Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Buffettology -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jhg_in_kc who wrote (912)	1/3/1999 11:07:00 PM
From: Sr K	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4691

I didn't see the Fortune magazine article on CM but Forbes had a cover story a couple or so years ago. The main points were (1) after-tax returns, especially at the corporate level, present a strong edge to investments that can be held 15 years or so, if not forever, and this was something CM taught WB, and (2) BRK's cost of capital from the insurance operations is about zero or even negative (as reported in some detail each year in BRK's annual report. No one here is commenting on this aspect of the General Re purchase. I think WB wanted to get his hands on more long-term bonds, low-cost capital, and, WB followers will note he paid with stock - which he only does reluctantly. In his own words then, he must feel that General Re brings "at least" as much value as the cash alternative, and IMO by some "margin of safety".