
Warren Buffett’s recent moves to trim Berkshire Hathaway’s holdings in Apple and Bank of America have raised questions about what it means for the market and economy. However, it’s unlikely that the takeaway is simple or scary. Buffett has indicated in recent years that he doesn’t see an abundance of compelling value in the public markets.
The fact that he hasn’t made a hefty purchase of an entire company in a while, even as he seeks out ways to turn cash into ownership of enduring enterprises, underscores the apparent lack of opportunities of the required size and valuation. Berkshire has been a net seller of equities from its investment portfolio in each of the past seven quarters – a period in which the S&P 500 appreciated by 50%. Private investor and longtime Berkshire shareholder Ed Borgato says the Apple and Bank of America “trimming does not reflect a macro view of any kind.
That would be entirely inconsistent with his sensibility and decision-making history.”
What the sell-down in Apple and BofA probably reflects, most directly, is how large those positions became, with Apple late last year amounting to about half of the investment book. Borgato calls it an “inconvenient fact that Apple has grown to be an enormous portion of the portfolio and carries a premium valuation against a much slower growth rate.”
As for Bank of America, it’s been a wildly profitable investment entered in opportunistic fashion shortly after the global financial crisis, and there is probably some rational objective at least to pare Berkshire’s stake to below the 10% threshold, above which holders need to report transactions almost immediately. At the annual shareholder meeting in May, Buffett revealed that his chosen successor as CEO – current vice chairman Greg Abel, who came up as a utility executive and runs the non-insurance businesses – will also have final say over the investment side.
This represented a shift in his thinking from a time when he thought the roles would be split.