Berkshire AGM 2017 – The CEO Buff/Munger most admire; activist swings, misses

by

This portion of the AGM starts with Warren Buffett explaining the relationship with insurance multinational AIG but this part of the transcript is punctuated by a German activist who probably queued all night to get her opportunity to publicly criticise Berkshire – only to receive the kind of reaction you might have expected from the vox populi in ancient Rome when Christians were spared from the lions….. The highlight of this segment, though, is where Warrfen and Charlie sing the praises of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos.     

So Ajit Jain who has made a lot more money for Berkshire for you than I have, but he evaluates that sort of transaction. We talk about it a fair amount ourselves, I just find it interesting. I predict we find the $10.2bn or they’re going to give us interest and then we come to the conclusion that we think we’ll do it all by getting $10.2bn today with a maximum pay-out of $20bn between now and judgement day, on this large piece of business. AIG had very good reasons for doing this because their reserves had been under criticism and there’s essentially, probably, it should have been, I think, put to bed the question whether they were under-reserved on that business and we get the $10.2bn.

The question is how fast we pay out the money and how much money we pay out and the G does 99% of the thinking on that and I do 1% and we project out what we think will happen and we know whatever our projection is, that it will be wrong, but we try to be conservative and we’ve done a fair amount of these deals, this is the largest. The second largest was a creature that was formed out of Lloyds of London some years ago and we’ve been wrong on one transaction that involved something over a billion of premium, I mean clearly wrong and there are a couple of others that may or may not work out depending on what you assume we have earned on the funds, but they’re okay.

They probably didn’t come out as well as we thought they would though, but overall, we’ve done okay on this. It’s less okay when we’re sitting around with $90bn plus of cash. So, the incremental $10.2bn we took in in the first quarter is earning its peanuts at the moment and peanuts is not what fits into the formula for making this an attractive deal, so we do have to assume we’ll find uses of the money, but the money will be with us quite a while and I think our calculations are on the conservative side, they’re not the identical calculations that AIG makes.

Warren Buffett, chairman and chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., left, and Charlie Munger, vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, are seen on a video screen in an overflow room as they speak during the company’s annual meeting in Omaha, Nebraska, U.S., on Saturday, May 6, 2017. Buffett said during the Berkshire investors gathering that he’s more inclined than usual this year to sell some assets because the tax advantage could soon diminish for divesting securities at a loss. Photographer: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg

We come up with our own estimate of pay-outs and all of that and actually, I think it was quite a good transaction from AIG’s standpoint because they did take $20bn of potential losses off for $10.2bn and I think they satisfied the investing community that they were quite unlikely to have adverse development in the period prior to 2015 that was not accounted for by those transactions, Charlie?

Well, I think it’s intrinsically a dangerous kind of activity but that’s one of its attractions. I don’t think there are any two people in the world that are better at this kind of transaction than Ashid and Warren and nobody else has had the experience we’ve had, just get me into a lot more of those businesses and I’ll accept a little extra worry.

There’s one thing that I should mention too. We actually were the only insurance operation in the world who would write that sort of a contract and that it would be satisfactory to the other party. I mean, when somebody hands you $10.2bn and says, “I’m counting on you to pay $20bn back, even if it’s 50 years from now, on the last Dollar”, there are very few people that want to add $10.2bn to, so there are limited people on the other side. I mean there aren’t that many people remotely that have that kind of size deal.

Very few, is a good expression, he means one.

Okay, we’ll go to station two.

Hello Mr Buffett, Mr Munger. My name’s Grant Gibson, I’m from Denver Colorado and this is my fifth consecutive year here, so thank you for having us.

Thanks for coming.

Grant Gibson

I appreciated it. With all due respect Mr Buffett, this question is for Mr Munger. In your career of thousands of negotiations and business dealings, could you describe for the crowd which ones stick out in your mind as your favourite or as noteworthy?

Well, I don’t think I’d favour it, but the one that probably does the most good as a learning experience was See’s Candy. It’s just the power of the brand, the unending flow of ever-increasing money with no work.

It sounds nice.

It was and I’m not sure about Coca-Cola if we hadn’t bought the See’s. I think that a life properly lived is just learn, learn, learn all the time and I think Berkshire’s gained enormously from these investment decisions by learning through a long, long period. Every time you appoint a new person that’s never had big capital allocation experience, it’s like rolling the dice and I think we’re way better off having done it so long, but the decision’s blend and the one feature that comes through is the continuous learning. If we had not kept learning, you wouldn’t even be here. You’d be alive probably, but not here.

