Recommended Posts

First of all, Birkshire Hathaway shares are way, way too expensive.

BRK.A is reported trading at $292,600.00 per share today May 5, 2018. Never split. Never paid a dividend.

Meanwhile, the "Baby Birks," BRK.B are reportedly trading at $195.64 per share.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/021615/what-difference-between-berkshire-hathaways-class-and-class-b-shares.asp

BRK.B shares were first issued in 1996, entitled to 1/30 the dividend of BRK.A, should the company ever in fact pay a dividend.

The Class B shares were split 50:1 in 2010, sending the dividend entitlement ratio to 1/1500.

Class B shares technically do have voting rights, but according to a memo, http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/compab.pdf, these are reduced in proportionality from the voting rights of the Class A shares, so that a Class B share has only 1/10,000 the vote of a Class A share, even though it is theoretically entitled to 1/1,500 the dividend, should the company ever pay a dividend.

Thus the Birkshire Hathaway Class B shares have only 15% the proportional voting rights of class A shares.

I feel that it is dishonest for a corporation to issue more than one class of common stock. I feel that the very term "common stock" implies that all shares shall be entitled to an equal dividend and an equal vote. Google (Alphabet, Inc.) does the same thing. When Google split its stock, (and changed its corporate name to Alphabet,) the founders stripped the iconic GOOG shares (marketed to investors) of their voting rights, which they retained and reconsolidated mostly for themselves under an alternate trading symbol, GOOGL.

Furthermore, Birkshire Hathaway makes its money by preying on poor people by abusive lending and other credit-related practices. Mortgages for mobile homes at steep interest rates, excessive fees at banks, (Wells Fargo, for one.) Birkshire Hathaway itself is a major shareholder in many large publicly traded corporations, and the company actively abuses its voting rights in those shares so that its own management may profit at the expense of other shareholders of those companies.

This kind of corporate cross-shareholding (or the practice of a corporation holding and having its management vote shares of another corporation) was characteristic of the financial markets in Japan during the Great Depression, and part of the reason that the U.S. had to go to war to end the Depression. Pearl Harbor was only a little pinprick compared to the damage being inflicted on our economy by Japanese corporations who engaged in these practices.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.