Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of BRK.ABest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of BRK.ABest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A)
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (30) |
Author: rogermunibond   😊 😞
Number: of 21941 
Subject: Re: What does this all mean?
Date: 07/27/26 1:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 4
From the paper...

"A large corporate finance literature documents a secular shift toward intangible capital and R&D-intensive firms in the U.S. economy (e.g., Falato et al. (2022); Begenau and Palazzo (2021)). Atkeson et al. (2026) provide a macroeconomic perspective on these developments, showing that the decline in measured investment and changes in the composition of capital, including the growing role of intangible investment, mechanically lower earnings yields even when free-cash-flow yields remain stable."

So intuitively this makes sense in some ways to modify R&D expense for the rise of intangible investment.

"Accounting conventions may systematically distort the comparison between historical and contemporary reported earnings, making CAPE appear elevated when comparability has been compromised rather than when fundamentals have shifted or markets have become overvalued. We demonstrate that correcting these measurement distortions reveals current valuations as cyclically elevated within historical ranges, rather than representing either a permanent regime shift or unprecedented overvaluation."

Okay makes sense as well. But do the authors take the next step and reconsider R&D expense across the entire historical range of S&P 500 returns?

So prior to 1975 FASB allowed capitalization of R&D expense, after 1974 FASB mandated immediate expensing of R&D. So only going back to 1974 to remove the R&D expense distortion.

"Second, accounting standards changes in the early 1990s—notably Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) 121 (1995) on asset impairments—encouraged larger, more frequent recognition of special items."

So going back to 1995 to remove distortion from more frequent special item recognition, which frequently wrotedown assets on temporary effects that does not recognize the true long-run earning ability of an asset (see Precision CastParts writedown in 2020(?)).

These accounting adjustments seem to make sense as Charlie Munger often opined there are limitations to accounting and it's only a crude approximation of reality.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to rogermunibond here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 21,448 posts about Berkshire Hathaway. The article-length ones it recommended most:
BRK: Why Not XOM? · 62 recs · 2024
Second quarter comments · 60 recs · 2023
Berkshire's Profit Contributors · 57 recs · 2023
Summary of 2Q 2026 · 54 recs · 2026
3Q Summary · 53 recs · 2024
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (30) |


Announcements
Berkshire Hathaway FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of BRK.A | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community