Berkshire's Billion Dollar Buyback Bodes Well For Investors [View article]
He's advocating for a higher tax rate for PEOPLE IN HIS EXACT TAX POSITION, as he's made clear dozens of times. That's why they named the tax proposal the "Buffett Tax", right?
He has stated that he earns between $70-100 million a year from his stocks (dividends, capital gains, etc.) -- how exactly would a tax increase on those earning more than $1 million a year NOT affect his taxes??!!?
He wants a higher tax rate on the wealthiest Americans, those who he feels don't pay their fair share, all while they reap the benefits of the system that allows them to earn great wealth. He is in this very group.
He wants increased taxes on the wealthiest Americans, a group he is a part of. Do you think he's so stupid that he'll give away his own life's fortune to the government while everyone else doesn't pay their share? Inane.
Giving his money away to charity is certainly more generous than leaving for his own family members in offshore trusts in tax havens, no?
Buffett is acting within the current tax rules, and is advocating for a change in those rules, at which time he will pay the amount required by the new rules. Is this line of logic difficult for you to follow?
I thought that you were an investment research entity -- if you can't follow the basic logic of Buffett's thoughts on the tax increases he's advocating, then you might be in the wrong line of work.
Berkshire's Billion Dollar Buyback Bodes Well For Investors [View article]
@ Alberta,
Thanks for the links.
What I'm actually concerned about is having Warren Buffett finally become fed up with the inane accusations he's being subject to by low-quality and dim people, and having him just remain silent and keep his wisdom for himself and his friends.
Buffett is beyond generous -- if you recognize exactly what he has shared with people. If you're too dim to see or understand the wisdom, then get lost and let the rest of us listen to the oracle in peace.
Berkshire's Billion Dollar Buyback Bodes Well For Investors [View article]
Buffett has a fiduciary duty to BRK shareholders to minimize taxes.
Personal tax increases on the ultra-wealthy would mean that Buffett personally (and SOME BRK shareholders) would pay a slightly higher rate of tax on income levels much above what's required for a comfortable life and life's necessities.
If he was such a money-grubbing hypocrite (as you suggest), wouldn't it be smarter of him to just remain silent on the matter (like the vast majority of the super-rich) and continue to grow and hoard his money under the existing tax rules?
Further, giving the vast majority of his fortune to charity (rather than setting up multi-billion dollar trust funds for all his children and hiding it in tax havens) makes him a hypocrite (and worthy of your inane derision)?
Berkshire's Billion Dollar Buyback Bodes Well For Investors [View article]
The two biggest increases to the debt came about from 2 unnecessary wars and financial system deregulation leading to meltdown, all under George W. Bush.
Yes, Buffett should donate all his money to the debt, paying a miniscule portion of the interest on the debt (his life's fortune for two days' worth of interest on said debt), all while the fools and greedy talk out of their rear ends?
I'm never reading another thing you write, as it's a complete waste of time.
Berkshire's Billion Dollar Buyback Bodes Well For Investors [View article]
@ Saibus,
Maybe you should take the time to search the almost exhaustive amount of information on Buffett re. taxes, before you say something dim.
Buffett owes it to BRK shareholders to structure its taxes to pay as little tax as is allowed by whatever tax laws are in place.
He has repeatedly said that the wealthy and super-wealthy should pay higher taxes, as a group, both due to fairness and practical necessity. He has never said that everyone else should pay higher taxes and not himself.
Omaha Hold 'Em: Going All-In On Berkshire Hathaway [View article]
@ dbjn,
Thanks for your thoughtful and invaluable comment.
Normally people's names are capitalized and spelled correctly (ex. Buffett).
Buffett proposes that the tax system should change, so that everyone pays their fair share. Everyone is entitled to try to minimize their taxes -- that's called tax planning.
Mentioning Obama in the context of this article is bizarre and nonsensical. The majority spoke and your guy didn't get elected -- get over it.
You are a trader, are not interested in BRK as an investment. Intrinsic value means little/nothing to you, and stock prices action means everything to you.
3 Stocks To Buy, 2 Stocks To Sell, What's Next For The Market [View article]
@ Author,
I have no personal beef with you, but disagree with your "Look Ma, no hands!" celebration of a trade that was pretty much the result of a random uptick that isn't based on fundamentals.
This is all in the context of the fact that CRM trades at a level unjustified by its "growth" (primarily in revenues, not profits). Its price to operating cash flow is also very very high.
My opinion is that CRM wouldn't trade the way it does if it didn't have virtually 100% institutional ownership of its shares. Time will tell what happens to CRM, but the probabilities (based on a rational look at the financial numbers) favor the downside.
3 Stocks To Buy, 2 Stocks To Sell, What's Next For The Market [View article]
@ Author,
The posting date listed by Seeking Alpha was December 11, 2012 and it didn't have a time stamp to show when it was posted or submitted by you.
