Berkshire’s Performance vs. the S&P 500
Annual Percentage ChangeYear

in Per-ShareBook Value ofBerkshirein Per-Share
Market Value ofBerkshirein S&P 500
with Dividends
Included

1965 ...........................................................................
1966 ...........................................................................
1967 ...........................................................................
1968 ...........................................................................
1969 ...........................................................................
1970 ...........................................................................
1971 ...........................................................................
1972 ...........................................................................
1973 ...........................................................................
1974 ...........................................................................
1975 ...........................................................................
1976 ...........................................................................
1977 ...........................................................................
1978 ...........................................................................
1979 ...........................................................................
1980 ...........................................................................
1981 ...........................................................................
1982 ...........................................................................
1983 ...........................................................................
1984 ...........................................................................
1985 ...........................................................................
1986 ...........................................................................
1987 ...........................................................................
1988 ...........................................................................
1989 ...........................................................................
1990 ...........................................................................
1991 ...........................................................................
1992 ...........................................................................
1993 ...........................................................................
1994 ...........................................................................
1995 ...........................................................................
1996 ...........................................................................
1997 ...........................................................................
1998 ...........................................................................
1999 ...........................................................................
2000 ...........................................................................
2001 ...........................................................................
2002 ...........................................................................
2003 ...........................................................................
2004 ...........................................................................
2005 ...........................................................................
2006 ...........................................................................
2007 ...........................................................................
2008 ...........................................................................
2009 ...........................................................................
2010 ...........................................................................
2011 ...........................................................................
2012 ...........................................................................
2013 ...........................................................................
2014 ...........................................................................
2015 ...........................................................................
2016 ...........................................................................

23.8
20.3
11.0
19.0
16.2
12.0
16.4
21.7
4.7
5.5
21.9
59.3
31.9
24.0
35.7
19.3
31.4
40.0
32.3
13.6
48.2
26.1
19.5
20.1
44.4
7.4
39.6
20.3
14.3
13.9
43.1
31.8
34.1
48.3
0.5
6.5
(6.2)
10.0
21.0
10.5
6.4
18.4
11.0
(9.6)
19.8
13.0
4.6
14.4
18.2
8.3
6.4
10.7

49.5
(3.4)
13.3
77.8
19.4
(4.6)
80.5
8.1
(2.5)
(48.7)
2.5
129.3
46.8
14.5
102.5
32.8
31.8
38.4
69.0
(2.7)
93.7
14.2
4.6
59.3
84.6
(23.1)
35.6
29.8
38.9
25.0
57.4
6.2
34.9
52.2
(19.9)
26.6
6.5
(3.8)
15.8
4.3
0.8
24.1
28.7
(31.8)
2.7
21.4
(4.7)
16.8
32.7
27.0
(12.5)
23.4

10.0(11.7)
30.9
11.0
(8.4)
3.9
14.6
18.9
(14.8)(26.4)
37.2
23.6
(7.4)
6.4
18.2
32.3
(5.0)
21.4
22.4
6.1
31.6
18.6
5.1
16.6
31.7
(3.1)
30.5
7.6
10.1
1.3
37.6
23.0
33.4
28.6
21.0
(9.1)
(11.9)(22.1)
28.7
10.9
4.9
15.8
5.5
(37.0)
26.5
15.1
2.1
16.0
32.4
13.7
1.4
12.0

Compounded Annual Gain – 1965-2016 ............................
Overall Gain – 1964-2016 ...............................................

19.0%
884,319%20.8%
1,972,595%

9.7%
12,717%

Notes: Data are for calendar years with these exceptions: 1965 and 1966, year ended 9/30; 1967, 15 months ended 12/31. Starting in 1979,
accounting rules required insurance companies to value the equity securities they hold at market rather than at the lower of cost or market, which
was previously the requirement. In this table, Berkshire’s results through 1978 have been restated to conform to the changed rules. In all otherrespects, the results are calculated using the numbers originally reported. The S&P 500 numbers are pre-tax whereas the Berkshire numbers areafter-tax. If a corporation such as Berkshire were simply to have owned the S&P 500 and accrued the appropriate taxes, its results would have
lagged the S&P 500 in years when that index showed a positive return, but would have exceeded the S&P 500 in years when the index showed anegative return. Over the years, the tax costs would have caused the aggregate lag to be substantial.

2

BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC.

To the Shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.:
Berkshire’s gain in net worth during 2016 was $27.5 billion, which increased the per-share book valueof both our Class A and Class B stock by 10.7%. Over the last 52 years (that is, since present management tookover), per-share book value has grown from $19 to $172,108, a rate of 19% compounded annually.*
During the first half of those years, Berkshire’s net worth was roughly equal to the number that reallycounts: the intrinsic value of the business. The similarity of the two figures existed then because most of ourresources were deployed in marketable securities that were regularly revalued to their quoted prices (less the tax
that would be incurred if they were to be sold). In Wall Street parlance, our balance sheet was then in very largepart “marked to market.”
By the early 1990s, however, our focus was changing to the outright ownership of businesses, a shiftthat materially diminished the relevance of balance sheet figures. That disconnect occurred because theaccounting rules (commonly referred to as “GAAP”) that apply to companies we control differ in important ways
from those used to value marketable securities. Specifically, the accounting for businesses we own requires thatthe carrying value of “losers” be written down when their failures become apparent. “Winners,” conversely, arenever revalued upwards.
We’ve experienced both outcomes: As is the case in marriage, business acquisitions often deliver
surprises after the “I do’s.” I’ve made some dumb purchases, paying far too much for the economic goodwill ofcompanies we acquired. That later led to goodwill write-offs and to consequent reductions in Berkshire’s bookvalue. We’ve also had some winners among the businesses we’ve purchased – a few of the winners very big –but have not written those up by a penny.
We have no quarrel with the asymmetrical accounting that applies here. But, over time, it necessarily
widens the gap between Berkshire’s intrinsic value and its book value. Today, the large – and growing –unrecorded gains at our winners produce an intrinsic value for Berkshire’s shares that far exceeds their bookvalue. The overage is truly huge in our property/casualty insurance business and significant also in many otheroperations.
Over time, stock prices gravitate toward intrinsic value. That’s what has happened at Berkshire, a fact
explaining why the company’s 52-year market-price gain – shown on the facing page – materially exceeds its
book-value gain.

* All per-share figures used in this report apply to Berkshire’s A shares. Figures for the B shares are 1/1500th of
those shown for A.
3

What We Hope to Accomplish
Charlie Munger, Berkshire’s Vice Chairman and my partner, and I expect Berkshire’s normalized
earning power per share to increase every year. Actual earnings, of course, will sometimes decline because of
periodic weakness in the U.S. economy. In addition, insurance mega-catastrophes or other industry-specific
events may occasionally reduce earnings at Berkshire, even when most American businesses are doing well.
It’s our job, though, to over time deliver significant growth, bumpy or not. After all, as stewards of yourcapital, Berkshire directors have opted to retain all earnings. Indeed, in both 2015 and 2016 Berkshire ranked
first among American businesses in the dollar volume of earnings retained, in each year reinvesting many
billions of dollars more than did the runner-up. Those reinvested dollars must earn their keep.
Some years, the gains in underlying earning power we achieve will be minor; very occasionally, thecash register will ring loud. Charlie and I have no magic plan to add earnings except to dream big and to beprepared mentally and financially to act fast when opportunities present themselves. Every decade or so, darkclouds will fill the economic skies, and they will briefly rain gold. When downpours of that sort occur, it’s
imperative that we rush outdoors carrying washtubs, not teaspoons. And that we will do.
I earlier described our gradual shift from a company obtaining most of its gains from investment
activities to one that grows in value by owning businesses. Launching that transition, we took baby steps –making small acquisitions whose impact on Berkshire’s profits was dwarfed by our gains from marketablesecurities. Despite that cautious approach, I made one particularly egregious error, acquiring Dexter Shoe for$434 million in 1993. Dexter’s value promptly went to zero. The story gets worse: I used stock for the purchase,
giving the sellers 25,203 shares of Berkshire that at yearend 2016 were worth more than $6 billion.
That wreck was followed by three key happenings – two positive, one negative – that set us firmly on
our present course. At the beginning of 1996, we acquired the half of GEICO we didn’t already own, a cashtransaction that changed our holding from a portfolio investment into a wholly-owned operating business.
GEICO, with its almost unlimited potential, quickly became the centerpiece around which we built what I believe
is now the world’s premier property/casualty business.
Unfortunately, I followed the GEICO purchase by foolishly using Berkshire stock – a boatload ofstock – to buy General Reinsurance in late 1998. After some early problems, General Re has become a fineinsurance operation that we prize. It was, nevertheless, a terrible mistake on my part to issue 272,200 shares ofBerkshire in buying General Re, an act that increased our outstanding shares by a whopping 21.8%. My error
caused Berkshire shareholders to give far more than they received (a practice that – despite the Biblicalendorsement – is far from blessed when you are buying businesses).
Early in 2000, I atoned for that folly by buying 76% (since grown to 90%) of MidAmerican Energy, abrilliantly-managed utility business that has delivered us many large opportunities to make profitable andsocially-useful investments. The MidAmerican cash purchase – I was learning – firmly launched us on ourpresent course of (1) continuing to build our insurance operation; (2) energetically acquiring large and diversified
non-insurance businesses and (3) largely making our deals from internally-generated cash. (Today, I would rather
prep for a colonoscopy than issue Berkshire shares.)Our portfolio of bonds and stocks, de-emphasized though it is, has continued in the post-1998 period togrow and to deliver us hefty capital gains, interest, and dividends. Those portfolio earnings have provided usmajor help in financing the purchase of businesses. Though unconventional, Berkshire’s two-pronged approachto capital allocation gives us a real edge.

