intervista a warren buffet

locco68

Il giglio alabardato
Registrato
28/2/04
Messaggi
10.833
Punti reazioni
411
grazie per la segnalazione OK!
 

gioia23

Nuovo Utente
Registrato
25/2/00
Messaggi
2.167
Punti reazioni
151
grazie, se interessa ci sono anche altri siti e gruppi sul tema di lui...
gioia23
 

Bilos

Animale alto
Registrato
31/1/06
Messaggi
1.715
Punti reazioni
71
gioia23 ha scritto:
grazie, se interessa ci sono anche altri siti e gruppi sul tema di lui...
gioia23

a me interesserebbe, per cui se conosci posta pure il link
grazie :clap:
 

nemo17

Enjoy the Silence
Registrato
20/2/00
Messaggi
7.211
Punti reazioni
332
gioia23 ha scritto:
grazie, se interessa ci sono anche altri siti e gruppi sul tema di lui...
gioia23

Anche me interessa molto ! E mi piacerebbe leggere anche la bibbia"The Intelligent Investor" di Ben Graham ...solo che non penso esista una versione italiana.
 

NCC1701

Nuovo Utente
Registrato
25/11/01
Messaggi
1.751
Punti reazioni
77
Essenziale, semplice, pacata, concreta.
Davvero una buona intervista, grazie della segnalazione. ;)
 

locco68

Il giglio alabardato
Registrato
28/2/04
Messaggi
10.833
Punti reazioni
411
Buoni investimenti? Occhio all'Italia


di Marco De Martino
17/5/2006






Il futuro è fuori dagli Usa, dice il miliardario Buffett. Che pensa a Brasile, Giappone, Gran Bretagna, Italia. Per esempio il gruppo Moratti...



I migliori investimenti? In futuro si troveranno sempre più fuori dagli Stati Uniti, magari anche in Italia. E se lo dice Warren Buffett bisogna credergli. Solo il miliardario americano poteva accogliere i 25 mila devoti del listino che sono accorsi ad ascoltarlo nello stadio di Omaha, in Nebraska, con un video in cui le protagoniste della serie tv Desperate housewives discutevano se è meglio sposare un milionario o un miliardario. Nel filmato, che ha aperto l’assemblea annuale della Berkshire Hathaway, la sua società di investimento, c’erano anche Bill Gates e il rapper Snoop Dogg che interpretavano se stessi in versione cartone animato. Ma la vera star della riunione è stato come al solito Buffett, con 51 miliardi di dollari il secondo uomo più ricco del mondo dopo il suo amico Gates, che accanto al partner di sempre Charlie Munger ha snocciolato la sua nuova ricetta per fare soldi.
Secondo lui le opportunità migliori stanno più fuori dagli Usa, in aziende che fatturano in valute diverse dal dollaro: nelle previsioni di Buffett è destinato a deprezzarsi ulteriormente sotto il peso dell’enorme deficit americano.

