Personal Finance Topics / Retirement Investing
No. of Recommendations: 3
Calling it straight up- Warren selling his Apple position down has been dead wrong. Cash out the door due to taxes and the loss of capital appreciation.
No. of Recommendations: 0
" Calling it straight up- Warren selling his Apple position down has been dead wrong. Cash out the door due to taxes and the loss of capital appreciation."
I wonder if he considered spinning it out to shareholders, as I suggested.
No. of Recommendations: 11
Calling it straight up- Warren selling his Apple position down has been dead wrong. Cash out the door due to taxes and the loss of capital appreciation.In April it looked like this might have been an excellent trade, in December not so much. A bit early to be calling this "dead wrong". Purchases were made at PE levels in the 15s, sold in the 30s, yes it now up to nearly 40; but was that something knowable? Wouldn't an equally valid proposition to take that it would trade back down into the 20s again? (and it still might!)
Historical PE levels for AAPL
39.6| #
| # # #
| # # #
| # # # # # # #
| # # # # # # # # #
29.7| # # # # # # # # # #
| # # # # # # # # # # # # #
| # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
| # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
| # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
19.8| # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
| # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
| # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
| # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
| # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
9.9| # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
| # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
| # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
| # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
| # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
0.0| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
'11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19 '20 '21 '22 '23 '24 '25
tecmo
...
No. of Recommendations: 42
Calling it straight up: this is outcome bias in its purest form.
You’re judging a past risk-management decision using today’s price chart. That’s not investing — that’s hindsight bravado.
Apple had grown to over 40% of Berkshire’s entire equity portfolio. That level of single-stock concentration is extreme for any investment vehicle, let alone one managing hundreds of billions. Apple had already exceeded any reasonable expectation of appreciation. Trimming it wasn’t “being wrong,” it was basic fiduciary discipline.
And let’s ground this in reality: Apple remains the anchor of Berkshire’s portfolio. Berkshire is still the largest owner of Apple stock on Earth — by a staggering margin. Apple dwarfs every other equity position Berkshire has ever held, by tens of billions. And even today, at roughly 23% of the total portfolio, Apple is a larger percentage holding for Berkshire than for any major fund, ETF.
But apparently that’s not good enough, because you have real-time quotes and can see that Apple happened to keep rising after the trim — therefore no risk ever existed, right?
By that standard, I suppose you’re also disappointed every year your home doesn’t burn down, because you “wasted” money on insurance. Of course it didn’t burn down — you should have known that in advance, right?
For what it’s worth, the probability of Apple declining meaningfully in the next year is far higher than the probability of your house burning down.
How are you positioned?
No. of Recommendations: 0
I wonder if he considered spinning it out to shareholders, as I suggested.
This idea comes up frequently, but is it possible for a company to spin off a minority holding of publicly traded shares of an investee?
If so, would the shareholders get Berkshire's cost basis? Tax implications? What would the whole transaction cost?
No. of Recommendations: 1
OK, lets think about what that might bring about.
News flash: Buffett wants to sell $30 Billion of Berkshire stock. How pleasantly does the market respond to that?
No. of Recommendations: 2
CORRECTION. SORRY: "Buffett wants sell $30 Billion of APPLE stock"
No. of Recommendations: 1
" I wonder if he considered spinning it out to shareholders, as I suggested.
This idea comes up frequently, but is it possible for a company to spin off a minority holding of publicly traded shares of an investee?
If so, would the shareholders get Berkshire's cost basis? Tax implications? What would the whole transaction cost?"
I did it in the 80s but who knows what the rules are now? I suspect I would have sold the aapl 250 calls and allowed the stock to get called away IF he had spun the apple out. When I did this Shareholders received the parent companies cost basis and we never got audited on that transaction. The companies CPA signed off on the transaction, so I assume it was legit, OR, we didn't get caught.
No. of Recommendations: 6
Calling it straight up: this is outcome bias in its purest form.
You’re judging a past risk-management decision using today’s price chart. That’s not investing — that’s hindsight bravado.
Exactly. Annie Duke refers to this as "resulting." She defines it as the tendency to judge the quality of a decision solely based on its outcome, ignoring the roles of process, luck, and uncertainty.
