Learning from Warren Buffet's Annual Letter to Berkshire Hathaway Shareholders

Warren Buffett's annual letter to Berkshiretrue economic changes to an owner's share of
Hathaway shareholders was released over thethe business. There is no truly comprehensive
weekend. Readers will find plenty of investingincome number - and there never will be. A
lessons among the twenty-three pages. Warrenreview of the financial statements alone is not
began this letter as he begins each letter, bysufficient to determine how a business'
stating Berkshire's change in per-share book value:competitive position has improved (or
"Our gain in net worth during 2005 was $5.6 billion,deteriorated) over the course of the year.
which increased the per-share book value of both"Every day, in countless ways, the competitive
our Class A and Class B stock by 6.4%. Over theposition of each of our businesses grows either
last 41 years, (that is, since present managementweaker or stronger. If we are delighting
took over) book value has grown from $19 tocustomers, eliminating unnecessary costs and
$59,377, a rate of 21.5% compounded annually."improving our products and services, we gain
Some may wonder why Buffett opens bystrength. But if we treat customers with
announcing the change in per-share book valueindifference or tolerate bloat, our businesses will
rather than the earnings per share number. Overwither. On a daily basis, the effects of our actions
long periods of time, the change in per-share bookare imperceptible; cumulatively, though, their
value should nicely approximate the returns toconsequences are enormous."
owners. You may remember that, in my analysisIt is to these actions and their effects that an
of Energizer Holdings, I applauded the companyinvestor must look when he is forming his
for reporting comprehensive income within thequalitative assessment of a business. After all, a
income statement. Although a company's netcompany may lose money and yet improve its
income is often referred to as its bottom line, netcompetitive position. In fact, that is exactly what
income is, in fact, a (sub)component ofa great many young businesses do. The question,
comprehensive income. Energizer Holdings (ENR)of course, is whether those present losses will be
literally reports comprehensive income as itsmore than offset by future gains after accounting
bottom line.for the opportunity costs incurred.
FASB merely requires that "an enterprise shallAll costs are opportunity costs. It makes no
display total comprehensive income and itssense to evaluate a year's losses as if the
components in a financial statement that isalternative was to stop time. The available returns
displayed with the same prominence as otheron the lost capital must be considered as well.
financial statements that constitute a full set ofThat is why when one of Berkshire's units has
financial statements". Unfortunately, despite theconsumed capital, the loss has weighed heavily on
lack of attention paid to it by investors, theBuffett.
statement of changes in stockholders' equity isOver Berkshire's history, the cost of any losses
considered "a financial statement that constitutesalso included the over twenty percent compound
a full set of financial statements".annual gain that was foregone. Buffett has always
Therefore, comprehensive income can bebeen painfully aware of the fact that, for
reported in a statement many investors either doBerkshire, losing $1,000 today would be much the
not review or do not understand. Alternatively, asame as losing over $7,000 ten years from today
company may choose to report comprehensiveor over $125,000 twenty-five years from today.
income in a separate Statement ofBerkshire will no longer grow its per-share book
Comprehensive Income. This, of course, bafflesvalue at over 20% a year. So, these particular
many investors, who think they are reading afigures are outdated. However, if you refer to
second copy of the income statement. After all,Buffett's thoughts at the time when the Buffalo
what is comprehensive income? Isn't the netNews was losing money (and when Berkshire's
income number reported in a (traditional) incometextile operations were losing money), you will see
statement a comprehensive number?just how heavily these opportunity costs weighed
No. The widely reported earnings per shareon him.
number is not comprehensive. That isn't to sayStill, it is possible that a business operating at a
the EPS number isn't important. It is veryloss is actually improving its competitive position
important. In fact, for certain businesses, it mayand creating wealth for its owners. One very
be the most useful figure for evaluating a goingdifficult question that must be answered is exactly
concern. This is especially true if the investor iswhat the assets (often the intangible assets) that
only looking at the financials for a single year. Ahave been gained at great expense are actually
single year's comprehensive income may actuallyworth. In some very special businesses, huge
be less representative of a business' performanceexpenses are fully justified.
than a single year's EPS number (both can be"Auto policies in force grew by 12.1% at GEICO, a
pretty unrepresentative).Remember, the earningsgain increasing its market share of (the) U.S.
per share number does not tell you how muchprivate passenger auto business from about 5.6%
wealth was actually created (or destroyed). Youto about 6.1%. Auto insurance is a big business:
need to look to the comprehensive incomeEach share-point equates to $1.6 billion in sales."
number to find that information."While our brand strength is not quantifiable, I
Essentially, Buffett is reporting Berkshire's earningsbelieve it also grew significantly. When Berkshire
in that opening line. He is simply using a moreacquired control of GEICO in 1996, its annual
comprehensive income figure. He's saying here'sadvertising expenditures were $31 million. Last
how much wealth we created, and here's howyear we were up to $502 million. And I can't wait
much capital it took to create that wealth. Whento spend more."
he writes "Our gain in net worth during 2006 wasThis excerpt helps explain why I think all the
$5.6 billion, which increased the per-share bookmoney PetMed Express (PETS) puts into cable
value of both our Class A and Class B stock byTV ads is money well spent. Pet medications, like
6.4%" he's really saying Berkshire earned $5.6auto insurance, is a highly fragmented business.
billion and a 6.4% return on equity. He prefersSales volume is important. Obviously, name
using comprehensive income rather than netrecognition is as well. PETS can spend a lot on
income, because comprehensive income includescable advertising and still spend less per sale than
non-operating earnings such as changes in theits competitors. It's also important to remember
market value of available for sale securities.that pet medications are rarely the sort of thing a
If you still have doubts about the idea thatcustomer buys once (just like auto insurance).
Buffett is essentially reporting Berkshire'sWhile you won't be able to retain all your
comprehensive income in that formulaic openingcustomers, you will have a much easier time
line of his annual letters, compare the change ingetting a current customer to stick with you than
net worth numbers Buffett has reported in pastyou will getting a new customer to switch from a
years to the comprehensive income numberscompetitor.
found in Berkshire's annual reports. For the pastI'll end this post with one of Buffett's best lessons:
three years, Berkshire's reported "gain in net"Long ago, Sir Isaac Newton gave us three laws
worth" and Berkshire's reported "comprehensiveof motion, which were the work of genius. But Sir
income" were $5.6 billion vs. $5.5 billion, $8.3 billionIsaac's talents didn't extend to investing: He lost a
vs. $8.2 billion, and $13.6 billion vs. $13.4 billion. Ibundle in the South Sea Bubble, explaining later, "I
hope this helps explain why I like it when publiccan calculate the movement of the stars, but not
companies prominently report comprehensivethe madness of men." If he had not been
income instead of presenting net income as if ittraumatized by this loss, Sir Isaac might well have
were the Holy Grail of investing.gone on to discover the Fourth Law of Motion:
Of course, there is no such Grail. Neither netFor investors as a whole, returns decrease as
income nor comprehensive income captures themotion increases.