4Here’s our financial record since 1999, when the redirection of our business began in earnest. During
the 18-year period covered, Berkshire’s outstanding shares grew by only 8.3%, with most of the increase
occurring when we purchased BNSF. That, I’m happy to say, was one issuance of stock that made good sense.
After-Tax Earnings(in billions of dollars)Year

Operations (1)CapitalGains (2)Year

Operations (1)CapitalGains (2)

1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

0.67
0.94
(0.13)
3.72
5.42
5.05
5.00
9.31
9.63

0.89
2.39
0.92
0.57
2.73
2.26
3.53
1.71
3.58

2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016

9.64
7.57
11.09
10.78
12.60
15.14
16.55
17.36
17.57

(4.65)
0.49
1.87(0.52)
2.23
4.34
3.32
6.73
6.50

(1) Including interest and dividends from investments, but excluding capital gains or losses.
(2) In very large part, this tabulation includes only realized capital gains or losses. Unrealized gains andlosses are also included, however, when GAAP requires that treatment.
Our expectation is that investment gains will continue to be substantial – though totally random as totiming – and that these will supply significant funds for business purchases. Concurrently, Berkshire’s superb
corps of operating CEOs will focus on increasing earnings at the individual businesses they manage, sometimes
helping them to grow by making bolt-on acquisitions. By our avoiding the issuance of Berkshire stock, any
improvement in earnings will translate into equivalent per-share gains.
************
Our efforts to materially increase the normalized earnings of Berkshire will be aided – as they have been
throughout our managerial tenure – by America’s economic dynamism. One word sums up our country’s
achievements: miraculous. From a standing start 240 years ago – a span of time less than triple my days onearth – Americans have combined human ingenuity, a market system, a tide of talented and ambitious
immigrants, and the rule of law to deliver abundance beyond any dreams of our forefathers.
You need not be an economist to understand how well our system has worked. Just look around you.
See the 75 million owner-occupied homes, the bountiful farmland, the 260 million vehicles, the hyper-productive
factories, the great medical centers, the talent-filled universities, you name it – they all represent a net gain for
Americans from the barren lands, primitive structures and meager output of 1776. Starting from scratch, America
has amassed wealth totaling $90 trillion.

5

It’s true, of course, that American owners of homes, autos and other assets have often borrowed heavily
to finance their purchases. If an owner defaults, however, his or her asset does not disappear or lose its
usefulness. Rather, ownership customarily passes to an American lending institution that then disposes of it to an
American buyer. Our nation’s wealth remains intact. As Gertrude Stein put it, “Money is always there, but thepockets change.”
Above all, it’s our market system – an economic traffic cop ably directing capital, brains and labor –that has created America’s abundance. This system has also been the primary factor in allocating rewards.
Governmental redirection, through federal, state and local taxation, has in addition determined the distribution ofa significant portion of the bounty.
America has, for example, decided that those citizens in their productive years should help both the oldand the young. Such forms of aid – sometimes enshrined as “entitlements” – are generally thought of as applying
to the aged. But don’t forget that four million American babies are born each year with an entitlement to a public
education. That societal commitment, largely financed at the local level, costs about $150,000 per baby. The
annual cost totals more than $600 billion, which is about 3 1⁄ 2% of GDP.
However our wealth may be divided, the mind-boggling amounts you see around you belong almost
exclusively to Americans. Foreigners, of course, own or have claims on a modest portion of our wealth. Thoseholdings, however, are of little importance to our national balance sheet: Our citizens own assets abroad that are
roughly comparable in value.
Early Americans, we should emphasize, were neither smarter nor more hard working than those people
who toiled century after century before them. But those venturesome pioneers crafted a system that unleashedhuman potential, and their successors built upon it.
This economic creation will deliver increasing wealth to our progeny far into the future. Yes, thebuild-up of wealth will be interrupted for short periods from time to time. It will not, however, be stopped. I’ll
repeat what I’ve both said in the past and expect to say in future years: Babies born in America today are theluckiest crop in history.
************
America’s economic achievements have led to staggering profits for stockholders. During the 20th
century the Dow-Jones Industrials advanced from 66 to 11,497, a 17,320% capital gain that was materiallyboosted by steadily increasing dividends. The trend continues: By yearend 2016, the index had advanced afurther 72%, to 19,763.
American business – and consequently a basket of stocks – is virtually certain to be worth far more in
the years ahead. Innovation, productivity gains, entrepreneurial spirit and an abundance of capital will see to that.
Ever-present naysayers may prosper by marketing their gloomy forecasts. But heaven help them if they act on thenonsense they peddle.
Many companies, of course, will fall behind, and some will fail. Winnowing of that sort is a product ofmarket dynamism. Moreover, the years ahead will occasionally deliver major market declines – even panics –that will affect virtually all stocks. No one can tell you when these traumas will occur – not me, not Charlie, noteconomists, not the media. Meg McConnell of the New York Fed aptly described the reality of panics: “Wespend a lot of time looking for systemic risk; in truth, however, it tends to find us.”During such scary periods, you should never forget two things: First, widespread fear is your friend as
an investor, because it serves up bargain purchases. Second, personal fear is your enemy. It will also be
unwarranted. Investors who avoid high and unnecessary costs and simply sit for an extended period with acollection of large, conservatively-financed American businesses will almost certainly do well.
As for Berkshire, our size precludes a brilliant result: Prospective returns fall as assets increase.
Nonetheless, Berkshire’s collection of good businesses, along with the company’s impregnable financial strengthand owner-oriented culture, should deliver decent results. We won’t be satisfied with less.
6

Share Repurchases
In the investment world, discussions about share repurchases often become heated. But I’d suggest thatparticipants in this debate take a deep breath: Assessing the desirability of repurchases isn’t that complicated.
From the standpoint of exiting shareholders, repurchases are always a plus. Though the day-to-day impact ofthese purchases is usually minuscule, it’s always better for a seller to have an additional buyer in the market.
For continuing shareholders, however, repurchases only make sense if the shares are bought at a pricebelow intrinsic value. When that rule is followed, the remaining shares experience an immediate gain in intrinsic
value. Consider a simple analogy: If there are three equal partners in a business worth $3,000 and one is boughtout by the partnership for $900, each of the remaining partners realizes an immediate gain of $50. If the exiting
partner is paid $1,100, however, the continuing partners each suffer a loss of $50. The same math applies withcorporations and their shareholders. Ergo, the question of whether a repurchase action is value-enhancing orvalue-destroying for continuing shareholders is entirely purchase-price dependent.
It is puzzling, therefore, that corporate repurchase announcements almost never refer to a price above
which repurchases will be eschewed. That certainly wouldn’t be the case if a management was buying an outsidebusiness. There, price would always factor into a buy-or-pass decision.
When CEOs or boards are buying a small part of their own company, though, they all too often seem
oblivious to price. Would they behave similarly if they were managing a private company with just a few owners
and were evaluating the wisdom of buying out one of them? Of course not.
It is important to remember that there are two occasions in which repurchases should not take place,even if the company’s shares are underpriced. One is when a business both needs all its available money toprotect or expand its own operations and is also uncomfortable adding further debt. Here, the internal need forfunds should take priority. This exception assumes, of course, that the business has a decent future awaiting it
after the needed expenditures are made.
The second exception, less common, materializes when a business acquisition (or some other investment
opportunity) offers far greater value than do the undervalued shares of the potential repurchaser. Long ago,
Berkshire itself often had to choose between these alternatives. At our present size, the issue is far less likely toarise.
My suggestion: Before even discussing repurchases, a CEO and his or her Board should stand, joinhands and in unison declare, “What is smart at one price is stupid at another.”************To recap Berkshire’s own repurchase policy: I am authorized to buy large amounts of Berkshire shares at
120% or less of book value because our Board has concluded that purchases at that level clearly bring an instant andmaterial benefit to continuing shareholders. By our estimate, a 120%-of-book price is a significant discount toBerkshire’s intrinsic value, a spread that is appropriate because calculations of intrinsic value can’t be precise.
The authorization given me does not mean that we will “prop” our stock’s price at the 120% ratio. If
that level is reached, we will instead attempt to blend a desire to make meaningful purchases at a value-creating
price with a related goal of not over-influencing the market.
To date, repurchasing our shares has proved hard to do. That may well be because we have been clear indescribing our repurchase policy and thereby have signaled our view that Berkshire’s intrinsic value issignificantly higher than 120% of book value. If so, that’s fine. Charlie and I prefer to see Berkshire shares sell ina fairly narrow range around intrinsic value, neither wishing them to sell at an unwarranted high price – it’s no
fun having owners who are disappointed with their purchases – nor one too low. Furthermore, our buying out“partners” at a discount is not a particularly gratifying way of making money. Still, market circumstances could
create a situation in which repurchases would benefit both continuing and exiting shareholders. If so, we will beready to act.
7One final observation for this section: As the subject of repurchases has come to a boil, some people
have come close to calling them un-American – characterizing them as corporate misdeeds that divert funds
needed for productive endeavors. That simply isn’t the case: Both American corporations and private investors
are today awash in funds looking to be sensibly deployed. I’m not aware of any enticing project that in recent
years has died for lack of capital. (Call us if you have a candidate.)
Insurance
Let’s now look at Berkshire’s various businesses, starting with our most important sector, insurance.
The property/casualty (“P/C”) branch of that industry has been the engine that has propelled our growth since
1967, the year we acquired National Indemnity and its sister company, National Fire & Marine, for $8.6 million.
Today, National Indemnity is the largest property/casualty company in the world as measured by net worth.
One reason we were attracted to the P/C business was its financial characteristics: P/C insurers receive
premiums upfront and pay claims later. In extreme cases, such as claims arising from exposure to asbestos,
payments can stretch over many decades. This collect-now, pay-later model leaves P/C companies holding large
sums – money we call “float” – that will eventually go to others. Meanwhile, insurers get to invest this float for
their own benefit. Though individual policies and claims come and go, the amount of float an insurer holds
usually remains fairly stable in relation to premium volume. Consequently, as our business grows, so does our
float. And how it has grown, as the following table shows:Year

Float (in millions)

1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2016

$

39
237
1,632
27,871
65,832
91,577

We recently wrote a huge policy that increased float to more than $100 billion. Beyond that one-timeboost, float at GEICO and several of our specialized operations is almost certain to grow at a good clip. National
Indemnity’s reinsurance division, however, is party to a number of large run-off contracts whose float is certain
to drift downward.
We may in time experience a decline in float. If so, the decline will be very gradual – at the outside no
more than 3% in any year. The nature of our insurance contracts is such that we can never be subject toimmediate or near-term demands for sums that are of significance to our cash resources. This structure is bydesign and is a key component in the unequaled financial strength of our insurance companies. It will never becompromised.
If our premiums exceed the total of our expenses and eventual losses, our insurance operation registers
an underwriting profit that adds to the investment income the float produces. When such a profit is earned, we
enjoy the use of free money – and, better yet, get paid for holding it.
Unfortunately, the wish of all insurers to achieve this happy result creates intense competition, so
vigorous indeed that it sometimes causes the P/C industry as a whole to operate at a significant underwriting loss.
This loss, in effect, is what the industry pays to hold its float. Competitive dynamics almost guarantee that theinsurance industry, despite the float income all its companies enjoy, will continue its dismal record of earning
subnormal returns on tangible net worth as compared to other American businesses.