There’s nothing like the pain of being in a lousy business to make you appreciate a good one.

Well, whenever we get into a really good one, that’s a very pleasant experience and it’s a learning experience. I have a friend who says, “The first rule of fishing is to fish where the fish are and the second rule of fishing is to never forget the first rule” and we’ve gotten good at fishing where the fish are.

Yes, that’s on my metaphoric list. I went to fish with Charlie one time and there were too many other boats in the dam water, but the fish are still there.

Yes, we bought a department store in Baltimore in 1966 and there’s really nothing like being in the experience of trying to decide whether you’re going to put a new store in an area that hasn’t really developed yet enough to support it, but your competitor may move there first and then you have the decision of whether to jump in and if you jump in, that kind of spoils it, now you have two stores or even one store isn’t quite justified. How to play those business games, you learn a lot by trying and what you really learn is which ones to avoid and if you just stay out of a bunch of terrible businesses you’re off to a very great start as well because we’ve tried them all.

Then you can really learn because the experiences are a lot like eating cockle burgers and it really gets your attention.

Well, we won’t expand on that. Andrew Ross?

Good morning Warren, this question comes from a long-time shareholder who I want to tell you, accosted me last night in the lobby of the Hilton Hotel with this question, “Warren, for years you’ve stayed away from technology companies, saying they were too hard to predict and didn’t have moats. Then you seemed to change your view about technology when you invested in IBM and again when you recently invested in Apple, but then on Friday, you said IBM had not met your expectations and sold a third of your stake. Do you view IBM and Apple differently and what have you learned about investing in technology companies?”

I do view them differently, but obviously when I bought IBM, started buying it six years ago, I thought it would do better in the six years that have elapsed than it has and Apple, I regard them as being quite a different business. I think Apple was much more of a consumer products business in terms of analysing moats around it and consumer behaviour and all that sort of thing.

It’s obviously a product with all kinds of tech built into it, but in terms of laying out what their prospective customers will do in the future as opposed to say, an IBM customer, it’s a different sort of analysis. That doesn’t mean it’s correct and we’ll find out over time, but they are two different types of decisions and I was wrong on the first one and we’ll find out whether I’m right or wrong on the second, but I do not regard them as apples and apples and I don’t quite regard them as apples and oranges, but it’s somewhat in between on that, Charlie?

Well, we avoided the tech stocks, but as we felt we had no advantage there and other people did and I think that’s a good idea not to play where the other people are better, but you know, if you ask me in retrospect, what was our worst mistake in the tech field, I think we were smart enough to figure out Google, those ads worked so much better in the early days than anything else. So I would say that we failed you there and we weren’t smart enough to do it and didn’t do it. We do that all the time too.

We were their customer very early on with GEICO, for example and we saw, these figures are way out of date, but as I remember, we were paying them $10 or $11 a click or something like that and any time you’re paying somebody  $10 or $11 every time somebody just punches a little thing where you have no cost at all, you know, that’s a good business unless somebody’s going to take it away from you and so we were close-up seeing the impact of that and incidentally if any of you don’t have anything to do in your hotel rooms tonight, just keep punching progressive or something and you’re going to…don’t really do that.

This all just happened to cross my mind, but you know, you’ve almost never seen a business like it and I think for LASIK surgery and things like that, I think the figures were $60 or $70 a click with no incremental, no cost, and I don’t think eyes, I mean they actually designed their prospectus. They came to seem me and they, a little bit after the original one, the one that went public, a little bit after Berkshire even and so I had plenty of ways to ask questions or anything of the sort and educate myself, but I blew it.

We blew Walmart too. It was a total synch. We were starting up to figure that out and we didn’t.

Figuring out execution is what counts. Anyway, and I could be making two mistakes on IBM. It’s harder to predict in my view, the winners in various items, or how much price competition will enter into something like cloud services and all that. I made a statement the other day which, it’s really remarkable and I asked Charlie whether he could think of a situation like it where one person has built an extraordinary economic machine in two pretty different industries, you know, almost simultaneously as has happened – from a standing start at zero.

