Felix: Thank you for this write-up. I appreciate the fact that you provided in-line links to each PDF you cited, the B-H annual shareholder updates. I would not have had the opportunity to access those otherwise. Well, not easily. (David’s comment made me remember to mind my manners better).

Another savvy discoverer of “cigar butt” and non-glamorous, small-cap value stocks is Mario Gabelli. One of his mutual funds in particular earns positive returns year in and year out. (No, I don’t believe that Warren Buffet AND Mario Gabelli are aliens, from the same planet!)

http://www.jinrongbaike.com/
http://www.cnhedge.com/

http://alephblog.com/2012/02/29/notes-on -the-2011-berkshire-hathaway-annual-repo rt-part-3-on-acquisitions/

Really appreciated your article here, as I do with most of what you write.

David

Buffett was able, and very very willing, to read a ton of financial statements and keep it all in his head — a HUGE advantage over most others.

Today, far more folks are trying to copy that idea, with computer help, meaning far fewer “good buys” are in the market and remain available. The Market in the 70s was less efficient than it has become in the 00s (tho still not fully meeting the Efficient Market Theory).

Also, it wasn’t clear (to me) what Buffet meant in the 2010 calendar year letter to shareholders, regarding his itchy trigger finger and the need to maintain a brisk pace of acquisitions. In the preceding sentence, he said that it was relevant to the non-insurance segments of Berkshire. Of the four “sub-groups”, insurance is by far the largest and strongest, according to Warren Buffet. But the wording in that paragraph wasn’t exactly cut-and-dried, about insurance and non-insurance, so Felix’s conjecture is just as likely as not.

Finally, I find it a little sad that Buffet has become so fond of “bolt-on” and “tuck-in” terminology. I don’t see a good reason for that, as it makes things more confusing. Warren Buffet of all people, is supposed to be a plain dealer, nice and straightforward. I complain about N. Taleb creating his own financial nomenclature, that it mostly serves the greater glory of N. Taleb rather than public understanding. But N. Taleb is describing new concepts e.g. anti-fragility. He’s an academician, they’re supposed to be creative. Even more relevant: Aunt Sara and her peers haven’t entrusted their life savings to Taleb, whereas they have done so with Berkshire Hathaway. So why does Buffet use these non-standard, sort of obfuscating terms?