Buffett says US in 'economic Pearl Harbor'

[efficiency]

Quote from Euler:

Is this "net net" really objective, or even what a shareholder should care about? BRK.A, as far as its trading price is concerned, has significantly outperformed cash since 1998, at least nominally:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=BRK-A&t=my&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

Of course, taking inflation into account (whatever the "true" inflation has been since 1998, another subjective stat I suppose), maybe it's a wash.

Here's a chart Euler. In the context of buy and hold, what the media associates him with. Would be hard to trade BRK due to liquidity (both volume and spread). As such net price change should speak for itself.

$84,000 to $90,600 over 10.5 years works out to .72% per annum. Nominal. There is no dividend involved.

That's irrespective of inflation and all the CASH generated day after day from the operating entities under Berkshire's umbrella.

Residing in Omaha, precisely 3.5 miles from his house, I have a strong aversion to groupies. Ditto for Livermore groupies.

But, I will concede you can probably spell Buffett, which puts you "head and shoulders" above many of your peers as evidenced in this thread.

 

[Appleseed]

Quote from Pekelo:

What he meant that BRK.A hit 80 K back in 98 and so did it again 3 months ago, thus you can look at it that in 10 years it went nowhere....

Were did you get those prices
john

 

[Appleseed]

sorry wrong quote i ment GS prices


Goldman’s common shares at any time over the next five years at a price of $115 per share. The shares closed Tuesday at $125.05 and yesterday (Wednesday) at $133, up $7.95, or 6.36%, each.


john

 

[Euler]

Quote from efficiency:

Here's a chart Euler. In the context of buy and hold, what the media associates him with. Would be hard to trade BRK due to liquidity (both volume and spread). As such net price change should speak for itself.

$84,000 to $90,600 over 10.5 years works out to .72% per annum. Nominal. There is no dividend involved.

That's irrespective of inflation and all the CASH generated day after day from the operating entities under Berkshire's umbrella.

Residing in Omaha, precisely 3.5 miles from his house, I have a strong aversion to groupies. Ditto for Livermore groupies.

But, I will concede you can probably spell Buffett, which puts you "head and shoulders" above many of your peers as evidenced in this thread.

BRK.A started, ended, and averaged significantly less than 80,000 in 1998, starting '98 at a mere 46,000. In fact, BRK.A traded at >80k only relatively briefly in June.

That said, I do agree with what I think you're really getting at -- that BRK.A's real returns over the past decade haven't exactly been stunning. (And I don't say that to disparage Buffett, as I do admire his long-term record and apparent market wisdom, even if I would hardly describe myself as a "groupie", or even a long-term investor at this point.)

 

[Anaconda]

Quote from Debaser82:

Common or preferred, 2008 exposed Buffet for what he is, a shill of the big boys who called upon him to pay back the favour and try and stabilize the markets.

That is the bottom line, Buffett is a shill & always was. There is a reason he is in the spotlight for decades, he is performing a duty on behalf of the ultra elites.

 

[Brons]

Quote from BoyBrutus:

Yes you are correct, but is that 10% on what the current share price is?

I'll make this simple (this site shouldn't be called elitetrader.com). Buffett gave GE/GS X amount of money. The companies give Berkshire 10% in interest a year forever or until they buy Berkshire out for the principle + 10%. This part has nothing to do with the common stock. The common of GS could go to $5 and Berkshire will still get paid. In case of a bankruptcy Berkshire will get paid before the common stock.

Now there is a second part. Berkshire got warrants to buy stock at a certain price in the future from the company. These warrants were given to Berkshire for free. And warrants are like calls, you have the right to exercise them. Berkshire can choose not to buy the common stock and wouldn't have lost anything. So it's like getting calls for free.

And to the people that think Buffett has lost his touch: he outperformed the S&P by about 70% the last 10 years.

 

[jficquette]

Quote from forex-forex:

The USA wanted to get involved in the war earlier but needed a reason to enter. Pearl Harbor was that reason.

FDR campaigned on staying out of war at all costs.

He set up SS as a Ponzi scheme and terribly mismanaged the war from getting in to late to not preparing the country for war sooner and for giving eastern Europe to Stalin.

All in all FDR gets an F for his tenure.


John

 

[IShopAtPublix]

Quote from jficquette:

FDR campaigned on staying out of war at all costs.

He set up SS as a Ponzi scheme and terribly mismanaged the war from getting in to late to not preparing the country for war sooner and for giving eastern Europe to Stalin.

All in all FDR gets an F for his tenure.


John

Stop reading American Heritage Foundation pamphlets.

Eastern Europe was going to be Stalin's no matter what. Neither FDR nor any other US President was going to have any say in the matter. The reason for this was very simple, Red Army was there. Nobody in the right mind would advocate fighting with the Soviet Union over Eastern Europe. That is why it never happened.

Getting into it late? Lol. I guess you wanted American GIs to duke it out with Panzer Grenadiers on European Soil and the like in 1942 or 1939.

The simple reality is, US Army was simply not that good in WWII. In any fair engagement the Wehrmacht would have decapitated it fairly easily. By the time the 2nd front was opened Germany was fuel and steel starved and Air Superiority was decidedly in the allies favor. US did what it had to do in WWII. US avoided being severely bloodied and saved Western Europe from Soviet Occupation.

As proof of the foregoing statements compare American Sherman tank M4Ax to the Panther, Tiger or King Tiger.

 

[stock_trad3r]

Quote from dividend:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/090118/ne_buffett_economy.html


Many pros saw this coming since before 2006. They saw the housing bubble, the toxic mortgages, and deflation.

Is Buffett saying some ppl saw Pearl Harbor coming?

What a crybaby. It he bitter that Obama didn't appoint him to the cabinet? or that he invested in crap like GE and KO instead of AAPL and GOOG? Is he angry that the united States isn't moving to maxism or that the dollar isn't falling anymore? Buffett is wrong. there is no financiual crisis and a mild recession.

 

[IShopAtPublix]

Quote from stock_trad3r:

What a crybaby. It he bitter that Obama didn't appoint him to the cabinet? or that he invested in crap like GE and KO instead of AAPL and GOOG? Is he angry that the united States isn't moving to maxism or that the dollar isn't falling anymore? Buffett is wrong. there is no financiual crisis and a mild recession.

The Apparition is here!