Il miliardario ha già messo in pratica i suoi comandamenti comprando la Iscar, un’azienda israeliana specializzata in macchine per il taglio dei metalli pesanti. Forte dei 43 miliardi in contanti che ha in cassa, Buffett ha poi promesso ai suoi azionisti una nuova grande acquisizione lontana dai picchi raggiunti dai listini a Wall Street. Dove? Sicuramente non in Russia, paese su cui ha poca fiducia: «È difficile credere che da quelle parti sia avvenuta una vera virata verso il capitalismo, in particolare di provenienza straniera» ha detto Buffett. Il quale ha aggiunto di pensare piuttosto a Brasile, Gran Bretagna e Giappone, la cui ripresa è promettente. O all’Italia, dove il miliardario americano confessa di avere trovato un nuovo amico in Angelo Moratti, figlio di Gianmarco e vicepresidente della società di famiglia Saras che sta per debuttare in borsa.
Le parole dell’oracolo di Omaha sono suonate come spietato atto di accusa contro lo stato dell’economia americana. Finora infatti la buffettologia, ovvero la teoria dell’investimento secondo Buffett, si era basata su un assioma: bisogna comprare solo le aziende a stelle e strisce che si conoscono benissimo. Sulla base di questa convinzione Buffett e i suoi seguaci hanno sempre evitato investimenti ad alto rischio, come i derivati, per concentrarsi su settori tradizionali: di recente il suo gruppo ha comprato quote della Wal Mart (grande distribuzione) e della Anheuser Busch, che produce la birra Budweiser, mentre in passato aveva acquisito American Express, Gillette, Procter & Gamble.
E mentre il mercato suona di nuovo la carica dei titoli di internet, lui ribadisce quel che diceva mentre tutti puntavano sulla nuova economia: «Se un’azienda si occupa molto di tecnologia, non la capiamo». Fa quindi specie vedere proprio lui, che dopotutto è il maggiore azionista della Coca-Cola, puntare ora sull’estero: «Se Buffett tradisce se stesso, è perché è convinto che prima o poi i cinesi smetteranno di finanziare il deficit di bilancio acquistando titoli di stato americani, e che quando questo accadrà l’economia Usa potrebbe accusare un forte shock» spiega a Panorama Paul Samuelson, premio Nobel per l’economia. «La sua è un’analisi impopolare, che però è condivisa da molti, tra cui il sottoscritto».

Certo anche il guru di Omaha potrebbe sbagliare, e non sarebbe la prima volta: solo l’anno passato Buffett ha perso la sua prima scommessa sul collasso del dollaro, lasciando quasi 1 miliardo sul mercato dei futures. Ma è pur vero che, prima di seguire le sue indicazioni, i grandi fondi di investimento avevano già cominciato a dirottare i soldi all’estero: solo nei primi 10 mesi del 2005 oltre 80 miliardi sono stati investiti da gruppi americani fuori dagli Stati Uniti.
E bisogna considerare che sulle tendenze economiche Buffett ha sempre avuto ragione: dopotutto negli ultimi quarant’anni il valore del titolo della Berkshire è salito del 21 per cento l’anno. «Alla fine Omaha batte sempre Wall Street» ama dire Buffett, incurante del fatto che stavolta la sua vittoria potrebbe significare la sconfitta dell’America.
 

gioia23

Nuovo Utente
Registrato
25/2/00
Messaggi
2.167
Punti reazioni
151
nemo17 ha scritto:
Anche me interessa molto ! E mi piacerebbe leggere anche la bibbia"The Intelligent Investor" di Ben Graham ...solo che non penso esista una versione italiana.


Scusate, ma non ero più entrato nel 3d, ci sono diversi siti, o anche fondi che scrivono di Berkshire Hathaway, consigliabile è un gruppo, "chuck's angels" in yahoo.finance, c'è da iscriversi al gruppo, ma molto interessante, anche se talvolta tecnico, un fondo che scrive molto su Buffett è
www.loschmanagement.com e vedere le "monthly letters", un altro fondo che segue Buffett è Fairholme Capital Management,
poi c'è www.vinvesting.com
un sito che spesso raccoglie articoli o pubblicazioni su "value investing"

già "The Intelligent Investor" è proprio una bibbia, ma purtroppo non corrisponde proprio a quanto banche ed consulenti invece cercano di raccontarci, strano che non esista in italiano, ma vale la pena averlo in inglese, molte cose si possono comprendere anche senza una conoscenza approfondita dell'inglese, basta capire i concetti di finanza...
gioia23
 

locco68

Il giglio alabardato
Registrato
28/2/04
Messaggi
10.833
Punti reazioni
411
Berkshire Hathaway 2nd Quarter Earnings Rise 62 Percent
August 7, 2006

Omaha, Neb.-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc., billionaire Warren Buffett's investment vehicle, reported Friday that second-quarter earnings jumped 62 percent on strength in its investments and insurance and utility businesses.

Advertisement
Berkshire earned $2.35 billion, or $1,522 per share, for the three months ending June 30, versus $1.45 billion, or $941 per share, in the year-ago period, according to Berkshire's filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission released late Friday afternoon.

