Hacker News Reader

Comment by BennyBallTC | Hacker News Reader

Many people do not know this but he still holds the stock that he first bought as a 13y old. It is now worth 8+ figures!

View on HN

Not true. He bought his first stock at 11 by pooling money with his sister, and sold after it dropped 30% then bounced back up to a profit. The stock was "Cities Service" which became Citgo later.

I've read this years ago in "The Warren Buffett Portfolio", but couldn't find a definitive source for this response quickly, so here (https://www.fool.com/how-to-invest/2014/03/15/the-very-first...) is the reference I used to recount the details above.

Wording. That stock in question he first bought at 13 is Texas Pacific Land and he still owns it. It may not have been "his first ever" but he holds that one still.

To be fair that was around the time Columbus was sailing across the ocean blue

Maybe someone can enlighten me, but what's the point of "never selling"? Stocks are not a collectible that you can just look at for fun. Their whole point is to sell for profit, at some time. Maybe it's just me but if you "never cash out", that seems a waste of capital. Or perhaps this is a marketing stunt wealthy people sometimes to? Akin to "I live in a small house".

this is such a funny comment, we are so tech-pilled that we forgot companies traditionally pay dividends and that’s the reason to invest, to share in the profits, not to speculate

Interestingly enough, Berkshire Hathaway is famous for never paying dividends (except once, I think), and instead use the income to speculate on buying new companies. https://www.fool.com/investing/2026/09/12/berkshire-hathaway...

Buybacks are dividends by another name.

But in that case, you do have to sell to get any cash out, so "never selling" is similar to reinvesting dividends.

Why would I want someone creating taxable events for me? Under the current tax regime, buybacks are vastly superior.

As long as you have an accurate sense of the intrinsic value of your shares at any given time; there is a price at which buybacks destroy more value for continuing shareholders than they would lose to taxes on dividends.

Speculate isn't the right word to use for Berkshire's investments.

I wish I saw this comment two years ago while the stock price of one of our local company is still cheap. I sold all my shared before the price slightly tanked, earning just around 14% profit. Now two years later the price has gone up ~100% and they paid dividends twice during the time.

Should have treated it the old-fashion way, not the modern day-trading way.

Because if you don't sell you don't pay taxes. You can instead borrow against the asset and get a credit for the interest you pay. The joys of being filthy rich.

If it pays a dividend there is income. Buy and hold is a very common approach to investing. Overtime the cost basis of a good stock will decrease. Some could be sold to invest in other things.

Buy and hold is a hedge against inflation as good if goods increases the the stock reflects the relative expansion of the money supply.

Technically you can borrow money against your share, if you think your share gains will be higher than the interest rate you essentially have free money (although, obviously, not risk free). So that is a use for never selling shares.

Also some shares pay dividends.

wealth needs to be kept somewhere. you can either keep it in cash where it inflates away. or in bonds that also inflates away but slower or stocks that is a hedge against inflation.

so the point is protecting your wealth against inflation and continuing the compounding over long stretches of time.

you can liquidate as required or even borrow against it like the very rich do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com