He still set the metric as BV not P/E or anything else because that's the most appropriate metric to value insurance companies. That's all I'm saying, P/B you pay should not be ignored and buying back shares at high multiples to book value won't be accretive in my opinion. At that point, I would rather FF go buy some operating businesses with that cash.
He only changed the 1.2x BV stance in his 80s. I think he believed buying a predominantly insurance company at high book multiples was not good. Btw, I'm sure Berkshire IV was higher than their BV for major periods of their existence.
I agree BV is not a good metric for the non insurance companies. But the fixed income earnings, they increase BV correct and so shouldn't be an issue? The predictability in those income streams deserve a higher P/B multiple.
Agreed, a more predictable investment portfolio + consistently better underwriting performance will be valued at higher multiple.