8This outcome is made more certain by the dramatically lower interest rates that now exist throughout theworld. The investment portfolios of almost all P/C companies – though not those of Berkshire – are heavily
concentrated in bonds. As these high-yielding legacy investments mature and are replaced by bonds yielding apittance, earnings from float will steadily fall. For that reason, and others as well, it’s a good bet that industry
results over the next ten years will fall short of those recorded in the past decade, particularly in the case ofcompanies that specialize in reinsurance.
Nevertheless, I very much like our own prospects. Berkshire’s unrivaled financial strength allows us far
more flexibility in investing than that generally available to P/C companies. The many alternatives available to us
are always an advantage; occasionally, they offer us major opportunities. When others are constrained, ourchoices expand.
Moreover, our P/C companies have an excellent underwriting record. Berkshire has now operated at anunderwriting profit for 14 consecutive years, our pre-tax gain for the period having totaled $28 billion. That
record is no accident: Disciplined risk evaluation is the daily focus of all of our insurance managers, who knowthat while float is valuable, its benefits can be drowned by poor underwriting results. All insurers give thatmessage lip service. At Berkshire it is a religion, Old Testament style.
So how does our float affect intrinsic value? When Berkshire’s book value is calculated, the full amountof our float is deducted as a liability, just as if we had to pay it out tomorrow and could not replenish it. But tothink of float as a typical liability is a major mistake. It should instead be viewed as a revolving fund. Daily, we
pay old claims and related expenses – a huge $27 billion to more than six million claimants in 2016 – and that
reduces float. Just as surely, we each day write new business that will soon generate its own claims, adding tofloat.
If our revolving float is both costless and long-enduring, which I believe it will be, the true value of thisliability is dramatically less than the accounting liability. Owing $1 that in effect will never leave the premises –because new business is almost certain to deliver a substitute – is worlds different from owing $1 that will go out
the door tomorrow and not be replaced. The two types of liabilities, however, are treated as equals under GAAP.
A partial offset to this overstated liability is a $15.5 billion “goodwill” asset that we incurred in buying
our insurance companies and that is included in our book-value figure. In very large part, this goodwill represents
the price we paid for the float-generating capabilities of our insurance operations. The cost of the goodwill,
however, has no bearing on its true value. For example, if an insurance company sustains large and prolonged
underwriting losses, any goodwill asset carried on the books should be deemed valueless, whatever its original
cost.
Fortunately, that does not describe Berkshire. Charlie and I believe the true economic value of our
insurance goodwill – what we would happily pay for float of similar quality were we to purchase an insurance
operation possessing it – to be far in excess of its historic carrying value. Indeed, almost the entire $15.5 billion
we carry for goodwill in our insurance business was already on our books in 2000 when float was $28 billion.
Yet we have subsequently increased our float by $64 billion, a gain that in no way is reflected in our book value.
This unrecorded asset is one reason – a huge reason – why we believe Berkshire’s intrinsic business value far
exceeds its book value.
************
Berkshire’s attractive insurance economics exist only because we have some terrific managers running
disciplined operations that in most cases possess hard-to-replicate business models. Let me tell you about the
major units.
First by float size is the Berkshire Hathaway Reinsurance Group, managed by Ajit Jain. Ajit insuresrisks that no one else has the desire or the capital to take on. His operation combines capacity, speed,
decisiveness and, most important, brains in a manner unique in the insurance business. Yet he never exposes
Berkshire to risks that are inappropriate in relation to our resources.

9Indeed, Berkshire is far more conservative in avoiding risk than most large insurers. For example, if theinsurance industry should experience a $250 billion loss from some mega-catastrophe – a loss about triple
anything it has ever experienced – Berkshire as a whole would likely record a large profit for the year. Our many
streams of non-insurance earnings would see to that. Additionally, we would remain awash in cash and be eager
to write business in an insurance market that might well be in disarray. Meanwhile, other major insurers andreinsurers would be swimming in red ink, if not facing insolvency.
When Ajit entered Berkshire’s office on a Saturday in 1986, he did not have a day’s experience in theinsurance business. Nevertheless, Mike Goldberg, then our manager of insurance, handed him the keys to oursmall and struggling reinsurance business. With that move, Mike achieved sainthood: Since then, Ajit has createdtens of billions of value for Berkshire shareholders. If there were ever to be another Ajit and you could swap me
for him, don’t hesitate. Make the trade!
************We have another reinsurance powerhouse in General Re, managed until recently by Tad Montross. After39 years at General Re, Tad retired in 2016. Tad was a class act in every way and we owe him a ton of thanks.
Kara Raiguel, who has worked with Ajit for 16 years, is now CEO of General Re.
At bottom, a sound insurance operation needs to adhere to four disciplines. It must (1) understand all
exposures that might cause a policy to incur losses; (2) conservatively assess the likelihood of any exposure
actually causing a loss and the probable cost if it does; (3) set a premium that, on average, will deliver a profit
after both prospective loss costs and operating expenses are covered; and (4) be willing to walk away if theappropriate premium can’t be obtained.
Many insurers pass the first three tests and flunk the fourth. They simply can’t turn their back on
business that is being eagerly written by their competitors. That old line, “The other guy is doing it, so we must
as well,” spells trouble in any business, but in none more so than insurance. Tad never listened to that
nonsensical excuse for sloppy underwriting, and neither will Kara.
************
Finally, there is GEICO, the company that set my heart afire 66 years ago (and for which the flame stillburns). GEICO is managed by Tony Nicely, who joined the company at 18 and completed 55 years of service in2016.
Tony became CEO of GEICO in 1993, and since then the company has been flying. There is no better
manager than Tony, who brings his combination of brilliance, dedication and soundness to the job. (The latter
quality is essential to sustained success. As Charlie says, it’s great to have a manager with a 160 IQ – unless hethinks it’s 180.) Like Ajit, Tony has created tens of billions of value for Berkshire.
On my initial visit to GEICO in 1951, I was blown away by the huge cost advantage the company
enjoyed over the giants of the industry. It was clear to me that GEICO would succeed because it deserved tosucceed. The company’s annual sales were then $8 million; In 2016, GEICO did that much business every threehours of the year.
Auto insurance is a major expenditure for most families. Savings matter to them – and only a low-cost
operation can deliver those. In fact, at least 40% of the people reading this letter can save money by insuring withGEICO. So stop reading – right now! – and go to geico.com or call 800-847-7536.
GEICO’s low costs create a moat – an enduring one – that competitors are unable to cross. As a result,the company gobbles up market share year after year, ending 2016 with about 12% of industry volume. That’s up
from 2.5% in 1995, the year Berkshire acquired control of GEICO. Employment, meanwhile, grew from 8,575 to
36,085.

10

GEICO’s growth accelerated dramatically during the second half of 2016. Loss costs throughout theauto-insurance industry had been increasing at an unexpected pace and some competitors lost their enthusiasm
for taking on new customers. GEICO’s reaction to the profit squeeze, however, was to accelerate its
new-business efforts. We like to make hay while the sun sets, knowing that it will surely rise again.
GEICO continues on a roll as I send you this letter. When insurance prices increase, people shop more.
And when they shop, GEICO wins.
Have you called yet? (800-847-7536 or go to geico.com)************In addition to our three major insurance operations, we own a collection of smaller companies thatprimarily write commercial coverages. In aggregate, these companies are a large, growing and valuable operationthat consistently delivers an underwriting profit, usually one much superior to that reported by their competitors.
Over the past 14 years, this group has earned $4.7 billion from underwriting – about 13% of its premium
volume – while increasing its float from $943 million to $11.6 billion.
Less than three years ago, we formed Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance (“BHSI”), which isincluded in this grouping. Our first decision was to put Peter Eastwood in charge, a move that proved to be ahome run: We expected significant losses in the early years while Peter built the personnel and infrastructureneeded for a world-wide operation. Instead, he and his crew delivered significant underwriting profits throughout
the start-up period. BHSI’s volume increased 40% in 2016, reaching $1.3 billion. It’s clear to me that thecompany is destined to become one of the world’s leading P/C insurers.
Here’s a recap of pre-tax underwriting earnings and float by division:
Underwriting Profit

Yearend Float(in millions)
2016
2015

Insurance Operations

2016

2015

BH Reinsurance ....................................
General Re ...........................................
GEICO ................................................
Other Primary .......................................

$ 822
190
462
657

$ 421
132
460
824

$ 45,081
17,69917,148
11,649$ 44,108
18,56015,1489,906$2,131$1,837$ 91,577$ 87,722

Berkshire’s great managers, premier financial strength and a range of business models protected by wide
moats amount to something unique in the insurance world. This assemblage of strengths is a huge asset for
Berkshire shareholders that time will only make more valuable.
Regulated, Capital-Intensive Businesses
Our BNSF railroad and Berkshire Hathaway Energy (“BHE”), our 90%-owned utility business, shareimportant characteristics that distinguish them from Berkshire’s other activities. Consequently, we assign them
their own section in this letter and split out their combined financial statistics in our GAAP balance sheet andincome statement. These two very major companies accounted for 33% of Berkshire’s after-tax operating
earnings last year.

