Now that Apple, meta, Goog, etc pay a small dividend it’s very obvious I was correct 20 years ago. A small dividend would have increased demand for brk.

I think it's entirely reasonable to believe that and express it. You might even be right. But I think it's inappropriate to claim that there is evidence that you have been correct about that.

For one things, there is some very strong evidence to the contrary, even in this thread: the introduction of a dividend after a long period without one is a firm and loud declaration to the market that you are ex growth, which is why so many shareholders on the board dread the day. Look at what happened to Microsoft stock when they started. (dead money for years, to overgeneralize)

Strictly speaking the first introduction of a dividend should be interpreted as being the situation that you can't invest all your available capital at high returns any more, but being able to invest lots of capital at high returns is perceived to be very similar to "what a growth company does". If Berkshire can't allocate lots of capital at good rates of return, the compounding machine is over, so the market beating rates of growth are over. That's not a press release, the day of capitulation, that Berkshire shareholders should look forward to.

Without compounding--investing new capital at pretty good rates--Berkshire is a very boring cash cow with pretty low returns. Even with all the capital allocated to operating units for capex and tuck-ins, the operating earnings have been on a pretty unexciting trajectory for a long time.

Jim