Post New

I was just glancing at the recent 13F filing for Berkshire. I calculated that the top 15 positions represent 92.63 % of the portfolio while the bottom 26 represent the balance. The seemingly massive 400 million share stake in KO is now less than 10% of the portfolio! Hard to wrap my head around that one:)
In addition, they seem to tweak the tiny positions from time to time. For example:
Lamar Advertising (LAMR) represents .06 % of the portfolio yet added to their position by 2.79%
Lennar Corporation Class B (LEN.B) represents .01 % of the portfolio and they added to the stake by .03%

So, my question is: why even bother with these tiny stakes? And to add/trim these positions seems like child play:)

Hope everyone is having a nice weekend.

-BD

Lamar Advertising (LAMR) represents .06 % of the portfolio yet added to their position by 2.79%
Lennar Corporation Class B (LEN.B) represents .01 % of the portfolio and they added to the stake by .03%
So, my question is: why even bother with these tiny stakes? And to add/trim these positions seems like child play : )

I have no knowledge, but a speculation: These are perhaps small positions inside some division's pension plan. Shares held in the pension plan of a small business that has been acquired, perhaps. Small changes to those position sizes may be related to odd stuff like changes in reporting, changes in managerial control, spinoffs, stock dividends, changes in whether shares are "votable" or not. Maybe even correcting the occasional rounding error.

I mention managerial voting control because that's what the 13F is for, it isn't for the firm to disclose its portfolio composition to the public. That's just a side effect for the armchair quarterbacks like us. It excludes non-US companies, options, and I believe some positions without voting power. It includes shares for which the manager has voting control but for which the common shareholders do not have any beneficial interest.

Like you, I doubt that anyone at head office would bother allocating capital at that level of size and precision.

Jim

Lamar Advertising (LAMR) represents .06 % of the portfolio yet added to their position by 2.79%
Lennar Corporation Class B (LEN.B) represents .01 % of the portfolio and they added to the stake by .03%
So, my question is: why even bother with these tiny stakes? And to add/trim these positions seems like child play : )

I have no knowledge, but a speculation: These are perhaps small positions inside some division's pension plan. Shares held in the pension plan of a small business that has been acquired, perhaps.


There are dozens of entities within, and controlled by, Berkshire that hold cash, securities, and stakes (maybe both full and partial) in the "wholly owned" subs. There aren't three brokerage accounts labeled "Warren, Ted, and Todd". When Warren gave T&T money to manage, he likely said something like "Ted, you manage these seven insurance subs' float, and forty-two pension plans". Each of these accounts will have its own cash flow, time horizon, and risk profile; incremental changes are probably made all the time. I would hope some of this would be delegated to lower-level managers.

It's hard to imagine the complexity of the accounting... is it really possible it is done by the small team in Omaha?

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

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