The Omaha-based company's revenue jumped 33 percent to $24.19 billion during the quarter. Berkshire had $37.3 billion cash on hand at the end of the quarter.

Berkshire officials typically do not comment on quarterly earnings reports, and they did not return calls seeking comment, an Associated Press account said.

Berkshire's insurance companies, which include auto insurer GEICO and reinsurance giant General Re, reported net underwriting earnings of $371 million, down slightly from last year's $376 million.

Berkshire Hathaway's Reinsurance Group is making more from catastrophic and individual risk contracts because fewer companies want to assume those risks after last year's devastating hurricanes, driving premiums higher. Berkshire said it generated $483 million in premiums for those policies during the quarter, up from $288 million last year.

But investments made by the insurance companies more than made up for the slight decline in underwriting profits. Those investments generated $782 million in net earnings, up from $585 million last year.

Berkshire's other investments earned $294 million during the quarter, compared to a loss of $160 million a year ago.

Most of that investment gain came from the sale of some investments, but Berkshire also made $87 million on its bet that the dollar would fall. Last year, the company lost $619 million in the second quarter on its short position on the U.S. currency.

Berkshire's utility businesses, helped by this year's acquisition of the utility PacifiCorp, generated $158 million of net earnings during the quarter, up from $100 million last year.

Berkshire said its quarterly utility revenue jumped from $1.65 billion last year to $2.69 billion this year, mostly because of PacifiCorp.

Buffett grabbed more headlines during the quarter than his company when he announced that he will give most of his roughly $44 billion fortune away to five foundations over time, with the biggest gift of 10 million Class B shares of Berkshire going to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

During the quarter, Berkshire completed its acquisition of Applied Underwriters, a San Francisco-based company.

Berkshire has not announced any major acquisitions since just before its annual shareholder meeting in May. Since then, the company has completed its $4 billion purchase of an 80 percent stake in Iscar Metalworking Cos., which makes metal cutting tools, and its $597.2 million acquisition of sportswear maker Russell Corp. But those deals were completed during the third quarter.

Berkshire officials noted in the quarterly report that the company is now more exposed to risks associated with political instability and civil unrest because Iscar is based in Israel and has substantial operations in northern Israel and Korea.

"The instability that has persisted in the Middle East increased notably in recent weeks,'' Chief Financial Officer Marc Hamburg wrote in the report. "Business operations could be adversely affected directly through the loss of human resources and destruction of production facilities.''

The company released its earnings after the market closed. Class A shares of Berkshire stock gained $410, or less than 1 percent, Friday to close at $91,710 on the New York Stock Exchange.

Class B shares of Berkshire stock gained $8, or less than 1 percent, Friday to close at $3,050.

Berkshire owns more than 60 companies including insurance, clothing, furniture, jewelry and candy companies, restaurants, natural gas and corporate jet firms and has major investments in such companies as Coca-Cola Co., Anheuser-Busch Cos. and Wells Fargo & Co.

avevo una mezza idea di comprare una azione classe B, che ne pensate?
 

gioia23

Nuovo Utente
Registrato
25/2/00
Messaggi
2.167
Punti reazioni
151
magari aspetta che si calmi "l'euforia" sul secondo semestre, dovrebbe ritracciare anche sotto 3000$, spero, quel che conta è la qualità degli earnings e se la stagione degli hurricanes va bene, nel senso che non ci saranno troppi danni, il rialzo dei prezzi nel campo assicurativo darà i suoi frutti....
gioia23
 

gioia23

Nuovo Utente
Registrato
25/2/00
Messaggi
2.167
Punti reazioni
151
Un parere, anche se di parte, sulla valutazione di Berkshire è questo:

Warren had another good quarter. There were some areas of poor
performance, some so so, and other's that would merit a sensational
label. The earnings are becoming more and more visible and we are
only an average hurricane season away to having this earning power
visible to all.

