you.


" SEC prepares proposal to eliminate quarterly reporting requirement
Story by Corrie Driebusch • 1d • 2 min read
Markets today

© Matt McClain/Bloomberg News
The Securities and Exchange Commission is preparing a proposal to eliminate the requirement to report earnings quarterly and instead give companies the option to share results twice a year, according to people familiar with the matter.

The details
The regulator could publish the proposal as soon as next month, the people said. In preparation for the proposal, regulators have been talking to officials at the major exchanges to discuss how they may need to adjust their rules.


Once the proposal is published, it will be subject to a public comment period. After that period, which typically lasts at least 30 days, the SEC will vote on it. There are no guarantees it will ultimately happen.

The rule is expected to make quarterly reporting optional, not eliminate quarterly reports altogether.

Unfortunately, Uncle Warren supports this terrible idea another HUGE mistake.

Dear Partner, call me I'm always here for you. I'd be happy to splain this to you, lucy, and Rickie Ricardo. Thank you.

The context
The push for semiannual reporting gained steam late last year. The Long-Term Stock Exchange petitioned the SEC to eliminate the quarterly earnings report requirement, The Wall Street Journal reported in September. Within days, President Trump and SEC Chairman Paul Atkins both said they supported the idea.

Publicly traded companies in the U.S. have reported results every three months for the past 50-plus years. Trump briefly explored the idea of moving to semiannual earnings reports during his first term, but the effort went nowhere.


Those in favor of less-frequent reporting requirements believe a switch could help boost the shrinking number of public companies in the U.S. Among the reasons companies cite as to why they remain private is the time-consuming and costly clerical work required to list and maintain publicly traded shares.

Any change is likely to face opposition from investors who rely on the transparency of regular disclosures.

Publicly listed European companies are no longer required to report quarterly financial results after a 2013 rule change. The U.K. also ended quarterly reporting requirements about a decade ago, though many companies still report quarterly.

Write to Corrie Driebusch at corrie.driebusch@wsj.com

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/economy/sec-prepar...

This is an interesting issue....... On one hand I totally understand Warren's thinking and in the terms of a Berkshire Hathaway this would be a relative non issue. Berkshire reports the truth, doesn't do financial chicanery to meet quarterly numbers and you can trust that management won't hide important issues that shareholders should know about. On the other hand, this is a Trump backed initiative and his motivations for less reporting are FAR more sinister. He wants it for the exact opposite reason- easier to hide financial chicanery, wants the ability to hide bad information and in general wants companies to be less burdened with informing investors of what they are doing. And because of that I am against changing the reporting rules!

On the other hand, this is a Trump backed initiative and his motivations for less reporting are FAR more sinister. He wants it for the exact opposite reason- easier to hide financial chicanery, wants the ability to hide bad information and in general wants companies to be less burdened with informing investors of what they are doing. And because of that I am against changing the reporting rules!


I largely agree with your conclusion; I am not convinced that we need quarterly reports, but I don't think skipping 2 earnings reports a year is going to significantly lighten the regulatory burden on American companies.

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.

dtb

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.

DTB,

You're certainly entitled to your own opinion.

However, if one took a poll of informed voters asking whether Trump's proposal was for the better good of the USA or for his own better good, my opinion is that the latter would be the overwhelming result.

As Buffett once noted, you can't make a good deal with a bad person.

We're now learning that again in what Paul Krugman calls Operation Epic FUBAR. In a Reuters newsletter today, they report that 17% of Qatar's LNG capacity has been damaged, with repairs taking 5 years. Shell's Qatar natural gas to liquids (140 kb/d) will be out for a year. The Exxon-Aramco refinery located at Saudi's only fuel export plan has been attacked. Ditto in Kuwait.

Any projections that O&G prices will return to normal in weeks is simply wrong. The results of this war will impact prices from years to decades. The Middle East "let each other alone" O&G peace has been shattered.

Based on Trump's track record of negative results, proven lies, and the quality of people he has put heading key administration positions, why would one expect anything different on the reporting proposal under consideration?

Based on Trump's track record of negative results, proven lies, and the quality of people he has put heading key administration positions, why would one expect anything different on the reporting proposal under consideration?


Though you make some points, the other comment has some validity: just because it came from a person with a bit of history does not for that reason alone mean it was done for a dishonourable reason.

Besides, there is "stopped clock" theory. I occasionally ponder the downright sensible things that Mr Trump has done or spearheaded. Good mental exercise, like any stretch, and not at all impossible.

