Seems a bit harsh in some ways...

For example, "The TSM one was strange- his reasoning was because of the geopolitics which was well known before he bought. "
I think there isn't much doubt that the geopolitical situation got a lot worse during the recent period of ownership. The balance of probabilities seems to have shifted a lot. I rather wonder whether Charlie would have bought BABA units at Daily Journal now...despite his oddly Panglossian view of Chinese "leadership", I think most people appreciate that things have changed.

TSM/MKL/HPQ/PARA- I don't know if all of these were his.

Were any of them his? I always assumed not. $2-3bn isn't really his style--that's the rule of thumb that he himself stated.

Here's the big test that matters: has any position permanently lost >1% of the overall portfolio? Not yet. Not since I was born, anyway. So far, his ability to match position sizing to the apparent margin of safety has worked out. Investing at scale isn't about picking big winners, it's about avoiding big losers.

Thought of that way, the intersection of geopolitical deterioration, Apple's fraction of total portfolio, and recent Apple position trimming seems to make some sense to me. I'm really happy about it, and that has nothing to do with the current valuation levels of Apple's stock. I think that geopolitical exposure was not only the biggest risk at Apple, but that the geopolitical risk embedded within Berkshire's Apple position was (and so far remains) the biggest single risk in a Berkshire share. Berkshire would survive a catastrophic loss from Apple, but it would hurt.

Jim