rkbabang Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 If Buffett is looking for an elephant to purchase why not acquire BAM and make Flatt the next CEO... +1 I'd be a lot less worried about his inevitable retirement if he did this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
augustabound Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 If Buffett is looking for an elephant to purchase why not acquire BAM and make Flatt the next CEO... +1 I'd be a lot less worried about his inevitable retirement if he did this. How would current BAM shareholders feel about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uccmal Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 If Buffett is looking for an elephant to purchase why not acquire BAM and make Flatt the next CEO... +1 I'd be a lot less worried about his inevitable retirement if he did this. Please no. Dont take Bruce away..... He will get much better returns for shareholders of BAM over the next 15 years than if he took over the much bigger BRK. Besides, wouldn't you think that Bruce wants to keep building what he has been working on. Thats where the fun is. I am envious. If only I could handle the stress and was a wee bit (okay, alot) smarter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uccmal Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 If Buffett is looking for an elephant to purchase why not acquire BAM and make Flatt the next CEO... +1 I'd be a lot less worried about his inevitable retirement if he did this. How would current BAM shareholders feel about this? I think I was typing and sending when you posted this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
augustabound Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 If Buffett is looking for an elephant to purchase why not acquire BAM and make Flatt the next CEO... +1 I'd be a lot less worried about his inevitable retirement if he did this. Please no. Dont take Bruce away..... He will get much better returns for shareholders of BAM over the next 15 years than if he took over the much bigger BRK. Besides, wouldn't you think that Bruce wants to keep building what he has been working on. Thats where the fun is. I am envious. If only I could handle the stress and was a wee bit (okay, alot) smarter. Yes. I don't see upside to BAM being bought out. This is a compounder (hopefully) for years to come. But I absolutely see why some would want a guy like Bruce Flatt at the helm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Hjorth Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 Please no. Dont take Bruce away..... He will get much better returns for shareholders of BAM over the next 15 years than if he took over the much bigger BRK. Besides, wouldn't you think that Bruce wants to keep building what he has been working on. Thats where the fun is. I am envious. If only I could handle the stress and was a wee bit (okay, alot) smarter. Well, there you got the answer to your question, augustabound! Never say never - But I think between Mr. Buffett and Mr. Flatt, a material part boils down to price. I actually can't imagine those two persons getting to an agreement about the relative values of Berkshire and Brookfield - ever, if they tried - no matter how hard they tried. Lots of other obstacles added to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wabash02 Posted January 7, 2018 Share Posted January 7, 2018 If I could work for/with anyone today, Bruce Flatt is certainly the person I'd pick. Like jumping in with the BRK crew 30 years ago or so.... If Buffett is looking for an elephant to purchase why not acquire BAM and make Flatt the next CEO... +1 I'd be a lot less worried about his inevitable retirement if he did this. Please no. Dont take Bruce away..... He will get much better returns for shareholders of BAM over the next 15 years than if he took over the much bigger BRK. Besides, wouldn't you think that Bruce wants to keep building what he has been working on. Thats where the fun is. I am envious. If only I could handle the stress and was a wee bit (okay, alot) smarter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiddman Posted January 7, 2018 Share Posted January 7, 2018 I've had large positions in both Berkshire and Brookfield for about 15 years. One of the things I like about having both investments is that they are in many ways completely different, and yet each company is widely diversified and based on cash flow returns. Berkshire is almost entirely in the US, has long term holdings, organic growth, makes little use of debt or financing, and Buffett at the helm. Brookfield is very international in multiple countries, is more transactional, makes heavy use of debt and financing, and the management team is about 10-15 people who are all considerably younger than Buffett and Munger. I really don't think that Berkshire would have any interest in acquiring Brookfield or any of its subsidiaries, and it's interesting to me that even though both of them have broad reach, they almost never encounter one another or partner on any investments. They just have totally different approaches. I think that Buffett and the Berkshire execs would be put off by Brookfield's use of debt and financing, and while Brookfield in some ways models its business after Berkshire, it could not do what it does without debt financing. The secret to Brookfield's success is access to third party capital, but Berkshire has always generated its own capital via insurance companies. I think both companies have a bright future but over the next 20 years I think that Brookfield probably has more opportunities for growth and a broader reach. BAM has a market cap of only $43B, all of the Brookfield subs combined add up to around $70B. Berkshire is nearly 10x as large with a market cap of $500B and its returns are still driven primarily by one person. Brookfield is driven by a team of younger execs who each have their own opportunities for growth. In fact I think Berkshire could learn something from Brookfield's culture and management style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubsfan Posted January 7, 2018 Share Posted January 7, 2018 I own them both as well - and I think this is a very insightful view contrasting the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
investmd Posted January 7, 2018 Share Posted January 7, 2018 I own them both as well - and I think this is a very insightful view contrasting the two. +1 Tiddman - thanks. Seems like between owning BRK, BAM and FFH one could likely have a sustainable long term portfolio that over time generates substantially more than the S&P 500 and is easy to maintain. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james22 Posted January 7, 2018 Share Posted January 7, 2018 I really don't think that Berkshire would have any interest in acquiring Brookfield or any of its subsidiaries, and it's interesting to me that even though both of them have broad reach, they almost never encounter one another or partner on any investments. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA--(Marketwire - Oct 30, 2012) - HomeServices of America, Inc.™, a Berkshire Hathaway affiliate, and Brookfield Asset Management (BAM.A)(BAM)(EURONEXT:BAMA), announced today that they have partnered to introduce Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices®-a new franchise brand that joins the existing brands and affiliate networks of Prudential Real Estate and Real Living Real Estate. Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices® combines the financial strength of both organizations, coupled with the operational excellence of HomeServices and superior real estate franchising experience of Brookfield. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/homeservices-brookfield-announce-residential-real-131516461.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james22 Posted January 7, 2018 Share Posted January 7, 2018 I do agree they are nicely complementary, tiddman. I'd be OK if they were my only two positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubsfan Posted January 7, 2018 Share Posted January 7, 2018 Berkshire has partnered up with Brookfield a couple times. As Berkshire has with Luecadia. And I think their is plenty of mutual respect. But Tiddman's points are still worth thinking about. They operate and finance growth differently. Personally, as raised a few posts back - I'd hate to see BAM acquired by Berkshire, as I'm looking at BAM as long run compounder. Other than a stock swap, I think a cash offer might undervalue BAM. My two largest positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiddman Posted January 7, 2018 Share Posted January 7, 2018 Seems like between owning BRK, BAM and FFH one could likely have a sustainable long term portfolio that over time generates substantially more than the S&P 500 and is easy to maintain. Thoughts? I know that FFH is a favorite around here but I've never liked it at anything above book value. Whereas I think Berkshire is undervalued at 1.4x book I think FFH is significantly overvalued at the same metric. It is the operating businesses and recurring earnings that make the difference. I am much more interested in both Berkshire and Brookfield for this reason, the operating businesses, and the ability to reinvest capital. I don't feel that FFH has the same qualities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karthikpm Posted January 7, 2018 Share Posted January 7, 2018 Seems like between owning BRK, BAM and FFH one could likely have a sustainable long term portfolio that over time generates substantially more than the S&P 500 and is easy to maintain. Thoughts? I know that FFH is a favorite around here but I've never liked it at anything above book value. Whereas I think Berkshire is undervalued at 1.4x book I think FFH is significantly overvalued at the same metric. It is the operating businesses and recurring earnings that make the difference. I am much more interested in both Berkshire and Brookfield for this reason, the operating businesses, and the ability to reinvest capital. I don't feel that FFH has the same qualities. +1 I own all three but have to agree with your comments. However, FFH is becoming a better operating business Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiddman Posted January 7, 2018 Share Posted January 7, 2018 What non-insurance operating businesses does Fairfax have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Hjorth Posted January 7, 2018 Share Posted January 7, 2018 That must go to some Fairfax topic, tiddman [ : - ) ] However, I very much appreciate your condensed write-up in this topic of Berkshire vs. Brookfield. I suppose only a long term investor - and very well wandered - in both can do such an impressive write-up within max. 15 lines. Thank you. - I really hope that you'll post more frequently here on CoBF going forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villainx Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 Folding BAM into BRK kinda makes sense for both. BAM can put BRK cash to good use, especially since a lot of stuff is capital/organic/M&A intensive, and has loads of operational expertise. BAM doesn't have to be as dependent on various funding source. But my sense is that unless BRK gives a great deal, BAM is more than happy with whatever it's doing. BAM might get some benefits under BRK, but it can do any deal it wants with what it has. And like BRK, BAM seems to take enormous pride with working with their investors. There are also lots of different insider/controlling shareholders (from what I understand) to work out a BAM sale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shane Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 Through Berkshire Hathaway Energy - Berkshire already invests quite a bit in infrastructure (Utilities). Given the success of BAM with less traditional infrastructure (I'm thinking toll roads, Ports, etc...) I am a bit confused as to why Berkshire hasn't moved into the space. Am I perhaps missing something? Does anyone who has followed MidAmerican/BHE know why they haven't branched out into other hard assets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubsfan Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 Might be as simple as BAM provides substantial management and operating expertise, and Berkshire does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shane Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 Seems like it wouldn't be hard to bring that expertise in house via hiring... After all, paying a team $10-20m a year is nothing if they can put billions to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrispy Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 Brookfield are real asset operators that recently began putting money to work for clients. Almost everyone else has been managing money and is now trying to figure out the operational aspect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchman Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 Is BAM.A the right ticker for toronto ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICUMD Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 Would appreciate some help understanding valuation of this company and some of its subsidiaries. Brookfield Asset Management BAM.A: PE ratio is 30, BV is 34 (P/B is 1.6). 50% debt to capital load. It appears on the surface to be overvalued by these metrics. I like the business a lot, but why should I buy it now? Brookfield Business Partners BBU.UN: PE ratio is 75, BV is $60 (P/B is 0.78). 37% debt to capital load. Better value??? Brookfield Infrastructure Partners BIP.UN: PE 36, BV 19.32 (P/B is 2.84). 44% debt to capital load. Very overvalued? I'm sure I'm oversimplifying everything here and I love the underlying business, but would it not be a risk going into a market correction given these values? With the exception of BBU.UN, they all seem overvalued (assuming my values are correct...) Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gokou3 Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 Folding BAM into BRK kinda makes sense for both. BAM can put BRK cash to good use, especially since a lot of stuff is capital/organic/M&A intensive, and has loads of operational expertise. BAM doesn't have to be as dependent on various funding source. But my sense is that unless BRK gives a great deal, BAM is more than happy with whatever it's doing. BAM might get some benefits under BRK, but it can do any deal it wants with what it has. And like BRK, BAM seems to take enormous pride with working with their investors. There are also lots of different insider/controlling shareholders (from what I understand) to work out a BAM sale. BRK should just participate in BAM's fund-raising effort. BRK will get a good return of its idle cash (above what it can do on its own), BAM has good growth opportunities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now