No. of Recommendations: 5
Annie Duke’s book - Thinking in Bets is a worthwhile read
No. of Recommendations: 1
Isn't he just playing the percentages?
If the stock gets ahead of his estimate of intrinsic value and he starts selling how is he to know that "irrational exuberance"will continue with further unjustified mutliple expansion?
I'd be more concerned if he rode it all the way up and down again, no?
He's selling into a toppy market and now has cash to deploy elsewhere.
No. of Recommendations: 10
Calling it straight up- Warren selling his Apple position down has been dead wrong.
I said the same thing last year. But after rethinking it a bit, maybe it's not true. Sure perfectly timing every trade is the way to go (obviously), but Warren isn't a trader, he's a capital allocator and he is usually loathe to sell anything (the apocryphal "favorite holding period is forever") so he didn't sell on a whim of some sort. But Warren is also a [large] portfolio manager, and a portfolio manager has responsibilities other than just providing good returns. One of those responsibilities is risk management, and in this case, risk management dictated reducing the size of the Apple position due to too-heavy concentration in the overall portfolio.
No. of Recommendations: 4
You’re overthinking this. It’s very simple. The selling of Apple has been over a few YEARS in both good and bad markets.
He went “all-in” and hit a tape measure home run. That’s it. When you have 1 stock that’s 40% plus of your portfolio, you have to sell. Period.
Now it’s where he’s comfortable: simply the biggest long term stock bet of his life.
Why do I say that? Because WARREN says that. A “stock” that Warren says we should think of—right along with our large subsidiaries. Warren’s words. That’s the size. That’s the importance. That’s massively big enough….
I get the feeling many of you either don’t follow what Warren says …or don’t believe what he says. And it’s very clear many don’t read or believe the Owner’s Manual.
No. of Recommendations: 3
When he sold the stock he used tax rates as a reason. Not valuation. He said tax rates were likely to go up. That’s a macro call and has also been wrong.
It’s ok to be wrong.
No. of Recommendations: 6
“Exactly. Annie Duke refers to this as "resulting." She defines it as the tendency to judge the quality of a decision solely based on its outcome, ignoring the roles of process, luck, and uncertainty.”
Howard Marks also wrote a great memo "You Bet!" (2020) available on the Oaktree site. He references Annie Duke’s wisdom often, and he focuses on the parallels between investing and gambling and the error in “resulting”.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Shareholders received the parent companies cost basis ...
I don't see how this could work. Let's say the Apple holdings are worth $200B (out of a $1T market cap) at the time of spin off. Therefore, holders of each B share (equivalent B share for A share holders) would receive 0.2 (roughly) shares of Apple. And Berkshire's basis in Apple is $39.62 per share. So if you purchased 1000 BRKB shares a few days ago at $500 each, then you would receive 200 AAPL shares with a basis of $39.62 each. If you sell those AAPL shares today at $285.62, you have realized a taxable capital gain of 200 * ($285.62 - 39.62), or $49,200. Meanwhile, your BRKB shares should go down by about 20% because Berkshire distributed about 20% of the total value. So the formerly $500 BRKB shares are now about $400 each. I don't see how it could work this way because the basis is illogical and it forced a sudden large capital gain that can only be offset by a large capital loss upon selling the BRKB shares. The whole thing doesn't make sense, heck, it's worse than distributing a large special dividend and forcing a mostly undesired taxable event for many people (like Microsoft did to so many people 21 years ago).
No. of Recommendations: 1
“ The whole thing doesn't make sense, heck, it's worse than distributing a large special dividend and forcing a mostly undesired taxable event”
Agree and No Way would I want nor would I ever expect Berkshire to carve out equity positions and distribute them to some ~3 million shareholders. We all Trust Berkshire mgt. to manage, allocate and continue to do what is sensible, rational.
Berkshire is a conduit for us all to access and own pieces of all of these terrific and diverse wholly-owned & partially-owned companies, to own an enormous and opportunistic cash/T-bill position and to own huge amount of negative-cost float.
I expect Warren & Greg see no sense in creating work, complexity, expense and acting with inconsistency as would be done with an Apple spinoff to owners. Leave well enough alone.
