Note the flair: Basics / Getting Started. I ran a quizz not too long ago and most of the answers were wrong, here is a PDF from M. Mauboussin explaining where your investment returns come from.

In the short-term, sentiments, demand and supply will move the share price.

In the long term, the total returns is comprised of price appreciation + dividends + dividend reinvestment. Price appreciation comes from EPS growth and from P/E multiple expansion. EPS growth comes from Net income growth as well as change in Shares outstanding.

https://www.morganstanley.com/im/publication/insights/articles/article_totalshareholderreturns.pdf

Main Metric	Driver	Sub-driver 1	Sub-driver 2	Fundamental source
Total shareholder return	^(1. Price appreciation)	^(1.1 Earnings per share growth)	^(1.1.1 Net income growth)	^(Sales growth, operating profit margin, financing costs, tax rate)
			^(1.1.2 Change in shares outstanding)	^(Equity issuance or retirement)
		^(1.2 P/E multiple change)		^(Value creation prospects, risk)
	^(2. Dividend)			^(Capacity to return capital, capital allocation policy)
	^(3. Dividend reinvestment)			^(Reinvestment program, tax rate, other frictions)

Berkshire Stock Gets a Lift as Mag 7 Trading Cools - Barron’s
By Andrew Bary

https://www.barrons.com/articles/berkshire-hathaway-stock-warren-buffett-magnificent-seven-ec26be5f

July 02, 2026 4:10 pm EDT

Key Points

* Berkshire’s Class A shares are up almost 8% in the past month to $758,400.

* Barron’s estimates Berkshire’s book value gained about 3% in the June quarter relative to the March period.

* Berkshire’s largest equity holding, Apple, rose 14% in the second quarter.

Berkshire Hathaway stock has been on the upswing over the past month and one reason could be that the company’s book value should show a nice increase in the June quarter.

Another factor for the strength could be a rotation into more defensive stocks from the Magnificent Seven and many momentum stocks.

Berkshire is the ultimate defensive play given its diverse earnings stream of more than $40 billion annually and a fortress balance sheet with nearly $400 billion in cash and equivalents.

Berkshire’s Class A shares are up almost 8% in the past month to $758,400, including a 1% gain Thursday. The class B stock also has gained almost 8% in the past month to $505.59 and has risen 1.1% Thursday.

Both classes of Berkshire stock are now up less than 1% so far this year, leaving them about 10 percentage points behind the S&P 500.

Barron’s estimates that Berkshire’s shareholder equity, or book value, gained about 3% in the June quarter relative to the March period, to around $522,000 per Class A share.

That would leave the stock now trading at about 1.45 times book value—in line with the average of recent years but below a peak of about 1.8 times in May 2025 when the stock peaked with the A shares trading over $800,000. The stock hit its high just before the 2025 annual meeting, when Warren Buffett surprised shareholders by saying he would step down as CEO at year-end 2025. He remains as chairman.

The stock’s underperformance relative to the index is nearly 40 percentage points since the 2025 annual meeting. This could reflect a disappearance of any “Buffett premium,” the high valuation a year ago, and a wait-and-see approach regarding Greg Abel, Buffett’s successor as CEO.

The expected growth in Berkshire’s book value in the second quarter reflects the company’s operating earnings in the period and growth in the value of the company’s equity portfolio of more than $300 billion. Apple , Berkshire’s largest holding at around $65 billion, rose 14% in the quarter, and other top five investments Coca-Cola, American Express and Bank of America also were higher.

One of the key figures in the second-quarter earnings report expected around Aug. 1 will be the company’s stock buyback activity in the period. Berkshire’s repurchases of just $235 million of stock in the first quarter disappointed some Berkshire holders given that the company announced the restart of the program in early March after nearly two years of being out of the market.

Berkshire didn’t need to publicly reveal the buyback restart and CEO Greg Abel highlighted the action in a CNBC interview the same day. That raised hopes among Berkshire investors that the company would become more aggressive with buybacks with the A stock trading in the low $700,000 area. But it turned out the company bought stock on just one day in early March and then stopped for the rest of the quarter and into the middle of April.

Berkshire bought back over $25 billion of stock in 2021 and probably is capable of repurchasing about $50 billion annually, or about 5% of its market value of over $1 trillion.

Soda, Coffee, and Cava Won the First Half. Snacks and Pizza Struggled - Barron’s
By Evie Liu

https://www.barrons.com/articles/soda-coffee-snacks-stocks-078639cd

July 02, 2026 5:52 pm EDT

Food, beverage and restaurant stocks didn’t move together in the first half of 2026.

Inflation has cut into consumer spending power in the U.S. By May, real disposable income was still below its January level.

Consumers still have to eat and drink, but they are becoming increasingly selective about where to spend. Weak demand in the U.S., in contrast to better sentiment in some international markets, added to the uneven picture. Across the group, the first half produced a sharp divide between winners and laggards.

Within packaged food, soda companies outshone snack sellers as beverage demand held up better. Shares in Coca-Cola and Keurig Dr Pepper both gained more than 16% in the first half, while chocolate giant Hershey and PepsiCo, a significant portion of whose revenue comes from snacks, posted 3.6% and 5.7% losses, respectively.

Mondelez International might be the exception as investors appeared more bullish on its global snacking exposure. The stock gained more than 7% in the first half, bouncing back from losses in the second half of 2025.

The laggards were the familiar pantry names. General Mills lost 25% in the first half, while Conagra Brands fell 22% as investors remain worried about weak consumer spending and competition from private labels. But there is hope of improvement: General Mills’s revenue grew 1% from a year ago in the latest quarter, the first time in more than a year.

Energy drinks have been a fast-growing corner of the beverage sector. Monster Beverage shares gained 25% in the first half on the back of strong sales and earnings growth, especially in the international markets. Its rival Celsius, however, tumbled 36% as investors became cautious about the stock’s rich valuation and worried that growth was mostly driven by its acquisition of Alani Nu.

