저자: 미상 · 외국인
요약 보기
1995년 버크셔 해서웨이 주주총회 녹취 기반 영상으로, 질문자는 손주에게 주식을 증여하기 어려운 현실적 문제를 제기한다. 버핏은 주식분할로 소액 투자자를 늘리는 것에 부정적이다. 투자 성향이 낮은 주주가 대거 유입되면 장기 지향적 주주 기반이 훼손되고, 투기적 수요가 주가를 인위적으로 끌어올려 내재가치와 괴리가 생긴다는 논리다. 세금·증여 문제에 대해서는 입법 대안보다 개별 상황에서 우회 방법이 있다고 답하며, 일부 가족 사례를 언급한다. 버핏은 버크셔 주가가 내재가치보다 크게 높아지는 것을 원치 않으며, 내재가치 성장이 주가에 정확히 반영되는 것이 주주 간 공정성에 중요하다고 강조한다. 버크셔 주식 대상 방향성 예측이나 매매 권유는 없다.
다듬은 글
a few more and then we Yes. I'm Dick Layton from Rockford, Illinois. This is the first annual meeting I have attended and it was very helpful for me. I am extremely impressed by the number of people here, but even more so by the number of young people who have come, and I would really like to involve my grandchildren as shareholders, but I find it difficult to transfer shares to them at the current price per unit.
This is the best introduction to the issue of stock splits we've heard. That's true. I thought you would appreciate it . You obviously understand the point of the question. I understand the position you have held for many years and that a stock split in this case does not add any value. However, it could help save taxes for many of us who would like to transfer shares to other family members.
Should I just go to my congressman to change the tax code, or will you consider making changes? Well, that's a very valid question, and there are certainly several aspects, one of which you just mentioned. Someone else mentioned to me that they had their Berkshire shares in an IRA and now they are subject to mandatory distributions, and that's not very convenient when it comes to Berkshire; although I think they could sell some of the shares to make the payment.
But there are certain aspects, mainly giving, where it is inconvenient or even disadvantageous due to Berkshire's current high stock price. We know about it, we have thought about it, and we ourselves sometimes face similar personal situations. I have a similar situation in my family, and we found ways to get around it.
The downside, of course, is that , you saw even earlier this year, what a book or ... We want to attract shareholders who are as investment-oriented as possible and have a long-term perspective. To some extent, the publicity around me in this regard is negative, because I know that if we made stocks more accessible to anyone with $500 in their pocket, we would have a huge number of people coming to us who have no idea what they are doing, but have just heard the name somewhere on the radio or in the news.
And secondly, to the extent that it would create a market that would be even stronger, you would have people buying it simply because it's growing. We're seeing a bit of that this year. There are many people who are attracted to growth stocks. We are not attracted to it, but to some extent the rest of the world is.
So we're pretty sure we would get...we don't know, we don't know to what extent that would happen. We are almost certain that we would have gotten a shareholder base that would not have the same level of sophistication and goal synchronization with us as we do now . This, this, this is almost guaranteed.
And what we really don't need for Berkshire stock is more demand. I mean, we don't want them to sell for more, except in cases of increasing intrinsic value . Ideally, we would like the share price to accurately reflect the change in intrinsic value over time, because then all of our shareholders would be treated fairly.
They would all make a profit or loss just as the company made a profit or loss during their ownership period. And anything that artificially boosts the price in one period simply means that shareholders will be disappointed in another period. I mean, we don't want the stock to be selling at twice the intrinsic value or 50% above the intrinsic value.
We want the intrinsic value to grow significantly. But, and I don't think there's any doubt that we would have gotten a worse result in this aspect if we had implemented a stock split, because then people would have thought about other opportunities that could give stocks a temporary boost. A few months ago, Business Week had a table on stock market turnover .
We had 3%, and I don't think anyone I saw on the list was below double digits, or even higher. Well, these are people who just, you know, their shareholders often leave, and new shareholders come in with short-term expectations. We wanted it to be as similar as possible to a private partnership , available for purchase by anyone.
We do n't think the minimum investment is too high in this investment world . I mean, there are all kinds of investment opportunities, capped at $25,000 or $50,000, and so on. But the problem with bartering, you know, in terms of gifts or something like that, I wish I had a better answer for that, because I think that's ...that's...
I could make my grandchildren pay me the difference between $20,000 and the current price. And I think that's perfectly acceptable behavior for them, especially when they're sometimes only six weeks old. Yes, it takes the consent of the wife or husband to make it work with 20, of course, but most issues can be resolved, although I admit it's not as easy as if our shares were worth less per piece.
I truly believe that once you have a shareholder base that has different goals or expectations, you can't get rid of it. I mean, you can maintain a shareholder base like Berkshire has, but you can't recreate it if you somehow destroy it. And it is important for us who we work with. This enables us , I think, it helps us in our activities.
I think in some cases it can even help us with acquisitions, depending on who we attract. Maybe, for all I know, it could hurt us in some way that I don't know about, but I don't think so, because we can create, especially with preferred stock , something that will satisfy someone who might want a security of a different denomination.
Look around. Are we really capable of anything much better? This is a good company. This might be a good question to end on, and I appreciate it. I'm grateful to all of you who came, and I'll see you next year. Thank you. We have a whole box.
Comments 0