dutchman Posted February 14, 2020 Share Posted February 14, 2020 Yeah it does. It just seemed like a big sell at first glance. I know they're buying back a lot of shares, so I'm not sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Hjorth Posted February 14, 2020 Share Posted February 14, 2020 Looks like Berkshire is selling out Berkshire still needs to stay under 10% ownership, right? It has been selling its position down over time to stay well under that ownership %. Not exactly the time for "talk", right? Dutchman, what do you have as the total share count of WFC, & and the number of shares held by Berkshire EOP 2019Q4 [including NEAM]? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchman Posted February 14, 2020 Share Posted February 14, 2020 shares outstanding q4 2019: 4.134b so Berkshire has 323,212,918 + 23000000 (gen re?) which puts them at around 8.4%. Im sure i messed this up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foreign Tuffett Posted February 14, 2020 Share Posted February 14, 2020 shares outstanding q4 2019: 4.134b so Berkshire has 323,212,918 + 23000000 (gen re?) which puts them at around 8.4%. Im sure i messed this up. Yeah, 8.4%. The filing says as much on page two. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/72971/000119312520038282/d852259dsc13ga.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchman Posted February 14, 2020 Share Posted February 14, 2020 Is this the first time he's not just under 10? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mephistopheles Posted February 14, 2020 Share Posted February 14, 2020 This isn't good. Does he think the problems at the bank are permanent? The stock right now reminds me of BAC in 2011. They've got all the infrastructure to be a solid big bank and there aren't that many of them. Bizzarre to me that he's giving up. Just like it was bizzarre that he never built up the JPM stake to 10% of shares out after that first purchase. Never bought back enough BRK stock at 200. Meanwhile $130 billion cash doing nothing and now liquidating WFC at a good valuation when IT is repurchasing 10% of stock per year. Is the old man losing it?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Hjorth Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 This isn't good. Does he think the problems at the bank are permanent? The stock right now reminds me of BAC in 2011. They've got all the infrastructure to be a solid big bank and there aren't that many of them. Bizzarre to me that he's giving up. Just like it was bizzarre that he never built up the JPM stake to 10% of shares out after that first purchase. Never bought back enough BRK stock at 200. Meanwhile $130 billion cash doing nothing and now liquidating WFC at a good valuation when IT is repurchasing 10% of stock per year. Is the old man losing it?? Wake up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregmal Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 This isn't good. Does he think the problems at the bank are permanent? The stock right now reminds me of BAC in 2011. They've got all the infrastructure to be a solid big bank and there aren't that many of them. Bizzarre to me that he's giving up. Just like it was bizzarre that he never built up the JPM stake to 10% of shares out after that first purchase. Never bought back enough BRK stock at 200. Meanwhile $130 billion cash doing nothing and now liquidating WFC at a good valuation when IT is repurchasing 10% of stock per year. Is the old man losing it?? I agree with your sentiment, but I also dont think WFC going from 10% to 8.xx% is anything to cry over given the other bank exposure in the BRK portfolio. All of which, IMO are of higher quality than WFC, although WFC is probably the cheapest. That said, and Ive long been a critic of Buffett's paralysis the last few years, with the markets behaving wilder than a group of co-eds on spring break, I'm glad Buffett has all of that cash in his portfolio, because I dont in mine. Its a nice little value hedge, which Ive quickly made about a 7% position, up from 0.0% in December. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Hjorth Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 This isn't good. Does he think the problems at the bank are permanent? The stock right now reminds me of BAC in 2011. They've got all the infrastructure to be a solid big bank and there aren't that many of them. Bizzarre to me that he's giving up. Just like it was bizzarre that he never built up the JPM stake to 10% of shares out after that first purchase. Never bought back enough BRK stock at 200. Meanwhile $130 billion cash doing nothing and now liquidating WFC at a good valuation when IT is repurchasing 10% of stock per year. Is the old man losing it?? I agree with your sentiment, but I also dont think WFC going from 10% to 8.xx% is anything to cry over given the other bank exposure in the BRK portfolio. All of which, IMO are of higher quality than WFC, although WFC is probably the cheapest. That said, and Ive long been a critic of Buffett's paralysis the last few years, with the markets behaving wilder than a group of co-eds on spring break, I'm glad Buffett has all of that cash in his portfolio, because I dont in mine. Its a nice little value hedge, which Ive quickly made about a 7% position, up from 0.0% in December. Wouldn't it be rational [and prudent] to look at WFC as an investment as stand alone? It simply does not deliver, and hasn't done, now for years! [No matter what Mr. Buffett & Mr. Munger may have said, at Berkshire AGMs etc.