Warren E. Buffett letters

BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC.

Chairman's Letter

To the Shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.:

Our gain in net worth during 1996 was $6.2 billion, or 36.1%. Per-
share book value, however, grew by less, 31.8%, because the number of
Berkshire shares increased: We issued stock in acquiring FlightSafety
International and also sold new Class B shares.* Over the last 32 years
(that is, since present management took over) per-share book value has
grown from $19 to $19,011, or at a rate of 23.8% compounded annually.

* Each Class B share has an economic interest equal to 1/30th of
that possessed by a Class A share, which is the new designation for
the only stock that Berkshire had outstanding before May 1996.
Throughout this report, we state all per-share figures in terms of
"Class A equivalents," which are the sum of the Class A shares
outstanding and 1/30th of the Class B shares outstanding.

For technical reasons, we have restated our 1995 financial
statements, a matter that requires me to present one of my less-than-
thrilling explanations of accounting arcana. I'll make it brief.

The restatement was required because GEICO became a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Berkshire on January 2, 1996, whereas it was previously
classified as an investment. From an economic viewpoint - taking into
account major tax efficiencies and other benefits we gained - the value
of the 51% of GEICO we owned at year-end 1995 increased significantly
when we acquired the remaining 49% of the company two days later.
Accounting rules applicable to this type of "step acquisition," however,
required us to write down the value of our 51% at the time we moved to
100%. That writedown - which also, of course, reduced book value -
amounted to $478.4 million. As a result, we now carry our original 51%
of GEICO at a value that is both lower than its market value at the time
we purchased the remaining 49% of the company and lower than the value at
which we carry that 49% itself.

There is an offset, however, to the reduction in book value I have
just described: Twice during 1996 we issued Berkshire shares at a
premium to book value, first in May when we sold the B shares for cash
and again in December when we used both A and B shares as part-payment
for FlightSafety. In total, the three non-operational items affecting
book value contributed less than one percentage point to our 31.8% per-
share gain last year.

I dwell on this rise in per-share book value because it roughly
indicates our economic progress during the year. But, as Charlie Munger,
Berkshire's Vice Chairman, and I have repeatedly told you, what counts at
Berkshire is intrinsic value, not book value. The last time you got that
message from us was in the Owner's Manual, sent to you in June after we
issued the Class B shares. In that manual, we not only defined certain
key terms - such as intrinsic value - but also set forth our economic
principles.

For many years, we have listed these principles in the front of our
annual report, but in this report, on pages 58 to 67, we reproduce the
entire Owner's Manual. In this letter, we will occasionally refer to the
manual so that we can avoid repeating certain definitions and
explanations. For example, if you wish to brush up on "intrinsic value,"
see pages 64 and 65.

Last year, for the first time, we supplied you with a table that
Charlie and I believe will help anyone trying to estimate Berkshire's
intrinsic value. In the updated version of that table, which follows, we
trace two key indices of value. The first column lists our per-share
ownership of investments (including cash and equivalents) and the second
column shows our per-share earnings from Berkshire's operating businesses
before taxes and purchase-accounting adjustments but after all interest
and corporate overhead expenses. The operating-earnings column excludes
all dividends, interest and capital gains that we realized from the
investments presented in the first column. In effect, the two columns
show what Berkshire would have reported had it been broken into two parts.

Pre-tax Earnings Per Share
Investments Excluding All Income from
Year Per Share Investments
---- ----------- -------------------------
1965................................$ 4 $ 4.08
1975................................ 159 (6.48)
1985................................ 2,443 18.86
1995................................ 22,088 258.20
1996................................ 28,500 421.39

Annual Growth Rate, 1965-95......... 33.4% 14.7%
One-Year Growth Rate, 1995-96 ...... 29.0% 63.2%

As the table tells you, our investments per share increased in 1996
by 29.0% and our non-investment earnings grew by 63.2%. Our goal is to
keep the numbers in both columns moving ahead at a reasonable (or, better
yet, unreasonable) pace.

Our expectations, however, are tempered by two realities. First,
our past rates of growth cannot be matched nor even approached:
Berkshire's equity capital is now large - in fact, fewer than ten
businesses in America have capital larger - and an abundance of funds
tends to dampen returns. Second, whatever our rate of progress, it will
not be smooth: Year-to-year moves in the first column of the table above
will be influenced in a major way by fluctuations in securities markets;
the figures in the second column will be affected by wide swings in the
profitability of our catastrophe-reinsurance business.

In the table, the donations made pursuant to our shareholder-
designated contributions program are charged against the second column,
though we view them as a shareholder benefit rather than as an expense.
All other corporate expenses are also charged against the second column.
These costs may be lower than those of any other large American
corporation: Our after-tax headquarters expense amounts to less than two
basis points (1/50th of 1%) measured against net worth. Even so, Charlie
used to think this expense percentage outrageously high, blaming it on my
use of Berkshire's corporate jet, The Indefensible. But Charlie has
recently experienced a "counter-revelation": With our purchase of
FlightSafety, whose major activity is the training of corporate pilots,
he now rhapsodizes at the mere mention of jets.

Seriously, costs matter. For example, equity mutual funds incur
corporate expenses - largely payments to the funds' managers - that
average about 100 basis points, a levy likely to cut the returns their
investors earn by 10% or more over time. Charlie and I make no promises
about Berkshire's results. We do promise you, however, that virtually
all of the gains Berkshire makes will end up with shareholders. We are
here to make money with you, not off you.

The Relationship of Intrinsic Value to Market Price

In last year's letter, with Berkshire shares selling at $36,000, I
told you: (1) Berkshire's gain in market value in recent years had
outstripped its gain in intrinsic value, even though the latter gain had
been highly satisfactory; (2) that kind of overperformance could not
continue indefinitely; (3) Charlie and I did not at that moment consider
Berkshire to be undervalued.

Since I set down those cautions, Berkshire's intrinsic value has
increased very significantly - aided in a major way by a stunning
performance at GEICO that I will tell you more about later - while the
market price of our shares has changed little. This, of course, means
that in 1996 Berkshire's stock underperformed the business.
Consequently, today's price/value relationship is both much different
from what it was a year ago and, as Charlie and I see it, more
appropriate.

Over time, the aggregate gains made by Berkshire shareholders must
of necessity match the business gains of the company. When the stock
temporarily overperforms or underperforms the business, a limited number
of shareholders - either sellers or buyers - receive outsized benefits at
the expense of those they trade with. Generally, the sophisticated have
an edge over the innocents in this game.

Though our primary goal is to maximize the amount that our
shareholders, in total, reap from their ownership of Berkshire, we wish
also to minimize the benefits going to some shareholders at the expense
of others. These are goals we would have were we managing a family
partnership, and we believe they make equal sense for the manager of a
public company. In a partnership, fairness requires that partnership
interests be valued equitably when partners enter or exit; in a public
company, fairness prevails when market price and intrinsic value are in
sync. Obviously, they won't always meet that ideal, but a manager - by
his policies and communications - can do much to foster equity.

Of course, the longer a shareholder holds his shares, the more
bearing Berkshire's business results will have on his financial
experience - and the less it will matter what premium or discount to
intrinsic value prevails when he buys and sells his stock. That's one
reason we hope to attract owners with long-term horizons. Overall, I
think we have succeeded in that pursuit. Berkshire probably ranks number
one among large American corporations in the percentage of its shares
held by owners with a long-term view.

Acquisitions of 1996

We made two acquisitions in 1996, both possessing exactly the
qualities we seek - excellent business economics and an outstanding
manager.

The first acquisition was Kansas Bankers Surety (KBS), an insurance
company whose name describes its specialty. The company, which does
business in 22 states, has an extraordinary underwriting record, achieved
through the efforts of Don Towle, an extraordinary manager. Don has
developed first-hand relationships with hundreds of bankers and knows
every detail of his operation. He thinks of himself as running a company
that is "his," an attitude we treasure at Berkshire. Because of its
relatively small size, we placed KBS with Wesco, our 80%-owned
subsidiary, which has wanted to expand its insurance operations.

You might be interested in the carefully-crafted and sophisticated
acquisition strategy that allowed Berkshire to nab this deal. Early in
1996 I was invited to the 40th birthday party of my nephew's wife, Jane
Rogers. My taste for social events being low, I immediately, and in my
standard, gracious way, began to invent reasons for skipping the event.
The party planners then countered brilliantly by offering me a seat next
to a man I always enjoy, Jane's dad, Roy Dinsdale - so I went.