From a standing start at zero with competitors with lots of capital and everything else, to do it in retailing and to do it with the Cloud, like Jeff Bezos has done, I mean people like the Mellon’s invested in many different industries and all of that, but he has been in effect the CEO simultaneously of two businesses starting from scratch, that if, you know Andy Grove of Intel used to say, “If you have a silver bullet and you could shoot it and get rid of one of your competitors, who would it be?”

I’d think that both in the Cloud and in retail there are a lot of people that would aim that silver bullet at Jeff and it’s a different sort of game, but at the Washington Post, he’s played that hand as well as anybody, I think possibly could, so it’s a remarkable business achievement where he’s been involved actually in the execution, not just bank rolling of two businesses that are probably steered by their competitors almost and as any you can find, Charlie have you got any further thoughts?

Well, we’re sort of like the Mellon’s, old fashioned people who’ve done all right and Jeff Bezos is a different species.

Read also: Soon Jeff Bezos  will be world’s richest man, taking Amazon shareholders with him for the ride

We missed entirely, we never owned a share of Amazon. Greg, Warren?

Warren, my question relates to some recent stock purchases as well, like the railroad which benefit from colossal barriers to entry due to their established practically impossible to replicate networks of rail and rights of way, the airline industry seems to have few, if any advantages. Even with the consolidation we’ve seen during the past 15 years, the barriers to entry are few and the exit barriers are high. The industry also suffers from low switching costs and intense pricing competition and is heavily exposed to fuel costs with rising fuel prices being difficult to pass on and declining fuel prices leading to more price competition.

Compare this with real customers who have few choices and thus with limited buying power and where fuel charges allow the industry to mitigate fuel price fluctuations. While you’ve noticed several times since the airlines that were purchased and announced that the two industries are quite different and that comparisons should not be made to Berkshire’s movement in railroads a decade ago, could you walk us through or convince us that the airlines were different enough this time around for Berkshire to invest close to $10bn in the four major airlines because it would seem to me that UPS, which you have a small stake in and FedEx, both of which have wider economic moats built on more identifiable and durable competitive advantages, would be a better option for long-term investors.

Yes, the decision in respect to airlines had no connection without being involved in the railroad business. You can classify them and maybe as transportation businesses or something, but it had no more connection than the fact that we own GEICO or any other business. You couldn’t pick a tougher industry, you know, ever since Wilbur went up and I said that if anybody had really been thinking about investors, they should have had a Wilbur to shoot them down, saving everybody a lot of money for a hundred years. You can go to the internet, type in airlines and bankrupt and you’ll see that something like a hundred airlines in that general range have gone bankrupt in the last few decades and actually, Charlie and I were directors for some time of US Air and people write about how we had a terrible experience in US Air and it was one of the dumbest things I’d ever done. There’s a lot of competition.

You made a fair amount of money out of it too.

Yes, and we made a lot of money out of it.

It was undeserved.

But, we made a lot of money out of it because there was one little brief period when people got all enthused about US Air and after we left as directors and after we sold our position, US Air managed to go bankrupt twice in the subsequent period. I mean, you’ve named all of the, not all of them, but you’ve named a number of factors that just make for terrible economics and I will tell you that if capacity – you know, it’s fiercely competitive and the question is whether it’s a suicidally competitive industry, which it used to be.

When you get virtually every one of the many couriers and dozens of minor couriers that are going bankrupt, there ought to come to a point where you find that maybe you’re in the wrong industry. It has been operating for some time now at 80% or better, of capacity being available, seat miles and you can see what deliveries are going to be and that sort of thing, so if you make – I think it’s fair to say that they will operate at higher degrees of capacity over the next five or ten years than the historical rates which caused all of them to go broke. Now the question is whether, even when they’re doing it in the eighties, they will do suicidal things in terms of pricing, remains to be seen.

They actually, at present, are earning quite high returns on invested capital, I think higher than either FedEx or UPS if you actually check that out, but that doesn’t mean, tomorrow morning, if you’re running one of those airlines and the other guy cuts his prices, you cut your prices and as you say, there’s more flexibility when fuel goes down to bring down prices, than there is to raise prices when prices go up. So, you know, it is no sync that the industry will have some more pricing sensibility in the next ten years than they had in the last hundred years, but the conditions have improved for that. They have more labour stability than they had before because they’ve all been through bankruptcy and they’re all going to sort of have an industry pattern bargaining it looks like to me. They’re going to have a shortage of pilots to some degree, but it’s not like buying See’s Candy, Charlie?

