I always look to incentives, are Anchorage incentivised to take a conservative approach now they have control.
RE: Buffett and buybacks I agree with most of what you guys are saying.
Nothing against buy back just completely cancelling the dividend to buy back stock at a lower price I would take issue with.
I think a few here would be annoyed if they cancelled the dividend also.
Of course SHJ has recently issued stock $1 at IPO??
I agree with Graham/Buffett ideas to look after the little guy as I say that's not an absolute truth it's a moral choice.
As a moral choice I also don't have this kind of craven sycophantic wealth=success=intelligence=good person you guys have in your heads. Though you deny it it clearly exists.
I have you specific examples of how Buffett is not generous, someone who gives away billions of net worth after they did or late in life (87) is wonderful philanthropist. The mobile home owner working at subway on an 18% loan with a depreciating Clayton home would beg to differ right?
The other example I provided was him justifying the frauds of the GFC by providing a misleading example.
The cops weren't on Jamie Simon's tail they were bought and paid for by Wall St, steal $10,000 go to jail but steal $100,000,000 and aware yourself a massive bonus Warren will stick up for you even if you almost bankrupt the economy in the process?
I think that Buffett himself wants to shaft the poor people buying Clayton homes (as the poster in the office said) but he likes wonderful businesses and a wonderful business is one with a monopolistic position.
Again you are looking at dollar amounts and listening to the wealth and power behind an idea rather than the quality of those ideas.
What does Buffett invest in, Sees Candy, Coca Cola, GEICO.
Speaking of GEICO every year activists go to the Hathaway AGM and ask about global warming and his response is, if I may paraphrase, that global warming is not a risk as he will just put the premiums up. He also says there's nothing to be done which is what his executives have told him, well if you give up before you try that's surely true.
Just look at it objectively an 87 year old man has 367,000 employees (or wage slaves is an objectively more correct term). We say it's freedom and democracy for him to dictate terms to them and that he's a good person and very intelligent.
He's a good investor sure.
I would argue though that, if he has pushed for positive change in his organisations he might be argued to be a "good" person but he hasn't.
If he advanced the art of value investing then maybe he would be "good" but he certainly hasn't I think I have determined a lot that he cannot (while not pretending to be better, just different). Maybe my returns will be higher but like Graham money doesn't rule my life it's only an interest, there's many more important things.
He has led to much misconception that value investing is the same as qualitative analysis which it certainly is not.
Buffett represents the idea that a few old rich people are best placed to make all decisions and I disagree very strongly. Best decisions are made by the widest diversity of opinion and freedom to discuss them which we don't have.
I have given you specific examples of why he is objectively an awful human being and you respond he is rich therefore he is good intelligent truth and light. Yes, he is an awful human being because he values money above all else.
If he had retired long ago, pushed for positive change in his companies, encouraged younger people then headed off to buy lamaze toys for his great grandkids I would say he not only would be a much better person but happier in himself.
I find him quite a sad and lonely figure.
You guys are welcome to disagree but you are wrong
(20min delay)