No. of Recommendations: 12
Calling it straight up: this is outcome bias in its purest form.
You’re judging a past risk-management decision using today’s price chart. That’s not investing — that’s hindsight bravado.
Apple had grown to over 40% of Berkshire’s entire equity portfolio.
Far be it for me to invoke “mutual funds” and “regulations” in defense of the Apple sale, but those funds have limits on position size to protect customers in the event of sudden lurches and bumps in any one particular equity position. Those regulations did not just fall from the sky, they came into being decades ago thanks to abuses and collapses of fund vehicles.
Now that doesn’t mean that Berkshire, which is emphatically *not* a “fund” (well, kind of), should play by those rules, but it does mean that “position size” and “risk” are very real attributes, and if the guy at the top thinks 40% is “too big”, I’m willing to not criticize that move - even if it turns out to have been premature.
Not a big deal. Big enough for a thread on some message board somewhere, I suppose, but not in real life.
No. of Recommendations: 1
" The whole thing doesn't make sense, heck, it's worse than distributing a large special dividend and forcing a mostly undesired taxable event for many people (like Microsoft did to so many people 21 years ago)."
I owned msft when they did that, I wish I held on to it! A huge buyback would have been smarter I have no idea WHY they paid that big dividend.
Obviously, you wouldn't buy brkb a week before they spun out the apple aka the ex date you would buy brk ex div AFTER the spin out if you didn't want the apple with a 40$$ cost basis.
The objective was to reduce brkb exposure to one name, apple. Investors who love apple can buy it they don't need to buy brkb with 25 % of its market cap in apple.
brkb had a large taxable event in apple the question was, what's the best way to deal with it. Buffett didn't want to shrink the canvas, again. Several brk partners may have held on to the apple and left it to their grandkids, who knows?
I have to respond to Jim, have a grand day.
No. of Recommendations: 1
" Apple had grown to over 40% of Berkshire’s entire equity portfolio.
Far be it for me to invoke “mutual funds” and “regulations” in defense of the Apple sale, but those funds have limits on position size to protect customers in the event of sudden lurches and bumps in any one particular equity position. Those regulations did not just fall from the sky, they came into being decades ago thanks to abuses and collapses of fund vehicles.
Now that doesn’t mean that Berkshire, which is emphatically *not* a “fund” (well, kind of), should play by those rules, but it does mean that “position size” and “risk” are very real attributes, and if the guy at the top thinks 40% is “too big”, I’m willing to not criticize that move - even if it turns out to have been premature.
Not a big deal. Big enough for a thread on some message board somewhere, I suppose, but not in real life."
BINGO< a partner in brkville gets it! I assume most people here have never had to deal directly with the SEC, nasd, 50 state division of securities etc.
In the late 80s the SEC sent me a "comment letter." Back then I was consulting to small start-ups on how to structure their IPOS etc. I was taking stock as payment and putting the shares in the parent fully reporting PUBLIC company, Only In America. The SEC comment letter said in effect, since a large portion of your market cap is in other public companies we want you to register as a, holding company, mutual fund, etc. PANIC TIME< I didn't want that hassle aka regulatory compliance or expense, hence I spun out two of the holdings to parent company shareholders, no harm no foul. My lawyers and CPAs signed off on it, we never heard from the IRS, the SEC got off my case, on that issue.
My world was small cap but fully reporting companies in full compliance with SEC regs. This was almost 40 years ago, unreal. I have no idea IF, IF, Buffett looked into this possibility with respect to spinning out the apple. That's what I would have done.
An interesting exercise for you guys or maybe RW or the Brooklyn Investor would have an interest in this issue. IF Buffett had stuck to his favorite holding period, forever, and we still held the ibm, wfc, all the BAC and all the AAPL, wouldn't brks market cap be substantially more than 50 %, public securities? Would the SEC be requesting that team brk register as a holding company, Fund of some sort, etc? I seriously doubt Buffett wanted that problem.
No. of Recommendations: 18
Buffett used the depth and liquidity of U.S. markets as a strategic asset. The Apple sales were BRILLIANTLY executed in a manner that benefitted shareholder/owners of BOTH companies.
When you’re dealing in the most liquid equity market you can trim an enormous position quietly — if you do it patiently, gradually, and without broadcasting your intentions.