The party took place on January 26. Though the music was loud - Why
must bands play as if they will be paid by the decibel? - I just managed
to hear Roy say he'd come from a directors meeting at Kansas Bankers
Surety, a company I'd always admired. I shouted back that he should let
me know if it ever became available for purchase.

On February 12, I got the following letter from Roy: "Dear Warren:
Enclosed is the annual financial information on Kansas Bankers Surety.
This is the company that we talked about at Janie's party. If I can be
of any further help, please let me know." On February 13, I told Roy we
would pay $75 million for the company - and before long we had a deal.
I'm now scheming to get invited to Jane's next party.

Our other acquisition in 1996 - FlightSafety International, the
world's leader in the training of pilots - was far larger, at about $1.5
billion, but had an equally serendipitous origin. The heroes of this
story are first, Richard Sercer, a Tucson aviation consultant, and
second, his wife, Alma Murphy, an ophthalmology graduate of Harvard
Medical School, who in 1990 wore down her husband's reluctance and got
him to buy Berkshire stock. Since then, the two have attended all our
Annual Meetings, but I didn't get to know them personally.

Fortunately, Richard had also been a long-time shareholder of
FlightSafety, and it occurred to him last year that the two companies
would make a good fit. He knew our acquisition criteria, and he thought
that Al Ueltschi, FlightSafety's 79-year-old CEO, might want to make a
deal that would both give him a home for his company and a security in
payment that he would feel comfortable owning throughout his lifetime.
So in July, Richard wrote Bob Denham, CEO of Salomon Inc, suggesting that
he explore the possibility of a merger.

Bob took it from there, and on September 18, Al and I met in New
York. I had long been familiar with FlightSafety's business, and in
about 60 seconds I knew that Al was exactly our kind of manager. A month
later, we had a contract. Because Charlie and I wished to minimize the
issuance of Berkshire shares, the transaction we structured gave
FlightSafety shareholders a choice of cash or stock but carried terms
that encouraged those who were tax-indifferent to take cash. This nudge
led to about 51% of FlightSafety's shares being exchanged for cash, 41%
for Berkshire A and 8% for Berkshire B.

Al has had a lifelong love affair with aviation and actually piloted
Charles Lindbergh. After a barnstorming career in the 1930s, he began
working for Juan Trippe, Pan Am's legendary chief. In 1951, while still
at Pan Am, Al founded FlightSafety, subsequently building it into a
simulator manufacturer and a worldwide trainer of pilots (single-engine,
helicopter, jet and marine). The company operates in 41 locations,
outfitted with 175 simulators of planes ranging from the very small, such
as Cessna 210s, to Boeing 747s. Simulators are not cheap - they can cost
as much as $19 million - so this business, unlike many of our
operations, is capital intensive. About half of the company's revenues
are derived from the training of corporate pilots, with most of the
balance coming from airlines and the military.

Al may be 79, but he looks and acts about 55. He will run
operations just as he has in the past: We never fool with success. I
have told him that though we don't believe in splitting Berkshire stock,
we will split his age 2-for-1 when he hits 100.

An observer might conclude from our hiring practices that Charlie
and I were traumatized early in life by an EEOC bulletin on age
discrimination. The real explanation, however, is self-interest: It's
difficult to teach a new dog old tricks. The many Berkshire managers who
are past 70 hit home runs today at the same pace that long ago gave them
reputations as young slugging sensations. Therefore, to get a job with
us, just employ the tactic of the 76-year-old who persuaded a dazzling
beauty of 25 to marry him. "How did you ever get her to accept?" asked
his envious contemporaries. The comeback: "I told her I was 86."

* * * * * * * * * * * *

And now we pause for our usual commercial: If you own a large
business with good economic characteristics and wish to become associated
with an exceptional collection of businesses having similar
characteristics, Berkshire may well be the home you seek. Our
requirements are set forth on page 21. If your company meets them - and
if I fail to make the next birthday party you attend - give me a call.

Insurance Operations - Overview

Our insurance business was terrific in 1996. In both primary
insurance, where GEICO is our main unit, and in our "super-cat"
reinsurance business, results were outstanding.

As we've explained in past reports, what counts in our insurance
business is, first, the amount of "float" we generate and, second, its
cost to us. These are matters that are important for you to understand
because float is a major component of Berkshire's intrinsic value that is
not reflected in book value.

Bob took it from there, and on September 18, Al and I met in New
York. I had long been familiar with FlightSafety's business, and in
about 60 seconds I knew that Al was exactly our kind of manager. A month
later, we had a contract. Because Charlie and I wished to minimize the
issuance of Berkshire shares, the transaction we structured gave
FlightSafety shareholders a choice of cash or stock but carried terms
that encouraged those who were tax-indifferent to take cash. This nudge
led to about 51% of FlightSafety's shares being exchanged for cash, 41%
for Berkshire A and 8% for Berkshire B.

Al has had a lifelong love affair with aviation and actually piloted
Charles Lindbergh. After a barnstorming career in the 1930s, he began
working for Juan Trippe, Pan Am's legendary chief. In 1951, while still
at Pan Am, Al founded FlightSafety, subsequently building it into a
simulator manufacturer and a worldwide trainer of pilots (single-engine,
helicopter, jet and marine). The company operates in 41 locations,
outfitted with 175 simulators of planes ranging from the very small, such
as Cessna 210s, to Boeing 747s. Simulators are not cheap - they can cost
as much as $19 million - so this business, unlike many of our
operations, is capital intensive. About half of the company's revenues
are derived from the training of corporate pilots, with most of the
balance coming from airlines and the military.

Al may be 79, but he looks and acts about 55. He will run
operations just as he has in the past: We never fool with success. I
have told him that though we don't believe in splitting Berkshire stock,
we will split his age 2-for-1 when he hits 100.

An observer might conclude from our hiring practices that Charlie
and I were traumatized early in life by an EEOC bulletin on age
discrimination. The real explanation, however, is self-interest: It's
difficult to teach a new dog old tricks. The many Berkshire managers who
are past 70 hit home runs today at the same pace that long ago gave them
reputations as young slugging sensations. Therefore, to get a job with
us, just employ the tactic of the 76-year-old who persuaded a dazzling
beauty of 25 to marry him. "How did you ever get her to accept?" asked
his envious contemporaries. The comeback: "I told her I was 86."

* * * * * * * * * * * *

And now we pause for our usual commercial: If you own a large
business with good economic characteristics and wish to become associated
with an exceptional collection of businesses having similar
characteristics, Berkshire may well be the home you seek. Our
requirements are set forth on page 21. If your company meets them - and
if I fail to make the next birthday party you attend - give me a call.

Insurance Operations - Overview

Our insurance business was terrific in 1996. In both primary
insurance, where GEICO is our main unit, and in our "super-cat"
reinsurance business, results were outstanding.

As we've explained in past reports, what counts in our insurance
business is, first, the amount of "float" we generate and, second, its
cost to us. These are matters that are important for you to understand
because float is a major component of Berkshire's intrinsic value that is
not reflected in book value.

To begin with, float is money we hold but don't own. In an
insurance operation, float arises because premiums are received before
losses are paid. Secondly, the premiums that an insurer takes in
typically do not cover the losses and expenses it eventually must pay.
That leaves it running an "underwriting loss," which is the cost of
float. An insurance business has value if its cost of float over time is
less than the cost the company would otherwise incur to obtain funds.
But the business is an albatross if the cost of its float is higher than
market rates for money.

As the numbers in the following table show, Berkshire's insurance
business has been a huge winner. For the table, we have calculated our
float - which we generate in large amounts relative to our premium
volume - by adding loss reserves, loss adjustment reserves, funds held
under reinsurance assumed and unearned premium reserves, and then
subtracting agents' balances, prepaid acquisition costs, prepaid taxes
and deferred charges applicable to assumed reinsurance. Our cost of
float is determined by our underwriting loss or profit. In those years
when we have had an underwriting profit, such as the last four, our cost
of float has been negative. In effect, we have been paid for holding
money.

