Berkshire Hathaway - Funds still for Buffett or an index?

There wasn’t a thread for Berkshire Hathaway on the forum yet, but undoubtedly the world’s most legendary investment company and investor story deserves one.

Berkshire Hathaway is an investment company steered by one of the world’s most successful investors, Warren Buffett. The company’s roots trace back to the textile industry and the 19th century, but Buffett entered the scene in 1962 and eventually took over the entire company. Ironically, the purchase of Berkshire Hathaway itself was, according to Buffett, one of the worst of his career, but at the same time, from a declining textile company, he built an investment empire that expanded into the insurance business and, with the help of the so-called “float” generated from it, into practically all sectors. Between 1965 and 2018, the share value has risen by an average of 20.5%, while the S&P 500 has risen 9.7% over the same period: $1,000 invested in 1964 would now be worth about $24 million.
We are talking about one of the world’s most unique index-crushing streaks.

14

Today, Berkshire Hathaway is among the top 10 most valuable companies alongside the likes of Apple, Google, and Amazon, which are perhaps more familiar to Finns; it employs over 300,000 people, and Warren Buffett is one of the world’s richest individuals.


According to a study, Berkshire’s outperformance is explained, in addition to Buffett’s undeniably skillful stock picking, by the use of leverage: the “float” of the insurance companies owned by Berkshire—meaning the insurance premiums paid by customers—is reinvested, and on average, these do not need to be paid back for years, if ever.

“If his Sharpe ratio is very good but not superhuman, then how did Buffett become among the richest in the world? The answer is that he stuck to a good strategy—buying cheap, safe, quality stocks—for a long time period, surviving rough periods where others might have been forced into a fire sale or a career shift, and he boosted his returns by using leverage. We estimated that Buffett applies a leverage of about 1.7 to 1, boosting both his risk and excess return in that proportion. Thus, his many accomplishments include having the conviction, wherewithal, and skill to operate with leverage and significant risk over a number of decades.”

Buffett himself raves about his float in every shareholder letter, and for good reason.

38


Regarding Berkshire, it’s good to understand—at least in my modest opinion—that the company’s character has changed significantly throughout its history along with Buffett’s investment style and the limits set by the company’s size: while Buffett is perhaps most famous as a value investor, Berkshire’s style shifted decades ago to emphasize quality companies with deep moats when they can be bought at a fair price. Such successful investments in the past have included, for example, Coca-Cola, which remains one of the largest holdings.

As the company’s size grows, acquisitions must be increasingly larger to move the needle. In practice, this means several tens of billions. Despite a stock portfolio of approximately $170 billion and his fame for stock picking, the company increasingly owns 100% of its subsidiaries. Berkshire Hathaway resembles a conglomerate with highly decentralized decision-making, where independently operating subsidiaries pay dividends to the parent company, and capital allocation is almost entirely centralized under Buffett.

It is also worth noting for investors who look at book value: the value of these wholly-owned companies does not appear on the balance sheet in the same way as public holdings, which is why intrinsic value has diverged increasingly from book value:

44

To conclude this long opening, here are a few concerns regarding the company, even though it has been built into quite a fortress.

  • Due to its massive size, it is also increasingly difficult for Berkshire to outperform the index; in fact, over the last 10 years, it has even lagged behind the S&P 500 total return index.

  • Warren Buffett and his partner Charlie Munger are already 88 and 95 years old. Responsibility has already been shifted at Berkshire, but Buffett’s aura is unique. Whoever the successor in capital allocation may be, they will have big shoes to fill. Buffett has also been forgiven a lot by investors, including fairly minimal external reporting: will a successor be forgiven and understood in the same way?

  • Berkshire Hathaway is no mecca of innovation; it is focused on very “traditional” industries or brand companies. The recent Kraft Heinz price crash shows how disruption and changing trends hit more and more sectors. Are the companies in Berkshire’s portfolio agile enough?

  • Lack of technological expertise: Buffett’s venture into IBM did not go well, and the Apple holding has also been criticized. However, the weight of technology in the index is high, which likely partly explains why Berkshire has lagged behind over the last 10 years.

Quite a long opening—what thoughts does the company evoke in other fellow commenters? :slight_smile:


P.S. Berkshire’s model has also inspired a host of “mini-Berkshires” or copycats. The most successful of these is likely Markel. In the tech world, Google has occasionally floated the idea of being the Berkshire of technology, and in Asia, Tencent has also been compared to a “technology Berkshire Hathaway.”