The same divide is seen among alcohol stocks. Anheuser-Busch shares rallied 29% as its mega beer brands continued to grow in various global markets. Constellation Brands, on the other hand, was only up 1%. The company is more exposed to the U.S. market, where investors worry about weaker alcohol demand due to inflation pressure and shifting health and diet trends.

In the restaurant sector, coffee chains were the brighter spots, while pizza chains struggled. Fast casual restaurants, meanwhile, showed a split among themselves.

Starbucks stock gained 21% in the first half as its turnaround story—under CEO Brian Niccol—continued. Starbucks had spent much of the prior year fighting weaker traffic. The stock’s rebound reflected investor confidence in Niccol’s “Back to Starbucks” plan.

Dutch Bros, meanwhile, offers a growth story that is rare in the space. The brand is still early in its national rollout with solid traffic growth and unit expansion. Investors have rewarded that combination. Shares are up 17% in the first half. The company has raised its 2026 guidance for revenue and store openings.

Pizza looked less appetizing. Stock in Domino’s Pizza, the leader in the category, fell by 29% in the first half with its sales under pressure in both domestic and international markets. Its peers were struggling as well. Papa John’s stock fell 5% in the first half, while Yum! Brands, owner of Pizza Hut, decided to sell the chain after a strategic review.

Mediterranean fast-casual chain Cava gained 34% in the first half as it continued to post revenue growth, driven not only by new store openings but also same-restaurant sales growth. Shake Shack, meanwhile, tumbled 31%. Although total revenue increased by 14.3% year over year in the latest quarter, the company posted a net loss and cut its sales outlook.

Fin

(Disclosure: I bought a tracker in cava recently and I am eyeing DPZ deliciously)

———

(TLDR: why rational people are often easily fooled)

Could You Be Fooled by a Ponzi Scheme? You’d Better Believe It - wsj

https://www.wsj.com/finance/investing/could-you-be-fooled-by-a-ponzi-scheme-youd-better-believe-it-e159c877?st=iY1a15&reflink=article_copyURL_share

By Jason Zweig
June 30, 2026 at 9:55 am ET

Fellow investors,

If it’s too good to be true, why do people believe it it’s true?

“Because they’re either greedy or stupid.” That’s the most frequent take I hear about anybody who falls for an investment scam—including the victims of Paul Regan, the subject of my most recent article. He is a convicted Ponzi schemer who recorded himself ripping investors off so he could teach his salespeople how to do it, too.

That take couldn’t be more wrong. These victims aren’t greedy or stupid; they’re vulnerable. I spoke with close to two dozen of Regan’s investors. Almost none were young, employed and in robust health. Most were disabled or chronically ill; unemployed or retired; widowed; or living alone. When life hasn’t gone your way for years, an investment that’s too good to be true feels like the answer to your prayers. You don’t evaluate it as savings; you evaluate it as salvation.

This exchange of comments on the Regan story nails it:

Lyndon Bradish
6 hours ago
What I find amazing is the amounts that ‘investors’ are willing to forward to an unknown person promising great returns.
Why do they have such great sums of money to invest and no sense to protect their hard won funds?
I guess greed and desperate needs with gullibility are the drivers?
Reply · Share
Alberta S
6 hours ago
Hopefully you will never find yourself old, alone, sitting by the telephone and waiting for it to ring.
Reply · 1 · Share
Lyndon Bradish
6 hours ago
Valid point that I missed. Thanks.
Reply · Share

What’s more, Regan’s methods closely parallel the principles outlined in the classic book “Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion,” by behavioral scientist Robert Cialdini.
At my request, Cialdini listened to several of the recordings Regan made.

“We like those who give to us, who provide hope, who offer ways out of distress,” Cialdini said after hearing a recording of Regan telling one woman that he could “come through for you and be your deliverance.”

“He’s presenting himself as her benefactor, not just her business partner,” explained Cialdini. “In effect, as the recipient of his gratitude, it’s her turn to give back and say yes to his request.” In another form of reciprocity, Regan often adjusted his offerings while he was talking to clients, promising them higher rates or longer terms if they invested more or committed sooner.

Speaking in his soft, deep voice, Regan variously—and falsely—claimed that he had been a top trader at Goldman Sachs, had run Citigroup’s alternative-investments division, was a chartered financial analyst and had earned a degree in “advanced mathematics.”

“Especially when people are uncertain,” Cialdini told me, “they go for authority, gravitating to the person with confidence and credentials.”

Regan also swayed investors with what Cialdini calls “social proof,” namedropping influential-sounding people or institutions. The California Teachers Federal Credit Union was a major investor, Regan claimed. “They came in with 46 million [dollars] and they applied tremendous due diligence,” he said on one call.

There is no credit union by that name.

Regan took elemental signals of trustworthiness that seldom steer people wrong and used them to create a powerful impression that he was honest and caring. “These principles that [the investors are] responding to are deeply embedded in us,” said Cialdini, “and normally give us good outcomes.”

To have confidence in someone literally means to place your faith in them (from the Latin fidere, to trust or believe). A con artist is someone whose craft is to win your trust. That’s most likely to happen not because you’re stupid or greedy, but because you’re vulnerable—and because the con artist knows exactly how to fabricate trustworthiness.

The best advice I can give?

First, don’t assume you’re too sophisticated to be suckered. In the 1990s, John Bennett and his New Era Philanthropy, a Ponzi scheme, bilked an ex-U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, a former co-chairman of Goldman Sachs and other financial titans out of hundreds of millions of dollars. Later, Bernie Madoff scammed billions from many of Wall Street’s leading institutions.

Second, as Ronald Reagan put it, “Trust but verify.” No matter how likable or trustworthy someone seems, check their credentials independently. Don’t let your gut feelings prevent you from doing a background check—and a check into the financial logic of the investment.