I have book up 7.1% for the 6 months and IV up the 8.4%. IV is
$120,020, call it $120,000. (Dan the IV numbers were definitely held
back by very conservative earnings estimates.)

What I tried to do was to tie the growth in IV to the growth in book
somewhat. We know that over time IV tends to increase faster than
book. Most of Warren's purchases add obvious value. So far the
Pacific corp. acquisition IMO may or may not have added value to date.

I have been assuming to myself that BRK can grow IV about 13% per
year, higher if Warren finds use for his cash. The 7.1% increase in 6
months, BRK looks good for teen IV growth at least this year.

Over the last 5 years IV has grown 10% and over the last 3 years
11.9%. So raising the cash levels, i.e., having trouble finding
investments, naturally slows IV.

Let's look at some detailed components of the second quarter. Cash
decreased 400 million to $37.3 billion. Warren bought $2.6 billion of
equities during the second quarter. I think this shows that he took
advantage of the late quarterly decline. $2.6 b is more than
nibbling, and less than buying aggressively when you have almost $40
billion of cash.

In the poor category I would put two items, one really. Float stayed
at $49.5 b, the same as it was in the first quarter and only 200
million more than year end. This float number includes buying a small
insurance company in the first quarter. So by historic standards
float growth is awful.

Yet as an owner I like to see Warren refusing business that has iffy
profits. Insurance underwriting has two components, one the risk in
the actual policy and two the investment returns. Marginal float
earns the cash rate of 2%+ after taxes so only accepting profitable
business makes some sense with surplus cash.

The area that based on this quarter's results that looked poor to me
was Mid American. Last year Mid America earned $141m, $100 m, 141 m,
141 m. In the first quarter Mid American earned $233 m, $80 million
was extra-ordinary reversal. So "normal" earnings were $144 for the
first quarter.

Warren paid $5.1 billion in cash and my thought was he would earn a
modest 6% on this equity or $306 per year or $76.5 m per quarter. Add
that to $145 m gives us $221.5 m per quarter and adding back the $80
million extra ordinary gain in the first quarter I thought Mid
American would earn $1 billion this year. In following years, the $1
billion in projected capital expenditures would keep Mid American
earnings at about $1 billion.

This quarter results with Mid America I ask where is the full quarter
impact from Pacific Corp earnings? Now there may be some other
factors at work here, the slow down of the real estate would account
for some of the short fall.

Needless to say this quarter results have me lowering Mid America's
contribution to roughly $160 per quarter or $640 per year. Since Mid
America earned $523 m last year, one can ask, has Pacific Corp added
to or subtracted to IV?

The most likely explanation that I have come up with is that Warren
lent Pacific Corp $2 billion of the $5 billion down payment and the
interest on the $2 billion shows up in the finance section, not the
Mid America section.

In the so so area of second quarter performance I'd put insurance. I
mentioned the static float as one reason for this perhaps "tough"
grade. Geico continues to do splenidly. We've lost most of the
effect of the onetime move into New Jersey though. General growth
continues it's near double digit decline in volume that has been going
on multiple years now. The business General growth is writing showed
nice profit in the second quarter.

Now there has been a lot of buzz on how Warren is stepping up to the
plate with a big bet on the coming hurricane underwriting. It looks
like pricing has firmed. I like Warren big bets and I like this one,
but the bottom line is for six months underwriting profit is up 1%
overall. This 1% gain and the flat float is my reason for the so so
score on insurance.

Now on the other hand, there is reason to be optimistic in insurance
if, if we have any "normal" year for disasters. Despite what Warren
said in the annual report that insurance profits must be written off
throughout the year, BRK shows, at least last year, a distinct
seasonal trend in underwriting profits.

In 2005, taking out the hurricanes, underwriting profit per quarter in
millions was: $319, $371, $780 and $737. So if my accrual for
disaster of $600 per share is right (about $2 billion in losses pre
tax) underwriting earnings will be about $850 per share. Remember
last year pre tax loses were $2,200 per share and about $1,400 per
share after tax.