11

A key characteristic of both companies is their huge investment in very long-lived, regulated assets,with these partially funded by large amounts of long-term debt that is not guaranteed by Berkshire. Our credit isin fact not needed because each company has earning power that even under terrible economic conditions would
far exceed its interest requirements. Last year, for example, in a disappointing year for railroads, BNSF’s interest
coverage was more than 6:1. (Our definition of coverage is the ratio of earnings before interest and taxes tointerest, not EBITDA/interest, a commonly-used measure we view as seriously flawed.)
At BHE, meanwhile, two factors ensure the company’s ability to service its debt under all
circumstances. The first is common to all utilities: recession-resistant earnings, which result from thesecompanies offering an essential service for which demand is remarkably steady. The second is enjoyed by few
other utilities: an ever-widening diversity of earnings streams, which shield BHE from being seriously harmed byany single regulatory body. These many sources of profit, supplemented by the inherent advantage of thecompany being owned by a strong parent, have allowed BHE and its utility subsidiaries to significantly lower
their cost of debt. That economic fact benefits both us and our customers.
All told, BHE and BNSF invested $8.9 billion in plant and equipment last year, a massive commitment
to their segments of America’s infrastructure. We relish making such investments as long as they promise
reasonable returns – and, on that front, we put a large amount of trust in future regulation.
Our confidence is justified both by our past experience and by the knowledge that society will foreverneed huge investments in both transportation and energy. It is in the self-interest of governments to treat capitalproviders in a manner that will ensure the continued flow of funds to essential projects. It is concomitantly in our
self-interest to conduct our operations in a way that earns the approval of our regulators and the people they
represent.
Low prices are a powerful way to keep these constituencies happy. In Iowa, BHE’s average retail rate is
7.1¢ per KWH. Alliant, the other major electric utility in the state, averages 9.9¢. Here are the comparable
industry figures for adjacent states: Nebraska 9.0¢, Missouri 9.5¢, Illinois 9.2¢, Minnesota 10.0¢. The national
average is 10.3¢. We have promised Iowans that our base rates will not increase until 2029 at the earliest. Our
rock-bottom prices add up to real money for paycheck-strapped customers.
At BNSF, price comparisons between major railroads are far more difficult to make because ofsignificant differences in both their mix of cargo and the average distance the load is carried. To supply a very
crude measure, however, our revenue per ton-mile was 3¢ last year, while shipping costs for customers of theother four major U.S.-based railroads ranged from 4¢ to 5¢.
Both BHE and BNSF have been leaders in pursuing planet-friendly technology. In wind generation, nostate comes close to rivaling Iowa, where last year the megawatt-hours we generated from wind equaled 55% of
all megawatt-hours sold to our Iowa retail customers. New wind projects that are underway will take that figure
to 89% by 2020.
Bargain-basement electric rates carry second-order benefits with them. Iowa has attracted large hightech installations, both because of its low prices for electricity (which data centers use in huge quantities) andbecause most tech CEOs are enthusiastic about using renewable energy. When it comes to wind energy, Iowa is
the Saudi Arabia of America.
BNSF, like other Class I railroads, uses only a single gallon of diesel fuel to move a ton of freightalmost 500 miles. Those economics make railroads four times as fuel-efficient as trucks! Furthermore, railroads
alleviate highway congestion – and the taxpayer-funded maintenance expenditures that come with heavier
traffic – in a major way.

12

All told, BHE and BNSF own assets that are of major importance to our country as well as toshareholders of Berkshire. Here are the key financial figures for both:
BNSF

Earnings (in millions)
2016
2015
2014

Revenues..................................................................................
Operating expenses ....................................................................

$ 19,829
13,144$ 21,967
14,264$ 23,239
16,237

Operating earnings before interest and taxes....................................
Interest (net) .............................................................................
Income taxes .............................................................................

6,685
992
2,124

7,703
928
2,527

7,002
833
2,300

Net earnings..............................................................................

$

3,569

Berkshire Hathaway Energy (90% owned)
2016
U.K. utilities .............................................................................
Iowa utility ...............................................................................
Nevada utilities .........................................................................
PacifiCorp (primarily Oregon and Utah) .........................................
Gas pipelines (Northern Natural and Kern River) .............................
Canadian transmission utility .......................................................
Renewable projects ....................................................................
HomeServices ...........................................................................
Other (net) ................................................................................

$

Operating earnings before corporate interest and taxes ......................
Interest ....................................................................................
Income taxes .............................................................................

$

4,248

$

3,869

Earnings (in millions)
2015
2014

367
392
559
1,105
413
147
157
225
73

$

3,438
465
431

460
292
586
1,026
401
170
175
191
49

$

3,350
499
481

527
270
549
1,010
379
16
194
139
54
3,138
427
616

Net earnings..............................................................................

$

2,542

$

2,370

$

2,095

Earnings applicable to Berkshire ...................................................

$

2,287

$

2,132

$

1,882

HomeServices may appear out of place in the above table. But it came with our purchase of
MidAmerican (now BHE) in 1999 – and we are lucky that it did.
HomeServices owns 38 realty companies with more than 29,000 agents who operate in 28 states. Last
year it purchased four realtors, including Houlihan Lawrence, the leader in New York’s Westchester County (in atransaction that closed shortly after yearend).
In real estate parlance, representing either a buyer or a seller is called a “side,” with the representation ofboth counting as two sides. Last year, our owned realtors participated in 244,000 sides, totaling $86 billion involume.
HomeServices also franchises many operations throughout the country that use our name. We like bothaspects of the real estate business and expect to acquire many realtors and franchisees during the next decade.

13

Manufacturing, Service and Retailing Operations
Our manufacturing, service and retailing operations sell products ranging from lollipops to jet airplanes.
Let’s look, though, at a summary balance sheet and earnings statement for the entire group.
Balance Sheet 12/31/16 (in millions)
AssetsCash and equivalents ...........................
Accounts and notes receivable ..............

Liabilities and Equity$

8,073
11,183

Notes payable ................................
Other current liabilities ....................

Inventory ..........................................
Other current assets.............................

15,727
1,039

Total current liabilities.....................

14,518

Total current assets .............................

36,022

Goodwill and other intangibles ..............
Fixed assets .......................................
Other assets .......................................

71,473
18,915
3,183

Deferred taxes................................
Term debt and other liabilities ...........
Non-controlling interests ..................
Berkshire equity .............................

12,044
10,943579
91,509$129,593$

2,054
12,464$129,593

Earnings Statement (in millions)
2016

2015

2014

Revenues ................................................................
Operating expenses ...................................................
Interest expense........................................................

$120,059
111,383
214$107,825
100,607103$97,689
90,788109

Pre-tax earnings .......................................................
Income taxes and non-controlling interests ....................

8,462
2,831

7,115
2,432

6,792
2,324

4,683

$ 4,468

Net earnings ............................................................

$

5,631

$

Included in this financial summary are 44 businesses that report directly to headquarters. But some ofthese companies, in turn, have many individual operations under their umbrella. For example, Marmon has 175
separate business units, serving widely disparate markets, and Berkshire Hathaway Automotive owns 83
dealerships, operating in nine states.
This collection of businesses is truly a motley crew. Some operations, measured by earnings on
unleveraged net tangible assets, enjoy terrific returns that, in a couple of instances, exceed 100%. Most are solid
businesses generating good returns in the area of 12% to 20%.

14

A few, however – these are serious blunders I made in my job of capital allocation – produce very poor
returns. In most cases, I was wrong when I originally sized up the economic characteristics of these companies orthe industries in which they operate, and we are now paying the price for my misjudgments. In a couple ofinstances, I stumbled in assessing either the fidelity or ability of incumbent managers or ones I later put in place.
I will commit more errors; you can count on that. Fortunately, Charlie – never bashful – is around to say “no” tomy worst ideas.
Viewed as a single entity, the companies in the manufacturing, service and retailing group are an
excellent business. They employed an average of $24 billion of net tangible assets during 2016 and, despite theirholding large quantities of excess cash and carrying very little debt, earned 24% after-tax on that capital.
Of course, a business with terrific economics can be a bad investment if it is bought at too high a price.
We have paid substantial premiums to net tangible assets for most of our businesses, a cost that is reflected in thelarge figure we show on our balance sheet for goodwill and other intangibles. Overall, however, we are getting adecent return on the capital we have deployed in this sector. Absent a recession, earnings from the group will
likely grow in 2017, in part because Duracell and Precision Castparts (both bought in 2016) will for the first time
contribute a full year’s earnings to this group. Additionally, Duracell incurred significant transitional costs in2016 that will not recur.
We have far too many companies in this group to comment on them individually. Moreover, theircompetitors – both current and potential – read this report. In a few of our businesses, we might be disadvantaged
if outsiders knew our numbers. Therefore, in certain of our operations that are not of a size material to an
evaluation of Berkshire, we only disclose what is required. You can nevertheless find a good bit of detail about
many of our operations on pages 90 - 94. Be aware, though, that it’s the growth of the Berkshire forest thatcounts. It would be foolish to focus over-intently on any single tree.
************For several years I have told you that the income and expense data shown in this section does notconform to GAAP. I have explained that this divergence occurs primarily because of GAAP-ordered rules
regarding purchase-accounting adjustments that require the full amortization of certain intangibles over periods
averaging about 19 years. In our opinion, most of those amortization “expenses” are not truly an economic cost.
Our goal in diverging from GAAP in this section is to present the figures to you in a manner reflecting the way inwhich Charlie and I view and analyze them.
On page 54 we itemize $15.4 billion of intangibles that are yet to be amortized by annual charges toearnings. (More intangibles to be amortized will be created as we make new acquisitions.) On that page, we showthat the 2016 amortization charge to GAAP earnings was $1.5 billion, up $384 million from 2015. My judgment
is that about 20% of the 2016 charge is a “real” cost.
Eventually amortization charges fully write off the related asset. When that happens – most often at the
15-year mark – the GAAP earnings we report will increase without any true improvement in the underlying
economics of Berkshire’s business. (My gift to my successor.)
Now that I’ve described a GAAP expense that I believe to be overstated, let me move on to a lesspleasant distortion produced by accounting rules. The subject this time is GAAP-prescribed depreciation charges,
which are necessarily based on historical cost. Yet in certain cases, those charges materially understate true
economic costs. Countless words were written about this phenomenon in the 1970s and early 1980s, when
inflation was rampant. As inflation subsided – thanks to heroic actions by Paul Volcker – the inadequacy ofdepreciation charges became less of an issue. But the problem still prevails, big time, in the railroad industry,where current costs for many depreciable items far outstrip historical costs. The inevitable result is that reported
earnings throughout the railroad industry are considerably higher than true economic earnings.