No, but the investment world has gotten tougher, with more competition, more affluence, and more absolute obsession with finance throughout the whole country and we picked up a lot of low hanging fruit in the old days where it was very easy and we had huge margins of safety. Now we operate with a less advantageous general climate and maybe we have small statistical advantages, where in the old days it was like shooting fish in a barrel, but that’s all right. It’s okay if it gets a little harder after you get filthy rich.

Yes, Charlie’s more philosophical than I am on that point.

I bring back the low hanging fruit Warren; you’re just going to have to keep reaching for the higher branches.

Greg, I think the odds are very high that there are more revenue passenger miles five or ten years from now. If the airline companies are only worth five or ten years from now what they’re worth now in terms of equity, we’ll get a pretty reasonable rate of return because they’re going to buy in a lot of stock at fairly low multiples. So, if the company’s worth the same amount at the end of the day and there’s fewer shares of stock outstanding on all the time we make decent money on all four of the major airlines are buying in stock at a –

You have to remember, the railroads were a terrible business for decades and decades, and then they got good.

Yes, I like the position. Obviously, by buying all four, it means that it’s very hard to distinguish, at least in my mind, which will do the best. I do think the odds are quite high. If you take revenue passenger miles flown five or ten years from now, there will be a higher number and that’ll be low cost people who come in and you know, the spirits of the world because whatever may be, but my guess is that all four of the companies we have will have higher revenues. The question is what their operating ratio is. They will have fewer shares outstanding by a significant margin. So, even if they’re worth just what they’re worth today, we could make a fair amount of money, but it is no synch by a long shot. Okay, station three?

Good morning everybody. My name is Savilla Arians, I’m from Germany and I’m a Member of Board of Atikan Foundation Ethics and Economy. I’m very happy that I can put my question here and maybe you are not as happy as I am to listen to it.

Oh well, we’ll try to stay happy. Thank you for coming.

Thank you. Mr Buffett, a few years ago, I saw a movie in which you proclaimed that the printout on the Dollar bill, “In God we trust”, does not really impress your philosophy. In your opinion only cash counts and your credo is, “In the Dollar I trust”.

I don’t think I’ve ever said that actually.

Well, I can show you the movie that will prove it, or maybe it was just joking, but always behind a joke there is also a truth. Well, you laughed heartily at that moment, you as one of the richest men of all times on this earth, a good-humoured, friendly, elderly gentleman, whatever motivated those who designed the Dollar notes, they certainly wanted to say that there is something higher than the value of this printed paper. Regrettably, you have shown many times in your life that you see this differently.

You have accumulated billions of Dollars, showed extraordinary cleverness and skill and you know where to pick up better than many others, who like you, use the rules which are inherent to capitalism for their own intentions, but have you ever given a thought to what travels and sacrifices slavery and destruction of Mother Earth and even diseases and deaths stick to the Dollar bills which you gather so eagerly? Let’s take Coca-Cola, Atikan Ethics and Economy from Germany has awarded the black platter award to the Members of the Board of Directors as well as to the large shareholders, Warren Buffett and Herbert Allen, because you are co-responsible for all of what makes this group make so much money, isn’t it? Among other things, Coca-Cola deprives people of their drinking water in drought prone areas of the world.

Are you asking a question.

Then what was contaminating the groundwater in these areas?

I don’t want to interrupt you but are you making a speech or asking a question?

Well, I’ll put my question right now.

Okay, good.

Will you give up your Coca-Cola shares if the destruction of the environment, the monopolisation of the right to healthy drinking water and the shameless exploitation of the workers continue?

Well, that’s more of a speech than a question.

Yes, I don’t think that quote that you had earlier I’ve said once or twice that, it should say, “In the Federal Reserve we trust” because they print the money and if they print too much of it, it could decline in value, but to my knowledge I have never said anything like you originally said. I would say this, I think I’ve been eating things, I’ve liked to eat all my life and Coca-Cola, this Coca-Cola’s 12 ounces, I drink about five a day, it has about 1.2 ounces of sugar in it. If you look at where different people get their sugar and calories from all kinds of things. I happen to believe that I like to get 1.2 ounces with this and it’s enjoyable.

