tshk1221

Why You Don't Want Berkshire to Pay Dividends

It is too early to expect any dividend from BRK since BRK's history is very short compared to other companies with consistent dividend-paying history that have more than 100 years of surviving history. For example, CL has existed for 200 years. PG, 170 years. HNZ, 140 years. KMB, 130 years and so on.

BRK must survive another 40 - 50 years from now to show to the market that it has a proven track record of surviving history. From my point of view, BRK is not that different from MSFT in terms of its speed of market capitalization during a very short period of time and relatively short business history.

However, MSFT is definitely a better choice for us because of its dividend yield of 2.6% and its firm standing as industry leader even if we have $10,000,000 to invest with.

Why You Don't Want Berkshire to Pay Dividends

The problem of BRK's no dividend policy seems to be this:

I cannot hold BRK forever. I MUST sell BRK someday to enjoy the economic benefits (cash).

However, I can hold KO, PG, JNJ, KFT, HNZ, KMB, CL and WMT including other quality-dividend paying companies forever because of the continuous, increasing streams of economic benefits (dividends) coming to me, and I don't need to sell these companies to reap and enjoy the economic benefits.

Berkshire Hathaway Stock Holdings and Investment Ideas

I think it will be better for small investors to choose some of the right ones among the stocks owned by BRK. There are a lot of companies in the list that we do not know well about or that we don't need to own at all. I would go with the following only: AXP, GE, WFC, PG, JNJ, KO, GSK, KFT and WMT

Should You Follow Warren Buffett’s Latest Moves?

The Oracle must be more interested in lending than stock investing these days since cowardly banks are cutting down on lending when lending has to be more and more aggressive. What can banks do? They just burnt all their capital into ashes when the collateral real estate was the hottest in US history.