China's ethnic law with global reach draws backlash, from Japan to Europe

Takaichi aide says 'no democratic nation could tolerate' move as UNHCR and EU urge repeal
20260701 china ethnic

A delegate in an ethnic minority costume holds a document following the closing session of the National People's Congress in Beijing on March 12. China has now implemented a new "Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress." © Reuters
KENJI KAWASE
July 1, 2026 12:55 JST

https://asia.nikkei.com/politics/china-s-ethnic-law-with-global-reach-draws-backlash-from-japan-to-europe

English (Original)
TOKYO -- A new law for "ethnic unity" took effect in China on Wednesday, raising concerns among Beijing's critics about renewed pressure on the country's minority communities as well as how the legislation's claims of extraterritorial jurisdiction might be applied.

The "Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress," which is based on President Xi Jinping's "important thoughts" regarding minorities, passed by a wide margin at the annual National People's Congress in March. With a preamble and 65 articles, the goal of the law is "to forge a common consciousness of community for the Chinese nation," Chen Ruifeng, vice minister of the United Front Work Department of the Communist Party's Central Committee and director of the National Ethnic Affairs Commission, said a week before the implementation.

The new legislation draws on "successful experiences" of the government's policies on minorities to "declare and clearly define a political stance, specific missions and a direction" for ethnic affairs under the "new era," Chen added, using party jargon for Xi's reign.

Among democracies and rights activists, however, there is deep alarm. Critics say the law not only gives an impression of legal legitimacy to existing policies that squeeze minorities' rights to their languages, cultures and traditions, but also positions Chinese authorities to exercise the law beyond their borders.

"This is something no democratic nation could tolerate," Keiji Furuya, a member of Japan's lower house and a close aide to Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, told reporters on Tuesday at a briefing in a Diet building, pointing to the extraterritorial nature of the Chinese law.

Article 63 of the new law stipulates that any "external organizations and individuals" face legal responsibility for actions "aiming to undermine ethnic unity and progress or create ethnic division" in China.

Another article states that all Chinese nationals have an "obligation to preserve national unification and unity among all ethnic minorities," rejecting any form of "interference from external forces" on ethnic matters under the "pretext of ethnicity, religion and human rights."

Eriko Yamatani, a Japanese upper house member and chairwoman of parliamentary support groups for Tibetans and ethnic Mongolians in the Inner Mongolia region of China, expressed worry over the "ambiguous wording" and the law's potential impact on free speech in Japan.

Four Japanese parliamentary caucuses -- supporting the causes of Uyghurs, Tibetans and Southern (Inner) Mongolians, along with a group following alleged human rights abuses in China -- issued a joint statement condemning the new law and calling for its abolition on Tuesday.

Both Yamatani and Furuya, who has been involved in China rights issues for years and was sanctioned by Beijing for "colluding with Taiwan separatists," stressed that Japanese lawmakers should strongly object to the law as it affects people outside China.
The appeal from Japanese legislators comes as Tokyo and Beijing remain mired in diplomatic tensions. Relations have sharply deteriorated since November, when Takaichi suggested that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could pose an existential threat to Japan, potentially requiring a military response.

The joint condemnation by the parliamentary caucuses is based on two resolutions adopted in both Diet houses in 2022, which called out serious human rights abuses in Xinjiang, Tibet, Inner Mongolia and Hong Kong. Takaichi herself used to be an active member of these caucuses and chaired the Southern Mongolian advocacy group, although Furuya clarified that since becoming prime minister she "no longer takes part in any specific activities" of these leagues, remaining strictly as an "adviser."
Japanese lawmakers are far from alone in voicing concern over the new Chinese legislation.

Volker Turk, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, or UNHCR, called on China to repeal the law in a speech at the Human Rights Council in Geneva in mid-June.

"I am very concerned about China's counterterrorism and assimilation policies, particularly as they affect minorities in the Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia and Tibetan regions," the top human rights watchdog said. "The new law on ethnic unity risks deepening restrictions on freedoms of language, education, practice of religion, culture, expression and assembly, and penalizing the peaceful exercise of minority rights in general."
Turk emphasized, "I call for the law to be repealed and for these practices to end."

In a statement on Monday, U.S. House Select Committee on China Chairman John Moolenaar said the law is an "ugly escalation of the CCP's cruelty and paranoia, and China plans to use it to continue its harassment and intimidation of critics who live beyond its borders," while "legitimizing" abuse of minorities.

The European Parliament in April adopted a resolution that "strongly condemns" the ethnic law, also calling for its repeal. The parliament said the law embodies "China's repressive assimilation policies and consequent violations of universal human rights, including in Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia," noting how it prioritizes the Mandarin language in education, public life and media.
The resolution urged all European Union member states to suspend extradition treaties with China "to protect persecuted individuals residing in the EU from the risks of transnational repression under this law," and called on the European Council to "implement the EU Global Sanctions Regime against those responsible for the new law."

Human rights advocates say Beijing's move will only increase pressure on minorities in China.
"This law criminalizes aspects of people's and communities' identities the authorities deem problematic," said Shane Yi, researcher at the Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders, or CHRD. "This approach has nothing to do with unity, and everything to do with punishing legally protected characteristics."

Yi said Chinese authorities are seeking to "create a veneer of legality for discrimination and repression."
"If the government is serious about ethnic unity, it should drop this law and allow accountability for vast violations," he said.

China, which routinely denies all accusations of human rights abuses, has been hitting back at criticism of the law. Hu Weilie, its vice minister of justice, rejected concerns over the foreign enforcement clause as a "distorted reading" and a "smear campaign." The law, according to Hu, is "based on national conditions, in accordance with legal principles and in line with international customary practices."

A fresh accusation of repression came on the eve of the law's implementation.

The U.S.-based Tibet Action Institute said that the Gangjong Sherig Academy in the Tibetan prefecture of Golok, in China's Qinghai province was forced to close on June 24. The organization said the school, founded by local spiritual leader Tulku Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche, was the only institution providing senior high school-level education in its county.
The closure means students "will now be compelled to enroll in state-run boarding schools with a highly politicized curriculum and Mandarin-only instruction," the organization said.

Tulku Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche was known for supporting Tibetan-led education and refusing to endorse the Panchen Lama chosen by Beijing -- the top spiritual leader after the Dalai Lama. The Tibet Action Institute said that "he is believed to have fled to Vietnam, where he was reportedly arrested in the presence of Chinese officials and died in custody in April 2025."

