No. of Recommendations: 30
Like many here, I don't particularly care what the share price does as long it is in a zone of reasonableness so that neither buyers not sellers get a bad deal - the exact same sentiment WEB has expressed many times. To paraphrase Ben Graham, I suppose I simply want more Berkshire weighers, not more voters.
As has been discussed extensively by others, a dividend is not generally an economically correct decision, especially at a firm with a long track record of owner-oriented capital discipline. I therefore see Meta's dividend announcement and the accompanying reaction as a counter-example: "We're going to stop wasting a fraction of your money. Isn't that great?". Just not a problem we have.
That being said, I agree with DTB that the last several years have been mediocre with respect to deployment of the cash pile (Apple excepted) and that, given the silence on T&T and other comments in this year's letter, do not look especially bright in prospect. Also, Harvey, I agree with you that WEB's buyback resistance/reluctance was/is irrational and conceivably still could be limiting the size of the buybacks (with an acknowledgement that there are legal and perhaps technical limits that could be in-play). If there were a shareholder vote on buying back more stock sub-IV, I certainly would vote yes.
Best,
Levendis
(first post by a 20+ year lurker!)
