All of the latest Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway news! Including updates on Greg Abel, Bank of America, Occidental Petroleum, Kraft Heinz, Chevron, Bertie Buffett Elliott, and more...
One useful “mental model” for the psychological problem of selling shares of a company to “create” a dividend is to think about one’s ownership as a percentage of the company, even if it is a tiny percentage. If a company repurchases stock and, consequently, has a declining share count, it is possible to sell shares without reducing one’s ownership as a percentage of the company. For example, if Berkshire repurchases 2% of its shares outstanding in a given year, a shareholder can sell 2% of his shares and still own the same percentage of Berkshire. This can potentially make it feel less like consuming principal.
That's a great point. It reminds me of when Berkshire did this itself by selling proportional amounts of GEICO and General Foods stock in the mid-1980s during tender offers and periods of open-market repurchases -- so as not to change its ownership percentage in the two companies -- and treated the proceeds as dividends. (The auditor disagreed with that decision, but that's a whole other matter, haha.)
One useful “mental model” for the psychological problem of selling shares of a company to “create” a dividend is to think about one’s ownership as a percentage of the company, even if it is a tiny percentage. If a company repurchases stock and, consequently, has a declining share count, it is possible to sell shares without reducing one’s ownership as a percentage of the company. For example, if Berkshire repurchases 2% of its shares outstanding in a given year, a shareholder can sell 2% of his shares and still own the same percentage of Berkshire. This can potentially make it feel less like consuming principal.
That's a great point. It reminds me of when Berkshire did this itself by selling proportional amounts of GEICO and General Foods stock in the mid-1980s during tender offers and periods of open-market repurchases -- so as not to change its ownership percentage in the two companies -- and treated the proceeds as dividends. (The auditor disagreed with that decision, but that's a whole other matter, haha.)