Berkshire Hathaway n.2

nemo17

Enjoy the Silence
Registrato
20/2/00
Messaggi
7.222
Punti reazioni
336
Essendo esaurito l'altro thread ..ringrazio Seven per l'onore di farmi aprire anche il secondo...
Quale sarà il futuro della nuova Berkshire dopo la mega acquisizione di Burlington Northern Santa Fe ?

Per chi è interessato questa era l'altro thread :
http://www.finanzaonline.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1027659

Per iniziare... qualche massima del nostro amato Warren :


"I will tell you how to become rich. Close the doors. Be fearful when others
are greedy. Be greedy when others are fearful."

"If you're an investor, you're looking on what the asset is going to do, if
you're a speculator, you're commonly focusing on what the price of the object
is going to do, and that's not our game."

1997 Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting

"The most common cause of low prices is pessimism-some times pervasive, some
times specific to a company or industry. We want to do business in such an
environment, not because we like pessimism but because we like the prices it
produces. It's optimism that is the enemy of the rational buyer."

1990 Chairman's Letter to Shareholders

"Success in investing doesn't correlate with I.Q. once you're above the level
of 25. Once you have ordinary intelligence, what you need is the temperament
to control the urges that get other people into trouble in investing."

BusinessWeek Interview June 25 1999

"There are all kinds of businesses that Charlie and I don't understand, but
that doesn't cause us to stay up at night. It just means we go on to the next
one, and that's what the individual investor should do

Warren Buffett in a Morningstar Interview
We don't get paid for activity, just for being right. As to how long we'll
wait, we'll wait indefinitely."

Berkshire Hathaway 1998 Annual Meeting

“What counts for most people in investing is not how much they know, but
rather how realistically they define what they don't know. An investor needs
to do very few things right as long as he or she avoids big mistakes.”

1992 Letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders

“We think diversification, as practiced generally, makes very little sense
for anyone who knows what they're doing. Diversification serves as protection
against ignorance. If you want to make sure that nothing bad happens to you
relative to the market, you should own everything. There's nothing wrong with
that. It's a perfectly sound approach for somebody who doesn't know how to
analyze businesses.





"But if you know how to value businesses, it's crazy to own 50 stocks or 40
stocks or 30 stocks, probably because there aren't that many wonderful
businesses understandable to a single human being in all likelihood. To
forego buying more of some super-wonderful business and instead put your
money into #30 or #35 on your list of attractiveness just strikes Charlie and
me as madness.”

1996 Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting


"Price is what you pay. Value is what you get."



"Your goal as an investor should simply be to purchase, at a rational price, a part interest in an easily-understandable business whose earnings are virtually certain to be materially higher five, ten and twenty years from now. Over time, you will find only a few companies that meet these standards - so when you see one that qualifies, you should buy a meaningful amount of stock. You must also resist the temptation to stray from your guidelines: If you aren't willing to own a stock for ten years, don't even think about owning it for ten minutes. Put together a portfolio of companies whose aggregate earnings march upward over the years, and so also will the portfolio's market value."
-1996 Shareholders Letter



“Thirty years ago, no one could have foreseen the huge expansion of the
Vietnam War, wage and price controls, two oil shocks, the resignation of a
president, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, a one-day drop in the Dow of
508 points, or treasury bill yields fluctuating between 2.8 % and 17.4 %.
But, surprise – none of these blockbuster events made the slightest dent in
Ben Graham’s investment principles. Nor did they render unsound the
negotiated purchases of fine businesses at sensible prices. Imagine the cost
to us, then, if we had let a fear of the unknowns cause us to defer or alter
the deployment of capital. Indeed, we have usually made our best
purchases when apprehensions about some macro event were at a peak. Fear is
the foe of the faddist, but the friend of the fundamentalist. A different set
of major shocks is sure to occur in the next 30 years. We will neither try to
predict these nor profit from them. If we can identify businesses similar to
those we have purchased in the past, external surprises will have little
effect on our long-term results.”

Warren E. Buffett, March 7,1995
 
LA BIZZARRIA DEL MILIONARIO USA
Da finanziere a rockstar per uno spot
Warren Buffett canta in stile Axl Rose
E' uno degli uomini più ricchi del mondo: travestito da rockstare in un videoclip per una sua società

MILANO - E' il terzo uomo più ricco del mondo e qualche bizzarria l'aveva già mostrata, apparendo in qualche clip anche nel passato. Ma quest volta il finanziere americano Warren Buffett ha fatto di più, vestendosi da rocker in modo molto somigliante ad Axl Rose, il frontman dei Guns'n Roses, per uno spot video di una società di assicurazione. Sua, ovviamente.


