Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway buys $1B of Apple stock

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 67
    msuberly said:
    LOL.

    Tepper sold $133M worth in December, and that was equally big -- if not bigger -- news. Didn't see you dismissing those headlines, unless I missed it and you'd like to point me to a link where you did.
    How is the sale of a $133M stake "equally big -- if not bigger -- news?

    Go to this link and see how far down you would have to scroll to see how much sway a $133M stake actually has: https://www.holdingschannel.com/funds/holding-aapl/

    Berkshire's stake doesn't even make the top 50. It's only news because of the chairman's name.

    Now if Vanguard, with its nearly $36B stake sold out...that would be news. 
    Most of Vanguard's holdings is in index funds; meaning they cannot "sell out". Most of the top 50 holders in AAPL are "passive" investor; meaning they do not make discretionary investment decisions. $1B investment stake by an "active" manager is a major investment, despite the size of the market capitalization of the company. IN ADDITION, whether Ted or Todd made the purchase, this investment makes more than 10% of their portfolio, which is a big vote of confidence. Just not as big as it would've been as this AppleInsider article makes it out to be with the first sentence.
    cali
  • Reply 42 of 67
    msuberlymsuberly Posts: 226member
    msuberly said:
    How is the sale of a $133M stake "equally big -- if not bigger -- news?

    Go to this link and see how far down you would have to scroll to see how much sway a $133M stake actually has: https://www.holdingschannel.com/funds/holding-aapl/

    Berkshire's stake doesn't even make the top 50. It's only news because of the chairman's name.

    Now if Vanguard, with its nearly $36B stake sold out...that would be news. 
    Most of Vanguard's holdings is in index funds; meaning they cannot "sell out". Most of the top 50 holders in AAPL are "passive" investor; meaning they do not make discretionary investment decisions. $1B investment stake by an "active" manager is a major investment, despite the size of the market capitalization of the company. IN ADDITION, whether Ted or Todd made the purchase, this investment makes more than 10% of their portfolio, which is a big vote of confidence. Just not as big as it would've been as this AppleInsider article makes it out to be with the first sentence.
    I know Vanguard is almost all passive, as are the other top shareholders these days. That is why Vanguard selling out would be big news!

    Now here is what doesn't add for all the people on here that are so certain that analysts "manipulate" Apple stock -- all those passive holders aren't going to buy or sell shares based on any news stories. The passive holders own (and thus control voting rights of) about 30% of the shares outstanding. Really, how does some guy with $0 at stake (an analyst) or even $133M (Tepper) "manipulate" a company. They don't manipulate anything, except perhaps the complainers on this site. 
  • Reply 43 of 67
    msuberlymsuberly Posts: 226member
    sog35 said:

    Called it. But keep in mind that Berkshire Hathaway taking a stake in Apple is still a big vote of confidence. It's just not as big as it would've been if it was Warren Buffett who made the decision and went on CNBC to discuss the future of the company and the low valuation. Nevertheless, this is a strong vote of confidence.
    My ass you called it.

    Buffet is still the managing partner and chairman the one who makes the ultimate decision.

    This is like saying Steve Jobs was not responsible for the iPhone because Ive designed it. Yes there were other employees who made the iPhone but Jobs gets the ultimate credit. Same with Bershire. There may be other executives who did the research to buy Apple but I guarantee 100% that Buffet was advised on it before the purchase went through. 

    And Buffet has taken a smaller role on day to day operations at Bershire by design. He wants to retire soon and needs his generals to learn the ropes.
    No, he pretty much called it. Buffet doesn't do squat these days except show up for various celebrity investing events, including CNBC interviews and the Berkshire annual meeting. He has effectively been retired for a decade, but no one believes it because his face is still on TV. 
    ValueAnalystjackansi
  • Reply 44 of 67
    msuberly said:
    Most of Vanguard's holdings is in index funds; meaning they cannot "sell out". Most of the top 50 holders in AAPL are "passive" investor; meaning they do not make discretionary investment decisions. $1B investment stake by an "active" manager is a major investment, despite the size of the market capitalization of the company. IN ADDITION, whether Ted or Todd made the purchase, this investment makes more than 10% of their portfolio, which is a big vote of confidence. Just not as big as it would've been as this AppleInsider article makes it out to be with the first sentence.
    I know Vanguard is almost all passive, as are the other top shareholders these days. That is why Vanguard selling out would be big news!

