- Joined
- Aug 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,853
- Reaction score
- 1,329
Just take a look at that dinosaur. And people actually believe reptilians are not a race…..smh
Economy stonks v26
- Thread starter rob mafia
- Start date
Just take a look at that dinosaur. And people actually believe reptilians are not a race…..smh
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2006
- Messages
- 26,929
- Reaction score
- 72,510
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2006
- Messages
- 26,929
- Reaction score
- 72,510
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2012
- Messages
- 25,249
- Reaction score
- 49,170
Berkshire Annual report released. Buffett getting sassy with those who criticize buybacks:
A very minor gain in per-share intrinsic value took place in 2022 through Berkshire share repurchases as well as similar moves at Apple and American Express, both significant investees of ours. At Berkshire, we directly increased your interest in our unique collection of businesses by repurchasing 1.2% of the company’s outstanding shares. At Apple and Amex, repurchases increased Berkshire’s ownership a bit without any cost to us.
The math isn’t complicated: When the share count goes down, your interest in our many businesses goes up. Every small bit helps if repurchases are made at value-accretive prices. Just as surely, when a company overpays for repurchases, the continuing shareholders lose. At such times, gains flow only to the selling shareholders and to the friendly, but expensive, investment banker who recommended the foolish purchases.
Gains from value-accretive repurchases, it should be emphasized, benefit all owners – in every respect. Imagine, if you will, three fully-informed shareholders of a local auto dealership, one of whom manages the business. Imagine, further, that one of the passive owners wishes to sell his interest back to the company at a price attractive to the two continuing shareholders. When completed, has this transaction harmed anyone? Is the manager somehow favored over the continuing passive owners? Has the public been hurt?
When you are told that all repurchases are harmful to shareholders or to the country, or particularly beneficial to CEOs, you are listening to either an economic illiterate or a silver-tongued demagogue (characters that are not mutually exclusive).
A very minor gain in per-share intrinsic value took place in 2022 through Berkshire share repurchases as well as similar moves at Apple and American Express, both significant investees of ours. At Berkshire, we directly increased your interest in our unique collection of businesses by repurchasing 1.2% of the company’s outstanding shares. At Apple and Amex, repurchases increased Berkshire’s ownership a bit without any cost to us.
The math isn’t complicated: When the share count goes down, your interest in our many businesses goes up. Every small bit helps if repurchases are made at value-accretive prices. Just as surely, when a company overpays for repurchases, the continuing shareholders lose. At such times, gains flow only to the selling shareholders and to the friendly, but expensive, investment banker who recommended the foolish purchases.
Gains from value-accretive repurchases, it should be emphasized, benefit all owners – in every respect. Imagine, if you will, three fully-informed shareholders of a local auto dealership, one of whom manages the business. Imagine, further, that one of the passive owners wishes to sell his interest back to the company at a price attractive to the two continuing shareholders. When completed, has this transaction harmed anyone? Is the manager somehow favored over the continuing passive owners? Has the public been hurt?
When you are told that all repurchases are harmful to shareholders or to the country, or particularly beneficial to CEOs, you are listening to either an economic illiterate or a silver-tongued demagogue (characters that are not mutually exclusive).
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2004
- Messages
- 19,055
- Reaction score
- 9,809
tbf, while biden/warren/dems (what he's referring to, i guess) are criticizing buybacks, they seem to mostly be bitching about the oil companies' buybacks, which are seemingly at high/inflated stock prices.
obviously, buybacks are usually fine. but it's ironic that the dems are bitching about buybacks so much after palling around with intel (and funneling taxbucks to intel with biden's baby, the chips act), who had done the most egregious/greedy buybacks in ages. (blowing a couple hundred billion into buybacks for some millions in bonuses, embezzling done dumb)
if oxy was doing buybacks en masse in 2020, yeah. but buybacks at 2022 prices isn't much of a win. not that i'd criticize it, they're damned if they do/don't, in their position. seems to be sit on cash or buybacks, not much of a choice.
obviously, buybacks are usually fine. but it's ironic that the dems are bitching about buybacks so much after palling around with intel (and funneling taxbucks to intel with biden's baby, the chips act), who had done the most egregious/greedy buybacks in ages. (blowing a couple hundred billion into buybacks for some millions in bonuses, embezzling done dumb)
if oxy was doing buybacks en masse in 2020, yeah. but buybacks at 2022 prices isn't much of a win. not that i'd criticize it, they're damned if they do/don't, in their position. seems to be sit on cash or buybacks, not much of a choice.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2006
- Messages
- 26,929
- Reaction score
- 72,510
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2006
- Messages
- 26,929
- Reaction score
- 72,510
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2010
- Messages
- 26,262
- Reaction score
- 36,271
I got out at 2 this morning at least I can write off the losses
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2004
- Messages
- 19,055
- Reaction score
- 9,809
holy shit.
