HC, like I said yesterday, one makes you bigger and the other shrinks the pie.--
splain this to me and Lucy bro. IF buffett would have taken my advice in 2007, he would have split the stock 30-50 to one , authorized a buyback at substantial discounts to IV , started a 1 % div, and the stock would have never traded below 1.5 xs book for very long. IF, IF, he bought just 1 % of the issued and outstanding a year , on average, and IF the stock traded at 1.5 xs book plus, would brks market cap be higher or lower ? Just think with my plan, jad and geepod would be happy, I would have had the liquidity and option trading I wanted, every div paying fund on the planet would own brkb, indexes would have bought it in 2007, the foundations wouldn't have had to give away buffets lifes work for years TOO CHEAP
Buybacks and dividend payouts aren't a way for a company to grow. My point is that Buffett's bias is toward big. It's what motivates him. Big is defined by number of companies or employees or revenue....really just being "more" than it would be otherwise. "If I buy back shares, will there be more Berkshire?" "If I pay out a dividend, will there be more Berkshire?" Berkshire is "more" if it uses cash to buy new things instead of buying back shares or paying out dividends. I'm not arguing this is absolutely, always what's in the best interest of us shareholders, especially not over the short-term. But, I do recognize it's a bias Buffett has. If I'm investing in a CEO to pull these levers, Buffett is at the bottom of my list. It would be like investing in Las Vegas Sands and getting upset every day that Adelson isn't investing in enough liberal causes. It will happen occasionally, but it will never be the main event.
so why did buffett finally authorize the buyback in sept 2011 was brkb at bookish or below in his opinion ? Did that move make brk bigger ? Did buying 1.2 billion from that estate make brk, bigger ? you cant have it both ways bro.