Obviously that's an exaggeration, but do you understand how many shares Berkshire has outstanding? Even if they somehow got all that "north of $2B," that would be about 1.25 per share over 5 years. Certainly not something to get excited about.
Strange discussion. The narrative has completely overwhelmed the quantitative here. If the GS warrants amount to as much as 50 cents per share over five years, I'll be impressed.
You've done it again, talking about modern civilization to a libertardian. These are people who think the thing Detroit did *right* was cut public services to the point where the city is uninvestable (and increasingly uninhabitable). These are the guys who were holding "investment fairs" for Iraq after Mission Accomplished ... and wondering why Corporate America wasn't showing up.
You're talking to a guy who is mentally 9 years old. He wants to keep the functioning society and just stop paying to make it function. Sorry to repeat myself, but .. for these guys Detroit is an exemplar. They want the whole USA to be run just like Detroit or Iraq, a lawless wasteland. Only they just want the tax savings, not the end results, not the yucky stuff that just dropped out of the sky for no reason like crime, piled up trash, poverty, and so forth.
Clean up our streets! Get rid of the trash collectors!
lol, a $12 stock is a $12 stock. Say whatever you want on the message board.
Sell short all day long. As the little girl said in Aliens: "It won't make any difference."
Yeah. And was his "favorite holding period" "forever"? Ha ha. *He* played it right I bet.
Yields have a bizarre power over people's minds. They get the 8%, and somehow the mental wheels come off. They convince themselves they got it on a savings account that's 100% sure still going to be there tomorrow. And then that's *it*, man. End of story. They'll mumble a *little* about future, but it always comes right back to the 8% in hand. Last year's divvy is the whole story, and they keep coming back to that no matter what you ask them. MV isn't unusual at all. That's how they all behave. Somehow paying out $100 and receiving $3, $5, $8, $12 is an irresistable transaction for a lot of people.
I know what drove Mr. Ponzi crazy and made him do what he did. He was tired of listening to his stupid mother in law. "You wish you could have 8% of your own money?" Sure, babe, I can do that. Gimme the 100, ok, now here's your 8. Don't spend it all in one place.
The cognitive trap of current yield works even on some very bright folks. The pumpers around here? ... well. Maybe we just turn our heads away charitably at this point.
You're *still* assuming mv's much more sophisticated than he really is. He has one talking point: last year's dividend has already been paid out, so IBM's 2012 dividend can't now be cut. He paid $150, he got $3.80, to him that's a win. The mentality of ttm-dividen-uber-alles folks is that the $3.80 is an adequate return on the $150. They don't understand that getting the $150 back (or getting any future dividends) is an open question. They consider that question settled.
Don't you remember the subprime mortgage REIT mania here in 2005? Same deal. They put down say $100 in cash, get back say $4 or $8 or $12, lock that in (purely rhetorically), and declare victory based on those high "returns." There is no more to it. That's where the story ends.
You're never going to get through to a hardcore buffetteer. The thinking has been exactly the same since the days when Level 3 was the big 15% a year sure thing. These folks have a very well-defined investing process: (a) copy Buffett (more or less; it's ok to pay a lot more than he does or buy a different security from the same company) (b) just make bald statements of absurd future returns (c) insult anyone who asks for supporting info, and finally (d) fade away into vague disclaimers 2 or 3 years down the road.
They've been laughed at nonstop for ten years, that's why most of them left the public board. But it's not going to make them abandon a tried-and-true pumping process that gives them a quick high before each of their investments disappoints.
In the aftermath? They have that covered. Hangover, schmangover. Listening to their mother-in-law lecture them to stop drinking isn't the answer. Hair of the dog is the answer.
Yeah, anybody with a couple hundred thousand dollars can jerk these stocks around for a day. It doesn't have to mean much of anything. Once you realize you can move it yourself there's a certain temptation to jerk it up or down just to try to fake everybody out.
That's the question all right. I'll go look but everything on the Walgreen's web site is 2XL. For new folks, 2XL is basically an entry-level brand from Skullcandy (think Chevy vs Cadillac) for sale in places like drugstores.
So the message is 2XL is in Walgreens.
Sure. And I'll go visit my local Walgreens and look, but it's probably the 2XL line which was designed to be sold at places like that.
The point of the negativity here isn't that it all has to make sense. (Obviously in the real world more sales are good, not bad. And there's a big difference between avoiding off-price discount channels and avoiding national retail chains!) Nah, the point is that until about a month ago, any and all news about Skullcandy was treated as bad news. Good news was received as bad news, it didn't matter. Folks are trying to keep playing that game. Seeing if it still works.
If that game isn't working anymore, it's going to take all of us a while to understand what does work now.
Anyone who's serious about taking a position in the stock, for or against, do yourself a favor and go look at the Skullcandy display that dominates the headphones section of your local Radio Shack. See for yourself how sharp and attractive the packaging is.
Obviously placing Skullcandy headphones at thousands of college bookstores will boost sales. That's a no-brainer. The complaint about multiple brands being on display somehow neutralizing the additional sales doesn't make sense to me. What electronics store ever sold only one brand of headphones??
Hard to say why anybody would honestly believe a successful brand of headphones is a "fad" in this time of rapidly expanding mobile device volumes. Smart folks are asking themselves what's the driver to get this stock under $5. Because if it *isn't* going under $5, most of the remaining possibilities are good.
Nice list hc.
Comment section is hilariously typical of financial message boards. Overall mood: making money is meh. MEGO. What we really do here, our core competency, is we tell complete strangers we know more than Bernard Baruch did.
People who were yawning in the low 80s have come out of the woodwork to preach about what a great value Berkshire is at 112. This is how it works every time Berkshire runs up.
If it does hit 125, Geepod will be back, going all-in and starting work on drafts of his later posts saying nobody ever warned him buying high was dumb.
Pretty much everything you post here about Berkshire would also apply to the S&P 500. I wonder why that is? Isn't that a weird coincidence? Maybe somebody with a good strong academic background should look into it.
After every big run-up on this stock we get the pumpers running in and telling us how cheap the stock is. Anybody who can't see the humor in that has got a big blind spot.