No. of Recommendations: 8
"Buffett has stated quite clearly that he does not want to disclose more about his trades than the law requires, for strategic reasons. He has however given us a bit more information than he needed to - he has said that small trades will almost always be from one of his lieutenants (T&T), although the recently increased size of their portfolios makes some ambiguity possible."
Notice how this extra information beyond the legal floor is strategically beneficial for BRK, and thus for BRK shareholders. If it's a small trade (Buffett says, and the market mostly listens) assume it is T & T. Ergo, no Buffett bounce for small new positions.
That is, the extra disclosure provides BRK, including Buffett & T & T, the leeway to buy small & add without a Buffett-induced market headwind.
In any case, I have more than enough disclosure to know where BRK's money goes, what they hold, what their liabilities are, and the like. I have no interest in BRK compelling disclosure re: operations, above and beyond the legal floor, if it is to their disadvantage.
So, my own view: absolutely not, I do not want Buffett et al. tipping their hand more than is legally required and/or strategically useful. And when the time comes to assess BRK as a Buffett-less enterprise, I'll continue to assess the ins and outs of BRK as a whole.