PRECEDENTI - Accade nello spot pubblicitario della Geico, compagnia di assicurazioni online che fa capo alla Berkshire Hathaway, la holding di Buffett. Il filmato vede la partecipazione di diversi dipendenti del gruppo assicurativo, in particolare quelli del call center. Più o meno a metà del brano musicale appare Buffet: microfono in mano, camicia a quadri e giaccone di pelle, una parrucca bionda per creare il personaggio. E canta il ritornello della canzone usata per la pubblicità, «The Lizard Ballad». In passato, sempre per le pubblicità della Geico, Buffett si era travestito da barbone e da dj, ma le sue apparizioni nei clip erano state più brevi e limitate

Grandiosa pubblicità di GEICO !

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/10_marzo_19/buffett-rock_cd9395c2-3378-11df-82b0-00144f02aabe.shtml
 
Evento epocale nel mercato del credito:

Obama Pays More Than Buffett as U.S. Risks AAA Rating (Update2)

By Daniel Kruger and Bryan Keogh

March 22 (Bloomberg) -- The bond market is saying that it’s safer to lend to Warren Buffett than Barack Obama.

Two-year notes sold by the billionaire’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. in February yield 3.5 basis points less than Treasuries of similar maturity, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Procter & Gamble Co., Johnson & Johnson and Lowe’s Cos. debt also traded at lower yields in recent weeks, a situation former Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. chief fixed-income strategist Jack Malvey calls an “exceedingly rare” event in the history of the bond market.

The $2.59 trillion of Treasury Department sales since the start of 2009 have created a glut as the budget deficit swelled to a post-World War II-record 10 percent of the economy and raised concerns whether the U.S. deserves its AAA credit rating. The increased borrowing may also undermine the first-quarter rally in Treasuries as the economy improves.

“It’s a slap upside the head of the government,” said Mitchell Stapley, the chief fixed-income officer in Grand Rapids, Michigan, at Fifth Third Asset Management, which oversees $22 billion. “It could be the moment where hopefully you realize that risk is beginning to creep into your credit profile and the costs associated with that can be pretty scary.”

Moody’s Warning

While Treasuries backed by the full faith and credit of the government typically yield less than corporate debt, the relationship has flipped as Moody’s Investors Service predicts the U.S. will spend more on debt service as a percentage of revenue this year than any other top-rated country except the U.K. America will use about 7 percent of taxes for debt payments in 2010 and almost 11 percent in 2013, moving “substantially” closer to losing its AAA rating, Moody’s said last week.

“Those economies have been caught in a crisis while they are highly leveraged,” said Pierre Cailleteau, the managing director of sovereign risk at Moody’s in London. “They have to make the required adjustment to stabilize markets without choking off growth.”

Advanced economies face “acute” challenges in tackling high public debt, and unwinding existing stimulus measures will not come close to bringing deficits back to prudent levels, said John Lipsky, first deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund.

Unprecedented Spending

All G7 countries, except Canada and Germany, will have debt-to-GDP ratios close to or exceeding 100 percent by 2014, Lipsky said in a speech yesterday at the China Development Forum in Beijing. Already this year, the average ratio in advanced economies is expected to reach the levels seen in 1950, after World War II, he said.

Obama’s unprecedented spending and the Federal Reserve’s emergency measures to fix the financial system are boosting the economy and cutting the risk of corporate failures. Standard & Poor’s said the default rate will drop to 5 percent by year-end from 10.4 percent in February.

Bonds sold by companies have returned 3.24 percent this year, including reinvested interest, compared with a 1.55 percent gain for Treasuries, Bank of America Merrill Lynch index data show. Returns exceeded government debt by a record 23 percentage points in 2009.

Berkshire Hathaway

Berkshire Hathaway’s 1.4 percent notes due February 2012 yielded 0.89 percent on March 18, 3.5 basis points, or 0.035 percentage point, less than Treasuries, composite prices compiled by Bloomberg show. The Omaha, Nebraska-based company, which is rated Aa2 by Moody’s and AA+ by S&P, has about $157 billion of cash and equivalents and about $52 billion of debt.

P&G, the world’s largest consumer-products maker, saw the yield on its 1.375 percent notes due August 2012 fall to 1.12 percent on March 18, 6 basis points below government debt. The Cincinnati-based company, rated Aa3 by Moody’s and AA- by S&P, makes everything from Tide detergent to Swiffer dusters.

New Brunswick, New Jersey-based Johnson & Johnson’s 5.15 percent securities due August 2012 yielded 1.11 percent on Feb. 17, 3 basis points less than Treasuries, according to Trace, the bond-price reporting system of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. The world’s largest health products company is rated AAA by S&P and Moody’s.

Yields on bonds of home-improvement retailer Lowe’s in Mooresville, North Carolina, drugmaker Abbott Laboratories of Abbott Park, Illinois, and Toronto-based Royal Bank of Canada have also been below Treasuries, Trace data show.