    Now here is what doesn't add for all the people on here that are so certain that analysts "manipulate" Apple stock -- all those passive holders aren't going to buy or sell shares based on any news stories. The passive holders own (and thus control voting rights of) about 30% of the shares outstanding. Really, how does some guy with $0 at stake (an analyst) or even $133M (Tepper) "manipulate" a company. They don't manipulate anything, except perhaps the complainers on this site. 
    Since vanguard is all passive and cannot possibly sell out of Apple, saying "vanguard selling out would be big news," is like saying "if there was a zombie apocalypse, it would be big news." So I guess I agree with you...
  • Reply 45 of 67
    sog35 said:
    msuberly said:
    No, he pretty much called it. Buffet doesn't do squat these days except show up for various celebrity investing events, including CNBC interviews and the Berkshire annual meeting. He has effectively been retired for a decade, but no one believes it because his face is still on TV. 
    Berkshire EQUALS Buffet.

    PERIOD.

    End of Story.
    Says the guy who can't even spell Buffett.
    ai46singularityjackansi
  • Reply 46 of 67
    msuberlymsuberly Posts: 226member
    sog35 said:
    Says the guy who can't even spell Buffett.
    Says the guy with 10 posts
    This is a good point, although ValueAnalyst is now up to 22 posts. Had he been here longer he would know it isn't worth debating Sog on stocks. Sog has too many incoherent rants to understand what he is trying to say. 
    ValueAnalystai46jonlronnsingularityjackansi
  • Reply 47 of 67
    msuberly said:
    sog35 said:
    Says the guy with 10 posts
    This is a good point, although ValueAnalyst is now up to 22 posts. Had he been here longer he would know it isn't worth debating Sog on stocks. Sog has too many incoherent rants to understand what he is trying to say. 
    Ha! Noted. Although I admire his passion; I just wish that he was kinder.
    jackansi
  • Reply 48 of 67
    baconstangbaconstang Posts: 531member
    msuberly:  Some other perspective: Berkshire added $1.25B of Phillips 66 stock last quarter...where is the headline of that?

    Probably in some Oil biz rag.  Why would it be here?
    ronn
  • Reply 49 of 67
    jonljonl Posts: 210member
    sog35 said:
    msuberly:  Some other perspective: Berkshire added $1.25B of Phillips 66 stock last quarter...where is the headline of that?

    Probably in some Oil biz rag.  Why would it be here?
    Its news because Buffett never invests in tech companies
    Except for IBM, which has been a 5 year loser for him. His PMs, however, invested in INTC for a year back in 2011 or thereabouts, getting out with a 25% profit before it dropped 30%, and they've now invested in AAPL. The big difference is that Buffet himself bought IBM and wants to hold it forever, actually hoping its price would decrease for years and years so he could buy more, with that and the buyback increasing the percentage of the target $20 EPS he owns, a target which never came true for him. His PMs, on the other hand, sold out of their INTC after a year. Who knows what they want to do with AAPL? All we know is Buffet has confirmed it was the PMs who bought AAPL, not him. We don't know if Berkshire wants it be a forever hold or a quick flip.
    jackansi
  • Reply 50 of 67
    singularitysingularity Posts: 1,329member
    sog35 said:
    jonl said:
    Except for IBM, which has been a 5 year loser for him. His PMs, however, invested in INTC for a year back in 2011 or thereabouts, getting out with a 25% profit before it dropped 30%, and they've now invested in AAPL. The big difference is that Buffet himself bought IBM and wants to hold it forever, actually hoping its price would decrease for years and years so he could buy more, with that and the buyback increasing the percentage of the target $20 EPS he owns, a target which never came true for him. His PMs, on the other hand, sold out of their INTC after a year. Who knows what they want to do with AAPL? All we know is Buffet has confirmed it was the PMs who bought AAPL, not him. We don't know if Berkshire wants it be a forever hold or a quick flip.
    IBM and INTC are not tech companies.

    Big tech is Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Tesla, ect.
    ??????? 
    It appears your brief vacation hasn't cured your delusions
    jackansijonlcrowleyValueAnalystcali
  • Reply 51 of 67
    jonljonl Posts: 210member
    sog35 said:
    IBM and INTC are not tech companies.

    Big tech is Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Tesla, ect.
    ??????? 
    It appears your brief vacation hasn't cured your delusions
    Indeed. lol
    jackansi
  • Reply 52 of 67
    ronnronn Posts: 312member
    Even with today's 3.71% gain, Berkshire has lost nearly $148 million in this gamble. And I'm sure the stock will fall back a bit by the end of the week after short-termers use these nonsensical headlines to make a quick buck. Same ol' same ol' (or as Big Mama Anna would say, "Same Ol' Sh..!")
    jonl
  • Reply 53 of 67
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,648member
    sog35 said:

    IBM and INTC are not tech companies.
    IBM maybe I could see what you're talking about, but Intel?  Wtf?
  • Reply 54 of 67
    slprescottslprescott Posts: 749member
    Some financial reports emphasize that the Berkshire investment is the clearest indication to-date that Apple's profile has shifted from "growth" to "value".

    i might be OK with that. While I do want the stock price to climb, less incessant Wall Street demands for quarterly growth will allow Apple to stay focused on high quality vision, products, services, and business execution. Not such a bad thing.
    edited May 2016 cali
  • Reply 55 of 67
    loquiturloquitur Posts: 104member
    I posit that Berkshire/Buffett are finally coming around to realize that Apple is a "wide moat"
    brand-name consumer products company (Apple Inc.), rather than a narrow-moat
    tech company (ye olde Apple Computer Inc.), as detractors would have it.