(1) (2) Yearend Yield
Underwriting Approximat on Long-Term
Loss Average Float Cost of Funds Govt. Bonds
------------ ------------- ---------------- -------------
(In $ Millions) (Ratio of 1 to 2)

1967.......... profit 17.3 less than zero 5.50%
1968.......... profit 19.9 less than zero 5.90%
1969.......... profit 23.4 less than zero 6.79%
1970.......... 0.37 32.4 1.14% 6.25%
1971.......... profit 52.5 less than zero 5.81%
1972.......... profit 69.5 less than zero 5.82%
1973.......... profit 73.3 less than zero 7.27%
1974.......... 7.36 79.1 9.30% 8.13%
1975.......... 11.35 87.6 12.96% 8.03%
1976.......... profit 102.6 less than zero 7.30%
1977.......... profit 139.0 less than zero 7.97%
1978.......... profit 190.4 less than zero 8.93%
1979.......... profit 227.3 less than zero 10.08%
1980.......... profit 237.0 less than zero 11.94%
1981.......... profit 228.4 less than zero 13.61%
1982.......... 21.56 220.6 9.77% 10.64%
1983.......... 33.87 231.3 14.64% 11.84%
1984.......... 48.06 253.2 18.98% 11.58%
1985.......... 44.23 390.2 11.34% 9.34%
1986.......... 55.84 797.5 7.00% 7.60%
1987.......... 55.43 1,266.7 4.38% 8.95%
1988.......... 11.08 1,497.7 0.74% 9.00%
1989.......... 24.40 1,541.3 1.58% 7.97%
1990.......... 26.65 1,637.3 1.63% 8.24%
1991.......... 119.59 1,895.0 6.31% 7.40%
1992.......... 108.96 2,290.4 4.76% 7.39%
1993.......... profit 2,624.7 less than zero 6.35%
1994.......... profit 3,056.6 less than zero 7.88%
1995.......... profit 3,607.2 less than zero 5.95%
1996.......... profit 6,702.0 less than zero 6.64%

Since 1967, when we entered the insurance business, our float has
grown at an annual compounded rate of 22.3%. In more years than not, our
cost of funds has been less than nothing. This access to "free" money has
boosted Berkshire's performance in a major way. Moreover, our acquisition
of GEICO materially increases the probability that we can continue to
obtain "free" funds in increasing amounts.

Super-Cat Insurance

As in the past three years, we once again stress that the good results
we are reporting for Berkshire stem in part from our super-cat business
having a lucky year. In this operation, we sell policies that insurance
and reinsurance companies buy to protect themselves from the effects of
mega-catastrophes. Since truly major catastrophes are rare occurrences,
our super-cat business can be expected to show large profits in most years
- and to record a huge loss occasionally. In other words, the
attractiveness of our super-cat business will take a great many years to
measure. What you must understand, however, is that a truly terrible year
in the super-cat business is not a possibility - it's a certainty. The
only question is when it will come.

I emphasize this lugubrious point because I would not want you to
panic and sell your Berkshire stock upon hearing that some large
catastrophe had cost us a significant amount. If you would tend to react
that way, you should not own Berkshire shares now, just as you should
entirely avoid owning stocks if a crashing market would lead you to panic
and sell. Selling fine businesses on "scary" news is usually a bad
decision. (Robert Woodruff, the business genius who built Coca-Cola over
many decades and who owned a huge position in the company, was once asked
when it might be a good time to sell Coke stock. Woodruff had a simple
answer: "I don't know. I've never sold any.")

In our super-cat operation, our customers are insurers that are
exposed to major earnings volatility and that wish to reduce it. The
product we sell - for what we hope is an appropriate price - is our
willingness to shift that volatility to our own books. Gyrations in
Berkshire's earnings don't bother us in the least: Charlie and I would
much rather earn a lumpy 15% over time than a smooth 12%. (After all, our
earnings swing wildly on a daily and weekly basis - why should we demand
that smoothness accompany each orbit that the earth makes of the sun?) We
are most comfortable with that thinking, however, when we have
shareholder/partners who can also accept volatility, and that's why we
regularly repeat our cautions.

We took on some major super-cat exposures during 1996. At mid-year we
wrote a contract with Allstate that covers Florida hurricanes, and though
there are no definitive records that would allow us to prove this point, we
believe that to have then been the largest single catastrophe risk ever
assumed by one company for its own account. Later in the year, however, we
wrote a policy for the California Earthquake Authority that goes into
effect on April 1, 1997, and that exposes us to a loss more than twice that
possible under the Florida contract. Again we retained all the risk for
our own account. Large as these coverages are, Berkshire's after-tax
"worst-case" loss from a true mega-catastrophe is probably no more than
$600 million, which is less than 3% of our book value and 1.5% of our market
value. To gain some perspective on this exposure, look at the table on
page 2 and note the much greater volatility that security markets have
delivered us.

In the super-cat business, we have three major competitive advantages.
First, the parties buying reinsurance from us know that we both can and
will pay under the most adverse of circumstances. Were a truly cataclysmic
disaster to occur, it is not impossible that a financial panic would
quickly follow. If that happened, there could well be respected reinsurers
that would have difficulty paying at just the moment that their clients
faced extraordinary needs. Indeed, one reason we never "lay off" part of
the risks we insure is that we have reservations about our ability to
collect from others when disaster strikes. When it's Berkshire promising,
insureds know with certainty that they can collect promptly.

Our second advantage - somewhat related - is subtle but important.
After a mega-catastrophe, insurers might well find it difficult to obtain
reinsurance even though their need for coverage would then be particularly
great. At such a time, Berkshire would without question have very
substantial capacity available - but it will naturally be our long-standing
clients that have first call on it. That business reality has made major
insurers and reinsurers throughout the world realize the desirability of
doing business with us. Indeed, we are currently getting sizable "stand-
by" fees from reinsurers that are simply nailing down their ability to get
coverage from us should the market tighten.

Our final competitive advantage is that we can provide dollar
coverages of a size neither matched nor approached elsewhere in the
industry. Insurers looking for huge covers know that a single call to
Berkshire will produce a firm and immediate offering.

A few facts about our exposure to California earthquakes - our largest
risk - seem in order. The Northridge quake of 1994 laid homeowners' losses
on insurers that greatly exceeded what computer models had told them to
expect. Yet the intensity of that quake was mild compared to the "worst-
case" possibility for California. Understandably, insurers became - ahem -
shaken and started contemplating a retreat from writing earthquake coverage
into their homeowners' policies.

In a thoughtful response, Chuck Quackenbush, California's insurance
commissioner, designed a new residential earthquake policy to be written by
a state-sponsored insurer, The California Earthquake Authority. This
entity, which went into operation on December 1, 1996, needed large layers
of reinsurance - and that's where we came in. Berkshire's layer of
approximately $1 billion will be called upon if the Authority's aggregate
losses in the period ending March 31, 2001 exceed about $5 billion. (The
press originally reported larger figures, but these would have applied only
if all California insurers had entered into the arrangement; instead only
72% signed up.)

So what are the true odds of our having to make a payout during the
policy's term? We don't know - nor do we think computer models will help
us, since we believe the precision they project is a chimera. In fact,
such models can lull decision-makers into a false sense of security and
thereby increase their chances of making a really huge mistake. We've
already seen such debacles in both insurance and investments. Witness
"portfolio insurance," whose destructive effects in the 1987 market crash
led one wag to observe that it was the computers that should have been
jumping out of windows.

Even if perfection in assessing risks is unattainable, insurers can
underwrite sensibly. After all, you need not know a man's precise age to
know that he is old enough to vote nor know his exact weight to recognize
his need to diet. In insurance, it is essential to remember that virtually
all surprises are unpleasant, and with that in mind we try to price our
super-cat exposures so that about 90% of total premiums end up being
eventually paid out in losses and expenses. Over time, we will find out
how smart our pricing has been, but that will not be quickly. The super-
cat business is just like the investment business in that it often takes a
long time to find out whether you knew what you were doing.

What I can state with certainty, however, is that we have the best
person in the world to run our super-cat business: Ajit Jain, whose value
to Berkshire is simply enormous. In the reinsurance field, disastrous
propositions abound. I know that because I personally embraced all too
many of these in the 1970s and also because GEICO has a large runoff
portfolio made up of foolish contracts written in the early-1980s, able
though its then-management was. Ajit, I can assure you, won't make
mistakes of this type.

I have mentioned that a mega-catastrophe might cause a catastrophe in
the financial markets, a possibility that is unlikely but not far-fetched.
Were the catastrophe a quake in California of sufficient magnitude to tap
our coverage, we would almost certainly be damaged in other ways as well.
For example, See's, Wells Fargo and Freddie Mac could be hit hard. All in
all, though, we can handle this aggregation of exposures.

In this respect, as in others, we try to "reverse engineer" our future
at Berkshire, bearing in mind Charlie's dictum: "All I want to know is
where I'm going to die so I'll never go there." (Inverting really works:
Try singing country western songs backwards and you will quickly regain
your house, your car and your wife.) If we can't tolerate a possible
consequence, remote though it may be, we steer clear of planting its seeds.
That is why we don't borrow big amounts and why we make sure that our
super-cat business losses, large though the maximums may sound, will not
put a major dent in Berkshire's intrinsic value.