‘Avalanche’

“It’s a manifestation of this avalanche, this growth in U.S. Treasury supply which is under way and continues for the foreseeable future, and the comparative scarcity of high-quality credit,” particularly in shorter-maturity debt, said Malvey, whose Lehman team was ranked No. 1 in fixed-income strategy by Institutional Investor magazine from 1998 through 2007.

Last year’s $2.1 trillion in borrowing by the government exceeded the $1.08 trillion issued by investment-grade companies, the biggest gap ever, Bloomberg data show. Malvey said the last time he can recall that a corporate bond yield traded below Treasuries was when he was head of company debt research at Kidder Peabody & Co. in the mid-1980s.

While Treasuries are poised to make money for investors this quarter, they are losing momentum. The securities are down 0.43 percent in March after gaining 0.4 percent last month and 1.58 percent in January, Bank of America Merrill Lynch indexes show.

Benchmark 10-year Treasury yields will reach 4.20 percent by year-end, up from 3.69 percent last week, according to the median forecast of 48 economists in a Bloomberg News survey. Two-year yields will rise to 1.77 percent, from 0.99 percent.

Relative Yields

Investors demand 0.59 percentage point more in yield to own 10-year Treasuries than German bunds of similar maturity, Bloomberg data show. A year ago, debt of Germany, whose deficit is 4.2 percent of its economy, yielded about half a percentage point more than Treasuries.

President Obama’s budget proposal would create bigger deficits every year of the next decade, with the gaps totaling $1.2 trillion more than his administration projects, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said this month. Publicly held debt will zoom to $20.3 trillion, or 90 percent of gross domestic product, by 2020, the CBO forecast.

There’s “a lack of a long-term plan to deal with the federal budget deficit,” said Gary Pollack, who helps oversee $12 billion as head of fixed-income trading at Deutsche Bank AG’s Private Wealth Management unit in New York. “At some point in time the market may lose its patience.”

Balance Sheets

Deutsche Bank and Barclays Plc, two of the 18 primary dealers of U.S. government securities that are obligated to bid at the Treasury’s auctions, say balance sheets of high-rated companies make them more attractive than Treasuries.

Corporate borrowers are reducing debt at a record pace. Companies in the S&P 500 cut their liabilities by $282 billion to $7.1 trillion in the fourth quarter from the prior three months, Bloomberg data show. That represents 28 percent of assets, the least in at least a decade.

Investors are accepting smaller premiums to lend to companies, with yields on bonds rated at least AA falling to within 107 basis points of Treasuries on average, Bank of America Merrill Lynch indexes show. That’s down from the peak of 515 basis points in November 2008, and approaching the record low of 36 in 1997.

Adding to Corporates

New York Life Investment Management is adding to bets the difference in yields will continue to shrink.

“As the balance sheet of corporate America continues to improve and the balance sheet of the government deteriorates, that spread should narrow,” said Thomas Girard, a senior money manager who helps invest $115 billion at the New York-based insurer. “There is some sort of breaking point. The federal government can’t keep expanding its borrowing without having to incur some costs.”

For all the concern about U.S. finances, Treasuries are unlikely to lose their role as the world’s borrowing benchmark, said Michael Cheah, who manages $2 billion in bonds at SunAmerica Asset Management in Jersey City, New Jersey. The U.S. has the biggest, most liquid securities markets, said Cheah.

Speculating that Treasuries may lose their privileged position is “not a bet I want to put on,” said Cheah, who worked at Singapore’s central bank. Yields on 10-year notes are about half their average since 1980.

Losing its Status

The last time there was talk of the U.S. losing its status as the world’s benchmark for bonds was in the late 1990s, when the government began amassing budget surpluses in 1998 for the first time in almost three decades. The amount of Treasuries outstanding dropped 8 percent to $3.4 trillion in 2000, the biggest annual decline since 1946.

Treasury supply resumed growing in 2001 after two rounds of tax cuts proposed by President George W. Bush led to deficits. Outstanding Treasury supply rose 53 percent to $4.5 trillion in 2007 from 2000 as the U.S. borrowed to finance tax cuts intended to revive a slumping economy. The amount has since risen 64 percent to $7.4 trillion.

More is on the way. The U.S. will sell a record $2.43 trillion of debt in 2010, according to the average forecast of 10 of the 18 primary dealers in a Bloomberg survey.

At the same time Treasury sales are rising, the cash position of the largest corporations is swelling. Companies in the S&P 500 held a record $2.3 trillion as of the fourth quarter, Bloomberg data show.


Growing Supply

High-rated corporate bonds due in three to five years are most likely to yield less than Treasuries, according to Deutsche Bank’s Pollack. The growing supply of Treasuries with those maturities will make government debt a bigger proportion of indexes that fund managers measure their performance against, he said. Managers betting Treasury yields will rise may diversify into corporate debt, Pollack said.

“There’s no natural law that says a Treasury has to yield less than a corporate,” said Daniel Shackelford, who is part of a group that manages $18 billion in bonds at T. Rowe Price Group Inc. in Baltimore. “It wouldn’t be the first time that I would scratch my head and say ‘this doesn’t make sense, the market’s behaving irrationally.’ And it can go on for much longer than you may think.”
 