15

At BNSF, to get down to particulars, our GAAP depreciation charge last year was $2.1 billion. But were
we to spend that sum and no more annually, our railroad would soon deteriorate and become less competitive.
The reality is that – simply to hold our own – we need to spend far more than the cost we show for depreciation.
Moreover, a wide disparity will prevail for decades.
All that said, Charlie and I love our railroad, which was one of our better purchases.
************
Too many managements – and the number seems to grow every year – are looking for any means toreport, and indeed feature, “adjusted earnings” that are higher than their company’s GAAP earnings. There aremany ways for practitioners to perform this legerdemain. Two of their favorites are the omission of“restructuring costs” and “stock-based compensation” as expenses.
Charlie and I want managements, in their commentary, to describe unusual items – good or bad – that
affect the GAAP numbers. After all, the reason we look at these numbers of the past is to make estimates of the
future. But a management that regularly attempts to wave away very real costs by highlighting “adjusted
per-share earnings” makes us nervous. That’s because bad behavior is contagious: CEOs who overtly look forways to report high numbers tend to foster a culture in which subordinates strive to be “helpful” as well. Goals
like that can lead, for example, to insurers underestimating their loss reserves, a practice that has destroyed manyindustry participants.
Charlie and I cringe when we hear analysts talk admiringly about managements who always “make thenumbers.” In truth, business is too unpredictable for the numbers always to be met. Inevitably, surprises occur.
When they do, a CEO whose focus is centered on Wall Street will be tempted to make up the numbers.
Let’s get back to the two favorites of “don’t-count-this” managers, starting with “restructuring.”
Berkshire, I would say, has been restructuring from the first day we took over in 1965. Owning only a northern
textile business then gave us no other choice. And today a fair amount of restructuring occurs every year at
Berkshire. That’s because there are always things that need to change in our hundreds of businesses. Last year, as
I mentioned earlier, we spent significant sums getting Duracell in shape for the decades ahead.
We have never, however, singled out restructuring charges and told you to ignore them in estimating ournormal earning power. If there were to be some truly major expenses in a single year, I would, of course, mention
it in my commentary. Indeed, when there is a total rebasing of a business, such as occurred when Kraft and Heinz
merged, it is imperative that for several years the huge one-time costs of rationalizing the combined operations be
explained clearly to owners. That’s precisely what the CEO of Kraft Heinz has done, in a manner approved by
the company’s directors (who include me). But, to tell owners year after year, “Don’t count this,” whenmanagement is simply making business adjustments that are necessary, is misleading. And too many analysts andjournalists fall for this baloney.
To say “stock-based compensation” is not an expense is even more cavalier. CEOs who go down thatroad are, in effect, saying to shareholders, “If you pay me a bundle in options or restricted stock, don’t worry
about its effect on earnings. I’ll ‘adjust’ it away.”
To explore this maneuver further, join me for a moment in a visit to a make-believe accounting
laboratory whose sole mission is to juice Berkshire’s reported earnings. Imaginative technicians await us, eager
to show their stuff.

16

Listen carefully while I tell these enablers that stock-based compensation usually comprises at least 20%
of total compensation for the top three or four executives at most large companies. Pay attention, too, as I explainthat Berkshire has several hundred such executives at its subsidiaries and pays them similar amounts, but uses
only cash to do so. I further confess that, lacking imagination, I have counted all of these payments to
Berkshire’s executives as an expense.
My accounting minions suppress a giggle and immediately point out that 20% of what is paid theseBerkshire managers is tantamount to “cash paid in lieu of stock-based compensation” and is therefore not a“true” expense. So – presto! – Berkshire, too, can have “adjusted” earnings.
Back to reality: If CEOs want to leave out stock-based compensation in reporting earnings, they should
be required to affirm to their owners one of two propositions: why items of value used to pay employees are not a
cost or why a payroll cost should be excluded when calculating earnings.
During the accounting nonsense that flourished during the 1960s, the story was told of a CEO who, as
his company revved up to go public, asked prospective auditors, “What is two plus two?” The answer that won
the assignment, of course, was, “What number do you have in mind?”Finance and Financial Products
Our three leasing and rental operations are conducted by CORT (furniture), XTRA (semi-trailers), andMarmon (primarily tank cars but also freight cars, intermodal tank containers and cranes). Each is the leader in
its field.
We also include Clayton Homes in this section. This company receives most of its revenue from the saleof manufactured homes, but derives the bulk of its earnings from its large mortgage portfolio. Last year, Clayton
became America’s largest home builder, delivering 42,075 units that accounted for 5% of all new American
homes. (In fairness, other large builders do far more dollar volume than Clayton because they sell site-built
homes that command much higher prices.)
In 2015, Clayton branched out, purchasing its first site-builder. Two similar acquisitions followed in2016, and more will come. Site-built houses are expected to amount to 3% or so of Clayton’s unit sales in 2017
and will likely deliver about 14% of its dollar volume.
Even so, Clayton’s focus will always be manufactured homes, which account for about 70% of new
American homes costing less than $150,000. Clayton manufactures close to one-half of the total. That is a far cry
from Clayton’s position in 2003 when Berkshire purchased the company. It then ranked third in the industry inunits sold and employed 6,731 people. Now, when its new acquisitions are included, the employee count is
14,677. And that number will increase in the future.
Clayton’s earnings in recent years have materially benefited from extraordinarily low interest rates. The
company’s mortgage loans to home-buyers are at fixed-rates and for long terms (averaging 25 years at
inception). But Clayton’s own borrowings are short-term credits that re-price frequently. When rates plunge,
Clayton’s earnings from its portfolio greatly increase. We normally would shun that kind of lend-long, borrowshort approach, which can cause major problems for financial institutions. As a whole, however, Berkshire isalways asset-sensitive, meaning that higher short-term rates will benefit our consolidated earnings, even as theyhurt at Clayton.

17

Last year Clayton had to foreclose on 8,304 manufactured-housing mortgages, about 2.5% of its total
portfolio. Customer demographics help explain that percentage. Clayton’s customers are usually lower-income
families with mediocre credit scores; many are supported by jobs that will be at risk in any recession; many,
similarly, have financial profiles that will be damaged by divorce or death to an extent that would not be typicalfor a high-income family. Those risks that our customers face are partly mitigated because almost all have astrong desire to own a home and because they enjoy reasonable monthly payments that average only $587,
including the cost of insurance and property taxes.
Clayton also has long had programs that help borrowers through difficulties. The two most popular are
loan extensions and payment forgiveness. Last year about 11,000 borrowers received extensions, and 3,800 had$3.4 million of scheduled payments permanently canceled by Clayton. The company does not earn interest or
fees when these loss-mitigation moves are made. Our experience is that 93% of borrowers helped through these
programs in the last two years now remain in their homes. Since we lose significant sums on
foreclosures – losses last year totaled $150 million – our assistance programs end up helping Clayton as well as
its borrowers.
Clayton and Berkshire have been a wonderful partnership. Kevin Clayton came to us with a best-in-classmanagement group and culture. Berkshire, in turn, provided unmatched staying power when the manufacturedhome industry fell apart during the Great Recession. (As other lenders to the industry vanished, Clayton supplied
credit not only to its own dealers but also to dealers who sold the products of its competitors.) At Berkshire, we
never count on synergies when we acquire companies. Truly important ones, however, surfaced after ourpurchase of Clayton.
Marmon’s railcar business experienced a major slowdown in demand last year, which will cause
earnings to decline in 2017. Fleet utilization was 91% in December, down from 97% a year earlier, with the drop
particularly severe at the large fleet we purchased from General Electric in 2015. Marmon’s crane and container
rentals have weakened as well.
Big swings in railcar demand have occurred in the past and they will continue. Nevertheless, we verymuch like this business and expect decent returns on equity capital over the years. Tank cars are Marmon’s
specialty. People often associate tank cars with the transportation of crude oil; in fact, they are essential to a great
variety of shippers.
Over time, we expect to expand our railcar operation. Meanwhile, Marmon is making a number ofbolt-on acquisitions whose results are included in the Manufacturing, Service and Retailing section.
Here’s the pre-tax earnings recap for our finance-related companies:
2015

2016

2014

(in millions)Berkadia (our 50% share) ............................................
Clayton ....................................................................
CORT......................................................................
Marmon – Containers and Cranes .................................
Marmon – Railcars .....................................................
XTRA .....................................................................
Net financial income* .................................................

$

91
744
60
126
654
179
276

$ 2,130* Excludes capital gains or losses

18

$

74
706
55
192
546
172
341

$ 2,086

$

122
558
49
238
442
147
283

$ 1,839

Investments
Below we list our fifteen common stock investments that at yearend had the largest market value. We
exclude our Kraft Heinz holding because Berkshire is part of a control group and therefore must account for thisinvestment on the “equity” method. The 325,442,152 shares Berkshire owns of Kraft Heinz are carried on ourbalance sheet at a GAAP figure of $15.3 billion and had a yearend market value of $28.4 billion. Our cost basis
for the shares is $9.8 billion.
12/31/16
Shares*Percentage ofCompany
Owned

Company

Cost**

Market(in millions)

151,610,700
61,242,652
6,789,054
400,000,000
54,934,718
11,390,582
81,232,303
24,669,778
74,587,892
22,169,930
43,203,775
101,859,335
26,620,184
43,387,980
500,000,000

American Express Company .....................
Apple Inc. .............................................
Charter Communications, Inc....................
The Coca-Cola Company .........................
Delta Airlines Inc. ..................................
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. ................
International Business Machines Corp. .......
Moody’s Corporation ..............................
Phillips 66 .............................................
Sanofi ..................................................
Southwest Airlines Co. ............................
U.S. Bancorp .........................................
United Continental Holdings Inc................
USG Corp. ............................................
Wells Fargo & Company .........................
Others ..................................................
Total Common Stocks Carried at Market ....

*
**

16.8
1.1
2.5
9.3
7.5
2.9
8.5
12.9
14.4
1.7
7.0
6.0
8.4
29.7
10.0

$

1,287
6,747
1,210
1,299
2,299
654
13,815
248
5,841
1,692
1,757
3,239
1,477
836
12,73010,697$ 65,828$

11,231
7,093
1,955
16,584
2,702
2,727
13,484
2,326
6,445
1,791
2,153
5,233
1,940
1,253
27,555
17,560$ 122,032

Excludes shares held by pension funds of Berkshire subsidiaries.
This is our actual purchase price and also our tax basis; GAAP “cost” differs in a few cases because ofwrite-downs that have been required under GAAP rules.

Some of the stocks in the table are the responsibility of either Todd Combs or Ted Weschler, who workwith me in managing Berkshire’s investments. Each, independently, manages more than $10 billion; I usuallylearn about decisions they have made by looking at monthly trade sheets. Included in the $21 billion that the two
manage is about $7.6 billion of pension trust assets of certain Berkshire subsidiaries. As noted, pension
investments are not included in the preceding tabulation of Berkshire holdings.
************
Excluded from the table – but important – is our ownership of $5 billion of preferred stock issued by
Bank of America. This stock, which pays us $300 million per year, also carries with it a valuable warrant
allowing Berkshire to purchase 700 million common shares of Bank of America for $5 billion at any time before
September 2, 2021. At yearend, that privilege would have delivered us a profit of $10.5 billion. If it wishes,
Berkshire can use its preferred shares to satisfy the $5 billion cost of exercising the warrant.

