Nothing really new or noteworthy in this piece especially for those of us who closely follow the company.

Agreed, but I was suprised at how certain the writer seems to be that the Board will declare a dividend when WEB retires. Maybe not immediately, but if he is right, it is in the plan.

This makes sense to me. I was always against dividends. But for the last 2-3 years, I have predicted that the company would shift its strategic focus from capital allocation and acquisitions (WEB's forte) to operational excellence (Greg's forte). I can argue the shift is already underway. WEB built a warchest to give Greg room to manoeuver, and if follows logically that -- in the post-Warren-and-Charlie era -- the Board will no longer assume that HQ can or should invest all the profits back into its existing businesses. And if it is the case that acquisitions will be de-emphasised going forward, and some of the businesses like BNSF and BHE seem to generate more capital than they consume, why not return the excess back to the shareholders?

I know this is an old discussion, and declaring a dividend will change the tax implications of holding BRK for a lot of people, but it also seems naive to think that nothing fundamental will change when WEB leaves. The alternative -- in the absence of compelling acquisitions - is to stockpile cash forever. Which scenario would make most sense to WEB as he comtemplates the future and leaves "instructions" to his successors?

My investment decisions are generally not driven by the market or taxes, so I'm still happy holding BRK, but it is an interesting time for sure. I would welcome thoughts on the above.

abromber