Jim

Besides, there is "stopped clock" theory. I occasionally ponder the downright sensible things that Mr Trump has done or spearheaded. Good mental exercise, like any stretch, and not at all impossible

These are true libtards, this will never happen! They can’t ever keep their retarded political posts where they belong. The internet is forever and you can see that hypocrisy and outright stupidity is all they got.
TDS forever 🤣

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/186zuvbMwr/?mibex...

IF, this proposal passes the question is, will Greg still favor reporting quarterly?

What is Buffett's, current thoughts on this issue?

The UK got rid of quarterly reports. We have "trading updates" instead. Not required but normal for most companies.

I occasionally ponder the downright sensible things that Mr Trump has done or spearheaded. Good mental exercise, like any stretch, and not at all impossible.


This is a type of exercise that many people, on both sides of the political spectrum, avoid assiduously, even though it might be quite good for them and for the people around them.

is it that complex?
just a hierarchy of base rates, based on lifetime actions.

a. direct public evidence of fiscal benefit to trump family & friends.
relevancy of greater good is zero.

b. gop entertainment, retribution, redmeat, etc...
relevancy of greater good near zero with tremendous publicity coverage\spin via all media.

c. all others. (e.g., quarterly reporting)
is it really worth much thought for this 1% category?

cost to taxpayers make these considerably easier to classify.
these are not mutually exclusive if partial information is non-conclusive.

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"

It doesn’t have to be “sinister.” Sometimes it’s just stupid. There’s a whole barrel full of dumb there, for sure.

I think we are seeing how much damage can be done in six months or a year’s time, not necessarily in business but certainly in other aspects of our lives. Maybe we’re not willing to do anything about it, but I’m glad we don’t get a report on it just once in January and not again until July.

More data is better. If it’s such a terrible burden, hire somebody to do it. It’s a pittance against the amount invested and the quantity of dollars flowing through the enterprise in any given trimester. Nobody likes writing reports, of course they’d propose fewer. Meanwhile lots of people like reading them. Even Warren.

"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?

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.

Let me present a different, un-American view. I don´t know how it´s nowadays but during my active life writing IT books the German view on this was: Quarterly report is the reason why American companies are thinking and acting short-term. Because the boss has to polish the numbers before they are released end of the quarter.

And I personally made exactly that experience with my main publisher, Markt& Technik Verlag (M&T), who was the No.1 or 2 in the german-speaking IT book market (competing for No.1 with Data Becker, my former publisher).

Having started as a ´family´ business (3 founders, not related, nevertheless family among themselves and with their employees) which was thinking long-term, focussed on quality and reputation, all changed dramatically when Markt&Technik was bought by an American company.

Immediatedly prioritizing quarterly numbers, with tragic effects: I worked a lot with beta versions of Borland and Microsoft software (C compiler, MS Office etc.). Before Markt&Technik became American my manuscripts were thoroughly checked/reviewed by internal or external editors before the book was printed.

After Markt&Technik became American priority No.1 was about to bring my book to the shelves of the book stores sooner than Data Becker and Addison Wesley, the main competitors, as the book about the new version of MS Access or Excel which is the first one on those shelves for quite a while sells better than the later books of the competition (the employees then are already used to recommend that first book to inquiring customers).

I think it was with my `Excel 2000 Kompendium´ and my ´Access 2000 Kompendium´ when (around year 2000) the first time something happened which was absolutely unthinkable when Markt&Technik was still a German company: The books I wrote with the last beta version were printed!

Printed before the final versions of Excel/Access were released, the ones sold to the public --- and therefore before I had a chance to find out what may have changed compared to the beta versions.

All protesting did not help. I was told ´We print a small run first [That was already 5000 or 10000 books] and while we sell that you review your books with the final version and adapt it to the changes of the final versus the beta versions´.

Everybody knew there would be complaints from customers about ´errors/mistakes´in the books, not knowing that what I described was 100% correct for the last beta versions I used --- but not for the final versions MS released to the public. But those complaints were seen as an acceptable ´casualty of war for the 1st position in the book stores´, for making the end of quarter numbers look good.

Unthinkable as long as Markt&Technik was a German Company!
Caused by the American obsession with quarterly numbers.

Quality? Reputation? Long-term thinking?
Trademarks of a Germany before American companies took over.

What did Warren once say?
´It takes 30 years to build a reputation, but only 30min to destroy it´.

As usual many of the responses to this post are truly incredible.


First of all, even if the rule passes changing behavior would be optional.

Isn't there a possibility trump heard of Jamie Dimon, Warren Buffett, etc? Can trump just be echoing their thoughts?

I wonder how many posters here have actually been officers and or directors, of public companies?

Going forward Buffett, the control shareholder, intends to sell his life's work annually for the next ten years. IF Greg and the BODS agrees to LESS disclosure and transparency while Buffett is selling, they are all in way over their heads!



