저자: WarrenBuffett · 외국인
요약 보기
버핏은 필립스66 지분을 10% 미만으로 유지하기 위해 일부 매도했다고 설명하며, 규제·거래 문제로 상장주식 지분은 10% 아래로 두는 방침을 밝혔다. 이어 암호화폐는 생산성 없는 자산으로 투기적 거래와 사기꾼을 끌어들여 결국 나쁜 결말을 맞을 것이라 주장했고, 멍거는 암호화폐를 '치매'와 '쓰레기 거래'라고 혹평했다. 제목 기준 발언일은 2025-04-15가 아닌 과거 주주총회 기록으로 보이며, 자산 예측 발언은 암호화폐 관련 장기적 부정 견해에 한정된다.
다듬은 글
Just want to say Warren and Charlie, thank you again for hosting us all. This is a great event. Thank you. My question is about the recent decision to sell shares back of Philips 66, not to put you on the hot seat, but right after that share prices jumped up about $22 a share. You you mentioned at the time that there's some regulatory requirements if you own over 10% of a company.
Could you talk about the factors that go into how you decide whether to retain more than that or get under that threshold and then what are your thoughts long term on Philip 66 like their business mid mid-stream refining? Yeah. Well, it was the city service preferred of last year. the uh we sold the stock at around 93 or four and and probably 115 now, but we we own just under 10% of the company and and the more Ted and I think about various problems connected with regulatory problems and trading problems and so on, overwhelmingly we will we will stick below 10% on marketable security holdings.
Uh we've done it with the airlines. Now, that does not mean we're going to reduce our holdings in American Express or any sort, but and Greg Garland has done a great job at Philip 66. We've had we've had very good relations with the company. They've they're very he's a very very very experienced and sensible manager, but I did decide that I wanted to be below 10% in that polling.
And we've, like I say, we will we'll stay just slightly under 10% of Wells Fargo. We've actually sold a few shares just to stay below 10%. In the case, I think of both American Airlines and United Continental. We we unless there's something unusual, we're going to stay under 10, but we we have we have nine and a significant fraction percent of Phillips.
And I think they've been good at operations. I think they've been good at capital allocation. We traded them a business we traded them stock for a business some years ago which has been a very nice business that we've retained an operation. So we've got we got a lot of money still in Phillips and I wish I'd made the deal at a higher price and but we made money on what we sold and we accomplished an objective but Charlie well we like the subsidiary we traded the stock for I missed that but do we traded the stock for a subsidiary?
Yeah. Yeah. Well, we like this subsidiary. Oh, yeah. Well, it it improved. Looks like the stock went away for nothing. Yeah. Yeah. Actually, we've done pretty well with Becky. This question comes from Vlad Cop in Ukraine who says, "Capitalization of cryptocurrencies approached that of Berkshire and Apple last year." And clearly the idea behind crypto will affect conventional banking groups where Berkshire is a shareholder.
You always say you didn't go into too much detail to obtain an understanding on cryptocurrencies. So what factors caused you to say that it's a bubble? Well, generally non-productive assets remain that you know if you bought gold at the time of Christ and you figure the compound rate on it, you know, it's maybe a couple ten of 1%.
the it's it essentially is not going to deliver anything other than supposed scarcity you know because they'll only you can only mine so many but so what I mean what does what does it produce itself you know the check is a wonderful idea just imagine how the world would be without being able to write checks or have wire transfer of funds but it doesn't make the check intrinsely itself worth a lot of money and if you said you can't use something called check with a little piece of paper.
You'd do something else to transfer money. I I think that anytime you buy a non-productive asset, you are counting on somebody else later on to buy a non-productive asset because they think they can sell it to somebody for more money. And it's been tried with tulips and it's been tried it's been tried with various things over time and it does come to a bad ending.
I'm having you have a hard time. You can you can think of think of raw land. I mean, the Louisiana purchase was, say, $15 million for 800,000 or so square miles of land. In fact, you're sitting on land that came with the Louisiana purchase. And and so what' we pay? We paid 20 bucks a square mile and, you know, 640 acres in square mile and you're down to three cents a or something.
So, that was a pretty good purchase of an what was then a non-productive property. But it depend but it's very hard. You can buy stamps. Bill Gross got every you know collected a wonderful stamp collection and sold for more money in the end but it's dependent on somebody else wanting to buy hoping they will sell it for more money and so on.
And in the end you make your money out of productive assets. If you buy a farm, you you try to estimate what the crops what amount per acre of soybeans or corn or whatever may be raised and how much you have to pay the farmer that farms it for you and what your tax will be and various things. And you make a conclusion based on what the asset itself will produce over time.
And that's an investment. When you buy something because you're hoping tomorrow morning you're going to wake up, you know, and the price will be higher. The only, you know, you need more people coming into it than are leaving. and and they and you can get that and it will feed on itself for a while and sometimes for a long while and sometimes to extraordinary numbers but in the end but they come to bad endings and cryptocurrencies will come to bad endings and along with the fact that there nothing being produced in the way of value from the asset that you also have the problem that it draws in a lot of charlatans and that sort of thing who are trying to create various sorts of exchanges or whatever ever it may be it, you know, it it's something where where people who were of less than stellar character see an opportunity to clip people who were trying to get rich because their neighbors getting rich buying this stuff that neither one of them understands, it will come to a bad ending, Charlie.
Well, I like cryptocurrencies a lot less than you do. And so to me, it's just dementia. And I think the people who are professional traders that go into trading cryptocurrencies, it it's it's just disgusting. It's like somebody else's trading turds and you decide I can't be left out. To the extent that this brought we're being webcast around the world, I hope some of our stuff
Comments 0