Warren Buffett's Berkshire unit buys liquor distributor Kahn Ventures

By Josh Funk, Associated Press
OMAHA — A subsidiary of Warren Buffett's company said Monday that it's buying a liquor distributor that serves Georgia and North Carolina.
Terms of the McLane Co.'s acquisition of Kahn Ventures and Empire Distributors weren't disclosed in the statement announcing the deal.

Buffett, who is chairman and CEO of McLane's Omaha-based parent company Berkshire Hathaway, says he's excited about the Empire deal because of the opportunities Berkshire (BRKA/BRKB), McLane and Empire envision in the beverage industry.

"We expect that the Empire acquisition will provide us with a solid platform for potentially acquiring other similar high quality wholesale distributors," Buffett said in a statement.


READ: Berkshire's release

Neither Buffett nor a McLane spokesman responded immediately to messages left Monday.

In keeping with Berkshire's practice, no changes are planned at Empire. The news release said the Atlanta-based distributor will continue operating just as it has for 70 years.

Empire has eight facilities equipped with high-tech equipment, including bottle scanning and GPS routing, to help them operate efficiently.

Berkshire said with the acquisition Empire will gain access to more resources and operational best practices.

McLane is one of Berkshire's roughly 80 subsidiaries. It is based in Temple, Texas, and distributes groceries, tobacco and other items to convenience stores, drug stores, wholesale clubs and other retailers. Berkshire bought McLane from Wal-Mart in 2003.

Berkshire owns clothing, furniture, jewelry and corporate jet firms, but its insurance and utility businesses accounted for more than one-third of the company's revenue last year. It also has major investments in such companies as Coca-Cola and Wells Fargo.
 
altre frasi bellissime:
Someone's sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago. Warren Buffett

If you've been playing poker for half an hour and you still don't know who the patsy is, you're the patsy."

"In the business world, the rearview mirror is always clearer than the windshield
 
Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway sells Moody's shares

OMAHA, NEB. — Billionaire Warren Buffett's company has sold another 815,905 shares of credit ratings firm Moody's Corp., but Berkshire Hathaway Inc. still holds nearly 31 million shares.




Berkshire reported the latest stock sales to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Monday.


Berkshire still controls about 13 percent of Moody's stock, but the Omaha-based company has significantly reduced its Moody's holdings over the past year.


Berkshire held 48 million shares at the end of last March and reduced that stake to 30.99 million as of last week.


Berkshire said the latest Moody's sales were completed last Thursday and Friday in two blocks, with average prices of $29.98 and $29.81. So the sales would have generated roughly $24.4 million for Buffett's company
 
Giorni fa leggevo su un sito (http://www.saperinvestire.it/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=324&Itemid=0) un articolo che mi lascia qualche passaggio con un interrogativo.

Non so se la risposta sia quella che cerchi (vediamo se qualcuno ti sa rispondere in modo più dettagliato), ma leggendo come calcola il tornaconto fra azioni e titoli di stato ti rimanderei inanzitutto ai suoi equity bond

http://www.finanzaonline.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1160779&page=2

Il calcolo è lo stesso.......... prova darci un'occhio
 
Buonasera a tutti.
Credo, visto che parliamo di metedologie buffettiane, di essere nel posto giusto.
Giorni fa leggevo su un sito (http://www.saperinvestire.it/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=324&Itemid=0) un articolo che mi lascia qualche passaggio con un interrogativo.
Prendo dall'articolo:

"Un altro metodo utilizzato da Buffett è quello di proiettare l'indice composto di rendimento basato sugli incrementi storici degli utili per azione.

Per esempio l'utile per azione alla Gannett era cresciuto a un indice annuale composto di rendimento di 8,6% nei dieci anni precedenti all'acquisto di Buffett. Se l'utile per azione di $3,20 del 1994 fosse cresciuto ogni anno, per i dieci anni consecutivi, a un tasso annuale corrispondente a quello storico, gli utili per azione del decimo anno sarebbero stati di $7.30.

Questi utili per azione stimati possono essere moltiplicati per il rapporto medio alto e medio basso del p/e per azioni nell'arco degli ultimi dieci anni per fornire una stima di variazione di prezzo nel decimo anno.

Se gli utili vengono ridistribuiti bisogna aggiungere ai prezzi del decimo anno anche una stima dell'importo dei dividendi pagato nel corso dei dieci anni.

Una volta stabiliti i prezzi futuri si devono determinare gli indici di rendimento nell'arco dei dieci anni successivi basandosi sul prezzo corrente di vendita dell'azione. Buffett richiede un rendimento di almeno il 15%."

Qualcuno potrebbe spiegarmi?

