“Properly excluding currency gains Berkshire’s profits should have been reported as $6.9 billion for the quarter, up 10.1% over 2021’s third quarter and $21.7 billion year to date through September, up 11.2% over 2021. Impressive but few get to the correct profit measure.”
I don’t quite understand this. I thought the US Dollar gained against most currencies in the quarter, i.e. non-Dollar profits should be worth less, so why are there any currency gains?
The gains were on reduced debt payments In dollars because the debt was denominated in the foreign currency borrowed. Strong dollar means less dollars spent on repaying each yen or euro of debt.
Following is from p.18 of the 3Q report https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/qtrly/3rdqtr22.pdf . It seems the gain come from reduced liability of non-US dollar denominated debt, not real earning.
The carrying values of Berkshire and BHFC non-U.S. Dollar denominated senior notes (€8.15 billion, £1.75 billion and ¥914
billion par at September 30, 2022) reflect the applicable exchange rates as of each balance sheet date. The effects of changes in foreign
currency exchange rates during the period are recorded in earnings as a component of selling, general and administrative expenses.
Changes in the exchange rates resulted in pre-tax gains of $1.2 billion in the third quarter and $3.3 billion in the first nine months of
2022 as compared to $264 million in the third quarter and $939 million in the first nine months of 2021.
Berkshire also guarantees debt of other subsidiaries, aggregating approximately $3.7 billion at Sept
“The cost basis on Berkshire’s stock holdings was reduced by $7.4 billion during the quarter. It appears the Bank of America position was trimmed, I estimate by $1.25 billion, as well as perhaps a very small trim in American Express (could be rounding). 13/”
Anyone know how he concluded that some BAC was sold in the quarter? I’d be surprised if the BAC position was reduced.
BAC was not trimmed and there was also no change in the AXP or AAPL positions. I have no idea why he got it wrong, but I don’t think he can edit his tweet so it will stay up there. Berkshire is over 10% on BAC (and over 20% on AXP), so the sale of even a single share would have to be disclosed within a few days.
Bloomstran on repurchases:
“For the year to 10/26 BRK bought back 0.85% of its shares and since repos began in 2018 spent $63.7 billion repurchasing 11% of the shares outstanding at an average price of $353,952 per share [$236/b], a terrific use of capital buying shares at wide discounts to intrinsic value.”
Why in the world anyone follows Bloomstran and his use of Berkshire/Buffett to sell his fees is beyond me. The guys is simply selling, selling, and selling.
Could have something to do with his being a fabulous business analyst?
Would you rather he post nothing at all, or post only about companies for which he is likely less of an expert?
What about Bloomstran’s fantastical conservative IV value of $406/B share?
He tries to impress with accounting terms and granular details but the fancy analysis is wrong.
Interesting thing to say, considering that you constantly badger him to post more about Berkshire.
Most fund managers (Superinvestors) dont want to hold brk because their clients ask “why should I pay fees to you when i can buy Berkshire direct”
Interesting point with Li Lu investing in Brk with Mungers money.
OK. Where’s your analysis? should be an exciting read.
Here. is my analysis;. Buy below Book + FLOAT +1/2 deferred taxes and never sell.
Or pay less than peak price of old man.
Bloomstran puts out tombs that amount to false precision.
As expected, your analysis is laughable.
Ok read his 306 page tomb.
He does a good job summarizing the financials. He gets it right when the news articles (and some here) get it wrong, e.g. the “20% increase in profits”.
His IV estimates are very optimistic, bordering on fan-fiction.
Read it. You called his out. I want to compare it to yours. If the above is an “analysis” then you should begin your next analysis of a business with a dictionary.
Simplicity is sophistication. Same formula Sandy Gottesman used
True. But there is a difference between simplicity and complete absence, which you only have demonstrated the latter. I’m comfortable you haven’t done any. I’ll move on now.