19

If the dividend rate on Bank of America common stock – now 30 cents annually – should rise above
44 cents before 2021, we would anticipate making a cashless exchange of our preferred into common. If thecommon dividend remains below 44 cents, it is highly probable that we will exercise the warrant immediately
before it expires.
Many of our investees, including Bank of America, have been repurchasing shares, some quite
aggressively. We very much like this behavior because we believe the repurchased shares have in most cases
been underpriced. (Undervaluation, after all, is why we own these positions.) When a company grows andoutstanding shares shrink, good things happen for shareholders.
************
It’s important for you to understand that 95% of the $86 billion of “cash and equivalents” (which in mymind includes U.S. Treasury Bills) shown on our balance sheet are held by entities in the United States and,
consequently, is not subject to any repatriation tax. Moreover, repatriation of the remaining funds would trigger
only minor taxes because much of that money has been earned in countries that themselves impose meaningful
corporate taxes. Those payments become an offset to U.S. tax when money is brought home.
These explanations are important because many cash-rich American companies hold a large portion of
their funds in jurisdictions imposing very low taxes. Such companies hope – and may well be proved right – thatthe tax levied for bringing these funds to America will soon be materially reduced. In the meantime, thesecompanies are limited as to how they can use that cash. In other words, off-shore cash is simply not worth asmuch as cash held at home.
Berkshire has a partial offset to the favorable geographical location of its cash, which is that much of itis held in our insurance subsidiaries. Though we have many alternatives for investing this cash, we do not havethe unlimited choices that we would enjoy if the cash were held by the parent company, Berkshire. We do havean ability annually to distribute large amounts of cash from our insurers to the parent – though here, too, there arelimits. Overall, cash held at our insurers is a very valuable asset, but one slightly less valuable to us than is cash
held at the parent level.
************
Sometimes the comments of shareholders or media imply that we will own certain stocks “forever.” It istrue that we own some stocks that I have no intention of selling for as far as the eye can see (and we’re talking
20/20 vision). But we have made no commitment that Berkshire will hold any of its marketable securities forever.
Confusion about this point may have resulted from a too-casual reading of Economic Principle 11 on
pages 110 - 111, which has been included in our annual reports since 1983. That principle covers controlled
businesses, not marketable securities. This year I’ve added a final sentence to #11 to ensure that our owners
understand that we regard any marketable security as available for sale, however unlikely such a sale now seems.
************
Before we leave this investment section, a few educational words about dividends and taxes: Berkshire,
like most corporations, nets considerably more from a dollar of dividends than it reaps from a dollar of capitalgains. That will probably surprise those of our shareholders who are accustomed to thinking of capital gains as
the route to tax-favored returns.
But here’s the corporate math. Every $1 of capital gains that a corporation realizes carries with it
35 cents of federal income tax (and often state income tax as well). The tax on dividends received from domestic
corporations, however, is consistently lower, though rates vary depending on the status of the recipient.

20

For a non-insurance company – which describes Berkshire Hathaway, the parent – the federal tax rate iseffectively 10 1⁄ 2 cents per $1 of dividends received. Furthermore, a non-insurance company that owns more than
20% of an investee owes taxes of only 7 cents per $1 of dividends. That rate applies, for example, to thesubstantial dividends we receive from our 27% ownership of Kraft Heinz, all of it held by the parent company.
(The rationale for the low corporate taxes on dividends is that the dividend-paying investee has already paid its
own corporate tax on the earnings being distributed.)
Berkshire’s insurance subsidiaries pay a tax rate on dividends that is somewhat higher than that applying
to non-insurance companies, though the rate is still well below the 35% hitting capital gains. Property/casualty
companies owe about 14% in taxes on most dividends they receive. Their tax rate falls, though, to about 11% ifthey own more than 20% of a U.S.-based investee.
And that’s our tax lesson for today.
“The Bet” (or how your money finds its way to Wall Street)In this section, you will encounter, early on, the story of an investment bet I made nine years ago and,next, some strong opinions I have about investing. As a starter, though, I want to briefly describe Long Bets, aunique establishment that played a role in the bet.
Long Bets was seeded by Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and operates as a non-profit organization thatadministers just what you’d guess: long-term bets. To participate, “proposers” post a proposition at Longbets.org
that will be proved right or wrong at a distant date. They then wait for a contrary-minded party to take the otherside of the bet. When a “doubter” steps forward, each side names a charity that will be the beneficiary if its side
wins; parks its wager with Long Bets; and posts a short essay defending its position on the Long Bets website.
When the bet is concluded, Long Bets pays off the winning charity.
Here are examples of what you will find on Long Bets’ very interesting site:
In 2002, entrepreneur Mitch Kapor asserted that “By 2029 no computer – or ‘machine intelligence’ – will
have passed the Turing Test,” which deals with whether a computer can successfully impersonate a human being.
Inventor Ray Kurzweil took the opposing view. Each backed up his opinion with $10,000. I don’t know who will
win this bet, but I will confidently wager that no computer will ever replicate Charlie.
That same year, Craig Mundie of Microsoft asserted that pilotless planes would routinely fly passengers
by 2030, while Eric Schmidt of Google argued otherwise. The stakes were $1,000 each. To ease any heartburn
Eric might be experiencing from his outsized exposure, I recently offered to take a piece of his action. He
promptly laid off $500 with me. (I like his assumption that I’ll be around in 2030 to contribute my payment,
should we lose.)
Now, to my bet and its history. In Berkshire’s 2005 annual report, I argued that active investment
management by professionals – in aggregate – would over a period of years underperform the returns achieved byrank amateurs who simply sat still. I explained that the massive fees levied by a variety of “helpers” would leave
their clients – again in aggregate – worse off than if the amateurs simply invested in an unmanaged low-cost index
fund. (See pages 114 - 115 for a reprint of the argument as I originally stated it in the 2005 report.)21

Subsequently, I publicly offered to wager $500,000 that no investment pro could select a set of at least
five hedge funds – wildly-popular and high-fee investing vehicles – that would over an extended period match
the performance of an unmanaged S&P-500 index fund charging only token fees. I suggested a ten-year bet andnamed a low-cost Vanguard S&P fund as my contender. I then sat back and waited expectantly for a parade offund managers – who could include their own fund as one of the five – to come forth and defend theiroccupation. After all, these managers urged others to bet billions on their abilities. Why should they fear putting
a little of their own money on the line?
What followed was the sound of silence. Though there are thousands of professional investment managers
who have amassed staggering fortunes by touting their stock-selecting prowess, only one man – Ted Seides –stepped up to my challenge. Ted was a co-manager of Protégé Partners, an asset manager that had raised moneyfrom limited partners to form a fund-of-funds – in other words, a fund that invests in multiple hedge funds.
I hadn’t known Ted before our wager, but I like him and admire his willingness to put his money where
his mouth was. He has been both straight-forward with me and meticulous in supplying all the data that both heand I have needed to monitor the bet.
For Protégé Partners’ side of our ten-year bet, Ted picked five funds-of-funds whose results were to beaveraged and compared against my Vanguard S&P index fund. The five he selected had invested their money inmore than 100 hedge funds, which meant that the overall performance of the funds-of-funds would not be
distorted by the good or poor results of a single manager.
Each fund-of-funds, of course, operated with a layer of fees that sat above the fees charged by the hedge
funds in which it had invested. In this doubling-up arrangement, the larger fees were levied by the underlying
hedge funds; each of the fund-of-funds imposed an additional fee for its presumed skills in selecting hedge-fundmanagers.
Here are the results for the first nine years of the bet – figures leaving no doubt that Girls Inc. of Omaha,
the charitable beneficiary I designated to get any bet winnings I earned, will be the organization eagerly opening
the mail next January.

Year
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Gain to
Date

Fund ofFunds A

Fund ofFunds B

Fund ofFunds C

Fund ofFunds D

Fund ofFunds E

S&P
Index Fund-16.5%
11.3%
5.9%
-6.3%
3.4%
10.5%
4.7%
1.6%
-2.9%

-22.3%
14.5%
6.8%
-1.3%
9.6%
15.2%
4.0%
2.5%
1.7%

-21.3%
21.4%
13.3%
5.9%
5.7%
8.8%
18.9%
5.4%
-1.4%

-29.3%
16.5%
4.9%
-6.3%
6.2%
14.2%
0.7%
1.4%
2.5%

-30.1%
16.8%
11.9%
-2.8%
9.1%
14.4%
-2.1%
-5.0%
4.4%

-37.0%
26.6%
15.1%
2.1%
16.0%
32.3%
13.6%
1.4%
11.9%

8.7%

28.3%

62.8%

2.9%

7.5%

85.4%

Footnote: Under my agreement with Protégé Partners, the names of these funds-of-funds have neverbeen publicly disclosed. I, however, see their annual audits.
The compounded annual increase to date for the index fund is 7.1%, which is a return that could easily
prove typical for the stock market over time. That’s an important fact: A particularly weak nine years for themarket over the lifetime of this bet would have probably helped the relative performance of the hedge funds,
because many hold large “short” positions. Conversely, nine years of exceptionally high returns from stocks
would have provided a tailwind for index funds.
Instead we operated in what I would call a “neutral” environment. In it, the five funds-of-funds
delivered, through 2016, an average of only 2.2%, compounded annually. That means $1 million invested inthose funds would have gained $220,000. The index fund would meanwhile have gained $854,000.
22