And that’s exactly what he did First small batches—-remember?
“Hmm, maybe he’s trimming. Next small batches?
“Okay, he’s reducing risk a bit.”
Later?
“This is prudent — and he still holds a gigantic core position.”
By the time anyone connected the full picture, the job was already done — without moving the stock, without spooking the market, without triggering a Buffett-is-dumping-Apple narrative.
I would never have believed Buffett could unload such a massive amount of stock with such little disruption.
To those of you make the illiquidity argument against Berkshire—take note.
No. of Recommendations: 1
" I would never have believed Buffett could unload such a massive amount of stock with such little disruption.
To those of you make the illiquidity argument against Berkshire—take note."
Take a look at brkb average daily volume vs aapl, and rethink it.
BTW, does apple pay a quarterly div?
Thank you.
No. of Recommendations: 1
" To those of you make the illiquidity argument against Berkshire—take note."
Take a look at brkb average daily volume vs aapl, and rethink it."
Also, it's very easy to buy size as in OXY, when the stock is dropping 25 % and YOU are the main buyer.
It's very easy to sell size, in aapl while the stock is rising and YOU are the sizable seller.
Wall street 101.
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
No. of Recommendations: 14
BTW, does apple pay a quarterly div?
Perhaps a better question: does it matter? It certainly isn't material to anyone's return from a position in Apple.
With a yield of 0.36%, how many dollars worth of shares would it take to support the lifestyle of a typical person here on the after-tax dividends?
e.g., a $10m position in Apple with 25% dividend tax would get you $27000/year of income.
Jim
No. of Recommendations: 3
[original post]
Shareholders received the parent companies cost basis ...
[response]
I don't see how this could work. Let's say the Apple holdings are worth $200B (out of a $1T market cap) at the time of spin off. Therefore, holders of each B share (equivalent B share for A share holders) would receive 0.2 (roughly) shares of Apple. And Berkshire's basis in Apple is $39.62 per share. So if you purchased 1000 BRKB shares a few days ago at $500 each, then you would receive 200 AAPL shares with a basis of $39.62 each. If you sell those AAPL shares today at $285.62, you have realized a taxable capital gain of 200 * ($285.62 - 39.62), or $49,200. Meanwhile, your BRKB shares should go down by about 20% because Berkshire distributed about 20% of the total value. So the formerly $500 BRKB shares are now about $400 each. I don't see how it could work this way because the basis is illogical and it forced a sudden large capital gain that can only be offset by a large capital loss upon selling the BRKB shares. The whole thing doesn't make sense, heck, it's worse than distributing a large special dividend and forcing a mostly undesired taxable event for many people (like Microsoft did to so many people 21 years ago).
This type of tax-free distribution should only work when the distributing (investor) corporation owns and controls the distributed (investee) corporation. That's obviously not the case here - Berkshire does not control Apple in any sense. So rather than getting the section 355 tax-free spinoff exception treatment, Berkshire would be taxed at the corporate level for the difference between the cost basis and fair value (as if they sold the shares they were distributing), and Berkshire investors would receive shares with a distribution-date cost basis (i.e., not inherit Berkshire's cost basis) and be taxed on that distribution-date value as if they had received cash (assuming Berkshire shares were held in a taxable account).
No. of Recommendations: 1
" Perhaps a better question: does it matter? It certainly isn't material to anyone's return from."
Apparently 5 of the 7 Mag 7 didn't ask for your opinion.
I'll ask again, WHY do you think these public have initiated a small div? Thank you.
No. of Recommendations: 2
" This type of tax-free distribution should only work when the distributing (investor) corporation owns and controls the distributed (investee) corporation. That's obviously not the case here - Berkshire does not control Apple in any sense. "
Thanks for that input. If Buffett hadn't sold down our largest public holdings and if more than half of brkbs market cap was in our largest public holdings could the SEC have required brk to change its filing status? Thanks.
No. of Recommendations: 5
I'll ask again, WHY do you think these public [companies] have initiated a small div?
Because they are pandering to the wrong shareholder base?
No. of Recommendations: 1
The dividend yield wasn't small when it was originated. The share price has increased much faster than earnings, and thus the payout is now quite small.
tecmo
...