P.P.S. Buffett’s shareholder letters are very educational; I can only recommend devouring every one of them. :smiley: They can be found here http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/letters.html

19 Likes

This is a bit like an American Sampo Group, on a slightly larger scale; insurance business, a great track record, pulling rabbits out of a hat, and even equality among key personnel :grin: Of these two companies, one just avoids the title of dividend aristocracy to the very end.

But it will be interesting to see the company’s status in, say, 10 years. Who will be at the helm then? It says something about the gentlemen’s personal passion for the field when they still haven’t dared to rest on their laurels?

2 Likes

Buffett as a guest on CNBC

Sampo has focused solely on the financial sector (insurance, banks, and financial services), while Berkshire has broader limits and is a peculiar insurance-energy-industry-investment hybrid :smiley:. Both, however, are also united by management’s expressed wise decision to stay within their area of expertise.


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/25/buffett-says-berkshire-hathaway-overpaid-for-kraft-following-last-weeks-stock-plunge.html

Reuters also has an article:

“Kraft Heinz’s announcement raised questions about 3G Capital’s financial strategy for Kraft Heinz, whose brands include Jell-O, Kool-Aid and Philadelphia cream cheese, and whether it appears increasingly out of step with consumers seeking healthier, fresher alternatives to processed food products.

Buffett acknowledged these changes, but said greater pressure is coming from retailers such as Amazo (thread on FAANGs), Walmart Inc and Costco Wholesale Corp, including through the latter’s Kirkland brand.

“The ability to price has changed, and that’s huge,” Buffett said."

This cannot be compared to Sampo in any way. Although Wahlroos has been very successful, there have been some incredible flukes involved that just happened to work out. In general, the fact that Nalle managed to maneuver Sampo for himself with an incredibly good deal was not solely due to Nalle’s superiority but also to the Finnish state’s incompetence. The timing of the Sampo Bank sale was spot on. After that, they tried to buy a Swedish bank before the financial crisis, but the deal fell through. And the acquisition of Nordea hasn’t been particularly good either. While Wahlroos has certainly been competent in his job, there’s a bit of extra hype involved, and the same has also rubbed off on Sampo.

Buffett, on the other hand, has repeatedly managed to make better deals than the market average. But even looking at his return curve, the biggest returns were made before the 2000s. Since then, significantly higher returns than the market haven’t been achieved, even though during the financial crisis, Buffett managed to make absolutely incredibly good deals with his available funds. Better than what stocks bought from the market offered. It’s worth comparing the returns of recent years rather than the overall returns from the beginning.

I could argue that even Buffett’s skills have rusted with age. No 90-year-old can be at their sharpest anymore, even if there are no major health problems outwardly visible. Looking at Berkshire’s investments, I certainly wouldn’t put my money into the company. It includes Apple (whose grip is slipping a bit), Coca-Cola, which is struggling with current trends (even though it’s expanding into waters, for example, its biggest value is in its brand, and you can’t just sell water with that).

4 Likes

Warren’s little cousin from small Finland thanks both Warren and Verpu, great men both :ok_hand:

You have a slightly oversimplified view, but I share your concern on some of your points. I would also add airline holdings to your list, which, at least personally, I consider to have a high environmental policy risk.

However, it’s important to remember that Berkshire is truly diversified: List of assets owned by Berkshire Hathaway - Wikipedia

In addition to publicly traded companies, you also get a bunch of privately held companies.

I plan to keep my position in Berkshire. Index returns are enough for me, though I naturally hope for returns exceeding the index. But I still see this as a semi-defensive, stable “free” fund, not some +20% p.a. growth stock.

3 Likes

This is splitting hairs, but one investor (I unfortunately don’t remember who) also commented on Berkshire being a growth company. Many companies that are completely stagnant are still profiled as growth companies. Berkshire’s revenue has still approximately doubled in 10 years.

3 Likes

Yeah, let’s hope so. However, I was describing my attitude towards BRK in my portfolio… “A pessimist is never disappointed,” etc.

But I now see many challenges in the coming years, as mentioned above;

  • Certain positions are risky due to various changes (Apple, insurance, airlines…)
  • The success of Charlie & Warren’s succession
  • BRK’s size and intensifying competition reduce opportunities in the market (which Warren is already openly struggling with)

So now I am content with moderate value growth.

