<<unless in a crisis, i proposes that BH will have to pay massive control premiums for deals that move the needle (>$100b).<<<

I could not disagree more.

I actually think quite the opposite may prove true.

Berkshire’s acquisition premium may DECLINE rather than increase.

Companies’ cost of capital is rising A LOT. Between AI infrastructure, reindustrialization, and other huge capital demands, competition for private capital is becoming increasingly intense. Don’t believe me? Look at the bond market!

Berkshire has $390 billion of cash and Treasury bills—deployable capital with optionality that is arguably stronger today than at any point in the company’s history. More than Warren had.

To your premise, I don’t think $100 Billion plus deals are needed to “move the needle”. The needle is moved quite nicely with $700 Million of productive assets owned all or in part right now. That fact seems ignored. But even in that arena—show me who is in a better negotiating position than Berkshire?

Sure, Warren attracted many owners because of his reputation and stewardship. But Greg Abel isn’t an outsider. He’s spent years running Berkshire’s operating companies and understands the culture as well as anyone. The group these prospective owners would join—is GREG’s group and has been for several years.

When Berkshire agrees to buy you, the deal doesn’t dependent on raising debt, syndicating loans, or issuing equity. The negotiating leverage Abel has is unprecedented. The appeal of Berkshire? A notch lower than when Warren ran the place? Sure. But still better than anywhere else.

An owner looking for certainty, speed, and autonomy isn’t likely to walk away simply because the person across the table is Greg Abel rather than Warren Buffett. Where do you go instead?