Cathie @CathieDWood, Not a chance was US stock market cap/GDP greater in the late 1800s and early 1900s than it is today. It was a FRACTION of today's level. It measured 90% at the stock market PEAK in 1929 and closed 2020 at a record 183%. Close to 200% now. Far less business 1/
was done by public companies then v today. Absolute levels of global trade were on the order of 20% of today's levels. 1929's market cap was $93B on GDP of $103.7 billion. Of course the stock market then fell by 89%, despite all of the revolutionary technologies you mentioned. 2/
Families spent half of their income on food at the end of the 19th century. You are absolutely correct that electricity, the telephone and automobiles allowed transformative growth in income & output. However, your conclusion that "genomic sequencing, robotics, energy storage, 3/
artificial intelligence, and blockchain technology dwarf that of the late 1800s/early 1900s." is misguided. While disruptive, they will not be remotely more transformative than those from 1870 to the 1950s. The technologies you highlight, cool yes, will prove only incremental.4/
Canals, rails, electricity, telegraph/telephone, autos, vaccines & the airplane allowed for a move from a non-publicly traded agrarian economy. I suggest looking into how much more output per person, output per hour & hours worked per person have evolved over time & how little 5/
they change in modern times. I highly recommend you read Robert Gordon's The Rise and Fall of American Growth. You'll see how little technological change impacts the economy & our standard of life today. You will also see that more than adequate data exists to properly measure 6/
Mkt Cap, GDP, population, hours worked. Check BEA data. Just think about how odd it is suggesting market cap/GDP was 2x-3x today's levels in the late 1800s and early 1900s. At almost 200% today, you think the stock market could have measured 400% to 600% of GDP? Nope. 7/
Also, for future reference, note that the Chairman and CEO at Berkshire Hathaway, the conglomerate that's compounded at 20% annually since 1965, double the S&P 500 and with more profit than Tesla has revenues, spells his name with two ts. It's Mr. Buffett. Many make this mistake.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Brett @wintonARK, Your taking the time to reply is again appreciated. I was going to let @ARKInvest's 2025 $TSLA $3,000 price target and your replies go but in thinking over the past several days a few of your answers just don’t resonate. Comments and a proposition follow...1/
While most of your replies lacked easily quantifiable or direct answers to my questions, your offhand response about Tesla’s expected 2025 share count suggests extremes of either promotional intent or lack of understanding. Perhaps it's neither and I'm missing something. 2/
The ARK model completely ignores coming dilution from the exercise of 165m option & RSU shares already issued (excluding any subsequent grants). This is a BIG deal. I guarantee you @elonmusk gets it. Seeing an even 1B shares outstanding in ARK's 2025 projection was baffling. 3/
@wintonARK Brett, Your additional thoughts on $TSLA’s insurance business are appreciated. That said, I respectfully don’t see where your comments clarify or dispel the points I made in response to the 2025 ARK model and price target for Tesla and its “insurance operation.” 1/
Please allow me to ask a few direct questions for clarification.
1. You confirm Tesla is not yet underwriting insurance & won’t be until 2023. Can you walk through your assumptions that get to your “bear case” $23B insurance revenues at a 40% EBIT margin, $9.2B by 2025? 2/
2. You project Tesla will underwrite at a 70% loss ratio. That’s actually not a better ratio than the US private passenger auto loss ratio over time. In fact, for the three years prior to 2020 the industry loss ratio was under 70%. 3/
I see lots of student company write-ups and pitches. Most are better than yesterday's $3,000 ARK Price Target Report for $TSLA. In reading the report its clear the motivation is to promote a higher stock price. The fantasy involved is simply spectacular... 1/
Let’s go right to the insurance valuation and model update, where the analyst assumes in a BEAR case Tesla’s “Insurance Operation” is worth $23B in 2025, four short years from now. It’s clear that the author and firm have no clue how insurance works. Harsh, I know. However... 2/
To begin and to be clear, Tesla has ZERO insurance underwriting operations. They are brokering auto policies in California alone for an underwriting fronting sub owned by Markel. The business written is so small to not be quantified either by Tesla or Markel in SEC reporting. 3/
My grandmother always told me to focus on relationships. She was the first female stock broker in Kansas City. Perhaps this is what she meant:
Berkshire closed at $398,840, a new high. $BRK bought back stock at $13.63 in the spring of 1965, just before Mr. Buffett took over. 1/
Berkshire's gain is 2,926,100% or 20.2% per year, 2x the annual gain of the S&P 500. Meanwhile, the Caracas Exchange Index was the same 13.63 bolívares in May 2018. It's now 2,576,884 bolívares, an annual gain of 7,190%, 6.5x the gain in $BRK in less than 3 years vs. 56 years. 2/
Now, the dollar lost 88% of its purchasing power since 1965. Bitcoin wasn't a thing so if you wanted to hedge you could buy gold, which was $35/oz for more than 30 years beginning in 1934. Remarkably, gold compounded at 7.2% for the past 56 years. Stocks were a better hedge. 3/
1) Total cash declined by $638 million from 9/30, not by $7.4 billion as is widely reported. A $6.8B payable for T-bills purchased at 9/30 means cash was never $145.7B. Y/Y cash increased by $10.3B. 1/
2) BRK sold a net $2.4B in common stocks during the quarter and $8.6B for the year. $AAPL was an $11B trim. I don’t like the language about Apple as the “third most valuable asset.” I prefer the language about “pocketing $11 billion by selling a small portion of our position.” 2/
At high prices let’s keep the $11B “small” Apple sales coming.
3) Share repos totaled $24.7B for the year, $9B in 4Q. Subsequent purchases through February 16 reduced the share count by an additional 0.8%. A rising price is not slowing the pace of buying. 3/
Jim, I have a ton of respect for your work but this is a bad take. $BRKA traded as high as 3x book in the late 90's, rewarded for compounding book at 25% a year for three decades. Trades for 125% of BV today, so a 60% decline, yet BVPS compounded way faster than the S&P...1/
When the stock was expensive Buffett used it as currency to buy companies. In 2020? Repurchased shares meaningfully @ 105% of BV. Growth in BVPS killed the S&P 500 by more than 3%/yr from the late 90’s, between 10-14% versus 7-10% for the index depending on the beginning year. 2/
The stock portfolio also wins. 21% in 2020 vs 18.4%. 39.8% in 2019 vs 24.8%. Even from 1998 when the portfolio was overvalued, $KO at close to 50x, the portfolio still wins 7.6% to 7.2%. I bought $BRKA in 2000 at 105% of BV. BRK’s BVPS grew 9.7% from there vs 7.2% for the S&P. 3/