![[<dunn]](http://i.imgur.com/tNvC16j.png "dunn [<dunn]")
actually thought she sounded less insane/dumb than usual. but her takes on playing ai were still wacky... but i guess less insane than i was expecting.
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2006
- Messages
- 10,590
- Reaction score
- 9,394
Damn RIP SMSI (and likely TMUS) . Can't believe that shit. I at least sold all my trading shares in the $3's for a good profit, but hurting on my longs. I bought 6k shares this morning between $1.33-$1.40 for likely trading purposes. Have a limit order at $1.30, but doesn't seem it will get there. Also 4x average trading volume this past Friday. Smith Micro knew about this before that so you know some inside trading occurred.
Edit: It was Verizon that they are losing, not T-Mobile.
Edit: It was Verizon that they are losing, not T-Mobile.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2012
- Messages
- 25,249
- Reaction score
- 49,170
UNP some weird shit. Up 10% today. They're searching for a new CEO. Articles are making it sound like a major catalyst for CEO removal was the hedge fund Soroban Capital complaining, but they only own a bit more than 1% of shares.
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2012
- Messages
- 25,249
- Reaction score
- 49,170
On at least four occasions since 2019, Elon Musk has predicted that his medical device company, Neuralink, would soon start human trials of a revolutionary brain implant to treat intractable conditions such as paralysis and blindness.
Yet the company, founded in 2016, didn’t seek permission from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) until early 2022 – and the agency rejected the application, seven current and former employees told Reuters.
The rejection has not been previously reported. In explaining the decision to Neuralink, the agency outlined dozens of issues the company must address before human testing, a critical milestone on the path to final product approval, the staffers said. The agency’s major safety concerns involved the device’s lithium battery; the potential for the implant’s tiny wires to migrate to other areas of the brain; and questions over whether and how the device can be removed without damaging brain tissue, the employees said.
A year after the rejection, Neuralink is still working through the agency’s concerns. Three staffers said they were skeptical the company could quickly resolve the issues – despite Musk’s latest prediction at a Nov. 30 presentation that the company would secure FDA human-trial approval this spring.
Neuralink has not disclosed details of its trial application, the FDA’s rejection or the extent of the agency’s concerns.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/neuralink-musk-fda/?utm
Yet the company, founded in 2016, didn’t seek permission from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) until early 2022 – and the agency rejected the application, seven current and former employees told Reuters.
The rejection has not been previously reported. In explaining the decision to Neuralink, the agency outlined dozens of issues the company must address before human testing, a critical milestone on the path to final product approval, the staffers said. The agency’s major safety concerns involved the device’s lithium battery; the potential for the implant’s tiny wires to migrate to other areas of the brain; and questions over whether and how the device can be removed without damaging brain tissue, the employees said.
A year after the rejection, Neuralink is still working through the agency’s concerns. Three staffers said they were skeptical the company could quickly resolve the issues – despite Musk’s latest prediction at a Nov. 30 presentation that the company would secure FDA human-trial approval this spring.
Neuralink has not disclosed details of its trial application, the FDA’s rejection or the extent of the agency’s concerns.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/neuralink-musk-fda/?utm
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2004
- Messages
- 19,055
- Reaction score
- 9,809
umm... k?
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2004
- Messages
- 19,055
- Reaction score
- 9,809
that was a nothingburger. they had a $10B shelf offering expire that was from the arm buyout era. so they just opened another.
on other semi news, dan loeb/third point is a passive investor in amd.
he was bigly in intc in 2020... and tried to get them to pull their heads from their asses. they refused. lolz.
not sure if he's a passive investor in amd or a "passive investor."
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2012
- Messages
- 25,249
- Reaction score
- 49,170
Thought it was a nice display of Elon's false promises that could be extended to the publicly traded companies he is/might be involved with in the future.
