8 ms·

Took. This happened in March at an average price of $109. Today it is around $93. Berkshire just disclosed it today.

by lujim 10y ago

ninkendo 10y ago
That's a really good point. Various articles are spinning it as if they bought AAPL because it's so cheap after the nosedive it's been in lately. That's not what the timeline was, and isn't really Berkshire's MO to time the market like that.
- gist 10y ago
  Well we don't know that he didn't buy more at the cheap price as well though. He could disclose today and have bought some on Friday at the lower price.
  - stingraycharles 10y ago
    But like you said, we don't know that. At this point, that is just speculation about a fact we have no reason to believe happened at all.
IBM 10y ago
You don't know what price they bought it at, it could have been purchased at any time between Jan and March (where it traded in the mid $90s frequently).
- lujim 10y ago
  True, good point. AS of March at an AVERAGE price of $109
  - SmellTheGlove 10y ago
    And in a quarter, they may disclose another contrarian buy to dollar cost average that down to $100.
frandroid 10y ago
It's amusing that BH paid the highest price you could pay for this stock in the last few months. :)
- brlewis 10y ago
  It's probably hard to buy a billion dollars of any stock without driving the price up, even if you spread purchases out.
  - jonknee 10y ago
    For most stocks, but not Apple because it's both very high market cap and very highly traded. It has been averaging 43M shares traded a day which is over 4x the size of Buffet's trade. There are also plenty of days with it trading at much more than this size (it did 113M on April 27).
    - brlewis 10y ago
      How many days do you think one would need to spread out a purchase of 1/4 of a stocks average daily volume in order not to noticeably move the price?
- joelhaus 10y ago
  Presumably Buffet would respond to you by noting that the stock market is a voting machine in the short run and a weighing machine in the long run. i.e. for the companies he owns, he isn't generally concerned with short term stock price fluctuations.
bpicolo 10y ago
Are billion dollar investments in public companies not public knowledge? (Serious question)
- lujim 10y ago
  Institutional investment managers are required to disclose their investments. In this case it's called a 13F. Corporate insiders (officers, directors, and employees) need to disclose trades involving their own company. I don't believe an individual trading his or her own money need to disclose anything to the SEC. I could be wrong though.
  - sokoloff 10y ago
    Rank and file employees generally do not have to disclose their trades. I've worked at 3 public companies and never had to disclose to the government. At Merrill Lynch (and at other private investment houses), we did have to have ALL of our trades cc'd to the compliance desk, but that's a Wall St thing, not a government thing.
- mseebach 10y ago
  I'm pretty sure the rule is around owning a certain fraction of a stock (to make sure it's publicly known if you're trying to buy a controlling stake, because this would affect the price), not the dollar-value of it. And Berkshire owns ~0.18% of AAPL.
- jonknee 10y ago
  They are once the quarterly 13F reports come out. https://www.sec.gov/answers/form13f.htm https://www.sec.gov/answers/form13f.htm For smaller companies it can also come out in a 13D which is faster (within 10 days), but only if the investment is more than 5% of the company. That's why there are a lot of ownership stakes of 4.9%.
  - vram22 10y ago
    >only if the investment is more than 5% of the company Interesting, I think it's the same percentage in Indian stock exchanges.
drzaiusapelord 10y ago
What an odd time to invest in Apple. Its in something of a slump with how it missed the mark on wearables and in something of a milquetoast design/innovation phase in general. When the watch came out Apple was selling for nearly $140. Now its $93. The market is not showing strong confidence in Apple, at least in the short term, and there's nothing on the Apple roadmap that says big growth in the future. I wonder if this is a sign of the internal politics at BH as 85 year old Buffet gets closer to retirement/death. The younger guys want to make their mark and betting on a typically galloping horse like Apple is a nice way to start the pissing contents with others wanting to run BH after Buffet goes. If Apple does a massive rebound then the guy who made this call will be seen as the young whippersnapper who 'knows tech' and can take BH into the 21st century.
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  Buying low is not a bad place to start for an investing strategy.
  - drzaiusapelord 10y ago
    I just looked at Apple's 3 year. It seems to dip and rise significantly. Maybe BH thinks that this is the bottom of a dip. I guess we'll see, but I can't remember the last time I was excited by an Apple product. They seem to be graying faster than expected as the mobile revolution evens out.

