AdrianC, good morning partner, I knew I could count on you to provide the Cliff Note version. On what page does Chris make suggestions with respect to how brkbs current leadership can make brkb a more compelling value relative to highly concentrated, overvalued, too much tech exposure,1 % yielding SPY?

You're welcome. More compelling value? I think Bloomstran has the same thinking as many of us here - if Berkshire businesses do well and management allocates capital well the value of Berkshire will go up and that will be reflected in the stock price. Interestingly, he doesn't think the shares are very cheap right now: “The shares are less undervalued heading into 2026 than they have been in quite a while.”

He thinks Greg will be more aggressive with share repurchases: “A key question is how aggressive Greg will be in repurchasing shares when they are sufficiently cheap. My sense is he will be more aggressive than Warren was. Repurchasing undervalued shares is a terrific use of capital, and Greg is most certainly aware of the mountain of it lying around.”

There was a mention of Berkshire paying a dividend:
"One tool Berkshire does not employ is payment of a dividend. It paid one $0.10 quarterly dividend and
realized it was better retaining all profits and reinvesting like it knew how. Berkshire had precisely one
116 million shares outstanding in 1967 (only 43% higher today, the increase from acquisitions using mostly
expensive Berkshire shares as currency and the issuance of the “B” shares in 1996). The dime dividend
therefore cost Berkshire $100,000 in 1967. Shareholders’ equity would be higher today by $2.7 billion
had they not paid it. Berkshire would be worth a fraction of what it’s worth today had they adopted a
conventional strategy of distributing some percentage of profits as dividends every year. "

I'd guess Bloomstran isn't a fan of Berkshire paying a dividend :-)