" 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!)" Good morning, WOW, you have been reading my rude, obnoxious, uninformed posts for 20 plus years and never felt compelled to take me out to the woodshed for a spanking? Very impressive patience, my brkville brother. No one doubts Buffett's heart has always been in the right place, period. However, being anal with respect to tax avoidance and being flat out wrong about his refusal to authorize a buyback, at material discounts to IV, in the 2006 donation letter, has cost the Foundations tens of billions of proceeds from his stock sales, imo. Brk should have acquired the, right of first refusal, on all Gates Foundation sales , and should have been opportunistically buying half those shares , or more, for the past 15 years. As you well know, I'm not back seat driving, I posted that in 2007 and many times thereafter. Also, there is no excuse for Buffett to refuse to disclose how much T and T have lagged the SPY and imo, Buffett only agreed to the buybacks because that was the only way to come close to his own self imposed bogey, spy. BTW,If I were Buffett I would not buyback one share of brkb at these levels for several reasons. I sold all my STEW in all accounts but I'm still long brkb in taxable accounts about 20 percent , so no point in making the case against my own book. For kids and grandkids living in Cali, talking LT cap gains is truly painful unless you love Newsom and team Biden. Most more often bud, you brought back fond memories, take care, HC.