Working groups and special rapporteurs under the UNHCR, including one focused on arbitrary detention and extrajudicial executions, have been calling for accountability on the part of the Communist regimes in China and Vietnam, to virtually no avail.

"The sudden shutdown of yet another renowned Tibetan school -- in this case the only senior high school in the area -- showcases China's escalating moves to stamp out Tibetan identity, language and culture as its ethnic erasure law comes into effect on July 1," said Lhadon Tethong, director of the Tibet Action Institute.

"The Chinese government is trying to close off all avenues to a Tibetan education, laying bare the truth that forcing Tibetan children into colonial boarding schools is about indoctrination, not access to education," the Tibetan-Canadian activist said.

(TLDR: why rational people are often easily fooled. See below comments on the Robert Cialdini whom the author references)

Could You Be Fooled by a Ponzi Scheme? You’d Better Believe It - wsj

https://www.wsj.com/finance/investing/could-you-be-fooled-by-a-ponzi-scheme-youd-better-believe-it-e159c87

Jason Zweig
By Jason Zweig
June 30, 2026 at 9:55 am ET

Fellow investors,

If it’s too good to be true, why do people believe it it’s true?

“Because they’re either greedy or stupid.” That’s the most frequent take I hear about anybody who falls for an investment scam—including the victims of Paul Regan, the subject of my most recent article. He is a convicted Ponzi schemer who recorded himself ripping investors off so he could teach his salespeople how to do it, too.

That take couldn’t be more wrong. These victims aren’t greedy or stupid; they’re vulnerable. I spoke with close to two dozen of Regan’s investors. Almost none were young, employed and in robust health. Most were disabled or chronically ill; unemployed or retired; widowed; or living alone. When life hasn’t gone your way for years, an investment that’s too good to be true feels like the answer to your prayers. You don’t evaluate it as savings; you evaluate it as salvation.

This exchange of comments on the Regan story nails it:

Lyndon Bradish
6 hours ago
What I find amazing is the amounts that ‘investors’ are willing to forward to an unknown person promising great returns.
Why do they have such great sums of money to invest and no sense to protect their hard won funds?
I guess greed and desperate needs with gullibility are the drivers?
Reply · Share
Alberta S
6 hours ago
Hopefully you will never find yourself old, alone, sitting by the telephone and waiting for it to ring.
Reply · 1 · Share
Lyndon Bradish
6 hours ago
Valid point that I missed. Thanks.
Reply · Share

What’s more, Regan’s methods closely parallel the principles outlined in the classic book “Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion,” by behavioral scientist Robert Cialdini.
At my request, Cialdini listened to several of the recordings Regan made.

“We like those who give to us, who provide hope, who offer ways out of distress,” Cialdini said after hearing a recording of Regan telling one woman that he could “come through for you and be your deliverance.”

“He’s presenting himself as her benefactor, not just her business partner,” explained Cialdini. “In effect, as the recipient of his gratitude, it’s her turn to give back and say yes to his request.” In another form of reciprocity, Regan often adjusted his offerings while he was talking to clients, promising them higher rates or longer terms if they invested more or committed sooner.

Speaking in his soft, deep voice, Regan variously—and falsely—claimed that he had been a top trader at Goldman Sachs, had run Citigroup’s alternative-investments division, was a chartered financial analyst and had earned a degree in “advanced mathematics.”

“Especially when people are uncertain,” Cialdini told me, “they go for authority, gravitating to the person with confidence and credentials.”

Regan also swayed investors with what Cialdini calls “social proof,” namedropping influential-sounding people or institutions. The California Teachers Federal Credit Union was a major investor, Regan claimed. “They came in with 46 million [dollars] and they applied tremendous due diligence,” he said on one call.

There is no credit union by that name.

Regan took elemental signals of trustworthiness that seldom steer people wrong and used them to create a powerful impression that he was honest and caring. “These principles that [the investors are] responding to are deeply embedded in us,” said Cialdini, “and normally give us good outcomes.”

To have confidence in someone literally means to place your faith in them (from the Latin fidere, to trust or believe). A con artist is someone whose craft is to win your trust. That’s most likely to happen not because you’re stupid or greedy, but because you’re vulnerable—and because the con artist knows exactly how to fabricate trustworthiness.

The best advice I can give?

First, don’t assume you’re too sophisticated to be suckered. In the 1990s, John Bennett and his New Era Philanthropy, a Ponzi scheme, bilked an ex-U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, a former co-chairman of Goldman Sachs and other financial titans out of hundreds of millions of dollars. Later, Bernie Madoff scammed billions from many of Wall Street’s leading institutions.

Second, as Ronald Reagan put it, “Trust but verify.” No matter how likable or trustworthy someone seems, check their credentials independently. Don’t let your gut feelings prevent you from doing a background check—and a check into the financial logic of the investment.

Berkshire Manager Weschler May Be Having A Good Year Due to DaVita, Sirius Holdings - wsj
By Andrew Bary

June 30, 2026 4:44 pm EDT

https://www.barrons.com/articles/berkshire-weschler-stock-davita-sirius-e9ee54aa

Key Points

- Berkshire Hathaway investment manager Ted Weschler appears to be having a strong 2026 due to big gains in DaVita and Sirius XM.
- Shares of DaVita are up over 90% this year, while Sirius XM has risen almost 50%.
- Weschler is responsible for running about 6% of Berkshire Hathaway’s equity portfolio under the oversight of CEO Greg Abel.

Berkshire investment manager Ted Weschler appears to be having a strong 2026 after some tougher years because of big gains in two stocks— DaVita and Sirius XM Holdings.

Weschler is responsible for running about 6% of Berkshire’s equity portfolio of more than $300 billion under the oversight of CEO Greg Abel, who oversees the rest.

Berkshire doesn’t disclose the Weschler investments, but the company’s filings show that he personally owns both DaVita and Sirius XM—a strong indication that the Berkshire investments in those companies are directed by him.

Berkshire also doesn’t reveal Weschler’s investment performance, or the performance of the entire portfolio.

