> You really are doing your best to look dense. I buy some dividend paying stocks too, because I think they are good investments, NOT because they pay a dividend. The dividend, in such cases, is an unavoidable nuisance.

I think the BRK dividend discussion is an interesting one, but the problem is a chunk the discussion here is dominated by someone who doesn't discuss things nicely.

A dividend, in general, is a good thing. It instills capital discipline, works against empire building in a company, and makes accounting fraud more difficult.

I'd always rather have a company that has more opportunities to deploy cash on hand at a higher than market rate of return. Railroads, resource extraction, real estate, and a few others are natural industries where dividends are almost inevitable. But there are some other companies that have a finite niche and hit their ceiling, and they just offer a nice ROIC on that business. But additional investment won't increase the size of their target market or make them more efficient. I'm happy when they decide to periodically return cash rather than making the company worse. I am *not* happy when they prioritize the dividend over the health of the business, and I wish European style non-fixed dividends were the rule here.

So the question for me is thinking if BRK falls into the former or latter category. The insurance float and the t-bill situation is a function of an over-leveraged and unhealthy market. I see no indication they have saturated the investing niche they occupy.

A dividend for the sake of a dividend is just dumb. I think a variable dividend on B shares could be interesting, but unlikely. A small fixed dividend on only B shares targeting 10-25% of the cash flow generated by the non-financial operating businesses may help avoid prevent BRK turning into a poorly run diversified conglomerate over time. But I see no large benefit that would be unlocked by doing so, and I think doing this right after a management transition would be foolish (in the bad sense).