Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Message Board

jad1148 106 posts  |  Last Activity: 13 hours ago Member since: Dec 8, 2002
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • jad1148 jad1148 Mar 26, 2016 12:12 PM Flag

    Ah, hjc, he no doubt loves the yummy stream of quarterly dividends per share that he has received since May 5, 2011:

    {0.75,0.75,0.75,0.75,0.85,0.85,0.85,0.85,0.95,0.95,0.95,0.95,1.10,1.10,1.10,1.10,1.30,1.30,1.30,1.30,?.??,...}

    And now, excitement mounts, as he's due for another raise soon.

    My guess is, it will be declared on Tuesday, April 26, 2016.

    I wonder how big will it be?

    And then there's BRK, which has, with one lone exception (Buffy did manage to cough up one thin dime per share in 1967) has paid its investors diddly squat over the last fifty years and has threatened to continue to pay them nothing for at least another ten to twenty years.

    :^)

  • Reply to

    IBM

    by tomandjanewright Mar 24, 2016 5:55 PM
    jad1148 jad1148 Mar 25, 2016 11:42 AM Flag

    Beach, I'm pretty much neutral as far a IBM goes, neither a fan nor a detractor. I will jump in and offer some support when hjc gets excessively hostile towards it, but that's pretty much the limit of my interest. I don't like share repurchases, but I have slowly come to realize that it has now become a way of life for some companies.

  • Reply to

    IBM

    by tomandjanewright Mar 24, 2016 5:55 PM
    jad1148 jad1148 Mar 25, 2016 5:39 AM Flag

    OK, tom.

    You've indicated in the past that you have some academic interest in things financial. As a peace offering, here are two free papers (PDFs) that I've been reading and rereading.

    Published this week on GMO's website:

    « The Stock Market as Monetary Policy Junkie - GMO »

    My take is that GMO believes that the greatest pumptard of the last 30 years has been the Fed.

    --- and ---

    « Credit Suisse The Base Rate Book – Sales Growth »

    Again, my take is that, generally speaking, very large companies (like IBM) have little to no real sales growth. Over the last 20 years, the median (half the companies were better, half were worse) real growth rate (absolute sales, not per share) for companies with sales of $50B or more has been 0.6%. Hence the need for buybacks to goose the PER SHARE sales/earnings/dividends/price.

    If nothing else read that paper's introduction. There's a good laugh in there at Elon's expensive.

  • Reply to

    One ole boy says?

    by upshitzcreek2000 Mar 24, 2016 4:26 PM
    jad1148 jad1148 Mar 25, 2016 4:56 AM Flag

    I'm sure you realize that your "one ole boy" is advocating a price to book ratio of 182%.

    What did WEB write about paying too much for BRK?

    Here's my Executive Summary:

    Buys made at a price/book modestly above 120% will do well, buys made at a P/B approaching 200% will not.

    Here's the actual excerpt from the 2014 Annual Report, page 34:

    "If an investor’s entry point into Berkshire stock is unusually high – at a price, say, approaching double book value, which Berkshire shares have occasionally reached – it may well be many years before the investor can realize a profit. In other words, a sound investment can morph into a rash speculation if it is bought at an elevated price. Berkshire is not exempt from this truth.
    Purchases of Berkshire that investors make at a price modestly above the level at which the company would repurchase its shares, however, should produce gains within a reasonable period of time."

  • Reply to

    IBM

    by tomandjanewright Mar 24, 2016 5:55 PM
    jad1148 jad1148 Mar 24, 2016 7:21 PM Flag

    And year to date, WFC has subtracted $2,730 million. Easy come, easy go.

  • Reply to

    HC, Jad: Go away, get a life

    by weenie_wonk Mar 16, 2016 8:09 AM
    jad1148 jad1148 Mar 16, 2016 9:29 AM Flag

    LOL!

    Yeah, I know, It's hard running a good con with a smart heckler in the crowd. I learned that during my high school days. I worked (in entertainment) the Ohio State Fair three consecutive summers. I was never a heckler, but with too much time, and too little money, I did spend a lot of time on the Midway observing the nonsense. You know, this place isn't all that different. Every once in a while I still hear that voice: "It walks ..., it talks ..., it's almost human ...,". To this day, I still don't know what "IT" was. I never did pony up the change to find out.

  • jad1148 jad1148 Mar 16, 2016 9:13 AM Flag

    I would not be surprised if WEB didn't add, but I seriously doubt that he'd sell.

    He's now within $8 per share of break even!

    His cost basis is $170.19, he's collected $19.80 in dividends to date, and IBM closed yesterday at $142.96.

    Todd's recent purchase at $118.29 (the other board, message # 222549) already has made him a big winner.

  • Reply to

    $180/share @ Operating Subs 10X PT Earnings

    by weenie_wonk Mar 15, 2016 8:45 PM
    jad1148 jad1148 Mar 16, 2016 3:35 AM Flag

    So, in spite of the advice (buys modestly above 120% will do well, buys approaching 200% will not) Buffett gave on page 34 of the 2014 Annual Report,you're still going to advocate a price to book value ratio of 188%. Just another Pumptard with a learning disability (either you can't read, or you're incapable of comprehending what you do read).

  • Reply to

    Berkshires intrinsic value

    by tomandjanewright Mar 11, 2016 5:25 PM
    jad1148 jad1148 Mar 14, 2016 1:22 PM Flag

    « why don't you answer tomandjane's question? »

    Because, I'm tired of policing the pumptards, and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't understand my answer anyway, but for you, I'll answer the question.

