I have read a couple of your posts on Berkshire's valuation over the years, and I can't recall you ever putting a value on the "Buffet premium".Obviously, Berkshire with Buffet is worth more than Berkshire without Buffet.Since Buffet has a finite lifespan, he needs to be depreciated over time.Does the multiple compression between 2001 and 2012 perhaps simply represent a the slow depreciation of the Buffet premium? It seems like you may be mixing two separate and unrelated concepts here.You are correct in saying that the odds are overwhelming that Berkshire without Buffett is somewhat less valuable than Berkshire with him (the amount could be argued forever).And you are correct in saying that since he has a finite span at Berkshire, some "slow depreciation" makes sense. Absolutely, although figuring the pace of depreciation is quite tricky...even more so when you don't know the starting value.Where this seems to go off the track is the implied assumption that there was any "premium" on the valuation of Berkshire in 2001...that is, that in 2001 Berkshire sold at a valuation higher than the mere sum of its businesses warranted.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Rat