Seeking Alpha

Owen

Owen
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Owen's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Berkshire Hathaway: Shooting Dead Fish In A Drained Barrel [View article]
    Or better yet, he should have gone back in time, figured out he should put all of Berkshire's money in Google, and make out like a time-travelling bandit.

    Yes, this sounds like a wise strategy. You should start your own conglomerate, ronethpier.
    Jan 18, 2014. 02:07 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Berkshire Hathaway: Shooting Dead Fish In A Drained Barrel [View article]
    Nice back-pedalling, Barry. Berkshire owns Mastercard the same way it owns IBM.

    Just admit you didn't know this, and didn't have the wherewithal to look up the 13F before mouthing off.
    Jan 18, 2014. 01:56 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Berkshire Hathaway: Shooting Dead Fish In A Drained Barrel [View article]
    Barry, you should tell that to the SEC, who are under the impression that Berkshire has owned shares in both Mastercard and VISA for quite a while now: http://1.usa.gov/1az9DvI

    Why not arm yourself with some facts before making a fool of yourself?
    Jan 18, 2014. 10:47 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Berkshire Hathaway: Shooting Dead Fish In A Drained Barrel [View article]
    "can buy MA V BA..."

    The latest 13F shows Berkshire already bought MA and V.

    Any other advice?
    Jan 18, 2014. 10:33 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Berkshire Hathaway: Shooting Dead Fish In A Drained Barrel [View article]
    Well said, Christopher!

    One of the reasons Buffett was always reluctant to split the stock was his desire to attract long-term shareholders who understand the difference between intrinsic value and stock price, and to avoid the kind traders we see in this thread. "SPY moves faster! Why don't you buy TWTR? Gimme dividends!"
    Jan 18, 2014. 08:54 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Berkshire Hathaway: Shooting Dead Fish In A Drained Barrel [View article]
    I read Snowball as soon as it came out, thank you very much.

    I find it amusing that a guy who has but a tenuous grasp of basic English grammar and spelling believes he could outdo someone with a track record like that of Buffett (not "Buffet"). I bet he spends his spare time going to hospitals and telling brain surgeons what they're doing wrong.
    Jan 18, 2014. 08:41 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Berkshire Hathaway: Shooting Dead Fish In A Drained Barrel [View article]
    "Warren Buffet couldn't pick a stock to dsave his life."

    You should offer your help to him.
    Jan 17, 2014. 01:10 PM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Berkshire Hathaway: Shooting Dead Fish In A Drained Barrel [View article]
    "When the trading price goes down, Berkshire Hathaway
    buys back shares and that creates share price stability."

    Why would you want share price stability? It is exactly the extreme mispricings that create the best opportunities. You seem to be more interested in the market price of the company than in its value.
    Jan 17, 2014. 11:44 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Berkshire Hathaway: Shooting Dead Fish In A Drained Barrel [View article]
    My point was that even if Berkshire can use buybacks to keep the stock price above 1.2x book, that's not a "floor" in any meaningful sense of the word. Today this value is $106 per class-B share, but next month it could be $80, while still being 1.2x book.

    And as value investors, we should be more interested in the book and intrinsic value anyway, rather than the fickle stock price.
    Jan 17, 2014. 11:41 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Berkshire Hathaway: Shooting Dead Fish In A Drained Barrel [View article]
    The fact that Berkshire will start buying back shares at $106 based on current book value is not a "free out-of-the-money put option 7% below the current price".

    First of all, when buying back shares at above book value, you are paying out more than the value of the reduction in shares outstanding. It is still an excellent use of capital, of course, but it isn't "free".

    Secondly, and more importantly, the book value itself is as volatile as the value of the underlying stocks and business owned by Berkshire. Saying that the downside is limited to $106 is akin to saying that the downside on WFC, KO, IBM and AXP is their current stock price.

    Other than this, a good analysis. Thank you!
    Jan 17, 2014. 08:33 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Don't Hold An Overpriced Stock For The Short Rebate [View article]
    I'm glad I helped inspire this article...

    To be fair, my original "break-even" comment was when GNI was at $40 a share, and that was assuming a straight-line depreciation to the terminal value of $8.

    Interestingly, even now, with GNI under $23, the short rebate is 51%, and hasn't dipped below 48% since the precipitous collapse to fair value started. Whether it will remain this high for any length of time is anyone's guess.
    Jan 17, 2014. 07:19 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The 2 Real Threats To The Future Of Berkshire Hathaway (And Its Defense Against Them) [View article]
    "the people that took GRE test"

    Technically correct, but most style manuals prefer, "...the people _who_ took GRE test".

    "I expected a detailed discussion (pros and cons) of my thesis on the stock...."

    Alas, this thread is about Berkshire Hathaway, not the stock you're trying to peddle here.
    Jan 16, 2014. 09:06 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The 2 Real Threats To The Future Of Berkshire Hathaway (And Its Defense Against Them) [View article]
    "Owen, aren't you being a pedant?"

    Of course I am! Isn't much of accounting and financial analysis pedantry?

    We're not on this site to discuss art or philosophy; we're here to go over balance sheets and income statement minutia, hoping to find things that others in the field have missed.

    What troubles me more, though, is how some people who call themselves "Editor", and carry the "SA Contributor" badge proudly, write at a fourth grade level, and persist with certain mistakes even after those are pointed out to them. If they can't handle simple grammar, what are the odds they can carry out complex financial analysis?
    Jan 16, 2014. 03:04 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The 2 Real Threats To The Future Of Berkshire Hathaway (And Its Defense Against Them) [View article]
    Brad, I am not a native English speaker myself. In fact, I only moved to this part of the world fairly late in life. I also don't define myself an "editor", yet I take the few seconds necessary to proofread my posts before exposing others to them.

    You make a fair point about how different people are wired for different skills. However, I believe the same type of attention to detail that allows you to analyze a balance sheet is the one required to proofread your words. I've read reports from dozens--if not hundreds--of analysts, and there seems to be a good correlation between being prudent with words and being observant with numbers.

    "I still find myself double checking my spelling on Bufffett's name" - is that a triple F there? A classic example of Hartman's Law of Prescriptivist Retaliation... ;)
    Jan 15, 2014. 04:31 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The 2 Real Threats To The Future Of Berkshire Hathaway (And Its Defense Against Them) [View article]
    Brad, capitalizing the first letter of people's names or of any other proper noun is a common practice across all languages using the Roman alphabet.

    Of course, RI's first language might be Chinese, Arabic or Punjabi, but for someone proclaiming himself to be a "SeekingAlpha Contributor" and an "Editor", I'd expect at least a basic understanding of English punctuation and capitalization rules, if not the ability to verify the spelling of people to whom one refers.
    Jan 15, 2014. 03:04 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
681 Comments
762 Likes