Insurance - GEICO and Other Primary Operations

When we moved to total ownership of GEICO early last year, our
expectations were high - and they are all being exceeded. That is true
from both a business and personal perspective: GEICO's operating chief,
Tony Nicely, is a superb business manager and a delight to work with.
Under almost any conditions, GEICO would be an exceptionally valuable
asset. With Tony at the helm, it is reaching levels of performance that
the organization would only a few years ago have thought impossible.

There's nothing esoteric about GEICO's success: The company's
competitive strength flows directly from its position as a low-cost
operator. Low costs permit low prices, and low prices attract and retain
good policyholders. The final segment of a virtuous circle is drawn when
policyholders recommend us to their friends. GEICO gets more than one
million referrals annually and these produce more than half of our new
business, an advantage that gives us enormous savings in acquisition
expenses - and that makes our costs still lower.

This formula worked in spades for GEICO in 1996: Its voluntary auto
policy count grew 10%. During the previous 20 years, the company's best-
ever growth for a year had been 8%, a rate achieved only once. Better yet,
the growth in voluntary policies accelerated during the year, led by major
gains in the nonstandard market, which has been an underdeveloped area at
GEICO. I focus here on voluntary policies because the involuntary business
we get from assigned risk pools and the like is unprofitable. Growth in
that sector is most unwelcome.

GEICO's growth would mean nothing if it did not produce reasonable
underwriting profits. Here, too, the news is good: Last year we hit our
underwriting targets and then some. Our goal, however, is not to widen our
profit margin but rather to enlarge the price advantage we offer customers.
Given that strategy, we believe that 1997's growth will easily top that of
last year.

We expect new competitors to enter the direct-response market, and
some of our existing competitors are likely to expand geographically.
Nonetheless, the economies of scale we enjoy should allow us to maintain or
even widen the protective moat surrounding our economic castle. We do best
on costs in geographical areas in which we enjoy high market penetration.
As our policy count grows, concurrently delivering gains in penetration, we
expect to drive costs materially lower. GEICO's sustainable cost advantage
is what attracted me to the company way back in 1951, when the entire
business was valued at $7 million. It is also why I felt Berkshire should
pay $2.3 billion last year for the 49% of the company that we didn't then
own.

Maximizing the results of a wonderful business requires management and
focus. Lucky for us, we have in Tony a superb manager whose business focus
never wavers. Wanting also to get the entire GEICO organization
concentrating as he does, we needed a compensation plan that was itself
sharply focused - and immediately after our purchase, we put one in.

Today, the bonuses received by dozens of top executives, starting with
Tony, are based upon only two key variables: (1) growth in voluntary auto
policies and (2) underwriting profitability on "seasoned" auto business
(meaning policies that have been on the books for more than one year). In
addition, we use the same yardsticks to calculate the annual contribution
to the company's profit-sharing plan. Everyone at GEICO knows what counts.

The GEICO plan exemplifies Berkshire's incentive compensation
principles: Goals should be (1) tailored to the economics of the specific
operating business; (2) simple in character so that the degree to which
they are being realized can be easily measured; and (3) directly related to
the daily activities of plan participants. As a corollary, we shun
"lottery ticket" arrangements, such as options on Berkshire shares, whose
ultimate value - which could range from zero to huge - is totally out of
the control of the person whose behavior we would like to affect. In our
view, a system that produces quixotic payoffs will not only be wasteful for
owners but may actually discourage the focused behavior we value in
managers.

Every quarter, all 9,000 GEICO associates can see the results that
determine our profit-sharing plan contribution. In 1996, they enjoyed the
experience because the plan literally went off the chart that had been
constructed at the start of the year. Even I knew the answer to that
problem: Enlarge the chart. Ultimately, the results called for a record
contribution of 16.9% ($40 million), compared to a five-year average of
less than 10% for the comparable plans previously in effect. Furthermore,
at Berkshire, we never greet good work by raising the bar. If GEICO's
performance continues to improve, we will happily keep on making larger
charts.

Lou Simpson continues to manage GEICO's money in an outstanding
manner: Last year, the equities in his portfolio outdid the S&P 500 by 6.2
percentage points. In Lou's part of GEICO's operation, we again tie
compensation to performance - but to investment performance over a four-
year period, not to underwriting results nor to the performance of GEICO as
a whole. We think it foolish for an insurance company to pay bonuses that
are tied to overall corporate results when great work on one side of the
business - underwriting or investment - could conceivably be completely
neutralized by bad work on the other. If you bat .350 at Berkshire, you
can be sure you will get paid commensurately even if the rest of the team
bats .200. In Lou and Tony, however, we are lucky to have Hall-of-Famers
in both key positions.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Though they are, of course, smaller than GEICO, our other primary
insurance operations turned in equally stunning results last year.
National Indemnity's traditional business had a combined ratio of 74.2 and,
as usual, developed a large amount of float compared to premium volume.
Over the last three years, this segment of our business, run by Don
Wurster, has had an average combined ratio of 83.0. Our homestate
operation, managed by Rod Eldred, recorded a combined ratio of 87.1 even
though it absorbed the expenses of expanding to new states. Rod's three-
year combined ratio is an amazing 83.2. Berkshire's workers' compensation
business, run out of California by Brad Kinstler, has now moved into six
other states and, despite the costs of that expansion, again achieved an
excellent underwriting profit. Finally, John Kizer, at Central States
Indemnity, set new records for premium volume while generating good
earnings from underwriting. In aggregate, our smaller insurance operations
(now including Kansas Bankers Surety) have an underwriting record virtually
unmatched in the industry. Don, Rod, Brad and John have all created
significant value for Berkshire, and we believe there is more to come.

Taxes

In 1961, President Kennedy said that we should ask not what our
country can do for us, but rather ask what we can do for our country. Last
year we decided to give his suggestion a try - and who says it never hurts
to ask? We were told to mail $860 million in income taxes to the U.S.
Treasury.

Here's a little perspective on that figure: If an equal amount had
been paid by only 2,000 other taxpayers, the government would have had a
balanced budget in 1996 without needing a dime of taxes - income or Social
Security or what have you - from any other American. Berkshire
shareholders can truly say, "I gave at the office."

Charlie and I believe that large tax payments by Berkshire are
entirely fitting. The contribution we thus make to society's well-being is
at most only proportional to its contribution to ours. Berkshire prospers
in America as it would nowhere else.

Sources of Reported Earnings

The table that follows shows the main sources of Berkshire's reported
earnings. In this presentation, purchase-accounting adjustments are not
assigned to the specific businesses to which they apply, but are instead
aggregated and shown separately. This procedure lets you view the earnings
of our businesses as they would have been reported had we not purchased
them. For the reasons discussed on pages 65 and 66, this form of
presentation seems to us to be more useful to investors and managers than
one utilizing generally-accepted accounting principles (GAAP), which
require purchase-premiums to be charged off business-by-business. The
total earnings we show in the table are, of course, identical to the GAAP
total in our audited financial statements.

(in millions)
--------------------------------------
Berkshire's Share
of Net Earnings
(after taxes and
Pre-tax Earnings minority interests)
---------------- -------------------
1996 1995(1) 1996 1995(1)
------- -------- ------- -------
Operating Earnings:
Insurance Group:
Underwriting.....................$ 222.1 $ 20.5 $ 142.8 $ 11.3
Net Investment Income............ 726.2 501.6 593.1 417.7
Buffalo News........................... 50.4 46.8 29.5 27.3
Fechheimer............................. 17.3 16.9 9.3 8.8
Finance Businesses..................... 23.1 20.8 14.9 12.6
Home Furnishings....................... 43.8 29.7(2) 24.8 16.7(2)
Jewelry................................ 27.8 33.9(3) 16.1 19.1(3)
Kirby.................................. 58.5 50.2 39.9 32.1
Scott Fetzer Manufacturing Group....... 50.6 34.1 32.2 21.2
See's Candies.......................... 51.9 50.2 30.8 29.8
Shoe Group............................. 61.6 58.4 41.0 37.5
World Book............................. 12.6 8.8 9.5 7.0
Purchase-Accounting Adjustments........ (75.7) (27.0) (70.5) (23.4)
Interest Expense(4).................... (94.3) (56.0) (56.6) (34.9)
Shareholder-Designated Contributions... (13.3) (11.6) (8.5) (7.0)
Other.................................. 58.8 37.4 34.8 24.4
------- -------- -------- -------
Operating Earnings.......................1,221.4 814.7 883.1 600.2
Sales of Securities......................2,484.5 194.1 1,605.5 125.0
------- -------- -------- -------
Total Earnings - All Entities...........$3,705.9 $1,008.8 $2,488.6 $ 725.2
======= ======== ======== =======

(1) Before the GEICO-related restatement. (3) Includes Helzberg's from
April 30, 1995.
(2) Includes R.C. Willey from June 29, 1995. (4) Excludes interest expense
of Finance Businesses.