No. of Recommendations: 1
“ Because they are pandering to the wrong shareholder base?“ Oh my, I guess we should be shocked, but I’m not. Please name the last five significant Buffett buys that did not pay a dividend. Thank you.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Oh my, I guess we should be shocked, but I’m not. Please name the last five significant Buffett buys that did not pay a dividend.
If Buffett limited himself to the universe of companies that never do at least a few dumb things every now and then, there'd be nothing left to buy. Ever.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Not that every dividend is dumb, of course.
No. of Recommendations: 1
“ If Buffett limited himself to the universe of companies that never do at least a few dumb things every now and then, there'd be nothing left to buy. Ever.“. Oh my.
No. of Recommendations: 17
Please name the last five significant Buffett buys that did not pay a dividend. Thank you.
That's an easy one: Apple. The dividend is trivial and can be ignored for any analysis of the investment thesis or returns. At this point it's just for show, really--window dressing.
It shows up as part of Berkshire's total return on the Apple position only if you look down in the rounding error. Around 3-4% of the total gain to date, before the taxes on it, even after 8 years of significant ownership and collecting of dividends.
Jim
No. of Recommendations: 1
" That's an easy one: Apple. The dividend is trivial and can be ignored for any analysis of the investment thesis or returns. At this point it's just for show, really--window dressing."
Remind us, what year was it that Buffett claimed he aka brk had the smartest investors?
Thank you.
No. of Recommendations: 12
Is it too late to remind people to not feed the concern troll?
No. of Recommendations: 5
That's an easy one: Apple. The dividend is trivial and can be ignored for any analysis of the investment thesis or returns. At this point it's just for show, really--window dressing.
That's our friend's point - a dividend is window dressing, to "increase demand for the stock". He doesn't care about capital allocation; he just wants the stock price to go up.
No. of Recommendations: 2
The Best Warren Buffett Dividend Stocks - Kiplinger
1. Coca-Cola. Market value: $253.8 billion. Dividend yield: 3.1% Percentage of Berkshire Hathaway portfolio: 7.2% Berkshire Hathaway ownership stake: 9.2% Coca-Cola (KO, $58.71) is one of Berkshire's oldest holdings and one of the best Warren Buffett dividend stocks.
2. Bank of America. Market value: $253.8 billion. Dividend yield: 3.1% Percentage of Berkshire Hathaway portfolio: 9.0% Berkshire Hathaway ownership stake: 12.8%
3. HP. Market value: $30.0 billion. Dividend yield: 3.7% Percentage of Berkshire Hathaway portfolio: 0.8% Berkshire Hathaway ownership stake: 9.7% Berkshire started buying HP (HPQ, $30.24) in the first quarter of 2022.
4. Chevron. Market value: $286.8 billion. Dividend yield: 4.0% Percentage of Berkshire Hathaway portfolio: 5.9% Berkshire Hathaway ownership stake: 5.7% Energy stocks had an outstanding year in 2022.
5. Kraft Heinz. Market value: $44.8 billion. Dividend yield: 4.4% Percentage of Berkshire Hathaway portfolio: 3.5% Berkshire Hathaway ownership stake: 26.5% Consumer staples stocks in the S&P 500 broadly underperformed the broad market in 2023.
There is a sucker born every minute.
and I know where to find them, hclasvegas.
No. of Recommendations: 5
HC, just sell or just buy index funds.
No. of Recommendations: 1
" HC, just sell or just buy index funds."
Good morning, I have no idea how long you have been reading these boards. If you believe that net net my suggestions for the past 25 years have hurt brk, it's partners, or demand for its shares YOU do have the power to ignore me, correct?
Do you have any idea how many posters I ignore? Best of luck to you either way.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Reading your posts from the Motley Fool boards . You make good points on a lot of issues. However, They're a fair ammount of issues(who's the buyer of stocks) that you just need to let go .
No. of Recommendations: 2
" Reading your posts from the Motley Fool boards . You make good points on a lot of issues. However, They're a fair ammount of issues(who's the buyer of stocks) that you just need to let go ."
Fair enough, so you know I pounded the table for an authorized buyback for years before Buffett agreed, correct?
