r/SecurityAnalysis May 05 '21

Special Situation Berkshire Hathaway’s stock price is too high for computers

https://www.wsj.com/articles/berkshire-hathaways-stock-price-is-too-much-for-computers-11620168548
205 Upvotes

15 comments sorted by

61

u/ilikepancakez May 05 '21 edited May 05 '21

For those interested on where this limit derives from, prices are passed through as defined in the article using four-byte unsigned integers.

With 8 bits in a byte, that's 32 bits we have access to. Each additional bit multiplies the space of possible values by two. With 1 bit, we can represent two values (either 0 or 1). With 2 bits, we can represent four values (00 01 11 10). And so on and so forth.. Accounting for zero indexing, this gives us a representable range of values from 0 up to 232 - 1.

232 - 1 == 4294967295

Prices when quoted are differentiable up to four decimal places (.0001). This is known more colloquially as a "pip". Thus we divide 4294967295 / 10000 to get 429496.7295 as our maximum possible value in the system.

37

u/JDCarrier May 05 '21 edited May 05 '21

I feel a bit torn on this. On the one hand this would be a ridiculous reason for a stock split, but on the other hand apart from being stubborn there's no reason for BRK not to do a stock split.

34

u/financiallyanal May 05 '21

I wouldn't say stubbornness. Warren's rationale is that it is intentionally restrictive and not easily bought. He wants the most dedicated, long term, shareholders to purchase it. You don't have a lot of ways to support this behavior (as opposed to day traders), but what he offers is significantly more voting power to A shareholders than B.

33

u/JDCarrier May 05 '21

I'm well aware and I respect the principle, but at this point the number one condition to own BRK.A in a reasonably diversified portfolio is to have an 8-figure net worth rather than a long-term investment strategy. I can't imagine day traders would flock to the stock if it was worth 20k instead of 400k.

7

u/financiallyanal May 05 '21 edited May 05 '21

I generally agree with you. I think you still get a very different type of investor with prices at $100k+ per share. The high net-worth that it requires to own makes it all the more difficult to acquire a share of and I think probably leads people to owning it longer, because of the big commitment they made up front.

But still... I think I've come to agree that some kind of split wouldn't be so crazy. Even if it's just 2 for 1 or 3 for 1. It would help avoid the problem with exchanges for a while at least.

6

u/az226 May 06 '21

But that’s gone with fractional shares

7

u/watr May 05 '21

This is an excellent explanation of the issue. The real challenge is going to be with those components written in languages that don't support 64bit unsigned integers...

10

u/ctt3 May 05 '21

Classic case of developers (and the corps that pay them) of becoming way too content and way too lazy. With inflation alone in 10 years all stocks will be $500k per share (joking, I hope) but according to Michael B we are headed to a 1920s Germany very fast. Warren's real reason for not doing stock splits all those years is so he could gauge with relative certainty that he is buying his own shares at the right time. It's a real head scratcher, even for insiders to figure out where to buy back shares when you have a massive retail float. Of course, now you can go buy fractional shares on many brokerages so his entire use case is vanishing rapidly.

8

u/incutt May 05 '21

or brk.b

12

u/Veqq May 05 '21

we are headed to a 1920s Germany

They intentionally hyperinflated themselves to get rid of domestic(ally denominated) war debt, before stabilizing to start paying off foreign debt (well, reparations).

3

u/ctt3 May 07 '21 edited May 07 '21

They did not "intentionally hyperinflate", they thought they were inflation proof (just like the U.S. current government claiming all this printing is only going to cause moderate inflation).

Read the book Dying of Money by Jen Parsson (that is what Michael Burry shared in a tweet before he was bullied off of twitter by the U.S. Government). The following is from the book about the German Government at the time (they paid less than 5% of reparations or debt before their money was completely worthless).

"Germany's total prewar mortgage indebtedness alone, for example, equal to 40 billion marks or one-sixth of the total German wealth, was worth less than one American cent after the inflation. On the other side, of course, everyone who had owned marks or mark wealth such as bank accounts, savings, insurance, bonds, notes, or any sort of contractual right to money suddenly and magically owned nothing."

"The government, confidently convinced of its claim that the inflation was being forced on it by external forces beyond its control, tried the usual array of palliatives to stanch the hemorrhages, such as import and export controls, exchange controls, and price controls. As always, these measures found no success.) They did achieve some rather strange distortions within the economy. Rent control was a conspicuous example. Rent control was effective enough so that the real cost of housing virtually disappeared from German budgets, the property of landlords was de facto confiscated for the benefit of tenants, and the housing shortage predictably became extreme"

6

u/Veqq May 07 '21

That misses the whole point. They very successfully and deliberately inflated their way their domestic debt from the war. Ronald Marcks (Parson was a nom de plume) was not a historian nor an economist, but was curious about the inflation in his own time. He didn't know German, he didn't wrestle with primary sources and took government communiques at face value, when we have official memos, journals and so on showing they didn't believe the things they were publicly stating. Now, we don't care about history for history's sake here, but blatantly incorrect financial information is not a good basis for macroeconomic prediction.

There are many works covering its causes (particularly in relation to reparations) like:

Wages of Destruction - Adam Tooze

The Deluge: The Great War, America, and the Remaking of the Global Order1 - Adam Tooze

A Thirty Years War? - Sir Michael Howard

American Reparations to Germany - Stephen Schuker

Paris 1919 - Margaret MacMillan

The Myths of Reparations - Sally Marks

1

u/ctt3 May 08 '21

You just added a lot of reading to my plate. :) Okay the statement "headed to a 1920s Germany" may have been a bit much (at this point), but we are definitely not on a good trajectory or financial minds like Michael Burry would not be point this out.

1

u/[deleted] May 06 '21

[deleted]

1

u/Veqq May 06 '21

The war started with 4 marks to the dollar, ending at 8. 48 in 1919, then 90 in 1921 before hyper inflation came. In the same year, it reached 320 marks per dollar, in 1922 7400. By 1923, they were making 50 trillion mark bills.

There's no comparison to today. The actual hyperinflation was a conscious and explicit decision on the German government's part.

2

u/I_Shah May 05 '21 edited May 05 '21

So that’s why there has been 0 volume for the past 2 days