When one looks at the performance of the overall non insurance areas
of BRK sensational or breathe taking are the only words that describe
things. Now I have not looked closely at individual units, but
looking at the whole, I have had a hard time understanding the growth
in these units. I think last year was the epiphany. With no new
acquisitions EPS was up 10+%. When I look at these units indivually
I have trouble seeing how they can grow 10% per year without acquistions.

Now Warren threw a curve ball this year that confused me a bit. He
now is separating finance, the real mystery component of BRK. Adding
back finance, non insurance, which includes finance, should show a 37%
increase overall.

Last year these units earned almost $2,700 m. I see them earning at
$3,675. That includes 2% per quarter for the Russell and Ischar
acquisitions. My IV estimate is based on $2,800 m times 18, a number
that is certain to be exceeded. I choose to use a number that
excludes acquisitions. I could have figured the costs, which in these
cases were announced, but I choose not too.(If non insurance earning
come in at $3,675 million, less the $4.6 b cost of Iscar and Russell,
my IV estimate would be raised by $7,000 per share.) Anyone is free
to use there own estimate of earnings and any multiple they wish.
Need less to say one advantage of writing these things down here is
that I can see I used perhaps too low of an earnings number for my IV
calculation. I expect to be raising IV rapidly in future quarters and
I may raise my numbers on my worksheets to reflect the two recent
acquisitions that closed after 2 nd quarter ended.

Ok, I went to business school a long time ago and I still like to
think in outdated P/E's. What is BRK current "pro forma" P/E?

Non insurance earnings $2,350
Underwriting no disasters $1,450
Accrual (600)
Investment income 1,850

These add up to $5,050 per share after tax. This is the number that
compares to the analyst consensus number of $4,500. But then again
the analysts don't take an accrual for hurricanes and earthquakes and
such. IMO accruals are a more accurate way to look at BRK insurance
business. Now the investment income of $1,850 per share, considers a
10% decrease from second quarter income to account conservatively for
the two second quarter acquisitions that used 15% of the cash. Cash
flow and rolling over CD will offset some of the decrease in cash.

However the $5,000 per share estimate for 2006 does not account for
capital gains. Warren has collected $532 per share so far in 06 in
capital gains. Over the last 6 years capital gains per share have
averaged slightly over $1,000 per share. BRK is far bigger than it
was 6 years ago and the big caps that Warren must invest in are
relatively better values than they were 6 years ago, so IMO $1,000 per
share is the minimum that one must add to BRK earnings for capital gains.

Look through earnings were $1,190 per share in an earlier version that
I prepared after the first quarter. The new $2 billion + in equities
gives me confidence that look through will be at least $1,200 this
year for BRK.

Warren had $37.2 b in cash at 2 nd quarter end. He quickly spent
almost $5 billion on two investments, three if we count his investment
in USG. So what would happen if Warren spent the rest of the $32 b
for an "elephant"?

Let's assume he paid 20 times earning or got 5% earnings yield. 5%
on $32 billion if $1,600 million or a little over $1,000 per share.

Now for those of you upset about going to zero cash, which we know
will never happen, there is the possibility of borrowing and in the
realm of Pro Forma one can raise the yield somewhat to leave some
cash. Of course every month BRK has positive cash flow and it will
take some time to invest this large amount of money. So I do not
worry about going to zero cash in a pro forma exercise.

So IMO the proper way to look at BRK is "pro forma". To the operating
estimate of $5,000 per share, we must add $1,200 per share of look
through, $1,000 of capital gains and $1,000 for an elephant. These
total $8,200 per share and I think they could grow double digit.

At $91,500 on these pro forma numbers BRK is selling for slightly over
11 times 2006 earnings. I would think 15 times these kinds of
earnings would were a company of BRK quality should sell for. 15
times gives one a $123,000 IV.

I know of no blue chip that sell close to BRK P/E except HD, which is
run by greedy Bob Narelli. Some feel HD sales will be affected by the
housing slowdown and eventually LOW's, BRK on the other hand would
benefit by any slowdown.