    Now that this misclassification may be arbitraged, the stock AAPL can now more readily obtain a
    market 15-20 P/E, just like other branded consumer product cos. like Heinz, or Clorox, or Kimberly-Clark.

    The "value vs. tech" debate was a distraction.   The perceptive take, just as Icahn
    originally stumped for (though he sold for multiple short-term reasons such as countering
    his oil-sector bets) is that Apple is undervalued no matter the classification.

    As a kicker, Buffett (a student of Graham-Dodd investing, e.g. share-price migrating toward
    the discounted present-value of future profit streams) is staking a claim that buying AAPL is
    like buying dollar bills for 50 or 60 cents, not just that it was misclassified by agenda-driven
    talking heads.   Apple knew and is acting on this anyway, by slowly steering towards going private
    with massive buybacks.

    Now that intrinsic value is officially blessed by the Miracle of Omaha, the narrative worm may yet turn.
    edited May 2016 ValueAnalyst
  • Reply 56 of 67
    NY1822 said:
    sog35 said:
    agree.

    Follow Buffett guys. Buy stock now and hold for 5-10 years and you probably will be smiling.
    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/03/15/what-will-apple-incs-dividend-be-in-5-years.aspx
    The motley fool articles are simply bait click to get you to pay for their foolish pitch on the next wonder stock. They are simply con artists 
    pscooter63
  • Reply 57 of 67

    sog35 said:
    Warren Buffett has repeatedly said in interviews that Todd and Ted DO NOT consult Warren Buffett before their purchases. Feel free to go back and watch his CNBC interviews. Of course, I do not know for sure whether they consult Warren Buffett or not, but that is what he has said in the past.
    Buffett is simply showing confidence in the next generation at Berkshire, he won't live forever.

    But a $1 billion buy in a sector Buffett rarely invests in?
    Of course they consulting with Buffett before they bought Apple.
    If anything buffett is letting some young gun buy Apple so he can use it as an example of what not to invest in and according to the press release they were bought before April 30th , Apple stock was trading at 110 so the trade is already down at least 10% !
    edited May 2016
  • Reply 58 of 67
    sog35 said:
    volcan said:
    GE, 3M, Berkshire, DOW, Disney, Nike

    Plenty more diversified companies in the Fortune 500
    GE and Bershire are basically investment companies.

    Nike is mostly shoes. If the shoe market tanks they tank.

    Don't punish Apple because iPhone revenue is tremendous.

     Apple's services revenue is close to $25 billion a year alone. That's almost as much as the ENTIRE NIKE.  So give me break with the same bullcrap meme.
    I agree with sog on this one and would also add that generally Wall Street does not like companies over diversify. It's best to focus on what you are good at rather that lose direction because they get into too many different businesses. 
  • Reply 59 of 67
    crowley said:
    sog35 said:

    IBM and INTC are not tech companies.
    IBM maybe I could see what you're talking about, but Intel?  Wtf?
    A good troll intersperses some well thought out arguments to reel you in , then throws you a curve ball. That's his MO
  • Reply 60 of 67
    loquitur said:
    I posit that Berkshire/Buffett are finally coming around to realize that Apple is a "wide moat"
    brand-name consumer products company (Apple Inc.), rather than a narrow-moat
    tech company (ye olde Apple Computer Inc.), as detractors would have it.

    Now that this misclassification may be arbitraged, the stock AAPL can now more readily obtain a
    market 15-20 P/E, just like other branded consumer product cos. like Heinz, or Clorox, or Kimberly-Clark.

    The "value vs. tech" debate was a distraction.   The perceptive take, just as Icahn
    originally stumped for (though he sold for multiple short-term reasons such as countering
    his oil-sector bets) is that Apple is undervalued no matter the classification.

    As a kicker, Buffett (a student of Graham-Dodd investing, e.g. share-price migrating toward
    the discounted present-value of future profit streams) is staking a claim that buying AAPL is
    like buying dollar bills for 50 or 60 cents, not just that it was misclassified by agenda-driven
    talking heads.   Apple knew and is acting on this anyway, by slowly steering towards going private
    with massive buybacks.

    Now that intrinsic value is officially blessed by the Miracle of Omaha, the narrative worm may yet turn.
    And I believe Berkshire can see where the buyback is heading over the next 10-15 years without going private of course.
Sign In or Register to comment.