1 Like

Buffett accidentally acquired more than a 10% stake in Delta. This also tells us that the era of competition in the consolidated US aviation sector is over.

I also appreciate the honest comments about uncertainty and not really knowing. He seems skeptical about whether Apple can compete on the content side. However, Apple can afford a few mistakes, he notes.

2 Likes

Part of Berkshire’s $112 billion cash pile may be put to work:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-anadarko-petrol-m-a-occidental-buffet/frothy-markets-turn-dealmaker-warren-buffett-into-a-bankroller-idUSKCN1S62GN

From Buffett’s perspective, quality businesses with decent growth prospects still have “sky high” price tags. There’s certainly enough ammunition when the time is right.

1 Like

Someone should tip Buffett off that Nokia and Nordea are now available cheaply here in the Finnish fringe markets…

7 Likes

Here’s an observation about Berkshire: Buffett & Munger started grooming their successors a long time ago. As I understand it, these four people are at the core:
http://fortune.com/2018/05/07/warren-buffett-four-successors/

So, Berkshire’s portfolio is now also managed by investment managers Todd Combs and Ted Weschler. Buffett has apparently allocated a certain amount of billions to each of them to invest freely. Based on what I’ve read, it can be assumed that really large positions require Buffett’s approval (e.g., Apple might not have been Buffett’s own idea, but the position, which has now grown to 39 billion, was certainly approved by him).

Berkshire’s Big Pots (over 5% of the portfolio at current prices) include:
Apple,
Bank of America,
Wells Fargo
Coca Cola
American Express
Kraft Heinz

These are likely all Buffett’s and Munger’s plays.

If you then look at newer, smaller positions (new during Q4 2018), these are likely moves by Combs or Weschler:
Red Hat (RHT),
Suncor (SU),
StoneCo Ltd. (STNE)

Generally speaking, the growth of the IT sector to become the second largest sector in Berkshire’s portfolio (22.6%) is likely due to these “new” stock pickers. The financial (Fina) side is still really massive (44.4%).

Source for the above figures here:
https://www.dataroma.com/m/holdings.php?m=BRK

As a tip, Dataroma also has the portfolios of other famous “value investors” – albeit with a delay as investment companies/funds have to disclose them.

7 Likes

Buffett’s investment philosophy is exceptional – he wants to influence the company’s development and is, on the other hand, very conservative. BAC would have been a good alternative for me instead of Nordea. If Nordea doesn’t take off, I’ll move that money to BAC.

1 Like

Buffet is not interested in <10% stakes. Nokia seems to be too expensive from his point of view.

BAC is probably a very sensible idea.

According to 13F filings, BRK bought an additional 9.4M shares of JPM during Q1-2019. Jamie Dimon’s JP Morgan Chase is perhaps the best-managed bank on this planet right now. A good and conservative move from Buffett.

In addition, BRK’s loan for the OXY / APC acquisition, $10 Billion, with an 8% (Eight, 8) interest rate and a $50 Million sign-up fee.

I have BRK.B and WFC in my portfolio; I see BRK as a poor man’s insurance wrapper, so to speak.

2 Likes

Buffett trusts banks, but in Europe, and on this forum too, people are worried about the future prospects of banks. Of course, Eurozone banks have other problems. Often, it’s been said here that the banking sector is in transition and future profits are being eroded from all directions. Why are bank stocks in the US hitting new records? Are the prospects for banks there different, and are they immune to this upcoming disruption? Or do American investors and Buffett just not get it? :smiley:

3 Likes

After the 2008 financial crisis in America, banks’ capital requirements were raised, and annual stress tests were introduced.

The Federal Reserve will announce the results of its supervisory stress tests by June 30, 2019.

After the results are published, many banks usually raise their dividends if they pass the stress test successfully.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-05/wall-street-s-next-fed-stress-test-assumes-deepest-recession-yet

Fed’s scenarios include jobless rate jumping to 10 percent

American banks are under very strict regulatory supervision so that they no longer need to be supported by taxpayer money.

The stress test for Antti Rinne’s government program is probably something like: If employment rises “only” to 74.9% blaa blaa.

I’ve been wondering the same thing. My humble understanding is that the banking crisis in the US was handled better right away (big bailouts), the interest rate environment has been more favorable, which has enabled better profit generation and large investments in business digitalization. Checks are still a big thing in the US, and it might also be that consumers there aren’t as digitally enthusiastic as in China or Northern Europe.

2 Likes