[StillBored]

Except you point of the very problem with your argument. Stocks are liquid as small percentages of the company. It is quite possible for a single individual/organization to accumulate the vast majority of the shares/control of a company without forcing anyone to sell.

I've been through this a few times with stocks I've held, and rarely am I happy about the outcome. For example about 10 years ago I saw something that apparently no one else on wall street saw, so I purchased a number of shares in three competing companies in proportion to how well I saw them profiting over the next 5-10 years. It wasn't 6 months later that Warren Buffet announced he was buying the company I had bet on the heaviest.

Lets just say that I'm still sore about it 10 years later. I even checked the, "I want my stock converted to BRK/A" but they ignored it, because I was going to have too small a fraction of a single share of BRK (which would have been amusing by itself). Heck, in the 10 years since BRK/A has again doubled.

So, IMHO, its just another case of the market being rigged for the big investors.

[sokoloff]

Doubling in 10 years is a tick over 7% per year, hardly an amazing missed opportunity.

[gohrt]

Why didn't you buy shares of brk/b on the day your sale closed?

[NamTaf]

Without speaking on the GP's behalf, perhaps the leverage in a particular strategy represented by investing directly in the company made the risk worthwhile whereas the more diversified, risk-averse but lower-leverage investment represented by BRK/B was not?

[StillBored]

Yah, basically, what I did was buy more of the competing companies, even though I didn't think they were as as well positioned. Turned out to be a fine investment, better than the BRK would have been.