Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A)
No. of Recommendations: 5
" I think the "not selling" comment is just to emphasize to the less informed in the world's investment community that this is not a case of "I'm done, I'm out, ditching my stock tomorrow". It preempts one of the more idiotic potential causes for a price crash on Monday. And for those in the know, a reminder that his plan remains in place to sell none and leave it all to charity in a way that liquidation is gradual--nothing unexpected is happening.
The "decision to keep every share" being economically sensible emphasizes that "not selling" notion, while expressing confidence in the future value growth. And, if one squints, a reminder that he's not dead yet.
Jim"
Good morning, it's always a treat to get your fair and balanced opinions on Buffets, statements. YOU, should have been an American Politian, either party would be fortunate to have you. The mayor of brkville doesn't do you justice! Let's play, what Buffett MEANT to say.
I, WB, have never sold one share of brkb in a taxable account, and I never will. Therefore, I will never realize one dime in tax liability while turning a few million into 200 BILLION in untaxed long term capital gains, over 60 years. Brkb doesn't pay a dividend hence no taxable event there as well. The foundations will continue to sell off my life's work TAX FREE!
I, WB, have not bought back one share of brkb since it was 25 percent lower a year ago at around 401. brkb has become a meme stock, if you want educated opinions on valuation, read social media sites like Reddit because I have no idea how to value brkb, or what greater fools will pay for it.
I, WB, am so uncertain what impact trumps tariff wars will have on iconic brands globally like Coke, Kraft Heinz, Apple, Amex, etc I'm hoarding cash like a man with an unusually high level of fear!
I, WB, continue to refuse to disclose the investing performance of T and T, despite the huge edge I have given them, aka, the Buffett Bounce, after their buys are erroneously reported by the media as, Buffett buys. WHO will be investing our 340 billion without the benefit of this deliberate effort to deceive the investing public?
As always, I appreciate you pointing out what I have wrong, and I'll leave it there for now. Stay healthy, old bud. hc.
No. of Recommendations: 9
Maybe those thoughts are valid, maybe not, I don't have opinions on many of them.
But I don't think any of them could be seen as a motivation either way to bother repeating the statement that he still doesn't plan ever to sell any his stock in Berkshire. I presume it was for the benefit of the observers who didn't know that or had come to doubt it, so avoid any nonsensical panic.
To your first comment--
I do think it's fair to point out that, true, he won't ever be paying a dime on the huge increase in the value of his shares, but that is a natural and fair consequence of never having received any benefit from that share price appreciation. There is rarely a good reason to advocate someone paying income tax on income they didn't make. I have been in that situation with Revenue Canada (as it was then called), getting a big bill for money I never made, and thankfully won the argument. They actually have an ombudsmen you can appeal to in cases of "that just doesn't make sense".
Jim
No. of Recommendations: 0
“ There is rarely a good reason to advocate someone paying income tax on income they didn't make.” Sorry pal, it’s long term capital gains he never realized in a taxable account. My grandkids are going to inherit 40 trillion in federal debt, was he asked for possible remedies? Btw, should I just assume it was another year with few or no substantive questions? Thanks.
No. of Recommendations: 21
it’s long term capital gains he never realized in a taxable account.
Sure. Never realized, never pocketed, never income.
The point is he will never have received that money. He got no benefit from it. I'm sure he never even borrowed against it to get an indirect benefit, which many a paper bazillionaire has done. (something for which I think there is perhaps a case for some tax liability--perhaps encumbering an asset should trigger a taxable event as a sale would do, up to the value of the consideration received?)
Economically, for him and his pocketbook, it's as if he bought a car for $1000, which later became worth $1,000,000 making him feel great, but was then stolen. My stance is that should not be deemed taxable in-come because it never came in, for him.
There are lots of places the asset could go next, and there are interesting conversations one could have about whether and to what extent those various destinations should get the whole amount or an after-tax amount. But he will never have had any income from it. I think a rule of "no income, no income tax" is a pretty sane starting point.
Jim
No. of Recommendations: 0
“ Sure. Never realized, never pocketed, never income.“ Well bud, as an American with kids and grandkids I would like to run my idea by Buffett. Buffett and others like him should donate with a one page cost basis disclosure to the charity. As the foundations sell and enjoy the proceeds from the sales, 15 percent of the gains go to Uncle Sam to help pay down our debt. Over the past 60 years did Buffett benefit from our defense dept, roads, sewers, bridges, school system etc? How much federal tax would you guess he paid in the aggregate the last 60 years, not corporate, personal? Thanks.
No. of Recommendations: 18
My grandkids are going to inherit 40 trillion in federal debt
You didn't phrase this correctly. The correct way to phrase it is -
Our grandkids are going to inherit 40 trillion in federal debt ... because WE repeatedly voted for people who made that happen.
No. of Recommendations: 1
" Our grandkids are going to inherit 40 trillion in federal debt ... because WE repeatedly voted for people who made that happen."
Since Bill Clinton what choices did we have?
No. of Recommendations: 0
Oof! BRK-B down this morning, big time.
509.79 -30.01 -5.5%
S&P500 -0.8%
No. of Recommendations: 5
Since Bill Clinton what choices did we have?
Do you really want an answer to this? We had the choice to vote for a competent HOA board chairperson (who was a local bully in high school), because that incompetent chairperson also entered local politics a few years later, and was elected selectman. Then later, the mayor suddenly died, and the opposing party was in disarray, so this incompetent guy ran for mayor and was surprisingly elected. He stayed mayor for 4 years and shored up his political power by pandering to all sorts of outside interests while ignoring his town that he was supposed to care for. A nearby congressional district became vacant due to retirement and using his well-built connections he ran for congress and was elected! He was in congress for 8 terms, and built up his power constantly (often using dubious tactics). The senior senator in his state got old and frail and had to retire. He grabbed the opportunity and took that senate seat. He served in the senate for 2 terms and is now pretty much ensconced there for as long as he wants. Since he is still only in his late 50s, there is talk that he may someday be on the main ticket.
So, yes, we had plenty of choices. We just made the wrong choices. We repeatedly, for decades, voted for that incompetent, sometimes nefarious, person at all levels of representing us. Starting from the lowly HOA board ... because we didn't bother to find someone competent to run for it. So YES, of course we had a choice!
