" Given how badly the top level business has done, it's probably fair to say that those buybacks in the last ~15 years at (say) P/E of 19-24 for a non-growing firm have been very poor capital allocation. Often you can get owner earnings yields on non-growing cash cows of about 8-10%, not 4-5%. If someone is up to it, estimate what their value would be today if the money spent on those buybacks (I dunno, $12 bn??) had been put into QQQ or SPY or BRK, meaning the share count wouldn't have fallen nor the real EPS risen."

Good morning, Jim, no doubt it's purely by accident but you are getting their old bud.

Now look back 20 years, how many shares of KO have been issued as a result of stock-based comp?

How many shares of brk have been issued the past 20 years for comp?

Now do you agree with what I argued 20 years ago that every share of brk is precious, valuable, and dear? Are buybacks even more significant when done by a company at reasonable valuations without stock based comp? What percent of KO would brk own today if they didn't have stock-based comp, like brk? The hurdle to buy any other company or its shares before buying back brkb should have been very high, it wasn't. The theory that Buffett could better deploy those dollars more effectively than by buying brk, was poorly reasoned. Buffett nor Charley ever understood this concept. Buy and promote brkb, not ibm, oxy, etc.

As a result of very poor capital allocation decisions the past 15 years brk has no choice but to reposition our thinking with respect to attracting new buyers, going forward.

Selling amzn is a clue that amzn was a todd pick. Holding googl might mean that was a Ted pick.

I know this is a lot for you handle in one post but I believe in you, old bud! ::))

YOU, might not be more flexible than Uncle Warren, but I have lots of patience. GO BRKB!!