The second disadvantage of the dividend approach is of equal importance: The tax consequences for all
taxpaying shareholders are inferior – usually far inferior – to those under the sell-off program. Under the dividend
program, all of the cash received by shareholders each year is taxed whereas the sell-off program results in tax on
only the gain portion of the cash receipts.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, ... yawn ... I've read that jibber jabber zillions of times in the past.
If Bernie had had more tax adverse investors ("Bernie, PLEASE, no distributions, just send me a quarterly statement telling me how rich I am"), he too, would very likely still be in business.
What you condone for one, you condone for all.
I see the carnies on the other board are now using the P42C "method" to promote an iV/BV of 170%, in spite of the fact that WEB is hinting at 125%.
I've come to believe that there isn't a single honest person left on the planet. I now understand why, centuries ago, Yang Chu was reputed to have said, " I would not sacrifice one single hair on my head even to save the entire human race!"
Rather than face the fact that everything he's said here for the last several years is not only unconscionably stupid, but also now clearly, demonstrably wrong,... he now concludes that "Everybody is Lying!"
Utterly predictable, but it's still kind of fun to watch his head explode.
BTW, JADdie, what WEB just 'hinted at" --very strongly and clearly-- is that IV equals roughly 150% of BV, not 125%.
You know that, of course (even *you* couldn't possibly be quite THAT dense and stupid), but to admit what it actually says would compel you to admit what a moron you have been --and you obviously can't face that.
It's okay, we understand.
Go have a nice cup of tea, snuggle up on the couch with your favorite John Burr Williams tome, and make the whole nasty world disappear.
Settle into your happy fantasy world where your favorite numbers are all that exist.
You can amuse yourself by coming up with a way to 'prove' that 1.2/.8 actually 'equals' 1. (Or 1.1, or 1.22. Whatever mood you're in today. It doesn't really matter, does it?)
mornin jad, are you losing it bro ? talking bernie in brkville ? are you saying buffett may not be paying a div because its some type of scam ? buffett explained this to you maybe its hopeless but i still want more on the buyback issue. seriously bro, let me try this. In 4 years lets say the tax rate on divs goes to 30 % at the FED level and 15 % in Cali. Tell me why my kids would be better off getting a div and netting 55 % vs brk buying back its stock at 1.25 xs book ? Thank you from a dummy brk partner who doesnt think buffett is running a scam.
Tuff crowd , if you dont trust buffett who do you trust, cramer ? kudlow ? krugman ? grover norputz ?
obviously buffett would never say this so i will. at the current tax rates partners like munger who live in cali would pay a combined fed and state tax rate of about 37 % on div income and no doubt it will be even higher over the next 4 years and beyond. in other words, LA will get 4 feet of snow in july before buffett would pay a meaningful div. A very small div would increase demand for our stock but that's another issue. Thank you uncle for explaining this concept to our fellow partners tho i have a hunch brother jad is not CONvinced , yet ?