You may have "called the trade right", but CRM's spike is based on Alice In Wonderland logic. If CRM wasn't owned almost 100% by institutions, I'd suggest that its share price would be a fraction of where it is now. When the bizarro world trading pattern ends, it might end up with a Netflix-like haircut.
You stated "...The company just reported *very solid earnings* in late November that has helped bring it to these levels. They reported strong earnings and revenue growth that beat the Street with revenue up 35% year/year. *Earnings are still in the red*, but they did beat expectations."
Also, you stated "...Today, we are looking at an earnings trade in Visa (V), longs in Salesforce.com (CRM)".
So, "very solid earnings" and being "in the red" are consistent? Usually "very solid earnings" means a company HAS profits (is "in the black") and not a Net Loss position ("in the red").
Its HIGHEST EPS was $0.63/share in 2010, which would mean a current PE ratio of ~261x. Even assuming that CRM could get to EPS of $4/share, its PE ratio would be 41.25x, as compared to ~15x for ORCL and MSFT.
CRM's fundamental issue is that it has consistently provided either tiny profits or just losses, whereas its share price is stratospheric and it is competing against highly profitable, liquid, and established companies like ORCL, MSFT, SAP AG.
So, you acknowledge that CRM is a dog, but it's a "LONG" in your opinion nonetheless? Did you write the article *after* today's spike upwards?
CRM is a stock that trades like it's still 1999, and the outcome will be the same, sooner or later.
Billionaire George Soros's 5 New Dividend Picks [View article]
You have your own biased label for Soros, whereas the author focuses on the facts that are more relevant to INVESTORS (ex. Soros is a billionaire (therefore successful) investor), who don't know Soros (and don't care what his politics are).
That Soros is a billionaire is a relevant FACT, and is relevant to investors who wish to know and/or mimic what other financially successful people do.
Your label is not an unbiased fact, nor is it relevant to investors. Further, this is not a political beliefs site, it's an investment site.
Thanks for your comment, but Soros' investment moves are relevant, whereas your opinion is entirely irrelevant.
Berkshire's Billion Dollar Buyback Bodes Well For Investors [View article]
He has stated that he earns between $70-100 million a year from his stocks (dividends, capital gains, etc.) -- how exactly would a tax increase on those earning more than $1 million a year NOT affect his taxes??!!?
He wants a higher tax rate on the wealthiest Americans, those who he feels don't pay their fair share, all while they reap the benefits of the system that allows them to earn great wealth. He is in this very group.
He wants increased taxes on the wealthiest Americans, a group he is a part of. Do you think he's so stupid that he'll give away his own life's fortune to the government while everyone else doesn't pay their share? Inane.
Giving his money away to charity is certainly more generous than leaving for his own family members in offshore trusts in tax havens, no?
Buffett is acting within the current tax rules, and is advocating for a change in those rules, at which time he will pay the amount required by the new rules. Is this line of logic difficult for you to follow?
I thought that you were an investment research entity -- if you can't follow the basic logic of Buffett's thoughts on the tax increases he's advocating, then you might be in the wrong line of work.
Berkshire's Billion Dollar Buyback Bodes Well For Investors [View article]
Thanks for the links.
What I'm actually concerned about is having Warren Buffett finally become fed up with the inane accusations he's being subject to by low-quality and dim people, and having him just remain silent and keep his wisdom for himself and his friends.
Buffett is beyond generous -- if you recognize exactly what he has shared with people. If you're too dim to see or understand the wisdom, then get lost and let the rest of us listen to the oracle in peace.
Berkshire's Billion Dollar Buyback Bodes Well For Investors [View article]
Personal tax increases on the ultra-wealthy would mean that Buffett personally (and SOME BRK shareholders) would pay a slightly higher rate of tax on income levels much above what's required for a comfortable life and life's necessities.
If he was such a money-grubbing hypocrite (as you suggest), wouldn't it be smarter of him to just remain silent on the matter (like the vast majority of the super-rich) and continue to grow and hoard his money under the existing tax rules?
Further, giving the vast majority of his fortune to charity (rather than setting up multi-billion dollar trust funds for all his children and hiding it in tax havens) makes him a hypocrite (and worthy of your inane derision)?
Berkshire's Billion Dollar Buyback Bodes Well For Investors [View article]
Yes, Buffett should donate all his money to the debt, paying a miniscule portion of the interest on the debt (his life's fortune for two days' worth of interest on said debt), all while the fools and greedy talk out of their rear ends?
I'm never reading another thing you write, as it's a complete waste of time.
Berkshire's Billion Dollar Buyback Bodes Well For Investors [View article]
Maybe you should take the time to search the almost exhaustive amount of information on Buffett re. taxes, before you say something dim.