Hopefully the earning power of BRK will be more apparent now.
Certainly one more quarter of non insurance earnings will make things
even clearer. An average hurricane season and us BRK holders might
well be singing happy days are here again.

Historically near 80% of IV the area where BRK has been a buy, meaning
purchases at these levels have shown good IRR over time. Now we've
been below 80% 5 or 6 times in the last 10 years. We've rarely been
below 75% of IV except for March of 2000. Yet with the upward boost
that the quarter brought to IV, we are now below 75% at 3,000 per B
share. BRK is a historic buy all the way to $3,200 per B share using
the 80% of IV standard.

This however has been the longest period by far where BRK has stayed
below 80% of IV. Since the June 2005 quarter BRK has been selling
below 80% of IV at least at quarter's end and after revision of IV.
Are we in a new era, where BRK sells for a lower multiple? Perhaps?
My money is bet on a return to IV and double digit growth of IV and
thus good IRR at current levels.

What makes life interesting is to see if one is right on one's bets.


Happ
 

gioia23

Nuovo Utente
Registrato
25/2/00
Messaggi
2.167
Punti reazioni
151
e questo il commento a quanto scritto sopra, scusate la lunghezza e la tecnicità, è da un forum su BRKA, alcune volte capita di leggere anche opinione anche cosi tecniche ed approfondite, tenete conto che sono già azionisit e sono piuttosto entusiasti...

Re: BRK 2 nd quarter results


roberts,

"Look-through earnings," as Buffett defines them, are the portion of
earnings which are NOT paid out as dividends to Berkshire. For
example, the proportional amount of KO's earnings that BRK ISN'T
given as dividends. So, happ has it correct. He's not double counting.

I enjoyed his analysis, too, especially including a "normalized"
amount of both annual capital gains and SuperCat loses. I find it
interesting that almost everybody who has spent much time analyzing
Berkshire now has I.V. at $120K or more and also that, by several
methods, the best-guess current P/E is 11 or 12.

Not bad for a company that, with $37B to spend, will almost certainly
have earnings gains in the 20-to-30% range for the next 5-to-10 years
thanks to the combination of organic growth and acquisitions.

I'd note that in the post-2Q commentary on BRK in various places
there's been a shift in tone since Buffett "gave it all away." I
suspect it will become mildly "noble" over the next couple of years
to "talk up" Berkshire to its fair value on the basis that 31% of the
share price increase is going to charity. It's very hard for the
financial press and others to be generous toward a company with a
$92K share price and a CEO who only speaks in public once a year and
doesn't give "guidance. The Gates Gift should shift that mood.

Finally, just a guess, but I suspect that by the next Annual Report
in seven months we will be at an interesting point: the intersection
of 1) significantly increased I.V. that may be above $130K by then,
2) the "$100,000/sh barrier" which obviously MUST be broken some
time, 3) the reporting of final numbers on (perhaps) a spectacular
SuperCat underwriting coup in late '06 and 4) a stock market/world
that may be quite an uncomfortable place for many folks. (Housing,
war, oil, mid-term election results, all the usual suspects.)

JMO, but the longer the pressure builds BELOW $100,000/sh, the more
explosive the rally after $100,000 is broken. Look at what happened
after the long-delayed penetration of $10,000/sh. BRK hit $8,750/sh
in 3Q '89 but, three years later, was still as low as 9,050 in
3Q '92. (Remember, those were the days when Buffett was growing
Berkshire at 24%/yr or DOUBLING Berkshire's value every 3 1/3 years.)

When the "break out" through $10,000/sh came, Berkshire went from
$9,050 in 3Q '92 to $17,800/sh in 3Q '93. Or +97% in a year.

We don't have that much pent up value now. But I wouldn't be at all
surprised if, once the stock starts moving, we see a 50%+ move in a
year __like the one that started in 3/00. That dramatic "stair step"
pattern of price appreciation is Berkshire's norm over the decades,
not the exception. I've experienced of few of those 50%-to-
100% "steps" and they're very enjoyable. You
say, "When...when...when...Oh, Lord, when?" Then it happens and you
hold on tight. The move from $23K to $84K took a blink __three years
in all. (All the way to "way overvalued." The stock probably should
have stopped at ~$55K in '98. I doubt we'll ever get "significantly
overvalued" again. But you never know.)