Took. This happened in March at an average price of $109. Today it is around $93. Berkshire just disclosed it today.

by lujim 10y ago

Took. This happened in March at an average price of $109. Today it is around $93. Berkshire just disclosed it today.

That's a really good point. Various articles are spinning it as if they bought AAPL because it's so cheap after the nosedive it's been in lately. That's not what the timeline was, and isn't really Berkshire's MO to time the market like that.

gist 10y ago
Well we don't know that he didn't buy more at the cheap price as well though. He could disclose today and have bought some on Friday at the lower price.
- stingraycharles 10y ago
  But like you said, we don't know that. At this point, that is just speculation about a fact we have no reason to believe happened at all.

IBM 10y ago

You don't know what price they bought it at, it could have been purchased at any time between Jan and March (where it traded in the mid $90s frequently).

lujim 10y ago
True, good point. AS of March at an AVERAGE price of $109
- SmellTheGlove 10y ago
  And in a quarter, they may disclose another contrarian buy to dollar cost average that down to $100.

frandroid 10y ago

It's amusing that BH paid the highest price you could pay for this stock in the last few months. :)

brlewis 10y ago
It's probably hard to buy a billion dollars of any stock without driving the price up, even if you spread purchases out.
- jonknee 10y ago
  For most stocks, but not Apple because it's both very high market cap and very highly traded. It has been averaging 43M shares traded a day which is over 4x the size of Buffet's trade. There are also plenty of days with it trading at much more than this size (it did 113M on April 27).
  - brlewis 10y ago
    How many days do you think one would need to spread out a purchase of 1/4 of a stocks average daily volume in order not to noticeably move the price?
joelhaus 10y ago
Presumably Buffet would respond to you by noting that the stock market is a voting machine in the short run and a weighing machine in the long run. i.e. for the companies he owns, he isn't generally concerned with short term stock price fluctuations.

bpicolo 10y ago

Are billion dollar investments in public companies not public knowledge? (Serious question)

lujim 10y ago
Institutional investment managers are required to disclose their investments. In this case it's called a 13F. Corporate insiders (officers, directors, and employees) need to disclose trades involving their own company. I don't believe an individual trading his or her own money need to disclose anything to the SEC. I could be wrong though.
- sokoloff 10y ago
  Rank and file employees generally do not have to disclose their trades. I've worked at 3 public companies and never had to disclose to the government. At Merrill Lynch (and at other private investment houses), we did have to have ALL of our trades cc'd to the compliance desk, but that's a Wall St thing, not a government thing.
mseebach 10y ago
I'm pretty sure the rule is around owning a certain fraction of a stock (to make sure it's publicly known if you're trying to buy a controlling stake, because this would affect the price), not the dollar-value of it. And Berkshire owns ~0.18% of AAPL.
jonknee 10y ago
They are once the quarterly 13F reports come out. https://www.sec.gov/answers/form13f.htm https://www.sec.gov/answers/form13f.htm For smaller companies it can also come out in a 13D which is faster (within 10 days), but only if the investment is more than 5% of the company. That's why there are a lot of ownership stakes of 4.9%.
- vram22 10y ago
  >only if the investment is more than 5% of the company Interesting, I think it's the same percentage in Indian stock exchanges.

drzaiusapelord 10y ago

What an odd time to invest in Apple. Its in something of a slump with how it missed the mark on wearables and in something of a milquetoast design/innovation phase in general. When the watch came out Apple was selling for nearly $140. Now its $93. The market is not showing strong confidence in Apple, at least in the short term, and there's nothing on the Apple roadmap that says big growth in the future. I wonder if this is a sign of the internal politics at BH as 85 year old Buffet gets closer to retirement/death. The younger guys want to make their mark and betting on a typically galloping horse like Apple is a nice way to start the pissing contents with others wanting to run BH after Buffet goes. If Apple does a massive rebound then the guy who made this call will be seen as the young whippersnapper who 'knows tech' and can take BH into the 21st century.

snowwrestler 10y ago
Buying low is not a bad place to start for an investing strategy.
- drzaiusapelord 10y ago
  I just looked at Apple's 3 year. It seems to dip and rise significantly. Maybe BH thinks that this is the bottom of a dip. I guess we'll see, but I can't remember the last time I was excited by an Apple product. They seem to be graying faster than expected as the mobile revolution evens out.