Buffett owes it to BRK shareholders to structure its taxes to pay as little tax as is allowed by whatever tax laws are in place.
He has repeatedly said that the wealthy and super-wealthy should pay higher taxes, as a group, both due to fairness and practical necessity. He has never said that everyone else should pay higher taxes and not himself.
Omaha Hold 'Em: Going All-In On Berkshire Hathaway [View article]
Thanks for your thoughtful and invaluable comment.
Normally people's names are capitalized and spelled correctly (ex. Buffett).
Buffett proposes that the tax system should change, so that everyone pays their fair share. Everyone is entitled to try to minimize their taxes -- that's called tax planning.
Mentioning Obama in the context of this article is bizarre and nonsensical. The majority spoke and your guy didn't get elected -- get over it.
Berkshire's Weird Buyback [View article]
You have repeated yourself many times.
You are a trader, are not interested in BRK as an investment. Intrinsic value means little/nothing to you, and stock prices action means everything to you.
Good for you. No need to repeat it again.
3 Stocks To Buy, 2 Stocks To Sell, What's Next For The Market [View article]
I have no personal beef with you, but disagree with your "Look Ma, no hands!" celebration of a trade that was pretty much the result of a random uptick that isn't based on fundamentals.
This is all in the context of the fact that CRM trades at a level unjustified by its "growth" (primarily in revenues, not profits). Its price to operating cash flow is also very very high.
My opinion is that CRM wouldn't trade the way it does if it didn't have virtually 100% institutional ownership of its shares. Time will tell what happens to CRM, but the probabilities (based on a rational look at the financial numbers) favor the downside.
3 Stocks To Buy, 2 Stocks To Sell, What's Next For The Market [View article]
The posting date listed by Seeking Alpha was December 11, 2012 and it didn't have a time stamp to show when it was posted or submitted by you.
You may have "called the trade right", but CRM's spike is based on Alice In Wonderland logic. If CRM wasn't owned almost 100% by institutions, I'd suggest that its share price would be a fraction of where it is now. When the bizarro world trading pattern ends, it might end up with a Netflix-like haircut.
3 Stocks To Buy, 2 Stocks To Sell, What's Next For The Market [View article]
Re. Salesforce.com (CRM)
You stated "...The company just reported *very solid earnings* in late November that has helped bring it to these levels. They reported strong earnings and revenue growth that beat the Street with revenue up 35% year/year. *Earnings are still in the red*, but they did beat expectations."
Also, you stated "...Today, we are looking at an earnings trade in Visa (V), longs in Salesforce.com (CRM)".
So, "very solid earnings" and being "in the red" are consistent?
Usually "very solid earnings" means a company HAS profits (is "in the black") and not a Net Loss position ("in the red").
Its HIGHEST EPS was $0.63/share in 2010, which would mean a current PE ratio of ~261x. Even assuming that CRM could get to EPS of $4/share, its PE ratio would be 41.25x, as compared to ~15x for ORCL and MSFT.
CRM's fundamental issue is that it has consistently provided either tiny profits or just losses, whereas its share price is stratospheric and it is competing against highly profitable, liquid, and established companies like ORCL, MSFT, SAP AG.
So, you acknowledge that CRM is a dog, but it's a "LONG" in your opinion nonetheless? Did you write the article *after* today's spike upwards?
CRM is a stock that trades like it's still 1999, and the outcome will be the same, sooner or later.
5 Dividend Stocks Billionaire Ray Dalio Is Betting On [View article]
So many cut-and-paste articles on this site. Horrible.
Billionaire George Soros's 5 New Dividend Picks [View article]
Your comments are irrelevant, for the reasons I mentioned, despite your self-important righteousness.
Not worth any more of my time.
8 Dividend Aristocrats Go Ex-Dividend This Week, Part 1 [View article]
This article is riddled with typos, likely from cut-and-paste from other articles.
For example, under Walmart (WMT) is written "In 2000 SIAL was paying $0.06 a quarter in dividends; it is currently paying $0.3975."
SIAL is the ticker symbol for Sigma-Aldrich.
Under Kimberly Clark is written "In 2000, KO was paying a $0.27 dividend quarterly; today it is paying $0.74 a quarter."
KO is the ticker symbol for Coca-Cola.
Sloppy.
Billionaire Stanley Druckenmiller's 5 New Dividend Picks [View article]
Well spotted -- the position is in MILLIONS not billions (unless Druckenmiller snuck up and bought almost 43% of CVX). LOL.
Billionaire George Soros's 5 New Dividend Picks [View article]
That Soros is a billionaire is a relevant FACT, and is relevant to investors who wish to know and/or mimic what other financially successful people do.
Your label is not an unbiased fact, nor is it relevant to investors. Further, this is not a political beliefs site, it's an investment site.
Thanks for your comment, but Soros' investment moves are relevant, whereas your opinion is entirely irrelevant.