Issue #4 — When $40,000 Was Actually $1.3 Million

We’ve driven over $10M in revenue for our newsletter clients. For the first time, we’re unpacking the plug-and-play system thousands of people are using to turn a small email list into $2k-$10k/month.

If you've tried to grow your email list’s revenue and hit a wall of vague advice like 'post more' or 'engage your audience,' this workshop is built to show you precisely what is working for the top newsletter operators in the world.

We’ll show you how to pick or validate your niche, scale to 1,000 readers, and make your first $10,000 in revenue.

No prior experience, no camera time, and no need to already have a big email list.

Save Your Free Seat

Key Takeaways

In 1977, Warren Buffett made an investment that, on paper, looked like a disaster.

Berkshire paid $10.9 million for a stake in Capital Cities Communications. The dividends that would flow to Berkshire from that position amounted to about $40,000 a year. Do the math — that's a 0.4% yield. You could get more from a bank account.

Anyone reading Berkshire's income statement would conclude Buffett had made a terrible investment.

Anyone who understood what Buffett was actually doing knew the number that mattered wasn't $40,000. It was $1.3 million — Berkshire's real share of Cap Cities' earnings for the year. A yield of roughly 12% on the capital invested. Very good indeed.

Where did the other $1.26 million go? Nowhere. It stayed inside Cap Cities, where its management was reinvesting it in the business at attractive rates of return. It just never touched Berkshire's income statement.

Buffett would later name this concept look-through earnings. In 1977 he wasn't calling it that yet — but he was already explaining it to shareholders.

Standard accounting says the earnings you get from a stock = the dividends the company pays you.

Look-through earnings say the earnings you get from a stock = your share of the underlying business's actual profits, whether they pay them out or not.

The two numbers can be wildly different. And the second one is the real one.

Think about what you own when you buy 100 shares of a company. You don't own 100 dividend checks. You own a pro-rata slice of the actual business — its factories, brand, customers, and earnings power. The dividend is just the piece management hands back to you in cash. The rest is still yours, working inside the company.

If management is competent, keeping that money inside the business is usually better for you than sending it as a dividend. Every dollar reinvested at 15% for ten years turns into $4. Every dollar you receive as a dividend gets taxed, and — unless you're disciplined about reinvesting it well — often earns nothing.

That's why Berkshire has never paid a dividend in Buffett's entire tenure. He was telling shareholders: I can compound this dollar better than you can, so let me keep it. For six decades, he was right.

Fast-forward 49 years and you can watch this exact dynamic play out inside Berkshire itself.

Under current accounting rules, Berkshire has to report unrealized gains and losses on its stock portfolio as if they were operating income. In a good quarter for the market, Berkshire's reported earnings look like $30 billion. In a bad quarter, they look like a $12 billion loss. Neither number tells you anything about how Berkshire's actual businesses performed.

Buffett has spent years telling shareholders — in every letter, every annual meeting — to ignore those headline numbers. What matters is the earnings power of the underlying businesses. He was already making the same argument in 1977 about Cap Cities. The accounting rules changed. The lesson didn't.

Two takeaways you can apply the next time you read an annual report:

1. Judge management by return on invested capital, not by dividend yield.
A company that retains 90% of its earnings and reinvests them at 20% is doing you a huge favor. A company that pays out 90% at a 4% yield is quietly starving your compounding. Don't confuse "returning capital to shareholders" with creating value — sometimes it's the opposite.

2. For any holding company, look through the income statement.
Berkshire. Markel. Fairfax. Brookfield. Prosus. Any company whose main assets are stakes in other businesses will look strange on a reported P/E basis. The market misprices these vehicles constantly because casual investors look at the wrong number. If you're willing to do the look-through math yourself, that's often where value hides.

From the 1977 letter, one sentence carries the whole idea:

Buffett is saying: I don't need to own 100% of Cap Cities to benefit from Cap Cities. I own a small piece — but my share of the earnings still belongs to me. And by not owning the whole company, I can also own pieces of Washington Post, GEICO, Interpublic, and every other business I admire.

That one insight is why Berkshire is built the way it is — as a holding company owning both whole businesses and minority stakes in public ones. Both count. Both compound. The accountants only see one.

Issue #5 — The Business That Tripled Its Profits Without Growing
See's Candies from the 1977 letter — how pre-tax earnings went from $4.2M to $12.6M in five years, in an industry with zero unit growth, and the one word that explains it.

Read more about SpaceX IPO here

AI has already produced some of the stock market’s biggest winners, but the opportunity may be far from over.

This free report reveals 10 AI stocks positioned for the next wave of investment and explains how each business makes money, what could drive growth and which risks investors should understand.

Get the Free Report

Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or trading advice. Investing in securities involves risk, including the potential loss of principal; always conduct your own research and consult a qualified financial professional before making investment decisions.