Since 1886 people have found it pleasant and I would say that if you pick every meal in terms of what somebody in some recent publications told you is the very best for you, I offer you that, I’d say “Go to it”, but if you told me that I would live one year longer, I don’t even think of it, I would live one longer if I’d eat nothing but broccoli and asparagus and everything my Aunt Alice wanted me to eat all my life or I could eat everything I enjoyed eating including chocolate sundaes and Coca-Cola and steak and hash browns, you know, I would rather eat in the way I enjoyed for my whole life than eat some other way and live another year, and I do think that choice should be mine, you know.

If somebody decides sugar is harmful, maybe it would encourage the government to ban sugar, but sugar in Coca-Cola has not ever been eating sugar, put on my grape, nuts in the morning or whatever else I’m having, so I think Coca-Cola’s been a very, very positive factor in America and the world for a long, long time and you can look at list of achievements of the company and I really don’t want anybody telling me I can’t drink it, Charlie?

Well, I’ve solved my Coca-Cola problem by drinking Diet Coke and I swill the stuff like other people swill, I don’t know what and I’ve been doing it just as long as you’ve been taking all those Coca-Cola’s that are – I’ve had breakfast with Warren when he has Coca-Cola and nuts.

And pretty damn good too.

Yes. If you keep doing that, Warren, you may not make a hundred.

Well, I think there’s something in longevity to be feeling happy about your life too.

Absolutely.

Okay, Carol?

This question is from Frans Trom Burger of Austria and it concerns intrinsic value which is neither, “Warren may amend this, it’s my definition here, but which is neither a company’s accounting value, nor its stock market value, but rather its estimated real value, so the question is, at what rate has Berkshire compounded intrinsic value over the last ten years and at what rate, including your explanation for it, please? Do you think intrinsic value can be compounded over the next ten years?”

Intrinsic value can only be calculated on gains, you know, in retrospect but the intrinsic value to your definition would be the cash to be generated between now and judgement day, discounted at an interest rate that seems appropriate at the time and that’s enormously over a thirty or forty-year period. If you pick out ten years and you’re back to May of 2007, we have some unpleasant things coming up, but I would say that we’ve probably compounded at about 10% and I think that’s going to be tough to achieve, in fact, almost impossible to achieve if we continue in this interest rate environment. That’s the number one question, if you ask me to give the answer to the question, if I could only pick one statistic to ask you about the future before I gave the answer, I would not ask you about GDP growth, I would not ask you about how is going to be president, there’s a million things I wouldn’t ask.

I would ask you what the interest rate was going to be over the next 20 years on average, the 10-year or whatever you wanted to do and if you assume our present interest rate structure is likely to be the average over ten or 20 years, then I would say it’d be very difficult to get to 10%. On the other hand, if I were to pick with a whole range of probabilities on interest rates, I would say that that rate might be somewhat aspirational and it might be doable and you would say, well, we can’t continue these interest rates for a long time and I would ask you to look at Japan where 25 years ago, we couldn’t see how their interest rates could be sustained and we’re still looking at the same thing.

So I do not think it’s easy to predict the course of interest rates at all and unfortunately, predicting that is embedded in giving a good answer to you. I would say the chances of getting a terrible result in Berkshire are probably as low as about anything you can find. The chance of getting a sensational result is also as low as anything you can find. My best guess would be in the 10% range, but that assumes somewhat higher interest rates, not dramatically higher, but somewhat higher interest rates in the next ten or 20 years than we’ve experienced in the last seven years, Charlie?

Well there’s no question about the fact that the future with our present size is, in terms of percentage rates or fraternities, is going to be less glorious than our past and we keep saying that and now we’re proving it.

Do you want to end on that note Charlie, or would you care…?

Well I do think Warren’s right about one thing. I think we have a collection of businesses that on average has better investment values than say the S&P average, so I don’t think you shareholders have a terrible problem.

Yes and I would say that we probably, well, I’m sure not only, we do have more of a shareholder orientation than the S&P 500 as a whole. This company has a culture where decisions are made for, as a private owner would make them and frankly that’s a luxury we have that many companies don’t have. I mean they’re under pressures today, sometimes to do things one of the questions I asked the CEO of every public company that I need is what would you be doing differently if you owned it all yourself and the answer is usually this, that and a couple of other things. If you would ask us, the answer is we’re doing exactly what we were doing if we owned all the stock ourselves and I think that’s a small plus over time, anything further, Charlie?

I think we have one other advantage. A lot of other people are trying to be brilliant and we’re just trying to stay rational and it’s a big advantage. Trying to be brilliant is dangerous, particularly when you’re gambling.