It took another few years before he did away with the silly buyback limit, 1.1 xs BV, 1.2xs BV, correct?
Is there a chance I have a background and experience most her don't have?
How many here have owned restricted stock in a publicly traded company, that didn't trade 100,000 shs a day?
To this day many old timers here still don't understand the importance of WHO the seller is and why it's relevant.
I've discussed this with a few of the old timers privately who no longer post for obvious reasons.
While I'm at the park think about this.
The Foundations will be selling 8-10 billion of Buffett's shares annually the next 10-12 years.
Many other LONG TERM old timers will be dying, selling, leaving brkb to kids who may sell etc, does this seem material to you?
Off to the park, later. Looking forward to the thoughts of others, especially longtime partner and brother Jim, who can be very stubborn!
No. of Recommendations: 14
The Foundations will be selling 8-10 billion of Buffett's shares annually the next 10-12 years.
Sure. So?
Do you think this will affect the intrinsic value of a share?
Honest question. Think about it carefully.
Myself, I think it could, by a few pennies, solely because of this situation: some long time holder phones head office to sell some shares. The current price is not far enough below IV to warrant a public market buyback, but management says yes anyway and buys their shares. This means the weighted average cost of all future buybacks might be a hair higher over time than in the counterfactual that no long term shareholders phoned head office to sell.
But other than that...no. If you sell a share to (say) rayvt, or a million shares, my share is worth neither more nor less as a result of that deal. Your extra supply doesn't drive the value down any more than his extra demand drives the value up.
Jim
No. of Recommendations: 13
<<The Foundations will be selling 8-10 billion of Buffett's shares annually the next 10-12 years.
Sure. So?
Do you think this will affect the intrinsic value of a share?
Honest question. Think about it carefully.<<
Marry a very nice person who does not share your thinking on everything you consider important…because...
YOU CAN GET HER TO CHANGE:
Give analyst guidance, pay a dividend, manage to quarterly earnings, try to get in early on hot tech concepts, boost the daily stock quotes.
Why did you marry her? Why did you buy this stock? Did you really think you could change your wife? Or Buffett?
Seriously.
No. of Recommendations: 1
" Do you think this will affect the intrinsic value of a share?
Honest question. Think about it carefully."
Let's try this old bud because I know you aren't stubborn and it's easy to change your thinking.
IF today the Saudi Sovern Wealth Fund and Brk announced that the SSWF would be buying ALL Foundations sales from 2026 going forward for ten years to not exceed 20 % of the issued and outstanding of brk.
Would that news change brkbs BV, no, I never said it would.
Would that news change brks IV, no, I never said it would.
Would that news make Buffett
65 years old again?
How would brkb trade, the stock, the common, on that disclosure, up, down, or unc, because that news wouldn't be material.
Thank you, your old pal, hc.
No. of Recommendations: 1
" Why did you marry her? Why did you buy this stock? Did you really think you could change your wife? Or Buffett?
Seriously.'
Buffett never did authorize a buyback, are you sure?
Buffett never did amend the original buyback terms, are you sure?
Buffett never did finally agree to buybacks, " at material discounts to IV", are you absolutely certain?
Truly embarrassing, welcome to brkville, where the sharpest players hang out.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Truly embarrassing, welcome to brkville, where the sharpest players hang out.
Am I the only one thinking about the “R” word with this clown? Seriously!
No. of Recommendations: 12
Do you think this will affect the intrinsic value of a share?
Honest question. Think about it carefully.
...
Would that news change brkbs BV, no, I never said it would.
Would that news change brks IV, no, I never said it would.
Thank goodness!
I think the issue has been put to bed. Foundation sales can't possibly affect the value of Berkshire shares, everyone is agreed. Perhaps we can relegate the issue to the level of worrying about vampire attacks, and discussing it the same amount.
Jim
No. of Recommendations: 1
“ Thank goodness!
I think the issue has been put to bed. Foundation sales can't possibly affect the value of Berkshire shares, everyone is agreed. Perhaps we can relegate the issue to the level of worrying about vampire attacks, and discussing it the same amount.
Jim“. Oh my, I believe you have fallen and you can’t get up. Can you call 911 in your town?