Vi dico cosa faccio io:
generalmente prendo la media degli eps degli ultimi 10 anni, ai quali successivamente sommo e poi sottraggo la dev.st. della media degli eps stessa.
Mi ritrovo così una sorta di "corridoio" nel quale poter stimare un presunto rendimento futuro.
Non credo sia la stessa cosa e vorrei capire invece cosa è questo indice composto di rendimento basato sugli incrementi storici degli utili per azione.
Saluti a tutti.

Hola... dunque... se ho capito bene....

Prendiamo esempio con Coca Cola...

Ultimi dieci anni (1999-2009) di Eps, dividendi, prezzo minimo e prezzo massimo (poi c'è prezzo "medio", non da intendersi come "moda", ma come media tra max e min e poi "medio basso" e "medio alto", che sono media tra "minimo e media" e media tra "massimo e media", più facile a vedersi che a dirsi):

Ko_fol_eps_dividend.JPG


A questo punto, da come dici tu ci calcoliamo il tasso di crescita composto annuale... formuletta di matematica finanziaria: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cagr.asp
Nel nostro caso (2,93/0,98)^(1/10)-1 = 11.61%, ovvero da 0,98, se cresce annualmente dell'11.61% arrivi proprio a 2,93 (provare per credere).

A questo punto, con i dati sopra, ti calcoli p/e medio basso e p/e medio alto degli ultimi dieci anni, quindi in pratica rapporto tra colonna h e colonna b e rapporto tra colonna i e colonna b (utile questa informazione dopo averti levato l'intestazione :D):

pe_buffett_fol.JPG

Ora, come dice l'articolo... facciamo crescere l'utile all'11.61% annuo, ipotizzando che i prossimi dieci anni siano uguali a quelli appena passati... e moltilplichiamo i P/E ottenuti sopra con l'utile per azione stimato...facendo P/E * Eest (Earnings estimated), avremo nel caso di Eest > E una crescita del prezzo P, in caso contrario una decrescita. L'ipotesi che si fa è che il prezzo segua solo la crescita dell'utile e il P/E rimanga costante negli anni.

I risultati, anche correggendolo per i dividendi (che, immagino si ipotizzino avere anche loro una crescita del 11.61% annuo), sono i seguenti (ovviamente con riferimento alla quotazione odierna di 55$):

stima prezzo fol.JPG

Secondo l'articolo si compra solo se si arriva al 15% annuo e noi ci arriviamo solo nell'ipotesi migliore (P/E medio alto) e corretto con dividendi, quindi Ko sarebbe, ai prezzi attuali, probabilmente da scartare.

Utilità? Direi scarsina. Ipotesi molto forti e non adatte al 99% dei titoli (giusto con KO, può avere un minimo, ma minimo davvero, di senso). Però, pur di non studiare e fare qualcosa di inerente a ciò che mi piace, si approfondisce questo ed altro. :D
 
Ultima modifica:
I risultati, anche correggendolo per i dividendi (che, immagino si ipotizzino avere anche loro una crescita del 11.61% annuo), sono i seguenti (ovviamente con riferimento alla quotazione odierna di 55$):

Vedi l'allegato 1220256

Utilità? Direi scarsina.

Per l'utilità direi anch'io scarsina, come tante altre formule matematiche utilizzate per capire a quale prezzo acquistare.
Però diciamo che come utilità non è tanto azzeccare il futuro, quanto avere qualche valore di riferimento., non un'autentica sfera....

Più pratico sarebbe:
Prendere il calcolo precedente e calcolare il valore corrispondente alla percentuale del 15% o qualsiasi altra si voglia.

Questo passaggio non l'ho capito. Poi riprovo e vedo se ci riesco
Vado a mangiare
 
Questo passaggio non l'ho capito. Poi riprovo e vedo se ci riesco

Ora ci sono.......... basta prendere la stessa formuletta usata per la crescita degli utili. Che ***** :wall: :D

C'è un però :rolleyes:

Se si calcola questa stima, sarebbe anche da calcolarla per il P/E, e in questo caso, per KO si abbassa negli anni, quindi il risultato si abbassa notevolmente da quello ottenuto precedentemente.

Quindi si ritorna alla frase ".... Utilità? Scarsina....."

E' un bene mantenere in ptf certi titoli, creano "sicurezza" nell'investimento (se si vuol chiamare cosi), il problema è trovare le aziende come ha fatto Buffett, cioè ben prima di essere dei colossi attuali.
KO le comprava quando avevano valori (a quel tempo) molto elevati, ed era già ben piazzata. Però l'espansione dell'azienda non può andare all'infinito.

Ho provato a dare un'occhiata ai vari dati e capire come mai certe aziende che oggi hanno P/E poco sopra al 10 o addirittura sotto era quotate con P/E elevatissimi.............
PFE ad esempio, oltre ad avere attualmente problemi con i suoi farmaci, aveva una crescita del composto a 5 anni che andava anche ben oltre al 20%, mentre adesso si ritrova con meno del 10%

Questo per dire che si dovrebbe anche guardare ad aziende che per il momento sono (come diceva anche Buffett) ancora da scoprire, e non solo quelle che hanno già segnato la storia.