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregmal Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 This isn't good. Does he think the problems at the bank are permanent? The stock right now reminds me of BAC in 2011. They've got all the infrastructure to be a solid big bank and there aren't that many of them. Bizzarre to me that he's giving up. Just like it was bizzarre that he never built up the JPM stake to 10% of shares out after that first purchase. Never bought back enough BRK stock at 200. Meanwhile $130 billion cash doing nothing and now liquidating WFC at a good valuation when IT is repurchasing 10% of stock per year. Is the old man losing it?? I agree with your sentiment, but I also dont think WFC going from 10% to 8.xx% is anything to cry over given the other bank exposure in the BRK portfolio. All of which, IMO are of higher quality than WFC, although WFC is probably the cheapest. That said, and Ive long been a critic of Buffett's paralysis the last few years, with the markets behaving wilder than a group of co-eds on spring break, I'm glad Buffett has all of that cash in his portfolio, because I dont in mine. Its a nice little value hedge, which Ive quickly made about a 7% position, up from 0.0% in December. Wouldn't it be rational [and prudent] to look at WFC as an investment as stand alone? It simply does not deliver, and hasn't done, now for years! [No matter what Mr. Buffett & Mr. Munger may have said, at Berkshire AGMs etc.] To BRK or to WFC? If you're going to sling single stock WFC, sure. But I've in the past made the mistake of getting hung up on such scrutiny, which I think misses the mark. Dec/Jan 2018-19 I "liked" the banks. I though Apple was kind of a pain, but also did agree with everyone else that the sell off was probably overdone. As such, rather than go long the banks or AAPL, I grabbed BRK for some look through exposure. Well, the banks did fine and AAPL was probably my most glaring whiff, and BRK during the same period I kicked myself maybe went from $197-$216... My point if I have one, is that if you're a fan of WFC, buy it, If you're not really a fan of WFC, it shouldn't really effect whether you like BRK. After all, I kind of view one of the benefits to owning BRK is that you're delegating a lot of the decision making to powers greater than oneself. For me, Ive swung heavily from Q1 19 to now, from heavily levered, to raising cash. Putting dollars into BRK continues to allow me to do that while also keeping alive some call options on markets performing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spekulatius Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 WFC is a value trap, it will take years to work out current issues relative to the Account scandal. In the mean time, competition will move ahead of them. Also note how Munger was flaming the new CEO who can’t even bebothered to move from NYC to WFC’s headquarter. It’s shows lack of commitment. I think they just had it with WFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LC Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 Not a value trap IMHO as I don’t think there will be terminal decline however it looks like a 3+ year transition period. But the banks in general don’t look so hot as rates approach zero. The institutional banks may fare better as they are not as dependent on consumer banking. Which it looks like WB agrees with as he sells down BAC and WFC but maintains JPM. USBank appears the outlier and I have some theory on it but it is anecdotal: an old colleague was a Sequoia analyst and relayed his meetings with Buffett and WB’s belief that USBank was the best managed of (larger) US banks. That may be why he did not sell. Just my 2 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rasputin Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 Brian Moynihan still lives in Boston while running BAC with headquarter in Charlotte, NC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorpRaider Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 I think Wells probably has more employees in CLT than San Fran and more employees in CLT than BofA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mephistopheles Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 WFC is a value trap, it will take years to work out current issues relative to the Account scandal. In the mean time, competition will move ahead of them. Also note how Munger was flaming the new CEO who can’t even bebothered to move from NYC to WFC’s headquarter. It’s shows lack of commitment. I think they just had it with WFC. I must have missed Munger flaming the new CEO, what did he say exactly? Ted Weschler spends half his time in Virginia, do you consider that half ass commitment? Sure Wells has these issues and it will take a few years. If there was no hair the stock would be 50% higher. Btw BofA had immense issues in 2011... My friend works at WFC in the investment bank. He says the new CEO is doing a top to bottom review of every single business unit in order to streamline. This guy trained under Jamie Dimon, I'm willing to give him a chance, SF or NYC. They still have the deposits and the branches, they just need to figure out how to make the ingredients work better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mephistopheles Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 This isn't good. Does he think the problems at the bank are permanent? The stock right now reminds me of BAC in 2011. They've got all the infrastructure to be a solid big bank and there aren't that many of them. Bizzarre to me that he's giving up. Just like it was bizzarre that he never built up the JPM stake to 10% of shares out after that first purchase. Never bought back enough BRK stock at 200. Meanwhile $130 billion cash doing nothing and now liquidating WFC at a good valuation when IT is repurchasing 10% of stock per year. Is the old man losing it?? I agree with your sentiment, but I also dont think WFC going from 10% to 8.xx% is anything to cry over given the other bank exposure in the BRK portfolio. All of which, IMO are of higher quality than WFC, although WFC is probably the cheapest. That said, and Ive long been a critic of Buffett's paralysis the last few years, with the markets behaving wilder than a group of co-eds on spring break, I'm glad Buffett has all of that cash in his portfolio, because I dont in mine. Its a nice little value hedge, which Ive quickly made about a 7% position, up from 0.0% in December. I don't think they're trying to reduce exposure to banking. I think the Apple position is larger than total of the banking stakes. Would be weird for him to want to reduce exposure. 