You don't get to tell Mr. Market WHEN you will get paid. What's so
special about these happy periods is that, provided you have some
patience and stay in touch with the performance of the business
itself, they are extremely predictable, IMO.
 

gioia23

Nuovo Utente
Registrato
25/2/00
Messaggi
2.167
Punti reazioni
151
ecco un'altro parere, poi mi fermo :D:D



Buffett says that lumpy earnings do not brother him, and it's a good
thing because Berkshire's Earnings are lumpier than a sack full of
cats. While this is not a problem for Buffett it clearly is one for
Mr. Market. This poor soul, obviously to busy to read Berkshires 10 Q,
has no clue, earnings are up or earnings are down but what does it
mean? All those lumps?

There can be the gain from the sale of investments of $5.07 billion in
the fourth quarter
Of 2005 and $167 million in the second quarter of this year. There are
catastrophic insurance losses that can be next to non-existent for a
year or two then jump to $3.5 billion in the last half of last year.

Anyway you can see what I mean, how do figure how fast Berkshire's
earnings are growing with all these lumps hiding the trend? The most
interesting thing about the 2006 second quarter report was that there
were practically no lumps. This is about as close to core earnings as
you are ever going to see on a Berkshire 10 Q. The story told by this
report is very interesting, and to try to find the underling trend I
will compare this years second quarter to the second quarter of 2001.

2006

It turns out that this is fairly easy because almost everything in
this quarter's earnings is recurring. We will use Pre-tax earnings
from the table on page 19 because of the detail provided in this table
and because what we are trying to measure here is the trend not value.
Pre-tax earnings from the table were $3.6 billion, the only lump that
I see is Investment gains and losses of $459 million. So we will
subtract that figure and say core pre-tax earnings for the quarter
were $3.143. This includes $131 billion (a full quarter) from
PacifiCorp, but of course does not include anything from third quarter
acquisitions ISCAR and Russell. Otherwise it is a fairly normal
quarter with underwriting profit down 70 million at GEICO and up $66
million at GenRe. Of the operating companies, Building products,
financial products, Shaw, flight services, and "other" were strong,
apparel was weak, while McLane, and retail were flat.

2001

For the second quarter of 2001 pre-tax was $1.267 billion, but there
were more lumps. First of all there was $648 in investment gain so we
have to remove that to get to core earnings. There were three loss
items that were not recurring so we will add these numbers back in. In
the insurance business there was $137 million write off for prior year
losses at GenRe, and $104 million loss for retroactive Insurance at
Berkshire RE. Also there was a $167 change for amortizing goodwill, so
$1267-$648 +(137+104+167) leaves us with core earnings for the second
quarter of 2001 of $1.027 billion.

So ignoring the lumps Berkshires quarterly pre-tax earnings has grown
from $1.027 billion to $3.143 in this five year period. The rate of
growth has been almost exactly 25% per year. Now as most people here
will have noticed the price of the stock seems to have lagged this
pace of earnings growth. On June 30, 2001 Berkshire was selling for
$69,200, and at $91,659 on June 30 of this year Mr. Market has bid the
price of our stock up by something less that 5.8% per year. We can, as
has been suggested here, take Mr. Market's word for it and accept
today's price as an adequate measure of the company's value. But 25%
earning growth for five years would seem to merit more respect.

It is not likely that Berkshire will be able to maintain that growth
for the next five years, but that does not mean that the company will
not grow faster that the broad market averages. In the five years
since June 30 2001 Buffett has spent a total of $14.9 billion in
acquiring 15 companies. With approx $ 41.6 in cash and $26.6 billion
bonds on hand today, it is not the lack of funds that will slow
growth. Notice also the cash is flowing into Omaha three times as fast
today as it was five years ago.