Più o meno quello che diceva anche Salviati....... "si devono scoprire i dati nascosti e non quelli visibili a tutti". (più o meno diceva cosi :D)
 
Ostrega, non mi ero accorto della risposta....non faccio in tempo a capire una cosa che me ne mettete sotto il naso un'altra ancora più complicata....Direte, l'ho chiesto io....:-)
Certo e delle risposte vi ringrazio infinitamente, mi ci vorranno giusto un paio di giorni per capirci qualcosa, ma grazie davvero.
M.
 
Almeno i warrants li avrei esercitati da tempo ! Possiede già le azioni.

Buffett’s Goldman Sachs Warrants Drop by $1 Billion (Update2)

April 16 (Bloomberg) -- The value of Warren Buffett’s options to buy Goldman Sachs Group Inc. shares dropped by $1.02 billion after regulators sued the bank for misleading clients on the sale of securities tied to the subprime mortgage market.

The warrants, which give Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. the right to buy New York-based Goldman Sachs common stock for $115 a share, were worth about $1.99 billion at 4:01 p.m., down 34 percent from $3.01 billion yesterday. Goldman Sachs dropped $23.57, or 13 percent, to $160.70 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading.

Buffett, Berkshire’s chief executive officer, got the warrants on $5 billion of Goldman Sachs stock as part of an agreement that extended financing to the bank during the depths of the 2008 credit crisis. The deal reflected Buffett’s belief in “not just the strength of Goldman but its integrity,” Ronald Olson, a Berkshire director said earlier this week in an interview.

“Historically, Goldman has had distinguished leadership and has played by the rules,” Olson said in an e-mailed statement today. “Without prejudging the SEC lawsuit, if it hasn’t played by the rules in this case, I would be disappointed.”

Berkshire fell $1,350, or 1.1 percent, to $118,400. Buffett didn’t respond to an e-mail request for comment sent to his assistant.

Misstated and Omitted

Goldman Sachs misstated and omitted key facts about a financial product tied to subprime mortgages as the U.S. housing market was starting to falter, the Securities and Exchange Commission said in a statement today.

“The SEC’s charges are completely unfounded in law and fact and we will vigorously contest them and defend the firm and its reputation,” Goldman Sachs said in a statement today. The firm lost more than $90 million on the transaction, and is “disappointed” the SEC would bring this action in the face of an “extensive record which establishes that the accusations are unfounded in law and fact,” Goldman Sachs said in a separate statement.

“We did not structure a portfolio that was designed to lose money,” the firm said.

Buffett, a longtime Wall Street critic, has praised Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein for his stewardship during the recession. Buffett, 79, served as interim chairman and CEO of Salomon Inc. in 1991 and 1992 as the company sought to recover from involvement in a Treasury debt-auction scandal.

Corporate Reputation

“I’ll bet he’s not pleased,” said Gerald Martin, a finance professor at American University’s Kogod School of Business in Washington. “He wants to make sure the managers do the right thing.”

Buffett’s firm rose to first place this month in Harris Interactive’s annual survey of corporate reputations as the financial crisis pushed the nation’s biggest banks toward the bottom of the list. Goldman Sachs came in 56th out of 60.

“I don’t look at Wall Street as ‘evil,’” Buffett said in an interview last year conducted by the CEO of Business Wire, the Berkshire subsidiary that posts corporate press releases. “I look at Wall Street as given to huge excess sometimes.”

Goldman Sachs turned to Buffett in September 2008, agreeing to sell $5 billion in preferred shares paying 10 percent interest, after the Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. bankruptcy and emergency takeover of Merrill Lynch & Co. by Bank of America Corp. The investment amounted to an explicit endorsement of Goldman Sachs from Buffett, the so-called Oracle of Omaha who is celebrated for his investing savvy.
 
Coca Cola Vs Pepsi

Coca Cola: 2009 ricavi 30,99mld, utile netto 6,82mld, FCF ultimi 3 anni 9,67mld
Pepsi: …….2009 ricavi 43,23mld, utile netto 5,94mld, FCF ultimi 3 anni 11,91mld
Quindi, PEP ha entrate maggiori, KO la supera in utile netto, Ma PEP ha FCF superiore.

A parte questi piccoli principali dati, se non erro KO ha la più grossa fetta di mercato a livello mondiale, mentre PEP ha la più grossa fetta in USA.
Quindi KO è soggetta a oscillazioni di cambio maggiori rispetto a PEP. Essendoci un rialzo del dollaro potrebbe essere avvantaggiata.