10 to 8.4% is a pretty big reduction imo. But as we have concluded on his paralysis, I'm not running to sell my WFC shares just yet. Agree on BRK being a good hedge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleepydragon Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 Could Web is just doing some year end tax loss harvesting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rb Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 I don't think he's got tax losses on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cigarbutt Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 I don't think he's got tax losses on this one. Somebody thought about this (cost basis) recently: https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/01/18/heres-how-much-warren-buffett-has-made-on-wells-fa.aspx Using an overall perspective and Okonomen's terminology, the move could be considered "minuscule".. ---) rb, nice to see your surgical comments back. I can't wait for you to hit me with your best shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spekulatius Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 WFC is a value trap, it will take years to work out current issues relative to the Account scandal. In the mean time, competition will move ahead of them. Also note how Munger was flaming the new CEO who can’t even bebothered to move from NYC to WFC’s headquarter. It’s shows lack of commitment. I think they just had it with WFC. I must have missed Munger flaming the new CEO, what did he say exactly? Ted Weschler spends half his time in Virginia, do you consider that half ass commitment? Sure Wells has these issues and it will take a few years. If there was no hair the stock would be 50% higher. Btw BofA had immense issues in 2011... My friend works at WFC in the investment bank. He says the new CEO is doing a top to bottom review of every single business unit in order to streamline. This guy trained under Jamie Dimon, I'm willing to give him a chance, SF or NYC. They still have the deposits and the branches, they just need to figure out how to make the ingredients work better. It was during the Daily Journal shareholder Meeting https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-12/munger-says-wells-fargo-ceo-scharf-ought-to-be-in-san-francisco Right or wrong, I don’t think they like the latest moves and the new Management and that May be the reason they sell down their position. I agree that WFC‘s issues are fixable, but you have the pot. issue that this stock is dead money for another couple of years while the competition is moving forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Hjorth Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency - News Release 2020-6 | [January 23rd 2020] : OCC Issues Notice of Charges Against Five Former Senior Wells Fargo Bank Executives, Announces Settlement With Others. Mr. Otting setting new standards for US bank CEOs with regard to personal responsibility and liability, ramping a huge pole through the general concept of moral hazard, by setting an example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DooDiligence Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 WFC is a value trap, it will take years to work out current issues relative to the Account scandal. In the mean time, competition will move ahead of them. Also note how Munger was flaming the new CEO who can’t even bebothered to move from NYC to WFC’s headquarter. It’s shows lack of commitment. I think they just had it with WFC. I must have missed Munger flaming the new CEO, what did he say exactly? Ted Weschler spends half his time in Virginia, do you consider that half ass commitment? Sure Wells has these issues and it will take a few years. If there was no hair the stock would be 50% higher. Btw BofA had immense issues in 2011... My friend works at WFC in the investment bank. He says the new CEO is doing a top to bottom review of every single business unit in order to streamline. This guy trained under Jamie Dimon, I'm willing to give him a chance, SF or NYC. They still have the deposits and the branches, they just need to figure out how to make the ingredients work better. Charles Munger, whose Berkshire Hathaway Inc. and Daily Journal Corp. are shareholders in Wells Fargo & Co., isn’t a fan of the work arrangement set up by the bank’s new chief executive officer. “That’s outrageous,” Munger, 96, said Wednesday in an interview when asked about Charlie Scharf’s choice to live in New York while running the San Francisco-based lender. “Anybody should move for a big job like that.” www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-12/munger-says-wells-fargo-ceo-scharf-ought-to-be-in-san-francisco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Hjorth Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 Brian Moynihan still lives in Boston while running BAC with headquarter in Charlotte, NC. Thanks, Rasputin, I did not know that BAC too was built with a remote control. [it must some serious apps on Mr. Moynihan's & Mr. Scharf's phones.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foreign Tuffett Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 Charles Munger, whose Berkshire Hathaway Inc. and Daily Journal Corp. are shareholders in Wells Fargo & Co., isn’t a fan of the work arrangement set up by the bank’s new chief executive officer. “That’s outrageous,” Munger, 96, said Wednesday in an interview when asked about Charlie Scharf’s choice to live in New York while running the San Francisco-based lender. “Anybody should move for a big job like that.” www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-12/munger-says-wells-fargo-ceo-scharf-ought-to-be-in-san-francisco Munger has lived in the Los Angeles area for many, many decades despite Berkshire being based in Omaha. Despite being 96 (!) years old, Munger has two jobs: Vice Chairman of Berkshire and Chairman of DJCO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DooDiligence Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 Charles Munger, whose Berkshire Hathaway Inc. and Daily Journal Corp. are shareholders in Wells Fargo & Co., isn’t a fan of the work arrangement set up by the bank’s new chief executive officer. “That’s outrageous,” Munger, 96, said Wednesday in an interview when asked about Charlie Scharf’s choice to live in New York while running the San Francisco-based lender. “Anybody should move for a big job like that.” www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-12/munger-says-wells-fargo-ceo-scharf-ought-to-be-in-san-francisco Munger has lived in the Los Angeles area for many, many decades despite Berkshire being based in Omaha. Despite being 96 (!) years old, Munger has two jobs: Vice Chairman of Berkshire and Chairman of DJCO. He's a lovable old curmudgeon who just realized that newspapers are dead. Probably still has a flip phone & can't figure out how to use a Roku box. Personally, I'm OK with Scharf doing his thing at a distance. The move seems more than just symbolic of a necessary shakeup, and fits well with the new organizational splits. Charlie forgot to invert this time. My money will probably burn for this heresy. 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