In this section last year, I discussed three businesses that reported
a decline in earnings - Buffalo News, Shoe Group and World Book. All, I'm
happy to say, recorded gains in 1996.

World Book, however, did not find it easy: Despite the operation's
new status as the only direct-seller of encyclopedias in the country
(Encyclopedia Britannica exited the field last year), its unit volume fell.
Additionally, World Book spent heavily on a new CD-ROM product that began
to take in revenues only in early 1997, when it was launched in association
with IBM. In the face of these factors, earnings would have evaporated had
World Book not revamped distribution methods and cut overhead at
headquarters, thereby dramatically reducing its fixed costs. Overall, the
company has gone a long way toward assuring its long-term viability in both
the print and electronic marketplaces.

Our only disappointment last year was in jewelry: Borsheim's did
fine, but Helzberg's suffered a material decline in earnings. Its expense
levels had been geared to a sizable increase in same-store sales,
consistent with the gains achieved in recent years. When sales were
instead flat, profit margins fell. Jeff Comment, CEO of Helzberg's, is
addressing the expense problem in a decisive manner, and the company's
earnings should improve in 1997.

Overall, our operating businesses continue to perform exceptionally,
far outdoing their industry norms. For this, Charlie and I thank our
managers. If you should see any of them at the Annual Meeting, add your
thanks as well.

More information about our various businesses is given on pages 36-
46, where you will also find our segment earnings reported on a GAAP
basis. In addition, on pages 51-57, we have rearranged Berkshire's
financial data into four segments on a non-GAAP basis, a presentation
that corresponds to the way Charlie and I think about the company. Our
intent is to supply you with the financial information that we would wish
you to give us if our positions were reversed.

"Look-Through" Earnings

Reported earnings are a poor measure of economic progress at
Berkshire, in part because the numbers shown in the table presented
earlier include only the dividends we receive from investees - though
these dividends typically represent only a small fraction of the earnings
attributable to our ownership. Not that we mind this division of money,
since on balance we regard the undistributed earnings of investees as
more valuable to us than the portion paid out. The reason is simple:
Our investees often have the opportunity to reinvest earnings at high
rates of return. So why should we want them paid out?

To depict something closer to economic reality at Berkshire than
reported earnings, though, we employ the concept of "look-through"
earnings. As we calculate these, they consist of: (1) the operating
earnings reported in the previous section, plus; (2) our share of the
retained operating earnings of major investees that, under GAAP
accounting, are not reflected in our profits, less; (3) an allowance for
the tax that would be paid by Berkshire if these retained earnings of
investees had instead been distributed to us. When tabulating "operating
earnings" here, we exclude purchase-accounting adjustments as well as
capital gains and other major non-recurring items.

The following table sets forth our 1996 look-through earnings,
though I warn you that the figures can be no more than approximate, since
they are based on a number of judgment calls. (The dividends paid to us
by these investees have been included in the operating earnings itemized
on page 12, mostly under "Insurance Group: Net Investment Income.")

Berkshire's Share
of Undistributed
Berkshire's Approximate Operating Earnings
Berkshire's Major Investees Ownership at Yearend(1) (in millions)(2)
-------------------------------- ----------------------- ------------------

American Express Company........ 10.5% $ 132
The Coca-Cola Company........... 8.1% 180
The Walt Disney Company......... 3.6% 50
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. 8.4% 77
The Gillette Company............ 8.6% 73
McDonald's Corporation.......... 4.3% 38
The Washington Post Company..... 15.8% 27
Wells Fargo & Company........... 8.0% 84
------
Berkshire's share of undistributed earnings of major investees.. 661
Hypothetical tax on these undistributed investee earnings(3).... (93)
Reported operating earnings of Berkshire........................ 954
------
Total look-through earnings of Berkshire..................$2,522
======

(1) Does not include shares allocable to minority interests
(2) Calculated on average ownership for the year
(3) The tax rate used is 14%, which is the rate Berkshire pays on
the dividends it receives

Common Stock Investments

Below we present our common stock investments. Those with a market
value of more than $500 million are itemized.

12/31/96
Shares Company Cost* Market
----------- --------------------------------- -------- ---------
(dollars in millions)
49,456,900 American Express Company...........$2,392.7 $ 2,794.3
200,000,000 The Coca-Cola Company.............. 1,298.9 10,525.0
24,614,214 The Walt Disney Company............ 577.0 1,716.8
64,246,000 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.... 333.4 1,772.8
48,000,000 The Gillette Company............... 600.0 3,732.0
30,156,600 McDonald's Corporation............. 1,265.3 1,368.4
1,727,765 The Washington Post Company........ 10.6 579.0
7,291,418 Wells Fargo & Company.............. 497.8 1,966.9
Others............................. 1,934.5 3,295.4
-------- ---------
Total Common Stocks................$7,910.2 $27,750.6
======== =========

* Represents tax-basis cost which, in aggregate, is $1.2 billion
less than GAAP cost.

Our portfolio shows little change: We continue to make more money
when snoring than when active.

Inactivity strikes us as intelligent behavior. Neither we nor most
business managers would dream of feverishly trading highly-profitable
subsidiaries because a small move in the Federal Reserve's discount rate
was predicted or because some Wall Street pundit had reversed his views
on the market. Why, then, should we behave differently with our minority
positions in wonderful businesses? The art of investing in public
companies successfully is little different from the art of successfully
acquiring subsidiaries. In each case you simply want to acquire, at a
sensible price, a business with excellent economics and able, honest
management. Thereafter, you need only monitor whether these qualities
are being preserved.

When carried out capably, an investment strategy of that type will
often result in its practitioner owning a few securities that will come
to represent a very large portion of his portfolio. This investor would
get a similar result if he followed a policy of purchasing an interest
in, say, 20% of the future earnings of a number of outstanding college
basketball stars. A handful of these would go on to achieve NBA stardom,
and the investor's take from them would soon dominate his royalty stream.
To suggest that this investor should sell off portions of his most
successful investments simply because they have come to dominate his
portfolio is akin to suggesting that the Bulls trade Michael Jordan
because he has become so important to the team.

In studying the investments we have made in both subsidiary
companies and common stocks, you will see that we favor businesses and
industries unlikely to experience major change. The reason for that is
simple: Making either type of purchase, we are searching for operations
that we believe are virtually certain to possess enormous competitive
strength ten or twenty years from now. A fast-changing industry
environment may offer the chance for huge wins, but it precludes the
certainty we seek.

I should emphasize that, as citizens, Charlie and I welcome change:
Fresh ideas, new products, innovative processes and the like cause our
country's standard of living to rise, and that's clearly good. As
investors, however, our reaction to a fermenting industry is much like
our attitude toward space exploration: We applaud the endeavor but
prefer to skip the ride.

Obviously all businesses change to some extent. Today, See's is
different in many ways from what it was in 1972 when we bought it: It
offers a different assortment of candy, employs different machinery and
sells through different distribution channels. But the reasons why
people today buy boxed chocolates, and why they buy them from us rather
than from someone else, are virtually unchanged from what they were in
the 1920s when the See family was building the business. Moreover, these
motivations are not likely to change over the next 20 years, or even 50.

We look for similar predictability in marketable securities. Take
Coca-Cola: The zeal and imagination with which Coke products are sold
has burgeoned under Roberto Goizueta, who has done an absolutely
incredible job in creating value for his shareholders. Aided by Don
Keough and Doug Ivester, Roberto has rethought and improved every aspect
of the company. But the fundamentals of the business - the qualities
that underlie Coke's competitive dominance and stunning economics - have
remained constant through the years.

