I am writing a thesis paper on the corrleation
between the success of the Nebraska football program and
BRK's price appreciation. My preliminary findings
indicate that in years that Nebraska has been national
champs or has been rated in the top three in the year
end AP poll, BRK's price appreciation accelerated in
those years and the following year. Years in which Big
Red lost a national championship or finished with two
or greater losses BRK underperformed its historical
growth rate. As we all know Nebraska has lost three
games this year, and if the past is any indication of
the future, expect sub-par performance from BRK for
the remainder of this year and next year.
retirement of John Osbourne very well may have grave
implications for BRK holders going forward. All you BRK
holders better hope that Big Red has a great recruiting
season next year. Has the Nebraska dynasty ended, and
will it signal the demise of BRK. These are the
questions that I will address in my paper.
anyone would like to share their views on this hotly
debated topic, please let me know. Serious inquiries
THE DYNAMIC ONE, a/k/a THE SOURCE
Here you go again. Do you understand that
virtually ALL major capital allocation decisions are made
by Buffett? Yes, day to day operations are left to
the managers. From some things I have read, I get the
impression that a small add-on acquisition that would
complement an existing operation may be made with little or
no input from Buffett. But again, these would be
small. But I do believe that Warren Buffett spends
considerable time thinking about what could be done at an
enterprise level with all the various operations. In one way
you may be correct. He may not have spent more than
an hour thinking about geographic expansion plans
for NFM because he has written before about the poor
results of geographically diverse furniture retailing
operations. So he may not be thinking about it because he
knows that no matter what direction he approaches such
a question, the answer will still be no.
you suggest that if this made sense, the Blumkins
would have done it. I can go along with that also. I
think you may be almost but not quite right here.
But having said all of this, why do YOU think that
they should do it. You have agreed that the people,
Buffett, Munger and the Blumkins, who understand this
operation the best have decided not to expand
geographically. So why do you think that THEY should substitute
THEIR judgment for YOURS?
The toughest job for -- and the real test of -- a
manager is, as Warren himself would agree, capital
allocation. He has said that he begs our operations managers
to think of ways to reinvest their own earnings. But
Charlie and Warren do not meddle with them in their
Warren has never mentioned
anything about meddling in these businesses' expansion
plan. My own thinking is that Warren and Charlie gives
100% freedom to them (recall Charlie's saying, during
the 1998 AM weekend, that they "delegate to the point
In the case of NFM, I do not
believe that Warren has spent more than an hour thinking
about the possibility of expansion. Why? First, he
believes in the Blumkins. If expansion is good, then the
Blumkins would have done it. (So we are actually making
this expansion proposal to the Blumkins and not
Second, check out the numbers that NFM is bringing in,
and compared that to the whole picture. Is it worth
<<The only reason I can think of that NFM
is not yet doing this is they are waiting for a
recession or depression to do that.>>
the only reason that you can think of? And you claim
to understand Buffett? Look at the way he allocates
capital. Look at Sees Candies, a better operation than
NFM. He has stated that he would love to expand Sees
if they could do so in a way that meets his
standards. You think that Buffett et. al. have not given the
same consideration to the geographic expanision of NFM
and not come up with the same conclusion?
not understand why you go on for ages on the glories
of Warren Buffett and then second quess him all the
time. Especially when your second guessing is silly.
"........could NewBRK be considered for admission
to the S&P 500 if the 1,000,000 shares of preferred
stock were brought to market?...."
still be highly illiquid for an S&P 500 company with a
float of a little over 1 mil shares.
Sooner or later they HAVE to include us in. Why?
We are too big to be ignored. But of course
everybody from the "inside" of the industry wouldn't want
to see us, and that's exactly why we have been
Don't forget that to them, we are a whole bunch of
cowboys and they are like English gentlemen.
reason I like Warren is his no-nonsense way of doing
things, and his "as long as my principles are right, you
don't give a damn what you think" sort of
We have our way of doing things, and we have again
and again proven the pundits wrong. Good for BERK.
Good for BERK owners. Good for our consumers. Bad for
the politicians on the Capital Hill. And bad for
politicians-in-disguise currently at the helm in public corporations in
Other than Warren, I haven't seen anyone heading a
listed American corporation who is more entrepreneur
than politician in nature and in actions.
explains my 99% (of net worth) tied up in
Seem like most posters on this board also concurrently
own other stocks. Any posters also having their 99%
net worth all in BERK shares?