Buffett himself is not as doctrinaire as his most zealous acolytes on this board. While the zealots declare in no uncertain terms that dividends are just wrong, Buffett has happily owned gigantic core positions paying dividends.

I agree with your post, but be aware that this particular bit doesn't necessarily make sense. There is no contradiction to explain.

Imagine you're overpaying for oranges. There are two parties to the deal. The pricing decision is great for one of them, not the other. Mr Buffett likes gathering dividends, as it gives cash in the door to continue the acquisition flywheel, but does not like his own firm paying them. He likes to be on one side of the deal, not the other.

One might look more closely and think naively that, well, if a juicy dividend is good for Berkshire as a long term shareholder then it should be good for a long term Berkshire shareholder. But nope. It depends entirely on the type of company. Is it a business where allocating new capital at high returns is a realistic opportunity? Yes for Berkshire (so far), no for Coke. So one shouldn't pay a dividend, the other should.

Jim