Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (11) | Ignore Thread Prev | Next
Author: spirach2 Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 210442  
Subject: Re: Real-World Look-Through: Date: 3/25/2013 1:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Jesus, Ravi, I guess I didn't quite realize that you had apparently appointed yourself Grand Poobah of the Message Board, and that therefore no one was allowed to disagree with you --even when you're completely wrong.

I'm sorry that my doing so is apparently causing you a little bit of a stroke, but everything you said in this post is nonsense, and I need to spend a few minutes responding to it.

As Grand Poobah, you apparently reserve the right to revise history as you see fit.
Here's what *actually* happened.

I posted a speculation regarding BRK's total earnings for 2013.
In it, I made a specific conjecture on Look-Through:

<<I'm thinking total look-through earnings of the equity holdings are
probably close to $7 Billion at this point, and total dividend payout
is probably close to $2 B. (Very convenient round numbers; hopefully not
*too* far off.)

This makes undistributed earnings about $5 B, which puts per-share
around $3,000.>>

Pretty simple and straightforward, no?

You responded with a long post reporting your findings on Look-Through, supported by your examination of the 13-F.

http://boards.fool.com/look-through-earnings-30587728.aspx
(Too long for me to paste.)

You reported that BRK's total Look-Through was in fact only $5.6B, and undistributed Look-Through only $3.95B, obviously *much* lower than I'd suggested.
You never *once* pointed out that your calculations ignored a HUGE piece of BRK's portfolio, and that the number you reported was therefore obviously far below the actual total (or that the share counts in the 13F are obviously far wrong in multiple cases).
You presented it as if it was the *correct* figure, and therefore ended the discussion.

When *I* pointed that out, you acknowledged it, but repeatedly dismissed it as trivial.

Since I knew your numbers were far removed from reality, and wanted to clearly establish the truth of the situation (the correct earnings figure), and I didn't especially appreciate your dismissing my initial speculation (which turned out to be quite accurate), and authoritatively substituting your own figures (which turned out to be completely inaccurate), I endeavored to make an accurate determination of the real numbers.

I did that, and posted it.

I did not (as you state I did) use the 'Look-Through for Dummies' method I described.
I calculated the earnings, bottom-up, as best I could, for every BRK position. I'm probably a little bit off here and there, but on the aggregate values, I'm very confident my conclusions were quite accurate.
I then pointed out that the 'Dummies' Method would have given a very simple and highly accurate approximate projection of the correct values.
(In fact, it works about a thousand times better than what you did.)

If it bothers you so much that I corrected your statements, then don't publicly make such incredibly misleading statements.

I'm interested in trying to make sure I have the best idea I can of how to establish a reasonably accurate valuation for BRK.
That's why I bother to look at this board.
One ingredient in that process is determining BRK's *real* earnings, which aren't shown in GAAP.

You seem to be interested in inflating your ego, and protecting your throne as the new Grand Poobah of the BRK board.

I'm sorry I insulted you so deeply by pointing out that your assertions were vastly incorrect, and correcting them...
but it's *important*, here on the Berkshire Hathaway board, that we try to report correct values for BRK earnings, not wildly incorrect ones.

If you, or anyone else, reports stuff that I know to be wildly incorrect, I'll probably feel compelled to correct it.

I'm sorry that upsets you so much, but I think you'll have to deal with it.


(P.S. I notice that this morning you accused another poster here of being 'a fraud.'

<<In short, I believe "Charliedealraker" is an imposter.>>

I went back and read some posts by 'Dealraker.'
Sure sounds like the same guy to me.

You don't like his opinion, so that makes him a fraud?
(BTW, I disagree with his opinion on this matter, too. That doesn't mean I accuse him of not being who he says he is; that's just nuts.)

I think your elevation to Grand Poobah might be rapidly eroding your judgment.
You need to take a couple of deep breaths, and come back down to Earth.)
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post  
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (11) | Ignore Thread Prev | Next

Announcements

2013 Feste Award Voting Begins!
Who will win the 2013 Feste Award? Vote now for the Fool that most exemplifies the Fool Community mission of Learning Together!
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Post of the Day:
Tax Strategies

TMFPMarti-Feeling Good
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
Community Home
Speak Your Mind, Start Your Blog, Rate Your Stocks

Community Team Fools - who are those TMF's?
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and "#1 Media Company to Work For" (BusinessInsider 2011)! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.
Advertisement