Shares of kidney dialysis provider DaVita are up over 90% this year to $222, while the stock of satellite radio operator Sirius XM have risen almost 50% to $29. That followed a rough five-year period when DaVita was about flat while Sirius XM declined 65%.

Berkshire has large stakes in both companies. It owns about 29 million shares of DaVita worth more than $6 billion, a 45% stake. It also owns roughly 125 million shares of Sirius XM, a 37% interest, now valued at around $3.6 billion. These holdings are as of March 31.

The DaVita holding is likely Weschler’s largest Berkshire investment and Sirius XM is probably among his top five investments.

Weschler, who is about 65 years old, is believed to have been close to former Liberty Media CEO Greg Maffei. Berkshire’s large Sirius XM holding came about partly due to a combination of a Liberty-controlled company that held Sirius XM stock with Sirius XM in 2024. Berkshire had held a sizable stake in the Liberty entity.

Weschler, who joined Berkshire in 2012, has been associated with DaVita for more than a decade and he personally owns 2.2 million shares. He also holds almos t 790,000 shares of Sirius XM. These investments are as of late 2024, the most recent filing date that Barron’s is aware of.

Until the end of 2025, Weschler ran about 5% of the Berkshire equity portfolio, and investment manager Todd Combs also ran 5% with chairman Warren Buffett handling the rest. Weschler got additional authority —going to 6% from 5% — around year-end, according to Abel’s shareholder letter.

Combs left Berkshire for an investment position at JPMorgan Chase in December 2025 and Berkshire appeared to have sold most of the Combs holdings in late 2025 and the first quarter of 2026. Buffett stepped aside as CEO at year-end and was succeeded by Abel.

With the Combs stocks largely sold, it’s easier to identify the Weschler investments at Berkshire since they likely are some of the smaller equity holdings now at the company. The large holdings like Apple, Coca-Cola and American Express were accumulated by Buffett.

Probable Weschler investments also include a nearly $3 billion holding in Kroger and a $3.5 billion stake in Delta Air Lines. Berkshire accumulated the Delta stake in the first quarter and the stock is up about 50% since then, making it a quick winner.

With likely holdings in DaVita, Sirius XM and Delta, Weschler appears to be having an excellent first half of 2026.

Fin

The only positive thing about Nike’s earnings today is that it is now 2 quarters of positive US sales and earnings growth that is helping stauch the bad news from China. < end of message >

The only positive thing about Nike’s earnings today is that it is now 2 quarters of positive US sales and earnings growth that is helping stauch the bad news from China. < end of message >

I listened to the earnings call that ended a while ago. It was okay and more of a work in progress. The USA business benefitted from soccer. This is off-set by continued drop in China.

On China, Elliott Hill said that they need to focus on performance products specific for China (eg. Chinese basketball) and they want to go premium in China with less discounting.

One small good news is that they expect margins to expand due to less discounting and continued cost cutting measures.

After hours fell from -8% to -2.7%

———-

If you only had 2 stocks to choose from, would you prefer Lulu Lemon where the USA sales is down but China is up or Nike where USA sales is up but China (their 2nd largest biz) is down ?

(Disclosure: I own Nike and despite a -50% and -36% in my portfolio A & B, I continue to hold the stock)

The only positive thing about Nike’s earnings today is that it is now 2 quarters of positive US sales and earnings growth that is helping stauch the bad news from China. < end of message >

I listened to the earnings call that ended a while ago. It was okay and more of a work in progress. The USA business benefitted from soccer. This is off-set by continued drop in China.

On China, Elliott Hill said that they need to focus on performance products specific for China (eg. Chinese basketball) and they want to go premium in China with less discounting.

One small good news is that they expect margins to expand due to less discounting and continued cost cutting measures.

After hours fell from -8% to -2.7%

———-

If you only had 2 stocks to choose from, would you prefer Lulu Lemon where the USA sales is down but China is up or Nike where USA sales is up but China (their 2nd largest biz) is down ?

This is a simple valuation of Domino's PIzza inc ($DPZ).

After i read this compelling article over the weekend, i decided to take a look at DPZ. The following format is consistent across all my "simple valuation". I will give my conclusions and comments below. Disclosure: i don't own the stock.

TLDR: DPZ is cheap. It is priced as if the company can only grow EPS by no more than 3% a year moving ahead, even though it has been growing at almost 17% a year for the last 10 years and analysts are forecasting 10-11% a year for the next 5 years.

0 Domino's Pizza, DPZ. FY End: Dec This report: Q1-FY2026 Today: 29th June 2026

1 SP: $298USD, Market Cap: $9.92B, Annual Revenue: $4.98Bn

2 TTM EPS (diluted): 17.37, (Normalised): 17.89, (Zack's): 17.37 (SA): 17.37. Hence i will use 17.37 as the TTM EPS & Normalised EPS. I will ignore the 17.89 from Morningstar.

3 Yield TTM (Dividend): 2.50, (5YrAverage): 1.17, (Buy Back Yield): 3.86%, (5YrAverage): 2.51%

4 ROA. ROE, ROIC: 31.8%, - , -

5 P/E (Diluted and Normalised) = 17.15, (5 year average): 26.6. P/E (Fwd): 15.47

6 Debt / Equity: - Net Debt / EBITDA = (5135.7 - 232.9) / 1030 = 4.86

7 FCF Conversion: FCF/NI = 96.9% to 98% over average 5 and 10 years.

8 Stated Growth (past):

Periods CAGR%	Qtr / YOY	1yr	3yrs	5yrs	10yrs
Revenue	3.47	4.96	2.88	3.71	8.34
Net Income	-6.58	3	9.98	4.14	12.05
EPS	-4.62	5.37	11.93	7.24	17.61

