Woodstock for Capitalists - All Comments

Re: Woodstock for Capitalists 2009 Blog

Rationality — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:33:00 GMT

As a measure of BRK's performance is it really correct to compare the change in equity of Berkshire with the price change of the S&P500 - the one is a accounting metric the other a market price - does not seem to be comparing apples with apples - would in not be more correct to compare the change in equity of both?

Re: Woodstock for Capitalists 2009 Blog

M*_Bill — Tue, 05 May 2009 00:06:00 GMT

Hi Mike in MN == a related question here is holding Moody's even as the credit rating agencies word and world imploded last year, and his stated concern on Saturday that 'we don't know what Congress is going to do with the credit rating agencies.'

I didn't ask your question(s), but I'm thinking about it.

Bill

Re: Woodstock for Capitalists 2009 Blog

M*_Bill — Tue, 05 May 2009 00:10:00 GMT

I heard one thing that took me back a bit, and that was when Buffett said something along the lines of remaining a bit reticent on taking on natural risk (e.g. cat exposure); I have been anticipating some growth there in light of the hardening market and Berkshire's attractive position given dislocation elsewhere in insurance industry. Need to look at 1Q 10Q on that score, and do some more thinking.

Re: Woodstock for Capitalists 2009 Blog

M*_Bill — Tue, 05 May 2009 14:24:00 GMT

Hi soodsood. Buffett was talking about investment decisionmaking, and discounting precise/long-winded math generally, not DCF specifically. But still, he did say something along the lines of not needing a complex DCF or other math-driven valuation techniques to make good decisions.

Re: Woodstock for Capitalists 2009 Blog

zhongqiang — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:37:13 GMT

test

Re: Woodstock for Capitalists 2009 Blog

zhongqiang — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:37:37 GMT

test again

zhongqiang:

test

Re: Woodstock for Capitalists 2009 Blog

EthicalPM — Fri, 01 May 2009 21:21:00 GMT

The issue is that the stock holdings in BRK are mostly held as part of equity not at their book value of the company, but the market value of the stock. It is far from a perfect comparison, but not a terrible one.

Re: Woodstock for Capitalists 2009 Blog

MikeInMN — Sun, 03 May 2009 01:19:00 GMT

Bill,

I think the question regarding the investments in Washington Post & Buffalo News is worth pushing.

I am interested in the implied contradiction between Buffett's interest in owning businesses with a sustainable competitive advantage, and his desire to buy an hold businesses forever.

Clearly, from Buffett's comments today, he does not believe that Buffalo News or Washington Post own a business model that could be considered sustainable. Yet he seems resigned to the idea that he is obligated to "play out his hand" in this investment.

If there was ever an example of a company who's long term competitive business advantage has been altered in a material fashion, the Washington Post & Buffalo News are it.

Is he holding their stocks out of a sense of obligation?

Is that really in the best interest of BRK shareholders?

If holding these stocks is in our best interest...Why?

Thanks Bill!

Keep up the good work!

Re: Woodstock for Capitalists 2009 Blog

Ling2008 — Sun, 03 May 2009 10:00:00 GMT

Similar to how Buffett

replied that government's stress test is using "checklist type" of

approach, we must not use that type of thinking into owning businesses. The

qualitative sides of owning these businesses (WPO and Buffalo News) that may not

have the "sustainable competitive advantage" (somehow I get the idea

that this qualitative term is misused by how Wall Street in similarity to PE

and earning power/trend, immeasurable yet forced quantification resulting in

impractical analysis) are -

1. Yes, Buffett is

"probably" holding the businesses like Buffalo News and Washington

Post out of a sense of obligation.

2. Yes, it is actually in

the best interest of BRK shareholders.

3. One reasons that it is

in shareholders best interest is because the very same reason how great businesses

with "top-notch management" are willing to join Berkshire (One huge

competitive advantage of Berkshire if you ask me). Managers/Owners of businesses trust Buffett will

keep to his word of sticky by their sides forever through good and bad times,

that Buffett will not sell their businesses because of higher offer/lower

profit outlook as opposed to how B-school taught us. E.g. Mrs. B was

willing to sell her majority of her lifework to Buffett reveals the utmost

trust and respect a pride business owner can give to one another.

The businesses' lack of ability to

make the most profit would not be enough justify a sell, though it may be so

for our own stock portfolio. Washington Post may only be an investment in Berkshire's portfolio, but the

relationship between WPO and Buffett goes a long way, thus justifying Buffett's

reason of holding the Post with his business commitment, as in Buffalo News,

rather than simply an investment.

Ling

Re: Woodstock for Capitalists 2009 Blog

birkharv — Mon, 04 May 2009 02:13:00 GMT

Bill, you did a very good job of condensing what was said from the very long winded (Warren) and to the point (Charlie) replies. I was there (first trip) and thought it was run very professionally. To handle the crowd they had was remarkable. Liked everything I heard from the long term perspective, disheartened with the 1st quarter results but feel things will get better. Do you see the results changing your fair value estimate much?

Thank you for thr detail.

Re: Woodstock for Capitalists 2009 Blog

birkharv — Mon, 04 May 2009 02:13:00 GMT

Thank you for thr detail.

Re: Woodstock for Capitalists 2009 Blog

soodsood — Mon, 04 May 2009 03:36:00 GMT

Hi Bill,

You talked about

9:53am

Buffett and Munger are ripping on DCF models and precise valuations. Pretty funny. False precision, too much fancy math, LTCM, etc.

Buffett: Last September, people were so worried about funding a week out. Higher math can be dangerous, lead you to places you shouldn't go.

Could you give me more detail about this issue? Did he attack the DCF model? Thanks man.

Re: Woodstock for Capitalists 2009 Blog

birkharv — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:38:00 GMT

Will you be one of the people that Mr. Buffet has given the opportunity to of posing the questions he will answer on Saturday? How will you give updates from the meeting, during Q&A or at the breaks?

Thanks

Re: Woodstock for Capitalists 2009 Blog

M*_Bill — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:08:00 GMT

I won't have a formal question; I didn't try. But I'll be asking around informally. I'll be blogging during the meeting.

Re: Woodstock for Capitalists 2009 Blog

M*_Bill — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:10:00 GMT

Scratch that -- I'm told I will have a chance to ask one question at one event. Any recommendations?