> In high school, he invested in a business owned by his father and bought a 40-acre farm worked by a tenant farmer.
> Buffett’s net worth dropped earlier this week when he donated $2.9 billion in Berkshire Hathaway (BRKa.N) stock to charity
Such a generous man and an entrepreneur. We need more like him.
I disagree. We need less people like him (I mean people wealthier than some countries). Let the government manage social services. Some people depend on charities, that themselves depend only on the good will of those people, and I don't think that's wise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depository_Trust_%26_Clearing_...
Donate your lowest cost basis stock and write off at current market value. Donate stock directly to avoid taxes incurred by selling. Lowest cost basis because that removes the largest unrealized capital gains from your personal portfolio. Maybe do so over some number of days to cost average if you are donating oodles like Buffet.
Even for much much smaller amounts, donations (of various kinds) of appreciated assets can use tax law to considerable advantage.
it's also kinda cute the idea that shares are stored like computer files. But it's not a stupid question at all. Their existence is regulated by a complicated regulatory complex.
He is nothing like Musk. If Buffet never existed, Geico and Coca Cola would have been mismanaged into the ground and these markets would have never been sparked to become global industries.
And how did he make expensive insurance?
The expensive insurance thing is a hard thing to prove, it’s definitely an opinion rather than a fact. What I saw was the huge success Geico had with their advertising programs, and then every other insurance company deciding to run expensive ad campaigns. The costs of that marketing is paid for directly by the consumer, we’re paying to watch all these dumb characters and cavemen try to sell us car and home insurance, when it used to be a quiet thing you did at the bank.
- The Ranks of Global Billionaires: Not All Billionaires Are Made Equal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MeRN7LE1LQ
E.g. Theranos owner Elizabeth Holmes once had a "net worth" of 4.5 billion (as calculated by Forbes Magazine[1] for attention-grabbing headlines) ... but that doesn't really mean she was actually 2x richer than Dropbox's Drew Houston who's worth ~2 billion. That said, Elon Musk is a bonafide billionaire but the comparison to Buffett via a volatile Tesla stock price is meaningless.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=forbes+elizabeth+holmes+4.5+...
OTOH, Buffet regularly sells his shares, mostly indirectly by donating shares to charities who then sell the shares. The amounts are large enough that they do affect the stock price, but not by nearly as much.
That's why it's silly to say that Musk is richer than Buffet. If they both liquidated their positions, Buffett would be sitting on a bigger pile than Musk.
It's also moot because it's so obviously temporary. Musk is going to end up either bankrupt or king of Mars. Buffett is going to fade away. His money will end up doing a lot of good -- it may be directly responsible for eliminating polio, malaria and/or HIV. But that good will have the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation name on it, so Buffett's role may end up being forgotten.
Perhaps that's for the best, given the number of Bill Gates conspiracy theories are floating around.
Elisabeth did not have a product or well functioning company and if she decided to sell (even if she could) large portion of her shares this would likely cause investors to panic
Ie buybacks, dividends and liquidation are important. Stock prices don't exist in a vacuum.
It boils down to what do you think the discounted cash flow (after tax) is going to be? Which, with companies, was historically considered to mostly be the net present value of dividends.
You may think one majority shareholder (including yourself) is better and/or will optimize cash flows closer to what you desire than another. But otherwise it's still the cash flows that ultimately determine the value.
Whereas when you buy a private company, the actual revenue the company makes after the sale does matter crucially. Unless you're just looking to "flip" the company.
If you bought TSLA low and sold now, you could make a tidy profit even though Tesla itself never made a profit during the entire time you owned it.
There are other outcomes that could give cash to TSLA shareholders, but fine. I'm perfectly comfortable saying that there's no rational basis to TSLA share price and that the price is propped up by speculators gambling/subscribing to the greater fool theory. (Even if some think TSLA is going to be the most valuable company in the world in 10 years or whatever and will start paying dividends, spinning off assets, etc.)
A variable interest rate alters the situation, but if interests rates vary wildly during the fixed loan period, you've got an entire economy out of control. In recent years, interest rates have been relatively steady.
Only thing relating current price to future stock price is the hopes and dreams of speculators.
If I've learnt anything this year, it's the stock market is really resilient against global pandemics.
And that governments are willing to do so much to keep the economy going like it's their poster child of success.
> Unlike most automotive companies, Tesla Inc (NASDAQ: TSLA) offers stock options and grants to all of its employees.
> Regardless of rank or position, all Tesla employees are offered this benefit.
In any case, customer surplus is the thing to watch out for.
Amazon has a good track record with that. Indirect evidence: a while ago the moment they announced that they were getting into the health insurance business, healthcare companies' stocks dropped.
See eg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-30/health-st...
Once Starlink gets going many expect it to rake in the cash but Musk has said quite explicitly that they're going to spend it on going to Mars. It wouldn't be hard to structure that spending either as expenses or charity. So again, no profit to be taxed on.
This is of course why he's keeping SpaceX private. Investors have to understand that SpaceX's future profits are going to Mars, not back to the investors.
edit: this isn't completely true. They do plan on spinning off Starlink, so if they do it should be profitable and pay taxes. Musk may shuffle his Starlink profits into a Mars expdition, but Starlink itself will pay taxes and other owners will end up paying capital gains taxes etc.
That's actually a pretty popular position amongst mainstream economists.
See Estonian corporate tax
Obviously I’m nowhere near neither Buffet’s nor Musk’s league :)
Aren't you missing some possibilities?
There's a guy who took equity on his house and opened multiple lines of credit to invest with margin, made over a million, and then lost it all.
Meanwhile passive investors making a cool annualized 5% above inflation will retire rich.
Now the government and Fed are offering almost unlimited liquidity to businesses so he can't do that. The problem with this is that the government is NOT getting Buffet like terms.
For the comment about the Fed, see eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspan_put