It is true that you would have made a lot more money in the last five
years if you had had your money in small cap value, but I doubt that
the rear-view mirror will be any more helpful today than it has been
in the past. So you will forgive me if I chose to ignore the market's
depressive phase.
 

locco68

Il giglio alabardato
Registrato
28/2/04
Messaggi
10.833
Punti reazioni
411
grazie. Ho letto quel che ho capito, e ho visto che il p/e dovrebbe essere circa 11 12. In questi ultimi giorni il titolo e' salito. Sei azionista Berkshire? non sono riuscito a trovare i dividendi....
 

gioia23

Nuovo Utente
Registrato
25/2/00
Messaggi
2.167
Punti reazioni
151
Non paga dividendi, ne ne ha mai pagati, e rimarrà cosi per il prevedibile futuro, non fa parte di nessun indice perchè W. Buffett ne controlla circa il 40%. Difficile definire il p/e esatto, anzi non ha molto senso...
nel sito della società puoi leggere le lettere agli azionisti che Buffett pubblica ogni anno, te ne consiglio la lettura, ci sono quelle storiche fino al 1977 (!), la lettura di queste è molto più interessante di molti testi finanziario-economici...
saluti
gioia23
 

locco68

Il giglio alabardato
Registrato
28/2/04
Messaggi
10.833
Punti reazioni
411
ok , ma perche' dici che non ha molto senso il p/e nel caso in questione?
Ciao :confused:
 

gioia23

Nuovo Utente
Registrato
25/2/00
Messaggi
2.167
Punti reazioni
151
perchè a differenza di molte altre società, Buffett cerca piuttosto di "mimetizzare" i profitti o farli apparire meno possibile, l'interessa l'incremento del valore sul lungo termine piuttosto che "spremere" per far risultare alti utili.
Se consideri che da qualche anno la società ha a disposizione liquidità di decine di miliardi di dollari che non ha investito per mancanza di "occasioni" utili, ...
malgrado sia da sempre avverso ad investire nel hightech, non perse occasione nel 2002 per investire miliardi di dollari in bond di compagnie telefoniche che visto il periodo (fallimento Enron, Worldcom) erano crollati.
Come conglomerato è piuttosto complesso, visto la quantità e varietà di aziende che controlla, pertanto si dovrebbe anche suddividere tra investimenti finanziari, società operative e società assicurative e poi fare le valutazioni del caso, ma come esposto sopra e da persone molto più esperte del sottoscritto, non è molto facile fare valutazioni corrette, ciò che spesso ha ripetuto Buffett è che non ha interesse che la società sia troppo sopra o sottovalutata, ma che la valutazioen di mercato non si discosti troppo dal "book value" e dal "intrinsic value"
gioia23
 

locco68

Il giglio alabardato
Registrato
28/2/04
Messaggi
10.833
Punti reazioni
411
Billionaire investor Warren Buffett marries longtime companion on his 76th birthday
September 1, 2006 (OMAHA, Neb.) - Billionaire investor Warren Buffett married his longtime companion, Astrid Menks, in a private ceremony Wednesday, the Omaha World-Herald reported in a copyrighted story in its Thursday editions.

Buffett's daughter, Susan, hosted the wedding at her Omaha home. She said her father and Menks, 60, were married by Douglas County District Judge Patricia Lamberty in a 15-minute ceremony on Buffett's 76th birthday.

"It's her only and his last (wedding)," Susan Buffett said, recalling her father's take on the ceremony.

Buffett's first wife, Susan, died July 29, 2004, at age 72. She moved to San Francisco in 1977, but the two remained married and were together often and talked frequently when apart.

The Berkshire Hathaway Inc. chairman and CEO announced in June that Buffett would bequeath the bulk of his roughly $44 billion fortune to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. He donated the first 500,000 shares of Class B stock last week.

Shares of Berkshire Hathaway rose $296 to close at $96,097 Thursday on the New York Stock Exchange, near the high end of the stock's 52-week range of $78,800 to $96,700.

(Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)




Giacche' ci siamo io gli faccio i miei auguri....