In più, KO ha appena lanciato il suo nuovo prodotto Burn. Ieri l’ho assaggiato……
Non mi sembra un gran che. A mio gusto è troppo carico di sapore, un incrocio fra Fanta e qualcos’altro che lascia un retrogusto particolare.

Sarà che è una bevanda energetica, ma Gatorade e Powerade sono molto più gustose, e soprattutto non sovraccariche di sapore che possono stancare il palato a lungo andare

Per non parlare del costo. Forse è il lancio del nuovo prodotto, ma è fra le bevande più care della categoria, se non addirittura la più carabannato
 
Coca-Cola, utile netto per azione 69 centesimi in trim1

Reuters - 20/04/2010 14:18:55



NEW YORK, 20 aprile (Reuters) - Coca-Cola (KO.N) annuncia un miglioramento dei risultati nei primi tre mesi dell'anno, grazie a un controllo dei costi e alla performance positiva dei mercati emergenti.

Il produttore numero uno di bevande non alcoliche ha chiuso il primo trimestre 2010 con un utile netto di 1,61 miliardi di dollari, equivalenti a 69 centesimi per azione, contro 1,35 miliardi (53 centesimi per azione) nei primi tre mesi del 2009.

I ricavi sono cresciuti di 5% a 7,53 miliardi.

In termini di volumi le vendite - utile indicatore che riflette l'ammontare del concentrato effettivamente venduto, sono migliorate di 3% dopo la crescita superiore alle attese di 5% nel quarto trimestre 2009.

Coca-Cola si prepara ad assorbire le attività americane di Coca-Cola Enterprises (CCE.N), gruppo che imbottiglia il prodotto, con un'operazione che dovrebbbe ulteriormente ridurre i costi e garantire maggiore flessibilità nella distribuzione.

Il consensus ThomsonReuters Ibes prospettava per i primi tre mesi dell'anno un utile netto per azione pari a 75 centesimi.
 
Interview transcript: FOX Business Network anchor Liz Claman and Warren Buffett -- 4.29.10

Date: April 29, 2010 10:37PM


CLAMAN: Most people, if they had 40,000 people dropping in to see them the next day would be nervous and their office is preparing. What do you do to prepare for this big event?

BUFFETT: I do nothing and Charlie does nothing. I mean, we see each other as we -- we'll have lunch tomorrow for all the managers, but we do no preparation. No, a lot of work is done, obviously, logistically, but we don't do anything.

CLAMAN: In fact, you're here playing bridge.

BUFFETT: Yeah, I'm going to play bridge for the next three hours, maybe three and a half hours.

CLAMAN: You're not stressed out--

BUFFETT: No.

CLAMAN: -- that this could be a record-breaking crowd this time starting tomorrow?

BUFFETT: I'd be stressed out if it wasn't a record-breaking crowd. No, this is fun. I mean, these are people in the meeting, they are our partners, they come from all over the world and I love it.

CLAMAN: What is the latest RSVP tally for the numbers?

BUFFETT: Well, we received a request for 116,000 tickets, but there is a lot of people that get it just to shop and they don't come from (inaudible). So my guess is we'll have close to 40,000.

CLAMAN: Not 40,000?

BUFFETT: Well, I don't know. And the truth is, we'll never know in the end because they come and go. It's real hard to keep track.

CLAMAN: But a record crowd?

BUFFETT: Oh, no question about that. There were 12 people here in 1981.

(LAUGHTER)

CLAMAN: Yes, you've grown.

BUFFETT: Yes.

CLAMAN: A lot of businesses would love to see that. Tell us, though, what you're looking at as far as the locations, the corners of the world from where they come?

BUFFETT: Well, we've got -- we've got 80 or 90 from Sweden. We've got 28 from Turkey. We have 60 or 70 from Singapore. They are from all over the world. I mean, I don't know whether there's 40 countries or 50. And the people that send in for tickets from outside the United States, they all show up.

CLAMAN: And they come to shop, and you're giving a lot of discounts from Omaha-based businesses as well. Nebraska Furniture Mart, Borsheim's. How obsessively do you check the sales numbers throughout the week (ph)?

BUFFETT: Every night. On Tuesday night, I can tell you, at the Furniture Mart on Tuesday, we did 5.2 million of business. Now, on a normal Tuesday, we do 700,000. So it was 5.2 million, which was up 54 percent from a year ago. We will break all the records this year. If you talk to anybody who's in the furniture business, 5 million is a big month. And we did it on Tuesday.

CLAMAN: And you did it in one day.

BUFFETT: Yes, absolutely.

CLAMAN: That's exactly what we were hearing, that the Furniture Mart was doing well. What a difference a year makes. That certainly feels like a different tone in this market.

BUFFETT: What a difference a year makes, yes. And we have seen in all our businesses a big upswing starting in March. It was creeping up a little until then, but in March, around the world, we saw real -- a real change. Mostly in the United States and Asia Pacific, but Europe not as much, but in our Iscar business, for example, every day we're getting orders in terms of small tools that are getting used (ph) -- I mean, nobody is buying those for speculation or anything. So we really have our finger on what's going on firmly.