Okay, Jonathan?

If corporate tax rates are reduced meaningfully, Berkshire will enjoy a one-time boost to book value because of its sizeable tax liability and its go-forward earnings should be higher too, at least in theory. How much of the reduced tax rate will be passed along to Berkshire’s customers through, for instance, lower electricity rates or lower railroad shipping rates and how much will go to Berkshire shareholders?

In the case of our utility businesses, all benefit of lower tax rates goes to customers, and it should be because we are allowed a return on equity in general. I’m simplifying a little bit, but we’re allowed a return on equity that’s computed on an average tax basis and the utility commissions, if taxes were raised, would presumably give us higher rates to compensate for that and if taxes were lowered they would say you’re not entitled to make more money on equity just because tax rates have been lowered, so forget about the utility portion of the deferred taxes.

The deferred taxes that are applicable to our unrealised gains and securities, we would get all the benefit of because I mentioned we had $90bn plus of unrealised gains and if the rates were changed on those, in either direction, our owners Dollar for Dollar, will participate in that and then you get into the other businesses. You mentioned the railroad, but it can be all of our other businesses. To some extent, if tax rates are lowered, different degrees and different industries, depending on the number of players, the competitive conditions, some of it almost certainly gets competed away and some of it would likely not be competed away and that.

Economists can argue about that a lot, but I’ve seen it in action in many cases, you have a big decline in race for example in the UK and we’ve had, over my lifetime we had 52% corporate rates, you know we’ve had a lot of different numbers. So, I have seen how economic behaviour works and I would say that it’s certain that some of any lower rate would be competed away and it’s virtually certain that some would have heard of the benefit of the shareholders and it’s very industry and company specific in how that plays out, Charlie?

Well, we’re Dollar for Dollar. I mean there’s $90bn or $95bn and if the rate were to drop 10%, that $9.5bn is real. On the other hand, if it goes up, as it did, it went up from 28% to 35%; they can take it away from us too.

Well, I think it’s true, that we’re peculiar in one way. If things go to hell in a hand basket and then get better later, we’re likely to do better than most others. We don’t wish for that and we don’t want our country to have to suffer through it and we fear what might happen if the country went through the ringer like that, but if that real adversity comes, we’re likely to do better in the end. We’re good at navigation through that kind of stuff.

Yes and occasionally there will be.

In fact, we’re quite good at it.

There will be occasional hiccups in the American economy, it doesn’t have much to do with the President or anything like that, those people may get blamed or given credit for different things, but it is the nature of market systems to occasionally go haywire in one direction or other and it’s been here with us and it’ll be here with us, it’s not on a regular sign wave type picture or anything of the sort, but it’s certain to happen from time to time. We will probably have a fair amount of money and credit at that time and certainly, we’re not affected.

When the rest of the world is fearful, we know America’s going to come out fine and we will not have any trouble psychologically acting at all and then the question is how much do we have in the way of resources. We’ll also never put the company in any kind of risk just because we see a lot of opportunities. We’ll grab all the ones we can that we can handle and not lose a day of sleep. I didn’t quite get that, but in any event, we will now go to station four.

Dr Bruce Hurts from Glenview Illinois, “I wanted to thank you for allowing me to attend. I feel both honoured and blessed. My question for Mr Buffett is, you’ve always advised us to purchase equities that appreciate in value, yet a few years ago you sold your used Cadillac at a tremendous profit. How can you justify selling a depreciating asset for a significant profit? Thank you.”

Actually I gave it to Girls Inc., and they sold it and it was kind of an interesting – a very nice guy bought it for a hundred and some thousand Dollars and Girls Inc. got the money and he came with her, actually with his family and he drove it away without any plates, he was driving back to New York and he got picked up by the police in Illinois and he started giving this explanation about how he’d given this money to Girls Inc. and was driving the car back and he had this nice looking family with him and the cops were quite sceptical, but fortunately, I had signed the dashboard for him as part of the deal and so they looked at that and then they just said, “Well, did he give you any stock tips?” and they let it go. I can’t recall ever selling a used car at a profit, but I don’t think I’ve ever sold any personal possession. Well, I’ve got a house for sale”.

You don’t have any personal possessions.

Yes, anything you see with a figure attached like that.

You’re a fatter version of Mahatma Gandhi.

Visited 48 times, 1 visit(s) today

BizNews