Berkshire Profit on Goldman Sachs Passes $2 Billion

[mkmps]

are we still talking about the 37 billion put exposure?

just got this thread, but when he did it, i did the math "outside" the options blah blah, assuming he was loose 100% of 37 billion (unlikely given the index) the "interest rate" come out reasonable, and less than his l/t rate of return.

so he borrowed money cheaply right before cash become king.

in my view smart move. I wouldsuspect he did nto even look at volatily gamma, and other BS that option market makers look at when they want to make $1000 a day with $10kk on the line.

from what i remember i concluded that the trade he did was a great one.

 

[atticus]

Quote from asiaprop:

really...lol. Everyone else seems to be dreaming but you!!!

dude, you have some serious issues. Maybe you should get back into your options corner. You know shit about WB's book but behave as if you are his treasurer. Hilarious.

So you response to being called-out for lying about what I posted is another attack? I am sure your size and strength are legendary.

 

[asiaprop]

dude, look at the other guy's post, he also replied to your comments on the "marks". You are BSing in the same way than you were trying to sniff out my vol strats on asian indexes earlier before I told you to crawl back into your box.

I am saying it again, you reall know next to nothing about WB's trading book so I think you have next to no evidence to judge the validity of this particular trade, as little as all the rest of us have. Yet you get all wound up because you sympathise with a YAHOO FINANCE ARTICLE. Pathetic.

Have a nice weekend all (including you).

Quote from atticus:

So you response to being called-out for lying about what I posted is another attack? I am sure your size and strength are legendary.

 

[atticus]

Quote from asiaprop:

dude, look at the other guy's post, he also replied to your comments on the "marks". You are BSing in the same way than you were trying to sniff out my vol strats on asian indexes earlier before I told you to crawl back into your box.

I am saying it again, you reall know next to nothing about WB's trading book so I think you have next to no evidence to judge the validity of this particular trade, as little as all the rest of us have. Yet you get all wound up because you sympathise with a YAHOO FINANCE ARTICLE. Pathetic.

Have a nice weekend all (including you).

I was never interested in your vol-strategy. I haven't traded Nikkei in years and have no interest in making index a core-position. I was calling-out what I assumed to be obvious bullshit on that thread. I am certain you've uncovered some secret in the uncrowded index trade. Bravo.

You're clinging to the iceberg analogy and it's absurd. If Buffett is keeping mum about a replication/hedge gain on this position then it's the first time in history for a guy that talks his book at any available moment. Not to mention a violation of fiduciary duty.

 

[Trader666]

Oh please... drop the jaded spin... you know full well that Buffett hasn't lost even 10 cents of real money on these, let alone $10 billion... the only thing that really matters is the price on the final day. Self-proclaimed know-it-alls said he'd lost his touch during the tech bubble too.

Quote from atticus:

Did you lose $10B too?

 

[Trader666]

First, let's be honest about this... there is no loss of real money and second, don't go on as if these derivatives are Berkshire's only holdings and Buffett put them on out of the context of the rest of the Berkshire portfolio. So your argument that he didn't report a specific "netted hedge gain" means nothing.

Quote from atticus:

For the last time. His loss is the proof. He would be forced to produce a netted hedge gain, were one to exist. It's simply a fiduciary requirement.

 

[atticus]

Quote from asiaprop:

dude, look at the other guy's post, he also replied to your comments on the "marks". You are BSing in the same way than you were trying to sniff out my vol strats on asian indexes earlier before I told you to crawl back into your box.

I am saying it again, you reall know next to nothing about WB's trading book so I think you have next to no evidence to judge the validity of this particular trade, as little as all the rest of us have. Yet you get all wound up because you sympathise with a YAHOO FINANCE ARTICLE. Pathetic.

Have a nice weekend all (including you).

Here's the thread in question. I'm open to any and all interpretations on who is FOS:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2429036&highlight=atticus#post2429036

 

[Trader666]

Hmmmm... let's see who's FOS... you, the self-proclaimed know-it-all posting on ET or Warren Buffett, the greatest investor on earth and billionaire? Tough choice

Quote from atticus:

I'm open to any and all interpretations on who is FOS

 

[Anaconda]

Quote from asiaprop:

I am in trading I respect those who make money within the legal bounds. So, yes, I do respect them. Piss around as much as you like, those who succeed are the ones proven right no matter what some self-declared guru has to say.

1) Cleaning the toilets at GS's sales trading floor does not count as being in trading.

2) Atticus is not a self-declared guru, his knowledge & expertise is obvious from the discussions about option strategies & the arguments he has about options with Full-of-Shit idiots like you.

 

[Trader666]

Then what is someone who pretends they know better than Buffett in investing and Einstein in physics? Oh... delusional. Thanks anyway, I answered my own question.

Quote from Anaconda:

Atticus is not a self-declared guru