CLAMAN: Now, people will be asking you questions. You never know the questions in advance at the meeting. Is it fair to say that you'll be asked quite a bit about the economy?

BUFFETT: Well, I expect it, but I really don't know the questions. And half of them are sent to the journalists ahead of time, half of them come from the audience. We let them draw things out of a hat or something to see who's on there. So we can get asked anything, and believe it, that makes it more fun.

CLAMAN: Yes, I would think so. So you're ready for questions about Goldman Sachs, about derivatives?

BUFFETT: Right. You name it. Anything except my diet. I refuse to talk about that.

(LAUGHTER)
 
http://www.finanzalive.com/flash-ne...-restrizioni-negoziazione-strumenti-derivati/

Leggendo l'articolo sopra sono rimasto un po' perplesso....
Buffett non era contrario all'uso dei derivati?

Lui è contrario ai derivati degli altri che sono speculatori, lui invece è un investitore di grande cuore e i suoi derivati sono buoni... :D

Ecco che succede a demonizzare a priori i derivati, si fa una gran confusione e si incorre in equivoci:angry:. La verità è che i derivati sono strumenti neutri e hanno delle funzioni utili pur conservando 2 facce: una di protezione e una speculativa. NON si possono scindere le due... Se io compro una opzione put la put non è cattiva:no:. La prendo per proteggermi dal ribasso? O per speculare al ribasso? Impossibile scindere le due funzioni.

Sulle dichiarazioni dei vertici di Berkshire mi stupisco più poco. Come Charlie Munger va a dire alla CNBC che di CDS diabolici e se fosse in lui li abolirebbe tutti, poi invece dentro la sua società ci sono parecchi CDS. Ora che si fa sul serio per intervenire sulla regolamentazione dei derivati, Buffett mette i certi paletti per evitare che si "riformi troppo".

E' come se vai a escort e poi metti la carfagna a fare leggi contro la prostituzione, fa molto "chic" ma può portare a un certo tipo di contraddizioni concettuali :D
 
E' come se vai a escort e poi metti la carfagna a fare leggi contro la prostituzione, fa molto "chic" ma può portare a un certo tipo di contraddizioni concettuali :D[/QUOTE]

già!
 
15 dollari al secondo tick..tick..tick..ah ah Warren sei sempre un mito :

ON BERKSHIRE INVESTMENT IN GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC (GS.N)
AND THE BANK'S "ABACUS" TRANSACTION:

Buffett, discussing ABN Amro investment in Abacus: "It's hard for me to get terribly sympathetic ... The bank made a dumb credit deal."

Buffett, explaining why the thinking of a party on the other side of a trade is irrelevant to making your own investment decision: "If they told me (Federal Reserve Chairman) Ben Bernanke was on the other side of the trade, it wouldn't make a difference to me ... For the life of me, I don't see whether it makes any difference whether it was (hedge fund manager) John Paulson on the other side of the deal, or whether it was Goldman Sachs on the other side of the deal, or whether it was Berkshire Hathaway on the other side of the deal.... I don't care if John Paulson is shorting these bonds. I'm going to have no worries that he has superior knowledge."

Buffett, on $5 billion investment in Goldman, which can be called by Goldman, and why recent events may benefit Berkshire: "Our preferreds are paying $15 a second, so as we sit here, 'tick, tick, tick, tick,' that's $15 every second.... The Federal government has probably been telling Goldman you can't call that preferred until we tell you we can.... Recent developments have probably delayed the calling of our preferred for some time, so 'tick, tick, tick' will go on, and we'll be getting $500 million a year.... We love the investment."

Buffett, on experience in fixing problems at Salomon Inc: "Get it right, get it out, get it fast, and get it over."

Munger, on whether Goldman should have disclosed "Wells notice" sooner: "There has to be some materiality standard."

Buffett, on replacing Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein: "If Lloyd had a twin brother, I would vote for him."

Munger, on replacing Blankfein: "There are plenty of CEOs I'd like to see gone," but Blankfein is not one of them.

Buffett: "I do not hold against Goldman the fact that an allegation has been made (by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission). If it leads to something more serious, then we will look at the situation at that time."

ON THE ECONOMY:

Buffett: "The prospects for significant inflation have increased."

Buffett, on stimulus efforts: "They may well have been the correct responses, but we may find that weaning ourselves from the medicine is harder than solving the original (problem)."

Buffett: "We will hire people when we have something for them to do.... I don't think Berkshire Hathaway should be the social safety net.... Significant unemployment (is) not going to go away fast, although it is going to go away."

Buffett, on low interest rates: "People talk about easy money policies, but this is easy for people who've got the money.... If we do run into trouble, the blame should not go to the (Federal Reserve), the blame should go to the Congress."
 
Indietro