I was recently studying the 1896 report of Coke (and you think that
you are behind in your reading!). At that time Coke, though it was
already the leading soft drink, had been around for only a decade. But
its blueprint for the next 100 years was already drawn. Reporting sales
of $148,000 that year, Asa Candler, the company's president, said: "We
have not lagged in our efforts to go into all the world teaching that
Coca-Cola is the article, par excellence, for the health and good feeling
of all people." Though "health" may have been a reach, I love the fact
that Coke still relies on Candler's basic theme today - a century later.
Candler went on to say, just as Roberto could now, "No article of like
character has ever so firmly entrenched itself in public favor." Sales
of syrup that year, incidentally, were 116,492 gallons versus about 3.2
billion in 1996.

I can't resist one more Candler quote: "Beginning this year about
March 1st . . . we employed ten traveling salesmen by means of which,
with systematic correspondence from the office, we covered almost the
territory of the Union." That's my kind of sales force.

Companies such as Coca-Cola and Gillette might well be labeled "The
Inevitables." Forecasters may differ a bit in their predictions of
exactly how much soft drink or shaving-equipment business these companies
will be doing in ten or twenty years. Nor is our talk of inevitability
meant to play down the vital work that these companies must continue to
carry out, in such areas as manufacturing, distribution, packaging and
product innovation. In the end, however, no sensible observer - not even
these companies' most vigorous competitors, assuming they are assessing
the matter honestly - questions that Coke and Gillette will dominate
their fields worldwide for an investment lifetime. Indeed, their
dominance will probably strengthen. Both companies have significantly
expanded their already huge shares of market during the past ten years,
and all signs point to their repeating that performance in the next
decade.

Obviously many companies in high-tech businesses or embryonic
industries will grow much faster in percentage terms than will The
Inevitables. But I would rather be certain of a good result than hopeful
of a great one.

Of course, Charlie and I can identify only a few Inevitables, even
after a lifetime of looking for them. Leadership alone provides no
certainties: Witness the shocks some years back at General Motors, IBM
and Sears, all of which had enjoyed long periods of seeming
invincibility. Though some industries or lines of business exhibit
characteristics that endow leaders with virtually insurmountable
advantages, and that tend to establish Survival of the Fattest as almost
a natural law, most do not. Thus, for every Inevitable, there are dozens
of Impostors, companies now riding high but vulnerable to competitive
attacks. Considering what it takes to be an Inevitable, Charlie and I
recognize that we will never be able to come up with a Nifty Fifty or
even a Twinkling Twenty. To the Inevitables in our portfolio, therefore,
we add a few "Highly Probables."

You can, of course, pay too much for even the best of businesses.
The overpayment risk surfaces periodically and, in our opinion, may now
be quite high for the purchasers of virtually all stocks, The Inevitables
included. Investors making purchases in an overheated market need to
recognize that it may often take an extended period for the value of even
an outstanding company to catch up with the price they paid.

A far more serious problem occurs when the management of a great
company gets sidetracked and neglects its wonderful base business while
purchasing other businesses that are so-so or worse. When that happens,
the suffering of investors is often prolonged. Unfortunately, that is
precisely what transpired years ago at both Coke and Gillette. (Would
you believe that a few decades back they were growing shrimp at Coke and
exploring for oil at Gillette?) Loss of focus is what most worries
Charlie and me when we contemplate investing in businesses that in
general look outstanding. All too often, we've seen value stagnate in
the presence of hubris or of boredom that caused the attention of
managers to wander. That's not going to happen again at Coke and
Gillette, however - not given their current and prospective managements.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Let me add a few thoughts about your own investments. Most
investors, both institutional and individual, will find that the best way
to own common stocks is through an index fund that charges minimal fees.
Those following this path are sure to beat the net results (after fees
and expenses) delivered by the great majority of investment
professionals.

Should you choose, however, to construct your own portfolio, there
are a few thoughts worth remembering. Intelligent investing is not
complex, though that is far from saying that it is easy. What an
investor needs is the ability to correctly evaluate selected businesses.
Note that word "selected": You don't have to be an expert on every
company, or even many. You only have to be able to evaluate companies
within your circle of competence. The size of that circle is not very
important; knowing its boundaries, however, is vital.

To invest successfully, you need not understand beta, efficient
markets, modern portfolio theory, option pricing or emerging markets.
You may, in fact, be better off knowing nothing of these. That, of
course, is not the prevailing view at most business schools, whose
finance curriculum tends to be dominated by such subjects. In our view,
though, investment students need only two well-taught courses - How to
Value a Business, and How to Think About Market Prices.

Your goal as an investor should simply be to purchase, at a rational
price, a part interest in an easily-understandable business whose
earnings are virtually certain to be materially higher five, ten and
twenty years from now. Over time, you will find only a few companies
that meet these standards - so when you see one that qualifies, you
should buy a meaningful amount of stock. You must also resist the
temptation to stray from your guidelines: If you aren't willing to own a
stock for ten years, don't even think about owning it for ten minutes.
Put together a portfolio of companies whose aggregate earnings march
upward over the years, and so also will the portfolio's market value.

Though it's seldom recognized, this is the exact approach that has
produced gains for Berkshire shareholders: Our look-through earnings
have grown at a good clip over the years, and our stock price has risen
correspondingly. Had those gains in earnings not materialized, there
would have been little increase in Berkshire's value.

The greatly enlarged earnings base we now enjoy will inevitably
cause our future gains to lag those of the past. We will continue,
however, to push in the directions we always have. We will try to build
earnings by running our present businesses well - a job made easy because
of the extraordinary talents of our operating managers - and by
purchasing other businesses, in whole or in part, that are not likely to
be roiled by change and that possess important competitive advantages.

USAir

When Richard Branson, the wealthy owner of Virgin Atlantic Airways,
was asked how to become a millionaire, he had a quick answer: "There's
really nothing to it. Start as a billionaire and then buy an airline."
Unwilling to accept Branson's proposition on faith, your Chairman decided
in 1989 to test it by investing $358 million in a 9.25% preferred stock of
USAir.

I liked and admired Ed Colodny, the company's then-CEO, and I still
do. But my analysis of USAir's business was both superficial and wrong.
I was so beguiled by the company's long history of profitable
operations, and by the protection that ownership of a senior security
seemingly offered me, that I overlooked the crucial point: USAir's
revenues would increasingly feel the effects of an unregulated, fiercely-
competitive market whereas its cost structure was a holdover from the
days when regulation protected profits. These costs, if left unchecked,
portended disaster, however reassuring the airline's past record might
be. (If history supplied all of the answers, the Forbes 400 would
consist of librarians.)

To rationalize its costs, however, USAir needed major improvements
in its labor contracts - and that's something most airlines have found it
extraordinarily difficult to get, short of credibly threatening, or
actually entering, bankruptcy. USAir was to be no exception.
Immediately after we purchased our preferred stock, the imbalance between
the company's costs and revenues began to grow explosively. In the 1990-
1994 period, USAir lost an aggregate of $2.4 billion, a performance that
totally wiped out the book equity of its common stock.

For much of this period, the company paid us our preferred
dividends, but in 1994 payment was suspended. A bit later, with the
situation looking particularly gloomy, we wrote down our investment by
75%, to $89.5 million. Thereafter, during much of 1995, I offered to
sell our shares at 50% of face value. Fortunately, I was unsuccessful.

Mixed in with my many mistakes at USAir was one thing I got right:
Making our investment, we wrote into the preferred contract a somewhat
unusual provision stipulating that "penalty dividends" - to run five
percentage points over the prime rate - would be accrued on any
arrearages. This meant that when our 9.25% dividend was omitted for two
years, the unpaid amounts compounded at rates ranging between 13.25% and
14%.

Facing this penalty provision, USAir had every incentive to pay
arrearages just as promptly as it could. And in the second half of 1996,
when USAir turned profitable, it indeed began to pay, giving us $47.9
million. We owe Stephen Wolf, the company's CEO, a huge thank-you for
extracting a performance from the airline that permitted this payment.
Even so, USAir's performance has recently been helped significantly by an
industry tailwind that may be cyclical in nature. The company still has
basic cost problems that must be solved.

In any event, the prices of USAir's publicly-traded securities tell
us that our preferred stock is now probably worth its par value of $358
million, give or take a little. In addition, we have over the years
collected an aggregate of $240.5 million in dividends (including $30
million received in 1997).

Early in 1996, before any accrued dividends had been paid, I tried
once more to unload our holdings - this time for about $335 million.
You're lucky: I again failed in my attempt to snatch defeat from the
jaws of victory.

In another context, a friend once asked me: "If you're so rich, why
aren't you smart?" After reviewing my sorry performance with USAir, you
may conclude he had a point.