    « Why is it a "ridiculous number"? »

    Time to review WEB's buy recommendation from the 2014 annual report, page 34:

    "If an investor’s entry point into Berkshire stock is unusually high – at a price, say, approaching double book value, which Berkshire shares have occasionally reached – it may well be many years before the investor can realize a profit. In other words, a sound investment can morph into a rash speculation if it is bought at an elevated price. Berkshire is not exempt from this truth.
    Purchases of Berkshire that investors make at a price modestly above the level at which the company would repurchase its shares, however, should produce gains within a reasonable period of time."

    IMO, the price that Tom is advocating (~1.74X BV) is by no means modestly above 1.2X book and is, in fact, approaching 2.0X book.

    If we divide the P/BV range, 1.20 to 2.00, into five quintiles, his value falls within the fourth highest group.

    1.20 - 1.36 Modest {currently trading at the high end}
    1.36 - 1.52 Moderate
    1.52 - 1.68 High
    1.68 - 1.84 Ridiculous {Tilson's & Tom's recommendations}
    1.84 - 2.00 Ludicrous

    Happy?

  • jad1148 jad1148 Mar 12, 2016 11:31 AM Flag

    Found it.

    Search for:

    « Warren Buffett CNBC Transcript, Feb 29, 2016 »

    OK, hjc, you're right, go to page: 20, at time: 06:37:09:00.

    The quote I'm referring to appears on page: 21, at time: 06:38:04:00.

  • Reply to

    Berkshires intrinsic value

    by tomandjanewright Mar 11, 2016 5:25 PM
    jad1148 jad1148 Mar 12, 2016 9:35 AM Flag

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but he told them to buy a low cost index fund (like Vanguard's VFINX), not BRK.

    I don't see anything on the horizon that would increase demand for BRK.

  • Reply to

    Berkshires intrinsic value

    by tomandjanewright Mar 11, 2016 5:25 PM
    jad1148 jad1148 Mar 12, 2016 8:21 AM Flag

    If you're going to promote a ridiculous number for IV, why not go whole hog and just pump Tilson's 182% IV/BV? It's only 50+% more than what WEB would pay!

  • Reply to

    Buffett on IBM

    by sk4543 Mar 4, 2016 8:40 AM
    jad1148 jad1148 Mar 8, 2016 7:23 PM Flag

    That isn't what I see. Take another look at the Cash Flow tab. Dividends, 4.897 B$, and Share Repurchases, 4.287 B$, consumed about 70% of Net Income, 13.190 B$, which is pretty much in line with what they said they would do a year ago.

  • jad1148 jad1148 Mar 7, 2016 1:34 PM Flag

    Nomura's Bob Janjuah:

    "In January I said that the S&P500 would fall from 2000/2050 to the 1500s as my target over 2016. I reaffirm this view."

  • Reply to

    Crystal Ball, 100% Dead Nuts On...

    by talfster Mar 7, 2016 11:51 AM
    jad1148 jad1148 Mar 7, 2016 12:50 PM Flag

    Thanks for the thought provoking suggestion, but after several minutes of research and careful reflection, I've decided to pass on the Humboldt Fog, and will, instead, stick with the Vermont White.

  • jad1148 jad1148 Mar 2, 2016 3:42 PM Flag

    Sell the 150 call, buy the 130 put, sell the 120 put - OMG what a convoluted trade!

    Thanks for the exposition, but I'll pass.

  • jad1148 jad1148 Mar 2, 2016 4:29 AM Flag

    In the particular case cited in the article below, the accusation proved FALSE. But I do find it hard believe that this anything other than a short term trade. Do you believe that the buyer of the put intends to force the seller to pay him $120 per share for stock he already owns on or before expiry? Do you see that as a credible bet for the buyer?

    Search: « Put Paid - Snopes »

    Excerpt:

    (Options are wagers that the price of a 100-share block of a particular stock will rise or fall by a certain date. "Puts" are "shorts" — bets the stock price will fall. "Calls" are bets the price will rise. Thus, one who has reason to believe a particular company is about to suffer a terrible reversal of fortune would purchase "puts" against that entity's stock.)

  • jad1148 jad1148 Mar 1, 2016 7:22 PM Flag

    So, hjc, what's your spin on that (from the buyer's point of view).

    Is the buyer a bear, betting the price of the stock will fall to 120% BV?

    I'm guesstimating that if the price of the stock dropped that low, the price of the put would rise to almost $8.

  • jad1148 jad1148 Feb 29, 2016 8:01 PM Flag

    Sorry, I can't confirm what he said or didn't say this morning. I didn't listen to the CNBC broadcast for a number of reasons: I'm deaf without my electronics powered up (cochlear implant), I don't enjoy listening to anything even when the transmitter is turned on, and from what I could see, at least early in the broadcast, it wasn't closed captioned (no text).

    From what I've read on the IBM board (under the topic: Dividend increase), IBM did another "Investor Briefing" last week. Their slide show is on the sec web site site, look for the Form 8-K dated February 25, 2016.

    Folks on that message board who did listen in are looking for (wishful thinking?) a dividend increase of 10% (actual announcement should be at the end of April) with a commitment to buy back at least 2% of the shares per year.

    We'll see.

  • jad1148 jad1148 Feb 29, 2016 2:17 PM Flag

    If you want to follow one of Jim's option plays, read msg # 219190 on the other board.

    Briefly, on the 18Sep2015 he bought an $80 20Jan2017 BRK-B Call, he paid $52.10. The closing price for the stock on that day was $129.10. That's 490 days to expiry. What do you think, will he make any money on that trade?

BRK-B
143.385-0.695(-0.48%)10:23 AMEDT