9 Manually calculated growth (past):

Pre-covid (2016 to 2019): (9.61/4.32)^(1/3) -1 = 30.5%

Post-Covid ( 2022 to 2025): (17.58/12.11)^(1/3) -1 = 13.22%

Whole period (17.58/4.32)^(1/9) -1 = 16.87%

10 Management Guidance

2026 SSS USA "up to low single digit" (Q1 call), previously "3%" (Q4 call)

2026 SSS International "low single digits" (Q1 call), previously "1% to 2%" (Q4 call)

2026 expect 175+ net stores in USA and 800 net stores internationally

11 Analyst Estimates for next 3 to 5 years EPS growth CAGR

a SA dot com: stated growth: 11.28%, manually calculated 5yrs : 9.7%, 10yrs: 10%

b Zacks' 11.30% next 5 years CAGR

c DCF dot com, manually calculated next 5 years CAGR: 9.8%

12 My estimates for fairvalue

Scenario	Year 1 to 5 Growth	Year 6 to 10 Growth	Terminal Growth	Multiplier	Fair Value
A	9%	5%	3%	23.72x	412
B	9%	-	3%	22.17x	385
C	5%	5%	3%	20x	347
D	5%	-	3%	18.72x	325
E	-	-	3%	17x	297

The "-" does not denote no-growth, but merely no abnormal growth, just terminal growth of 3%. Discount is 9% and Terminal Growth is 3%

13 Morningstar fairvalue for DPZ is $412. And CFRA fairvalue for DPZ is 277.47

14 My Notes:

a. Log Linear Regression shows that from 2000 to 2025 (excluding the one time structure change in 2003), the continous earnings growth is around 16-18% a year, and the consistency is around 88%, In the last 10 years, manually computed CAGR and Stated past growth rates has been around 16-17%. However, analysts are only forecasting 10-11% a year for the next 5 years. And the market is only estimating earnings growth at 3% (last SP is around 298 versus scenario E of 297). Is it mispriced? it sure seems so, especially since buy back was around 4% (3.86%) in the past 12 months and the past 5 years average buy-back yield was around 2.51%

b. So what is the fair value ? I don't really know but i am of the opinion that is probably Scenario B or C and buying at Scenrio E at the current price isn't a bad proposition.

15 A word about the Debt Level and next steps

This is a very unique business, and due to its franchise model, it is asset light. The other thing is that this company is very consistent with generating free cash flow (see point 7). The two red flags high debt level and negative equity are related. But it isn't a really red flag: the company borrows money using its franchise agreements and royalties as collateral. And it uses the borrowed money to pay off old debts and engage in share buybacks. The management has a 4-6x leverage target. This past Q1, they noted that the net debt/ebitda fell from 4.6 to 4.3 and hence it received board authorisation to buy back more shares (and increase debt). Like MCD and Starbucks, buying back much shares over long periods will eventually result in negative equity. I don't see this as a negative, i would say that the company is exercising discipline and prioritizing shareholders returns.

If i were to proceed with further due diligence, i would want to do a pre-mortem on what scenario would i need to watch out for that could be dangerous for this share buy-back-with-debt exercise. Would a slow down be a problem with cash flow or would it just stop the buy backs ?

I know that they had no problems in 2020 during the pandemic, restaurants failed but DPZ thrived due to its fleet of delivery riders. During the 2008 financial crisis, while the USA business performance slowed down with a -5% SSS in 2008, the international segment grew and tightly managed capex insulated corporate cash flows. Would the international business today still cushion the company should the USA business slow down (which it is at the moment) ?

These questions i would want to investigate further if i intend to buy the stock. (out of scope for this simple Valuation)

TLDR: a long bullish article that compares the us stock market vs the rest, and why usd isn’t going to be replaced any time soon. This Saturday America celebrates its 250th birthday.

Pizza Has Gone Cold. Domino’s Is Still Worth a Look - wsj

https://www.wsj.com/business/hospitality/pizza-has-gone-cold-dominos-is-still-worth-a-look-38fab850

The category’s sales are stagnant and its chains are faltering, but Domino’s can emerge as a winner
By David Wainer
June 25, 2026 at 5:30 am ET

Americans aren’t as hungry for pizza. Neither is Wall Street. But there could be value in the sector’s leftovers.

Pizza chains once owned a reliable American ritual: a sit-down dinner under a red-roofed Pizza Hut or a predictable Domino’s delivery on a lazy TV night. The growing American appetite for chain pizza made Domino’s Pizza one of the best restaurant stocks to own for decades.

But in recent years DoorDash and Uber Eats killed the delivery moat, placing every corner pizzeria on equal footing with national brands. Open a delivery app today, and a local slice shop sits beside Domino’s, competing for attention with tacos and wings. Or, for those feeling economic pain, there is ever more variety in the frozen aisle.

The result is a category stuck in neutral. Data from market-research firm Technomic shows pizza’s share of U.S. restaurant spending has slipped in recent years as consumers shift toward other categories, like chicken and Mexican.

Investors are waving the white flag. Yum Brands sold Pizza Hut this month for $2.7 billion. Papa John’s has floated a sale. Midsize chains are closing locations. Even the category leader is getting punished: Domino’s shares are down nearly 40% over the past year.

Slowing sales and a sudden leadership change accelerated the rout. This week, Domino’s said Chief Operating Officer Joe Jordan will replace Chief Executive Russell Weiner. Investors were surprised by the timing of the shake-up and are viewing it as a flashing red light, fearing Jordan will scrap long-term growth targets.
There is good reason for the concern. Domino’s shares dropped in April after first-quarter U.S. same-store sales growth came in at just 0.9% and management abandoned its prior 3% target for 2026.

The company reports second-quarter results next month, and the short-term setup for investors looks tough. RBC Capital analyst Logan Reich notes Domino’s is lapping the initiatives that juiced 2025—the introduction of stuffed crusts decades after Pizza Hut and its arrival on DoorDash—with no easy levers ahead.

Look closer, though, and Domino’s still offers a growing slice of the pie. Even if net expansion significantly slows from the 175 new U.S. stores the company was aiming for this year, Domino’s is still growing every year while Pizza Hut and Papa John’s are shrinking. Its share of sales among the top three public pizza chains climbed to 54% in 2025 from 38% in 2016, according to J.P. Morgan data. Pizza Hut, meanwhile, has gone from 41% to 27% in that period.