Bear in mind that every one of the 100-plus managers of the underlying hedge funds had a hugefinancial incentive to do his or her best. Moreover, the five funds-of-funds managers that Ted selected weresimilarly incentivized to select the best hedge-fund managers possible because the five were entitled toperformance fees based on the results of the underlying funds.
I’m certain that in almost all cases the managers at both levels were honest and intelligent people. But
the results for their investors were dismal – really dismal. And, alas, the huge fixed fees charged by all of thefunds and funds-of-funds involved – fees that were totally unwarranted by performance – were such that their
managers were showered with compensation over the nine years that have passed. As Gordon Gekko might have
put it: “Fees never sleep.”
The underlying hedge-fund managers in our bet received payments from their limited partners thatlikely averaged a bit under the prevailing hedge-fund standard of “2 and 20,” meaning a 2% annual fixed fee,payable even when losses are huge, and 20% of profits with no clawback (if good years were followed by badones). Under this lopsided arrangement, a hedge fund operator’s ability to simply pile up assets undermanagement has made many of these managers extraordinarily rich, even as their investments have performed
poorly.
Still, we’re not through with fees. Remember, there were the fund-of-funds managers to be fed as well.
These managers received an additional fixed amount that was usually set at 1% of assets. Then, despite theterrible overall record of the five funds-of-funds, some experienced a few good years and collected“performance” fees. Consequently, I estimate that over the nine-year period roughly 60% – gulp! – of all gains
achieved by the five funds-of-funds were diverted to the two levels of managers. That was their misbegotten
reward for accomplishing something far short of what their many hundreds of limited partners could haveeffortlessly – and with virtually no cost – achieved on their own.
In my opinion, the disappointing results for hedge-fund investors that this bet exposed are almost certain
to recur in the future. I laid out my reasons for that belief in a statement that was posted on the Long Bets websitewhen the bet commenced (and that is still posted there). Here is what I asserted:
Over a ten-year period commencing on January 1, 2008, and ending on December 31, 2017,
the S&P 500 will outperform a portfolio of funds of hedge funds, when performance ismeasured on a basis net of fees, costs and expenses.
A lot of very smart people set out to do better than average in securities markets. Call them
active investors.
Their opposites, passive investors, will by definition do about average. In aggregate theirpositions will more or less approximate those of an index fund. Therefore, the balance of
the universe—the active investors—must do about average as well. However, theseinvestors will incur far greater costs. So, on balance, their aggregate results after these costs
will be worse than those of the passive investors.
Costs skyrocket when large annual fees, large performance fees, and active trading costs are
all added to the active investor’s equation. Funds of hedge funds accentuate this costproblem because their fees are superimposed on the large fees charged by the hedge funds
in which the funds of funds are invested.
A number of smart people are involved in running hedge funds. But to a great extent theirefforts are self-neutralizing, and their IQ will not overcome the costs they impose on
investors. Investors, on average and over time, will do better with a low-cost index fundthan with a group of funds of funds.

23

So that was my argument – and now let me put it into a simple equation. If Group A (active investors)
and Group B (do-nothing investors) comprise the total investing universe, and B is destined to achieve average
results before costs, so, too, must A. Whichever group has the lower costs will win. (The academic in me requires
me to mention that there is a very minor point – not worth detailing – that slightly modifies this formulation.)
And if Group A has exorbitant costs, its shortfall will be substantial.
There are, of course, some skilled individuals who are highly likely to out-perform the S&P over long
stretches. In my lifetime, though, I’ve identified – early on – only ten or so professionals that I expected would
accomplish this feat.
There are no doubt many hundreds of people – perhaps thousands – whom I have never met and whose
abilities would equal those of the people I’ve identified. The job, after all, is not impossible. The problem simply
is that the great majority of managers who attempt to over-perform will fail. The probability is also very high thatthe person soliciting your funds will not be the exception who does well. Bill Ruane – a truly wonderful humanbeing and a man whom I identified 60 years ago as almost certain to deliver superior investment returns over thelong haul – said it well: “In investment management, the progression is from the innovators to the imitators to theswarming incompetents.”
Further complicating the search for the rare high-fee manager who is worth his or her pay is the fact thatsome investment professionals, just as some amateurs, will be lucky over short periods. If 1,000 managers makea market prediction at the beginning of a year, it’s very likely that the calls of at least one will be correct for nineconsecutive years. Of course, 1,000 monkeys would be just as likely to produce a seemingly all-wise prophet.
But there would remain a difference: The lucky monkey would not find people standing in line to invest withhim.
Finally, there are three connected realities that cause investing success to breed failure. First, a goodrecord quickly attracts a torrent of money. Second, huge sums invariably act as an anchor on investment
performance: What is easy with millions, struggles with billions (sob!). Third, most managers will neverthelessseek new money because of their personal equation – namely, the more funds they have under management, themore their fees.
These three points are hardly new ground for me: In January 1966, when I was managing $44 million, I
wrote my limited partners: “I feel substantially greater size is more likely to harm future results than to help
them. This might not be true for my own personal results, but it is likely to be true for your results. Therefore, . . .
I intend to admit no additional partners to BPL. I have notified Susie that if we have any more children, it is up to
her to find some other partnership for them.”
The bottom line: When trillions of dollars are managed by Wall Streeters charging high fees, it willusually be the managers who reap outsized profits, not the clients. Both large and small investors should stickwith low-cost index funds.
************
If a statue is ever erected to honor the person who has done the most for American investors, the handsdown choice should be Jack Bogle. For decades, Jack has urged investors to invest in ultra-low-cost index funds.
In his crusade, he amassed only a tiny percentage of the wealth that has typically flowed to managers who havepromised their investors large rewards while delivering them nothing – or, as in our bet, less than nothing – ofadded value.
In his early years, Jack was frequently mocked by the investment-management industry. Today,
however, he has the satisfaction of knowing that he helped millions of investors realize far better returns on theirsavings than they otherwise would have earned. He is a hero to them and to me.
************
Over the years, I’ve often been asked for investment advice, and in the process of answering I’ve
learned a good deal about human behavior. My regular recommendation has been a low-cost S&P 500 index
fund. To their credit, my friends who possess only modest means have usually followed my suggestion.
24

I believe, however, that none of the mega-rich individuals, institutions or pension funds has followedthat same advice when I’ve given it to them. Instead, these investors politely thank me for my thoughts anddepart to listen to the siren song of a high-fee manager or, in the case of many institutions, to seek out anotherbreed of hyper-helper called a consultant.
That professional, however, faces a problem. Can you imagine an investment consultant telling clients,
year after year, to keep adding to an index fund replicating the S&P 500? That would be career suicide. Large
fees flow to these hyper-helpers, however, if they recommend small managerial shifts every year or so. That
advice is often delivered in esoteric gibberish that explains why fashionable investment “styles” or current
economic trends make the shift appropriate.
The wealthy are accustomed to feeling that it is their lot in life to get the best food, schooling,entertainment, housing, plastic surgery, sports ticket, you name it. Their money, they feel, should buy themsomething superior compared to what the masses receive.
In many aspects of life, indeed, wealth does command top-grade products or services. For that reason,
the financial “elites” – wealthy individuals, pension funds, college endowments and the like – have great trouble
meekly signing up for a financial product or service that is available as well to people investing only a few
thousand dollars. This reluctance of the rich normally prevails even though the product at issue is –on an
expectancy basis – clearly the best choice. My calculation, admittedly very rough, is that the search by the elite
for superior investment advice has caused it, in aggregate, to waste more than $100 billion over the past decade.
Figure it out: Even a 1% fee on a few trillion dollars adds up. Of course, not every investor who put money inhedge funds ten years ago lagged S&P returns. But I believe my calculation of the aggregate shortfall isconservative.
Much of the financial damage befell pension funds for public employees. Many of these funds are
woefully underfunded, in part because they have suffered a double whammy: poor investment performanceaccompanied by huge fees. The resulting shortfalls in their assets will for decades have to be made up by local
taxpayers.
Human behavior won’t change. Wealthy individuals, pension funds, endowments and the like willcontinue to feel they deserve something “extra” in investment advice. Those advisors who cleverly play to thisexpectation will get very rich. This year the magic potion may be hedge funds, next year something else. The
likely result from this parade of promises is predicted in an adage: “When a person with money meets a personwith experience, the one with experience ends up with the money and the one with money leaves withexperience.”
Long ago, a brother-in-law of mine, Homer Rogers, was a commission agent working in the Omaha
stockyards. I asked him how he induced a farmer or rancher to hire him to handle the sale of their hogs or cattle
to the buyers from the big four packers (Swift, Cudahy, Wilson and Armour). After all, hogs were hogs and thebuyers were experts who knew to the penny how much any animal was worth. How then, I asked Homer, could
any sales agent get a better result than any other?
Homer gave me a pitying look and said: “Warren, it’s not how you sell ‘em, it’s how you tell ‘em.”
What worked in the stockyards continues to work in Wall Street.
************
And, finally, let me offer an olive branch to Wall Streeters, many of them good friends of mine.
Berkshire loves to pay fees – even outrageous fees – to investment bankers who bring us acquisitions. Moreover,
we have paid substantial sums for over-performance to our two in-house investment managers – and we hope tomake even larger payments to them in the future.
To get biblical (Ephesians 3:18), I know the height and the depth and the length and the breadth of theenergy flowing from that simple four-letter word – fees – when it is spoken to Wall Street. And when that energy
delivers value to Berkshire, I will cheerfully write a big check.

25

The Annual Meeting
Last year we partnered with Yahoo to air the first-ever webcast of our annual meeting. Thanks to Andy
Serwer and his Yahoo crew, the production was a success in all respects, registering 1.1 million unique visits inreal-time viewing and 11.5 million more in replays (many of those, to be sure, called up by viewers interested inonly certain segments of the webcast).
Berkshire’s thank-you mail for initiating the webcast included many notes from three constituencies: theelderly who find travel difficult; the thrifty who find it expensive to travel to Omaha; and those who cannot
attend a Saturday meeting for religious reasons.
The webcast cut attendance at last year’s meeting to about 37,000 people (we can’t get a precise count),which was down about 10%. Nevertheless, both Berkshire’s subsidiaries and Omaha hotels and restaurants
racked up huge sales. Nebraska Furniture Mart’s sales broke their 2015 record volume by 3%, with the Omaha
store recording one-week volume of $45.5 million.
Our Berkshire exhibitors at CenturyLink were open from noon until 5 p.m. on Friday and drew a crowdof 12,000 bargain-hunting shareholders. We will repeat those Friday shopping hours this year on May 5th. Bringmoney.
The annual meeting falls on May 6th and will again be webcast by Yahoo, whose web address ishttps://finance.yahoo.com/brklivestream. The webcast will go live at 9 a.m. Central Daylight Time. Yahoo willinterview directors, managers, stockholders and celebrities before the meeting and during the lunch break. Boththose interviews and meeting will be translated simultaneously into Mandarin.
For those attending the meeting in person, the doors at the CenturyLink will open at 7:00 a.m. on
Saturday to facilitate shopping prior to our shareholder movie, which begins at 8:30. The question-and-answer
period will start at 9:30 and run until 3:30, with a one-hour lunch break at noon. Finally, at 3:45 we will begin theformal shareholder meeting. It will run an hour or so. That is somewhat longer than usual because three proxy
items are to be presented by their proponents, who will be given a reasonable amount of time to state their case.
On Saturday morning, we will have our sixth International Newspaper Tossing Challenge. Our target
will again be the porch of a Clayton Home, located precisely 35 feet from the throwing line. When I was ateenager – in my one brief flirtation with honest labor – I delivered about 500,000 papers. So I think I’m pretty
good at this game. Challenge me! Humiliate me! Knock me down a peg! The papers will run 36 to 42 pages, andyou must fold them yourself (no rubber bands allowed). The competition will begin about 7:45, and I’ll take on
ten or so competitors selected a few minutes earlier by my assistant, Deb Bosanek.
Your venue for shopping will be the 194,300-square-foot hall that adjoins the meeting and in which
products from dozens of our subsidiaries will be for sale. Say hello to the many Berkshire managers who will becaptaining their exhibits. And be sure to view the terrific BNSF railroad layout that salutes all of our companies.
Your children (and you!) will be enchanted with it.
Brooks, our running-shoe company, will again have a special commemorative shoe to offer at themeeting. After you purchase a pair, wear them on Sunday at our fourth annual “Berkshire 5K,” an 8 a.m. racestarting at the CenturyLink. Full details for participating will be included in the Visitor’s Guide that will be sent
to you with your meeting credentials. Entrants in the race will find themselves running alongside many ofBerkshire’s managers, directors and associates. (Charlie and I, however, will sleep in; the fudge and peanut
brittle we eat throughout the Saturday meeting takes its toll.) Participation in the 5K grows every year. Help us
set another record.

