Post #9437 by Mark on the Berkshire Hathaway board

Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A)

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (12)

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 6

Yeah. My theory is simpler. It’s the “Coke” theory: “I should have sold when Coca Cola was so high.” Both BAC and Apple are “so high”.

I think the reason for selling BAC is different than the reason for selling AAPL. I think the reason for selling BAC is mainly due to a belief that it isn't the best run bank [anymore] and when NIM starts to shrink, all banks will suffer, but BAC will suffer more than average because they aren't the best run kind of bank. And the reason for selling AAPL? I think it is as simple as it just became too large a portion of the portfolio, and that meant that Berkshire was too heavily levered to the price of Apple stock. And while Berkshire has never been afraid to put 10% of itself into a strong investment, I believe they (Buffett, Munger MHRIP, Abel, etc) all thought that 20+% is just too much.

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

Print the post

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (12)

Prev | Next

Announcements

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

A community forum supporting civilized, and highly helpful, self-educating investors that come together for Shrewdness and merry spirits. These message boards closely follow the look and feel of the old message boards at boards.fool.com prior to the boards redirected to discussion.fool.com. Shrewd'm is not affiliated with the comprehensive and excellent investment website, The Motley Fool (TMF), in any way. The Shrewd commmunity here has owed, and continues to owe, gratitude to The Motley Fool for nurturing a culture of jovial irreverence towards Wall St, and that tradition will continue here.