As competitors intensify their value offerings, Domino’s might continue to face near-term pressure to match them or cede back market share. But the chain is betting that it can outlast rivals that are discounting their way toward store closures.

Ultimately, it comes down to franchisee economics. Domino’s is larger, and its vertically integrated supply chain allows it to keep ingredient costs low, while its advertising budget exceeds its two largest competitors combined. Profitability has come down at all pizza chains, but a typical Domino’s restaurant still crushes Pizza Hut, with $166,000 of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization per unit versus about $55,000 for Pizza Hut, according to Evercore ISI.

The corporate entity, likewise, is a cash machine. Because franchisees fund store openings, corporate operations stay asset-light. That means capital needs remain low, freeing up mountains of cash that can be returned to shareholders: Last year, free cash flow grew to $672 million, about three times what it was a decade prior.

This financial engine protects returns when growth stalls. The company has steadily increased its dividends every year while plowing cash into share buybacks. In other words, even if same-store sales growth stays stuck in low gear, buybacks mean that earnings per share can keep growing at a mid-single-digit rate.

So what becomes of Domino’s once the industry settles into a new normal? The recent market selloff has pushed the stock to about 14 times forward earnings—a valuation not seen since the years after the 2008-09 financial crisis. Franchise peers like Yum Brands and McDonald’s trade around 20. For patient investors to come in at this lower multiple, Domino’s doesn’t need to be a high growth darling again. It just needs to reset expectations and continue to be a reliable earnings compounder.

American tastes are evolving, and the pie available to Big Pizza is shrinking. But Domino’s can still prosper with its share.

(Note: for the marketshare chart on Pizza vs Mexican/Chicken: and marketshare among Dominos, PizzaHut and Papa John, you can find it in you-know-where. Disclosure I bought a tracker stock in Yum China yesterday, they will own the Pizza Hut brand in China.)

(Please resist the urge to comment for reading the whole article. Dankeschön!)

Mag Seven to Lag Seven: When ‘One Decision’ Stocks Stumble - wsj

By Spencer Jakab
June 24, 2026 at 6:38 am ET

https://www.wsj.com/finance/stocks/mag-seven-to-lag-seven-when-one-decision-stocks-stumble-e20f3103

Paging Rip Van Winkle
Now that’s what they call “stocks for the long run.”

Wharton School finance professor Jeremy Siegel, a cheerleader for staying invested as the 1990s bull market bubbled higher, made a surprising argument at the time. The boom-and-bust Nifty Fifty stocks of the early 1970s, long trotted out as a cautionary tale of falling in love with one group, weren’t so bad.

And he was right—as long as you held on. By 1997, a quarter-century later, the group of “one decision” stocks had recovered from their losses to post handsome returns just shy of owning the entire S&P 500.

A few have since vanished—Polaroid, Sears and J.C. Penney—but many remain household names, including Eli Lilly, Coca-Cola, Procter & Gamble, Walt Disney, IBM, Dow Chemical and McDonald’s. All were large, stable companies in 1972, which is why they were embraced by brokers and fund managers when the rest of the market was scuffling. Small companies had been especially out of favor.

They sound a lot like the dominant stocks of the past few years, the Magnificent Seven. In both 2023 and 2024, more than half of the S&P 500’s return came from them alone. But they started losing momentum last year and are trailing the rest of the market so far in 2026.

Will we be kicking ourselves in the year 2050 for not buying Apple, Amazon, Tesla, Meta, Alphabet, Microsoft and Nvidia shares to the exclusion of everything else?

Comparisons often turn to valuation. The Nifty Fifty fetched about 47 times earnings at their peak, which is higher than a simple average of today’s champs. A multiple of revenue, on the other hand, makes the current wonder stocks seem much more expensive at 11 times trailing sales.

Sentiment trumps value in the short run. If the Magnificent Seven or any other hot theme were to trail the market as badly as the Nifty Fifty did in the mid-1970s, many investors wouldn’t stick around until they caught up. It’s much easier and cheaper today for individuals to sell and move on to the next thing than it was 50 years ago.

And, even if the Magnificent Seven are as resilient as those blue chips of yesteryear, it’s unlikely they’ll have as smooth a ride. The early 1970s group spanned industrials, consumer goods, retail and technology. The Magnificent Seven are far less diversified, lifted to some extent by the same trend: artificial intelligence.

Yes, AI is transformative, and companies like Nvidia are exceptional. The same was said about the internet and Cisco, which became the world’s most valuable company in 2000. It had a superb CEO, dominated its market and its sales kept growing, but Cisco’s shares only regained their peak last year, a quarter century later.

There’s no such thing as a one-decision stock.

(Please resist the urge to comment for reading the whole article. Dankeschön!)

A quantitative approach to valuing Yum China ($YUMC)

(YumC is paying $1.2bn to own the Pizza Hut brand in china, this removes the 2.8% royalty fees it has to pay Yum Brands. The shares has since fallen lower and YUMC is a forgotten child in the world of fast food chains. There are many reasons for the current pessimism, one is sovereign risks, the other is that China's domestic consumption isn't growing, the most recent being that they overpaid for Pizza Hut. This post is not to discuss these business factors, but to look at the results, and use the numbers to see if we can derive a fair value of YUMC. Of course if i were to invest in YUMC, i should look deeper in the capex/D&A, Same Store sales, Traffic vs Ticket size etc, earnings call transcript).