26

A GEICO booth in the shopping area will be staffed by a number of the company’s top counselors fromaround the country. At last year’s meeting, we set a record for policy sales, up 21% from 2015. I predict we will
be up again this year.
So stop by for a quote. In most cases, GEICO will be able to give you a shareholder discount (usually8%). This special offer is permitted by 44 of the 51 jurisdictions in which we operate. (One supplemental point:
The discount is not additive if you qualify for another discount, such as that available to certain groups.) Bring
the details of your existing insurance and check out our price. We can save many of you real money. Spend thesavings on other Berkshire products.
Be sure to visit the Bookworm. This Omaha-based retailer will carry about 35 books and DVDs, among
them a couple of new titles. The best book I read last year was Shoe Dog, by Nike’s Phil Knight. Phil is a very
wise, intelligent and competitive fellow who is also a gifted storyteller. The Bookworm will have piles of Shoe
Dog as well as several investment classics by Jack Bogle.
The Bookworm will once again offer our history of the highlights (and lowlights) of Berkshire’s first 50
years. Non-attendees of the meeting can find the book on eBay. Just type in: Berkshire Hathaway Inc.
Celebrating 50 years of a Profitable Partnership (2nd Edition).
An attachment to the proxy material that is enclosed with this report explains how you can obtain thecredential you will need for admission to both the meeting and other events. Keep in mind that airlines havesometimes jacked up prices for the Berkshire weekend – though I must admit I have developed some tolerance,bordering on enthusiasm, for that practice now that Berkshire has made large investments in America’s four
major carriers. Nevertheless, if you are coming from far away, compare the cost of flying to Kansas City vs.
Omaha. The drive between the two cities is about 21/2 hours, and it may be that Kansas City can save you
significant money. The savings for a couple could run to $1,000 or more. Spend that money with us.
At Nebraska Furniture Mart, located on a 77-acre site on 72nd Street between Dodge and Pacific, we willagain be having “Berkshire Weekend” discount pricing. To obtain the Berkshire discount at NFM, you must
make your purchases between Tuesday, May 2nd and Monday, May 8th inclusive, and must also present yourmeeting credential. The period’s special pricing will even apply to the products of several prestigious
manufacturers that normally have ironclad rules against discounting but which, in the spirit of our shareholder
weekend, have made an exception for you. We appreciate their cooperation. During “Berkshire Weekend,” NFM
will be open from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday through Friday, 10 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Saturday and 10 a.m. to 8
p.m. on Sunday. From 5:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. on Saturday, NFM is hosting a picnic to which you are all invited.
This year we have good news for shareholders in the Kansas City and Dallas metro markets who can’t
attend the meeting or perhaps prefer the webcast. From May 2nd through May 8th, shareholders who present
meeting credentials or other evidence of their Berkshire ownership (such as brokerage statements) to their local
NFM store will receive the same discounts enjoyed by those visiting the Omaha store.
At Borsheims, we will again have two shareholder-only events. The first will be a cocktail reception
from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. on Friday, May 5th. The second, the main gala, will be held on Sunday, May 7th, from 9
a.m. to 4 p.m. On Saturday, we will remain open until 6 p.m. Remember, the more you buy, the more you save(or so my daughter tells me when we visit the store).

27

We will have huge crowds at Borsheims throughout the weekend. For your convenience, therefore,shareholder prices will be available from Monday, May 1st through Saturday, May 13th. During that period,
please identify yourself as a shareholder either by presenting your meeting credential or a brokerage statement
showing you own our stock.
On Sunday, in the mall outside of Borsheims, Norman Beck, a remarkable magician and motivational
speaker from Dallas, will bewilder onlookers. On the upper level, we will have Bob Hamman and Sharon
Osberg, two of the world’s top bridge experts, available to play with our shareholders on Sunday afternoon. Ifthey suggest wagering on the game, change the subject. I will join them at some point and hope Ajit, Charlie andBill Gates will do so also.
My friend, Ariel Hsing, will be in the mall as well on Sunday, taking on challengers at table tennis. I
met Ariel when she was nine, and even then I was unable to score a point against her. Ariel represented theUnited States in the 2012 Olympics. Now, she’s a senior at Princeton (after interning last summer at JPMorgan
Chase). If you don’t mind embarrassing yourself, test your skills against her, beginning at 1 p.m. Bill Gates did
pretty well playing Ariel last year, so he may be ready to again challenge her. (My advice: Bet on Ariel.)
Gorat’s will be open exclusively for Berkshire shareholders on Sunday, May 7th, serving from 1 p.m.
until 10 p.m. To make a reservation at Gorat’s, call 402-551-3733 on April 3rd (but not before). Show you are a
sophisticated diner by ordering the T-bone with hash browns.
We will have the same three financial journalists lead the question-and-answer period at the meeting,asking Charlie and me questions that shareholders have submitted to them by e-mail. The journalists and theire-mail addresses are: Carol Loomis, the preeminent business journalist of her time, who may be e-mailed atloomisbrk@gmail.com; Becky Quick, of CNBC, at BerkshireQuestions@cnbc.com; and Andrew Ross Sorkin, of
the New York Times, at arsorkin@nytimes.com.
From the questions submitted, each journalist will choose the six he or she decides are the mostinteresting and important to shareholders. The journalists have told me your question has the best chance of being
selected if you keep it concise, avoid sending it in at the last moment, make it Berkshire-related and include no
more than two questions in any e-mail you send them. (In your e-mail, let the journalist know if you would likeyour name mentioned if your question is asked.)
An accompanying set of questions will be asked by three analysts who follow Berkshire. This year the
insurance specialist will be Jay Gelb of Barclays. Questions that deal with our non-insurance operations will
come from Jonathan Brandt of Ruane, Cunniff & Goldfarb and Gregg Warren of Morningstar. Since what wewill be conducting is a shareholders’ meeting, our hope is that the analysts and journalists will ask questions that
add to our owners’ understanding and knowledge of their investment.
Neither Charlie nor I will get so much as a clue about the questions headed our way. Some will betough, for sure, and that’s the way we like it. Multi-part questions aren’t allowed; we want to give as manyquestioners as possible a shot at us. Our goal is for you to leave the meeting knowing more about Berkshire thanwhen you came and for you to have a good time while in Omaha.
All told, we expect at least 54 questions, which will allow for six from each analyst and journalist andfor 18 from the audience. The questioners from the audience will be chosen by means of 11 drawings that willtake place at 8:15 a.m. on the morning of the annual meeting. Each of the 11 microphones installed in the arenaand main overflow room will host, so to speak, a drawing.

28

While I’m on the subject of our owners’ gaining knowledge, let me remind you that Charlie and I
believe all shareholders should simultaneously have access to new information that Berkshire releases and, if
possible, should also have adequate time to digest and analyze it before any trading takes place. That’s why wetry to issue financial data late on Fridays or early on Saturdays and why our annual meeting is always held on a
Saturday (a day that also eases traffic and parking problems).
We do not follow the common practice of talking one-on-one with large institutional investors or
analysts, treating them instead as we do all other shareholders. There is no one more important to us than theshareholder of limited means who trusts us with a substantial portion of his or her savings. As I run the company
day-to-day – and as I write this letter – that is the shareholder whose image is in my mind.
************For good reason, I regularly extol the accomplishments of our operating managers. They are truly
All-Stars who run their businesses as if they were the only asset owned by their families. I also believe themindset of our managers to be as shareholder-oriented as can be found in the universe of large publicly-owned
companies. Most of our managers have no financial need to work. The joy of hitting business “home runs” means
as much to them as their paycheck.
Equally important, however, are the men and women who work with me at our corporate office. This
team efficiently deals with a multitude of SEC and other regulatory requirements, files a 30,450-page Federal
income tax return, oversees the filing of 3,580 state tax returns, responds to countless shareholder and media
inquiries, gets out the annual report, prepares for the country’s largest annual meeting, coordinates the Board’s
activities, fact-checks this letter – and the list goes on and on.
They handle all of these business tasks cheerfully and with unbelievable efficiency, making my life easy
and pleasant. Their efforts go beyond activities strictly related to Berkshire: Last year, for example, they dealt
with the 40 universities (selected from 200 applicants) who sent students to Omaha for a Q&A day with me.
They also handle all kinds of requests that I receive, arrange my travel, and even get me hamburgers and Frenchfries (smothered in Heinz ketchup, of course) for lunch. In addition, they cheerfully pitch in to help Carrie Sova –our talented ringmaster at the annual meeting – deliver an interesting and entertaining weekend for ourshareholders. They are proud to work for Berkshire, and I am proud of them.
I’m a lucky guy, very fortunate in being surrounded by this excellent staff, a team of highly-talented
operating managers and a boardroom of very wise and experienced directors. Come to Omaha – the cradle ofcapitalism – on May 6th and meet the Berkshire Bunch. All of us look forward to seeing you.

February 25, 2017

Warren E. Buffett
Chairman of the Board

29