thanks jad, good idea, my questions for doug kass,
good morning Mr. Kass. Many of us own brkb for over 10 years and we are very frustrated that our questions are never asked. Please consider these,
you often say that you and munger don’t agree on brkbs IV, how far apart have you been , 3-5-10 % or more on average over the past 5 years ?
brka has fallen over 50 % 4 times in the past yet you never authorized a buyback until sept 2011 when the stock was trading below book and the foundations were forced to sell your life’s work below book. Was this a coincidence or was there a correlation between your buyback timing announcement and the fact that the foundations were selling your gifted stock below book ?
Wasn’t it obvious that brka traded up, above book , within 5 days of the initial authorized buyback press release and immediately traded above 1.2 % xs book when you raised the limit to 1.2 xs book ? Why not amend the SEC filing to authorize buybacks at , substantial discounts to IV , and not limit our board’s actions ?
The foundations will be selling your gifted shs , forever, going forward. Your partners appreciate the fact that you and our board never took an option and you are selling your shares however these shs are leaving your control block and are being added to the float much sooner than you originally planned. In 2006 the float in the Bs was about 750 million shs, today its well over a billion shs. It takes about 2 billion dollars in net buying to absorb foundation sales every year, forever, over time, isn’t this material ? If you initiated a 1 % div yield wouldn’t every income fund and income investor give serious thought to buying brka and wouldn’t this added buying help to absorb foundation selling , forever ? Wouldn’t brka then have a much better chance of outperforming SPY going forward if we broadened our investor base and increased demand for brka ?
I’ll leave it at that, thank you for your consideration, good luck. Harvey Cohen.
HeadCaseLV Kould sKrew up a date with a nympho by saying somedung moroniKKK. As here ...
Q #1: truly moroniKKK Kwestion. There is no point to it and no value in any liKely honest, thorough response.
Q #2: A Kwestion with a solid foundation that is sKrewed up by the faKt that HeadCaseLV needs to maKe a moroniKKK statement. The faKt is BRK NEVER SOLD BELOW BV. Simple. I know. I traKKed it daily. On 9/22/11, BRK got within 2% above BV, but it didn't go below.
Note: we Kould prove HeadCaseLV wrong about things liKe this & HeadCaseLV would just go on dishing his moroniKKK dogma.
Q #3: I LOVE this HeadCaseLV waKK-job lunacy. I'm not sure if it more Klearly shows HeadCaseLV's stupidity or his hypoKrisy. HeadCaseLV bashed "IV"-based investing for years, and with good reason. "IV" is full of highly subjeKtive assumptions, so it isn't a solid # that Kan be relied upon either among a group of people or over any period of time. otoh, BV is a solid #. It is well-defined. It is stated. It changes over time, but much less so than "IV" does (this is the whole point of Buffey's "BRK BV vs SP500 price" table). The genius of Buffey's buybaKk is that it uses BV ... it uses the SOLID # ... it taKes Buffey's previously apples & oranges table & maKes the apples really matter in a world of oranges.
But NOOOOOOOOOOOO. After bashing "IV"-based investing for years, HeadCaseLV now wants Buffey to base his buy-baKK on "IV". What a maroon. Is this more due to his stupidity, his hypoKrisy, or just his need to say moroniKK things?
(to put it another way, what HeadCaseLV says in this Kwestion is ... "Obviously, your BV-based buybaKK is VERY EFFEKTIVE in getting its point aKross, so ... wait for it ... why don't you throw it out and us "IV" instead of "BV"?) roflmfao@HCLV&hmk&k&hliddin
Q #4: as with #2, a a solid foundation is sKrewed up by the faKt that HeadCaseLV needs to maKe a moroniKKK statement. Yo, maroon from Duh Disastuh in Nevaduh, yo, nothing is "FOREVER".
Thanks jad, i did it. Wouldn't it be funny if buffett and munger are more than 10 % apart on their IV guestamates and the experts spend so much time playing with the CONcept like its really that material ? WHY was brkb trading below book in sept 2011, i would love to know why he thinks it was so weak ? IF kass responds i'll give him 10 more questions the jokers at cnbc would never ask. kass may not want to #$%$ him off either, we'll see. All those wasted hours doing cnbc interviews is a total shame.
I wouldn't be surprise if the difference is in the 15% to 20% range.
I forgot now where I read it (someone's notes from the 2011 AM?) that WEB specifically stated that he does NOT use the P42C data, that he works up his estimate from other information in the AR.
Did you see post #199898, "interesting example", on the other board?
« "If it's worth 10B, it has to be able to give you 700 or 800 MM next year, and if it doesn't give you 700 or 800 MM next year, it has to be able to give you 10% more than that the year after, and continue... There aren't many businesses that can do that." »
If I'm not mistaken, he outed his "free cash flow to equity" to IV ratio, 7.5 ± 0.5 %; his discount rate, 10%; and one can infer a sustainable growth rate of 2.5 ± 0.5% from what the "thingy" that generates FCFE (book value?) has to do if he doesn't get paid next year, it has to grow 10%.
That's true, but there is a link on his twitter profile to the Real Money Pro page, and on that page is an Author submenu. Click on his name on the drop down list to go to his page and under his photograph is an "Email Doug Klass" button. Admittedly, they give you a postage size panel to work with, but you can either simply use it to initiate contact or prepare all of your questions offline and then copy & paste them into the postage stamp area. He is, in my opinion, your only shot at getting your questions answered.