Financings

We wrote four checks to Salomon Brothers last year and in each case
were delighted with the work for which we were paying. I've already
described one transaction: the FlightSafety purchase in which Salomon was
the initiating investment banker. In a second deal, the firm placed a
small debt offering for our finance subsidiary.

Additionally, we made two good-sized offerings through Salomon, both
with interesting aspects. The first was our sale in May of 517,500
shares of Class B Common, which generated net proceeds of $565 million.
As I have told you before, we made this sale in response to the
threatened creation of unit trusts that would have marketed themselves as
Berkshire look-alikes. In the process, they would have used our past,
and definitely nonrepeatable, record to entice naive small investors and
would have charged these innocents high fees and commissions.

I think it would have been quite easy for such trusts to have sold
many billions of dollars worth of units, and I also believe that early
marketing successes by these trusts would have led to the formation of
others. (In the securities business, whatever can be sold will be sold.)
The trusts would have meanwhile indiscriminately poured the proceeds of
their offerings into a supply of Berkshire shares that is fixed and
limited. The likely result: a speculative bubble in our stock. For at
least a time, the price jump would have been self-validating, in that it
would have pulled new waves of naive and impressionable investors into
the trusts and set off still more buying of Berkshire shares.

Some Berkshire shareholders choosing to exit might have found that
outcome ideal, since they could have profited at the expense of the
buyers entering with false hopes. Continuing shareholders, however,
would have suffered once reality set in, for at that point Berkshire
would have been burdened with both hundreds of thousands of unhappy,
indirect owners (trustholders, that is) and a stained reputation.

Our issuance of the B shares not only arrested the sale of the
trusts, but provided a low-cost way for people to invest in Berkshire if
they still wished to after hearing the warnings we issued. To blunt the
enthusiasm that brokers normally have for pushing new issues - because
that's where the money is - we arranged for our offering to carry a
commission of only 1.5%, the lowest payoff that we have ever seen in a
common stock underwriting. Additionally, we made the amount of the
offering open-ended, thereby repelling the typical IPO buyer who looks
for a short-term price spurt arising from a combination of hype and
scarcity.

Overall, we tried to make sure that the B stock would be purchased
only by investors with a long-term perspective. Those efforts were
generally successful: Trading volume in the B shares immediately
following the offering - a rough index of "flipping" - was far below the
norm for a new issue. In the end we added about 40,000 shareholders,
most of whom we believe both understand what they own and share our time
horizons.

Salomon could not have performed better in the handling of this
unusual transaction. Its investment bankers understood perfectly what we
were trying to achieve and tailored every aspect of the offering to meet
these objectives. The firm would have made far more money - perhaps ten
times as much - if our offering had been standard in its make-up. But
the investment bankers involved made no attempt to tweak the specifics in
that direction. Instead they came up with ideas that were counter to
Salomon's financial interest but that made it much more certain
Berkshire's goals would be reached. Terry Fitzgerald captained this
effort, and we thank him for the job that he did.

Given that background, it won't surprise you to learn that we again
went to Terry when we decided late in the year to sell an issue of
Berkshire notes that can be exchanged for a portion of the Salomon shares
that we hold. In this instance, once again, Salomon did an absolutely
first-class job, selling $500 million principal amount of five-year notes
for $447.1 million. Each $1,000 note is exchangeable into 17.65 shares
and is callable in three years at accreted value. Counting the original
issue discount and a 1% coupon, the securities will provide a yield of 3%
to maturity for holders who do not exchange them for Salomon stock. But
it seems quite likely that the notes will be exchanged before their
maturity. If that happens, our interest cost will be about 1.1% for the
period prior to exchange.

In recent years, it has been written that Charlie and I are unhappy
about all investment-banking fees. That's dead wrong. We have paid a
great many fees over the last 30 years - beginning with the check we
wrote to Charlie Heider upon our purchase of National Indemnity in 1967 -
and we are delighted to make payments that are commensurate with
performance. In the case of the 1996 transactions at Salomon Brothers,
we more than got our money's worth.

Miscellaneous

Though it was a close decision, Charlie and I have decided to enter
the 20th Century. Accordingly, we are going to put future quarterly and
annual reports of Berkshire on the Internet, where they can be accessed
via http://www.berkshirehathaway.com. We will always "post" these
reports on a Saturday so that anyone interested will have ample time to
digest the information before trading begins. Our publishing schedule
for the next 12 months is May 17, 1997, August 16, 1997, November 15,
1997, and March 14, 1998. We will also post any press releases that we
issue.

At some point, we may stop mailing our quarterly reports and simply
post these on the Internet. This move would eliminate significant costs.
Also, we have a large number of "street name" holders and have found
that the distribution of our quarterlies to them is highly erratic: Some
holders receive their mailings weeks later than others.

The drawback to Internet-only distribution is that many of our
shareholders lack computers. Most of these holders, however, could
easily obtain printouts at work or through friends. Please let me know
if you prefer that we continue mailing quarterlies. We want your input -
starting with whether you even read these reports - and at a minimum will
make no change in 1997. Also, we will definitely keep delivering the
annual report in its present form in addition to publishing it on the
Internet.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

About 97.2% of all eligible shares participated in Berkshire's 1996
shareholder-designated contributions program. Contributions made were
$13.3 million, and 3,910 charities were recipients. A full description
of the shareholder-designated contributions program appears on pages 48-
49.

Every year a few shareholders miss out on the program because they
don't have their shares registered in their own names on the prescribed
record date or because they fail to get the designation form back to us
within the 60-day period allowed. This is distressing to Charlie and me.
But if replies are received late, we have to reject them because we
can't make exceptions for some shareholders while refusing to make them
for others.

To participate in future programs, you must own Class A shares that
are registered in the name of the actual owner, not the nominee name of a
broker, bank or depository. Shares not so registered on August 31, 1997,
will be ineligible for the 1997 program. When you get the form, return
it promptly so that it does not get put aside or forgotten.

The Annual Meeting

Our capitalist's version of Woodstock -the Berkshire Annual Meeting-
will be held on Monday, May 5. Charlie and I thoroughly enjoy this
event, and we hope that you come. We will start at 9:30 a.m., break for
about 15 minutes at noon (food will be available - but at a price, of
course), and then continue talking to hard-core attendees until at least
3:30. Last year we had representatives from all 50 states, as well as
Australia, Greece, Israel, Portugal, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, and
the United Kingdom. The annual meeting is a time for owners to get their
business-related questions answered, and therefore Charlie and I will
stay on stage until we start getting punchy. (When that happens, I hope
you notice a change.)

Last year we had attendance of 5,000 and strained the capacity of
the Holiday Convention Centre, even though we spread out over three
rooms. This year, our new Class B shares have caused a doubling of our
stockholder count, and we are therefore moving the meeting to the
Aksarben Coliseum, which holds about 10,000 and also has a huge parking
lot. The doors will open for the meeting at 7:00 a.m., and at 8:30 we
will - upon popular demand - show a new Berkshire movie produced by Marc
Hamburg, our CFO. (In this company, no one gets by with doing only a
single job.)

Overcoming our legendary repugnance for activities even faintly
commercial, we will also have an abundant array of Berkshire products for
sale in the halls outside the meeting room. Last year we broke all
records, selling 1,270 pounds of See's candy, 1,143 pairs of Dexter
shoes, $29,000 of World Books and related publications, and 700 sets of
knives manufactured by our Quikut subsidiary. Additionally, many
shareholders made inquiries about GEICO auto policies. If you would like
to investigate possible insurance savings, bring your present policy to
the meeting. We estimate that about 40% of our shareholders can save
money by insuring with us. (We'd like to say 100%, but the insurance
business doesn't work that way: Because insurers differ in their
underwriting judgments, some of our shareholders are currently paying
rates that are lower than GEICO's.)

An attachment to the proxy material enclosed with this report
explains how you can obtain the card you will need for admission to the
meeting. We expect a large crowd, so get both plane and hotel
reservations promptly. American Express (800-799-6634) will be happy to
help you with arrangements. As usual, we will have buses servicing the
larger hotels to take you to and from the meeting, and also to take you
to Nebraska Furniture Mart, Borsheim's and the airport after it is over.

NFM's main store, located on a 75-acre site about a mile from
Aksarben, is open from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekdays, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.
on Saturdays, and noon to 6 p.m. on Sundays. Come by and say hello to
"Mrs. B" (Rose Blumkin). She's 103 now and sometimes operates with an
oxygen mask that is attached to a tank on her cart. But if you try to
keep pace with her, it will be you who needs oxygen. NFM did about $265
million of business last year - a record for a single-location home
furnishings operation - and you'll see why once you check out its
merchandise and prices.

