The most interesting aspect of this deal is not the deal itself, but the way that it is structured. This could certainly be a prelude for future acquisitions by BRK in extracting value from some of our other operating companies. Pretty darn impressive.
RE value is the crux of the issue with SHLD. Certain proponents believe the real estate is worth substantially more than current market value of the stock. Most here believe the real estate is worth substantially less. The gap between the two views is enormous.
There are some on this board who seem to spend far more time bashing SHLD that it could ever be worth. It must be eating you up every time the stock price seems to rise from the ashes. In fact, SHLD has been a great stock to trade and will continue to be as long as it is so narrowly owned and controlled by Eddie and his pals.
Though a little out there, Rocket is more right than wrong about SHLD. Chances of bankruptcy are near -0-, though anything is possible. I wouldn't sell Eddie short.
The Sears "brand" has been worthless for many years, long before Eddie. Ask anyone who has ventured into a store or tried to use customer service. The value doesn't lie there - not yesterday and not today.
Who knows precisely what the assets are worth? No one here (me included). My guess is most are far off. The only pertinent question is, are you buying dollars for nickels and dimes?
Client Number Nine - you seem like a sharp guy; what is your Cols, OH connection?
Is it safe to come back to this board yet?
The poster should read Buffett more carefully, i.e. don't buy on margin, even at historic low rates - particularly if you're going to lose sleep over your investments.
On an unrelated note, anyone happen to notice that the Canadian dollar is trading a near-historic low rates vs. the U.S Dollar? Granted, nearly every currency is weak vs. the Dollar but it seems that our economies tend to run more or less together, even though Canada's economy has become much more energy dependent, as has our to a lesser extent. Any thoughts on buying the Canadian dollar?
Certainly not wirth paying a management fee as one could easily buy each holding (just a hunch: this fund won't be purchasing a new position anytime soon). In all likelohood the fund was not established with an organizational restriction to never initiate new positions, so it would be interesting to learn just why no new positions have been purchased in 80 years.
I agree with your numbers, but there are other non-quantitative factors that go into valuing BRK. In a nutshell would neither sell nor add to my existing position at current prices. Will probably wait for the next economic (or BRK personnel) crises and hopefully load up ala 2009.
This mutual fund was being discussed on the Chuck's Angel's board. Evidently, the fund has not purchased any new stocks in 80 years. The notion was that it managed to outperform 98% of all other funds in its class in recent times and the issue is whether this is a fund worth owning (and an investment strategy worth pursuing). Its current holdings are either the same, or have evolved from its original holdings. Any thoughts?
BV is increasingly meaningless. That was one of Buffett's primary messages. His advice concerning an appropriate price to pay as it relates to BV applies to TODAY'S BV, not the BV of the future. There will come a time when paying 2X BV for shares of BRK will be ridiculoulsy cheap.
Brky, H has a pretty good track record if you go back in time. His recent picks have been off but I smell a comeback.
Morning, H. Name any company that has been around as long as GM, IBM, Sears or U.S. Steel that has not fallen onto hard times. Someday [hopefully long] after Buffett is gone, someone will be writing the same sad ephitat about Berkshire.
Key word is "superficial". Reminds me of when Mariano Rivera closed for the Yankees. He walked the first two batters in the ninth inning and he was superficially in trouble. The final outcome never changed.
Anyone here thinking about buying or selling in anticipation of the AR? My take: Buffett will probably remain true to form and downplay future prospects, at least relative to past results. This will not drum up any excitement for potential buyers and hence the stock price may drift lower or remain at present levels.
H, IBM is in the DOW 30. Everyone with a pulse knows IBM. To answer your question, at $200 few here would have given it a second look. At $160 or less, it pops up on a lot of radar screens.
My guess is Buffett will devote a sentence or two to IBM, essentially reiterating that this is a long term hold and his original objective in acquiring the stock remains intact. Any more than that is gravy.
Brky, nevber said I was surprised. The voters are getting precisely what they voted for. As for being at war, can't help but to think back to WWII; we stood idly by for a long time ignoring atrocities elsewhere. History tends to repeat itself.
The Keystone veto makes no sense. It is politics as usual. Why shouldn't we put more people to work and create a domestic oil opportunity for a time when prices will undoubtedly be higher?
Obama gets a D in my book overall for his presidency thus far. His domestic policy gets a C-; for every good thing he has done, he has failed at 1 or more others. His campaign promise of being a uniter rather than a divider could not have failed more miserably. To his credit he proposed and passed some form of healthcare; the Republicans would not have done anything. He has stayed out of the way during a period of prosperity for the wealthy; thanks from many of us here. However, his foreign policy earns him a D-, the only salvation being a noble (but somewhat meager) attempt to normalize relations with Cuba, on which the Republicans have been influenced too much by the likes of Marco Rubio to have even considered. Obama may be the only lame duck president to have been reelected to a second term after earning lame duck status. The Republicans only have themselves to blame.
His thinking changed when he started giving away his fortune. As it should have, when he mandated annual liquidation of shares. In his younger years, his thoughts were consistent with those of a young man with youngish investors and an unlimited growht curve. His thoughts have evolved with age but all of the basic principles persist.
Fair and balanced? You're watching far too much Fox, H. But if you want fair and balanced, I've made well over 100% on a realtively modest SHLD investment trading the stock for the past 2 years, and am in the green on IBM. But why should profts matter when they get in the way of your opinon?