(I am using the same format as the paper valuation)

Yum China Holdings Inc, End FY: End Dec, This report: Q1-2026. Date Written: 25th June 2026

1. SP: $41, Market Cap: 14bn Revenue: 12bn
2. Trailing EPS (Diluted): 2.61 (normalised): 2.61 (Zacks): 2.61
3. Yield (dividend): 2.59 (5yAvg): 1.28 (BuyBack):8.41 (5yAvg): 3.398
4. ROA, ROE, ROIC: 8.66%, 16.87%, 11.14%
5. P/E (ttm): 15.7, P/E (normalised): 15.7, (5yrAvg): 24.79, (fwd): 13.96
6. Debt / Equity: 0.38, Net Debt / EBITDA: (2.32 - 0.47) / 1.76 = 1.05
7. Average FCF/ NI over 5 and 10 year = 94%, 98%.
8. Past Growth (stated)

CAGR	Qtr/YOY%	1-Year	3-Years	5-Years	10-Years
Revenue%	9.73	4.37	7.23	7.38	5.5
Net-Income	5.82	1.98	28.09	3.45	11.14
EPS%	12.99	7.73	34.14	5.18	11.73

9. Past Growth (manually calculated)

Pre-covid from 2016 to 2019 = (1.77/1.28)^(1/3) -1 = 11.4% CAGR

Post-Covid from 2022 to 2025 = not calculated because Covid measures lifted in 2023, giving too short a run-way

Total period from 2016 to 2025 = ( 2.51/ 1.28)^(1/9) -1 = 7.77% CAGR

10. Management Guidance

- Yum China outlines $1.5B 2026 shareholder returns while targeting 20,000 stores

- "We expect the situation in the Middle East to have limited impact on the cost of sales this year" and "We have already secured the majority of this year's procurement contracts" (CFO Ding). "We strive to maintain OP margin roughly in line with the prior year period in quarter 2" (CFO Ding).

- "We are confident in meeting the full year targets for 2026" including "same-store sales index of 100 to 102, mid- to high single-digit system sales growth, high single-digit operating profit growth, double-digit EPS growth" plus "a slight improvement in restaurant margin and OP margin" (CFO Ding).

- Compared with the prior quarter’s setup for Q1, management now said "same-store sales growth will sequentially improve for Yum China, KFC and Pizza Hut in quarter 2" (CFO Ding), while reiterating that "rider costs remain the biggest headwind" (CFO Ding).

11. Forward Growth Estimates from Analysts

a. Zack's Next 5 years EPS CAGR: 12.10%

b. S.A. 5 years EPS growth, stated: 11.66%, manual calculation = 17.2%

c. CFRA, stated: 8%

d. MS-NR, stated = 17.2% manual calculation = 17.2%

e. Refinitive = 12.5%

d. DCF, manually calculated to 12.71%

12. My calculation for fair value

Growth Scenario	12%	9%	5%
Duration	5 years	5 years	5 years
Multiplier	25x	22x	18.71x
TTM EPS	2.61	2.61	2.61
Fair Value	65.25	57.42	48.83

13. Morningstar Fairvalue for YUMC = $77

CFRA fairvalue for YUMC = NA but with a 12 month target of $46

Conclusion:

Currently the share price is $41. it is currently priced roughly as though the company will just growth for inflation at 3% forever, (math: 2.61 / (9% discount - 3%) = $43.5, nevermind that forward estimates for growth is around 8% to 17% for the next 5 years. Most of the metrics have improved including margins, inventory turnover, and return to capital.

And yet, the number of professional funds holding YUMC remainly stubbornly low, even Howard Marks gave up and sold one year ago at the highs even though the business performance isn't as good as it is today.

As i alluded earlier, there is a discount to China stocks or in this case an USA stock on China. My past purchase was in jan 2024, at around the current price and then decided that the country risk was a large unknown, and sold and made a small profit. (you can read my past dd on yumc, just use search).

By Andrew Bary
June 24, 2026 12:02 pm EDT

https://www.barrons.com/articles/nike-dow-berkshire-hathaway-alphabet-verizon-2ca2b737

Key Points

- Google parent Alphabet will replace Verizon in the Dow Industrials on June 29.

- Nike is vulnerable to removal from the Dow industrials due to its low stock price and $60 billion market capitalization.

- Berkshire Hathaway is a strong candidate for Dow inclusion, with Class B shares near $500.

Nike could be the next company dropped from the Dow Jones Industrial Average given its low stock price—and that might allow Berkshire Hathaway to finally make it into the venerable index. Alphabet will be added to the Dow on June 29, replacing Verizon Communication.

S&P Dow Jones Indices, which oversees both the Dow industrials and S&P 500 index, said that Verizon is leaving in part because its low stock price–around $46—gave the company an “immaterial impact” on the price-weighted index.
Verizon’s weighting was around 0.5%, whileGoldman Sachs, whose stock trades for nearly $1,100 a share, has the highest weighting in the index at around 13%.

Nike is vulnerable to being booted out of the Dow industrials because it has an even lower stock price than Verizon, with shares trading at $42 apiece. The next-lowest stock price after Nike belongs to Coca-Cola at $81. Nike also has one of the lowest market capitalizations in the index at around $60 billion.
Why was Verizon dropped and not Nike? It could be because both Verizon and Alphabet are classified as communications companies by S&P Dow Jones, allowing the Dow’s industry concentration to remain the same. S&P Dow Jones said in making the change that Alphabet is a more “representative” communication services company now than Verizon with its diverse revenue base.

What company could be next to join the Dow industrials? Berkshire Hathaway, which has a $1 trillion market capitalization, might finally make the cut—and it would be fitting to add the conglomerate while its chairman and controlling shareholder Warren Buffett, 95, is still alive. Berkshire’s class B shares trade at nearly $500 apiece, which would fit right into the index, which now is full of higher-priced stocks trading above $100 a share.

Berkshire’s weighting would be above 5%.
There are larger companies not in the Dow—among them Broadcom, Meta Platforms, Micron Technology, and Tesla. But Berkshire is distinctive and would add a rock-solid company to the index. The index already includes five of the seven Magnificent Seven stocks: Nvidia, Alphabet,Amazon.com, Apple, and Microsoft.

There normally are changes to the Dow every year or two, and S&P Dow Jones is secretive about the process. The last change came in 2024, when Nvidia and Sherwin-Williams were added to the Dow industrials, while chemical maker Dow and Intelwere dropped.

One hitch could be that the Dow industrials already are heavy in financial stocks, and Berkshire is classified as a financial company. The nearly 30% weighting in financials could drop quickly, however, if Goldman decides to do a stock split.

It’s hard to predict what company will be added next, but Berkshire would be a worthwhile addition.