thanks pupil, you are tracking my argument at least.
first: to some in this thread: for a big chunk of asset value here, at fmv, you are paying 1.4x that "nav" or "book" , whatever term you prefer. in the US, one buys a mutual fund, or etf, or stock, at "1x nav"......for Berk's same apples, one is paying 1.4x
then the focus shifts to how much "juice" or suppressed value there is on the operating assets side of house, which are you paying 1.4x accounting book for, to help compensate paying 1.4x for berk's securities and cash.
the math is the math, dispassionate, objectve, etc.
pupil.....come agin on the aapl 84%? in my mind, the gross fmv for apple and of course offset by the accrued taxable gain liability on books. but that is still 1x aaple in the nav nav captures the tax liability)
on the operating assets side....I still maintain, prima facie, that if the operating earnings, relative to Berk's operating asset book capital (bnsf, bhe, etc) isn't attractively high ROE then the "juice" isn't most most think, unless earnings power is suppressed in gaap earnings relative to intrinsic value, in some unique way vs other companies.
value of float: how much can I make on $140B a year, with regulatory on restrictions of usage (stocks/cash etc). let's say 4% after tax which is me being nice in today's interest rate environment. that's $5.6 Billion of earnings from the "free float business".....put that in div discount model, at say 6% discount rate. that's $93B of value that is hidden and should be added to Berk. I concede this. (one can play with assumptions)
I appreciate the conversation, thanks all.