Either way, ITS TRUMP'S FAULT!! UNreal.

"Let me present a different, un-American view. I don´t know how it´s nowadays but during my active life writing IT books the German view on this was: Quarterly report is the reason why American companies are thinking and acting short-term. Because the boss has to polish the numbers before they are released end of the quarter."

Also a very fair point. Jack Welch was famous for playing quarterly numbers. However, I would argue that changing how many times a year a company has to report isn't going to change that behaviour, it's merely going to move the goal posts for companies that do it. Again, it's been 55 years since America changed to quarterly reporting and the market has done just fine with it.

"Either way, ITS TRUMP'S FAULT!! UNreal."

The proposal is coming from Trump's SEC. He floated this idea during his first administration too. Who should we blame, Calvin Coolidge?

" The proposal is coming from Trump's SEC. He floated this idea during his first administration too. Who should we blame, Calvin Coolidge?"

Today, if Dimon and Buffett say the obvious, semiannual reporting will lead to more fraud, not less, more front running based on material nonpublic info, not less, and that brk will continue to file quarterly regardless of the rule, what future would the rule change have?

Buffett and Dimon care what trump says? Are they both buying trump coins too?

Buffett, Dimon, and brk should ALWAYS oppose less disclosure, always.

Quarterly reports aren't audited, perhaps this year Greg will be asked substantive questions. How much does an unaudited quarterly report cost brk? It's worth the money.

I just thought of something. In 1989 or so I received what was called," a notice of inspection." This meant any shareholder could request an opportunity to inspect a public company's books. My lawyer said, Fk em, I'll delay them until you are 80 years old, lol. I said why would I do that I'm calling them to come visit me in Vegas, I look forward to it, I'm proud of our books.

Two weeks later A doc shareholder came with his CPA from AZ, spent several hours in my home office. I offered to order lunch, and they left. The next day the Doc calls me and says, I want to buy 9.9 % of the company, I ask, why is that? He says my CPA couldn't believe how you handle shareholder money, when no one is watching.

So, I wonder, if I sent brk a, notice of inspection, would that apply to all the wholly owned subs as well?

I heard reliable sources Buffett has a little money and he likes to gamble.

Give me the right to send a forensic accountant into 50 of our wholly owned subs and I say we will find serious misconduct, maybe very very serious misconduct.

Let's go Uncle, this way you and Greg can blame me, how clean are brks subs, OR, will we find, dirty deeds?

AdrianC, would you like a piece of my bet, partner? ::))

wow, team trump hasn't killed this reg, yet. Not that many people know it even exists.

" Right of inspection: Examining Company Records for Transparency
The right of inspection is a legal right that allows shareholders, members, and other interested parties to examine certain company records and documents. This right is aimed at promoting transparency and accountability in corporate governance. It enables shareholders to monitor the performance of the company and to ensure that the directors and officers are acting in the best interests of the company and its stakeholders. The right of inspection is an important tool for shareholders to exercise their ownership rights and to hold the company's management accountable."

Uncle, you must be dying to know, let's have some fun, truth, justice, and the brkville way, and do we have 100 percent honest Americans?

IF so, brkb should trade at 5 xs BV!!


ucmtsu,no way.

So if it ain't broke why fix it?

But some argue that it *IS* broken". For businesses that have reqular and well understood flows of business quarter to quarter (like commodity businesses, grocery stores, etc), reporting quarterly is a non-issue because the business flows as usual and it becomes obvious when "business is down" or "business is up". But for other businesses where revenue flows are more irregular, if they are forced to report quarterly, there is always a pervasive temptation to pull/push things (revenue recognition, profit recognition) into a "suitable" quarter regardless of the actual business flow. Not only that, but there is also the huge temptation to push/pull good business events into the quarter where stock options become exercisable. Luckily Berkshire doesn't have this last particular problem for the most part.

I would suggest a comprehensive business report once a year, with audited numbers, and clear profit metrics reported. And perhaps an unaudited quarterly update of sorts that doesn't include actual profit numbers, but rather is a commentary on the general state of the business during the previous quarter. I would also add that any stock-based compensation given to executives must have vesting dates at least 3 months distant from that comprehensive annual report. So if you report annual results in March, executive options vest in July through November. A simple and easy to understand rule that reduces temptation.

Speaking of SEC regulatory stuff, in case anyone missed it:

"Most crypto assets, be they currencies, collectibles, stablecoins, or some other variant within the fast-moving digital marketplace, don’t qualify as securities, and therefore transactions won’t be subject to stringent oversight by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the agency said this week." ...

'Sno my job, so go for it.


From https://www.barrons.com/articles/crypto-asset-guid...

Jim

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

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