Borsheim's normally is closed on Sunday but will be open for
shareholders from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on May 4th. Last year on
"Shareholder Sunday" we broke every Borsheim's record in terms of
tickets, dollar volume and, no doubt, attendees per square inch. Because
we expect a capacity crowd this year as well, all shareholders attending
on Sunday must bring their admission cards. Shareholders who prefer a
somewhat less frenzied experience will get the same special treatment on
Saturday, when the store is open from 10 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., or on Monday
between 10 a.m. and 8 p.m. Come by at any time this year and let Susan
Jacques, Borsheim's CEO, and her skilled associates perform a painless
walletectomy on you.

My favorite steakhouse, Gorat's, was sold out last year on the
weekend of the annual meeting, even though it added an additional seating
at 4 p.m. on Sunday. You can make reservations beginning on April 1st
(but not earlier) by calling 402-551-3733. I will be at Gorat's on
Sunday after Borsheim's, having my usual rare T-bone and double order of
hashbrowns. I can also recommend - this is the standard fare when Debbie
Bosanek, my invaluable assistant, and I go to lunch - the hot roast beef
sandwich with mashed potatoes and gravy. Mention Debbie's name and you
will be given an extra boat of gravy.

The Omaha Royals and Indianapolis Indians will play baseball on
Saturday evening, May 3rd, at Rosenblatt Stadium. Pitching in my normal
rotation - one throw a year - I will start.

Though Rosenblatt is normal in appearance, it is anything but: The
field sits on a unique geological structure that occasionally emits short
gravitational waves causing even the most smoothly-delivered pitch to
sink violently. I have been the victim of this weird phenomenon several
times in the past but am hoping for benign conditions this year. There
will be lots of opportunities for photos at the ball game, but you will
need incredibly fast reflexes to snap my fast ball en route to the plate.

Our proxy statement includes information about obtaining tickets to
the game. We will also provide an information packet listing restaurants
that will be open on Sunday night and describing various things that you
can do in Omaha on the weekend. The entire gang at Berkshire looks
forward to seeing you.

Warren E. Buffett
February 28, 1997 Chairman of the Board

BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC.

1997 Chairman's Letter

To the Shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.:

Our gain in net worth during 1997 was $8.0 billion, which increased the per-share book value of both our Class A and Class B stock by 34.1%. Over the last 33 years (that is, since present management took over) per-share book value has grown from $19 to $25,488, a rate of 24.1% compounded annually.(1)

1. All figures used in this report apply to Berkshire's A shares,
the successor to the only stock that the company had outstanding
before 1996. The B shares have an economic interest equal to 1/30th
that of the A.

Given our gain of 34.1%, it is tempting to declare victory and move on. But last year's performance was no great triumph: Any investor can chalk up large returns when stocks soar, as they did in 1997. In a bull market, one must avoid the error of the preening duck that quacks boastfully after a torrential rainstorm, thinking that its paddling skills have caused it to rise in the world. A right-thinking duck would instead compare its position after the downpour to that of the other ducks on the pond.

So what's our duck rating for 1997? The table on the facing page shows that though we paddled furiously last year, passive ducks that simply invested in the S&P Index rose almost as fast as we did. Our appraisal of 1997's performance, then: Quack.

When the market booms, we tend to suffer in comparison with the S&P Index. The Index bears no tax costs, nor do mutual funds, since they pass through all tax liabilities to their owners. Last year, on the other hand, Berkshire paid or accrued $4.2 billion for federal income tax, or about 18% of our beginning net worth.

Berkshire will always have corporate taxes to pay, which means it needs to overcome their drag in order to justify its existence. Obviously, Charlie Munger, Berkshire's Vice Chairman and my partner, and I won't be able to lick that handicap every year. But we expect over time to maintain a modest advantage over the Index, and that is the yardstick against which you should measure us. We will not ask you to adopt the philosophy of the Chicago Cubs fan who reacted to a string of lackluster seasons by saying, "Why get upset? Everyone has a bad century now and then."

Gains in book value are, of course, not the bottom line at Berkshire. What truly counts are gains in per-share intrinsic business value. Ordinarily, though, the two measures tend to move roughly in tandem, and in 1997 that was the case: Led by a blow-out performance at GEICO, Berkshire's intrinsic value (which far exceeds book value) grew at nearly the same pace as book value.

For more explanation of the term, intrinsic value, you may wish to refer to our Owner's Manual, reprinted on pages 62 to 71. This manual sets forth our owner-related business principles, information that is important to all of Berkshire's shareholders.

In our last two annual reports, we furnished you a table that Charlie and I believe is central to estimating Berkshire's intrinsic value. In the updated version of that table, which follows, we trace our two key components of value. The first column lists our per-share ownership of investments (including cash and equivalents) and the second column shows our per-share earnings from Berkshire's operating businesses before taxes and purchase-accounting adjustments (discussed on pages 69 and 70), but after all interest and corporate expenses. The second column excludes all dividends, interest and capital gains that we realized from the investments presented in the first column. In effect, the columns show what Berkshire would look like were it split into two parts, with one entity holding our investments and the other operating all of our businesses and bearing all corporate costs.

Pre-tax Earnings Per Share
Investments Excluding All Income from
Year Per Share Investments

1967 $ 41 $ 1.09
1977 372 12.44
1987 3,910 108.14
1997 38,043 717.82

Pundits who ignore what our 38,000 employees contribute to the company, and instead simply view Berkshire as a de facto investment company, should study the figures in the second column. We made our first business acquisition in 1967, and since then our pre-tax operating earnings have grown from $1 million to $888 million. Furthermore, as noted, in this exercise we have assigned all of Berkshire's corporate expenses -- overhead of $6.6 million, interest of $66.9 million and shareholder contributions of $15.4 million -- to our business operations, even though a portion of these could just as well have been assigned to the investment side.

Here are the growth rates of the two segments by decade:

Pre-tax Earnings Per Share
Investments Excluding All Income from
Decade Ending Per Share Investments

1977 24.6% 27.6%
1987 26.5% 24.1%
1997 25.5% 20.8%
Annual Growth
Rate, 1967-1997 25.6% 24.2%

During 1997, both parts of our business grew at a satisfactory rate, with investments increasing by $9,543 per share, or 33.5%, and operating earnings growing by $296.43 per share, or 70.3%. One important caveat: Because we were lucky in our super-cat insurance business (to be discussed later) and because GEICO's underwriting gain was well above what we can expect in most years, our 1997 operating earnings were much better than we anticipated and also more than we expect for 1998.

Our rate of progress in both investments and operations is certain to fall in the future. For anyone deploying capital, nothing recedes like success. My own history makes the point: Back in 1951, when I was attending Ben Graham's class at Columbia, an idea giving me a $10,000 gain improved my investment performance for the year by a full 100 percentage points. Today, an idea producing a $500 million pre-tax profit for Berkshire adds one percentage point to our performance. It's no wonder that my annual results in the 1950s were better by nearly thirty percentage points than my annual gains in any subsequent decade. Charlie's experience was similar. We weren't smarter then, just smaller. At our present size, any performance superiority we achieve will be minor.

We will be helped, however, by the fact that the businesses to which we have already allocated capital -- both operating subsidiaries and companies in which we are passive investors -- have splendid long-term prospects. We are also blessed with a managerial corps that is unsurpassed in ability and focus. Most of these executives are wealthy and do not need the pay they receive from Berkshire to maintain their way of life. They are motivated by the joy of accomplishment, not by fame or fortune.

Though we are delighted with what we own, we are not pleased with our prospects for committing incoming funds. Prices are high for both businesses and stocks. That does not mean that the prices of either will fall -- we have absolutely no view on that matter -- but it does mean that we get relatively little in prospective earnings when we commit fresh money.

Under these circumstances, we try to exert a Ted Williams kind of discipline. In his book The Science of Hitting, Ted explains that he carved the strike zone into 77 cells, each the size of a baseball. Swinging only at balls in his "best" cell, he knew, would allow him to bat .400; reaching for balls in his "worst" spot, the low outside corner of the strike zone, would reduce him to .230. In other words, waiting for the fat pitch would mean a trip to the Hall of Fame; swinging indiscriminately would mean a ticket to the minors.

If they are in the strike zone at all, the business "pitches" we now see are just catching the lower outside corner. If we swing, we will be locked into low returns. But if we let all of today's balls go by, there can be no assurance that the next ones we see will be more to our liking. Perhaps the attractive prices of the past were the aberrations, not the full prices of today. Unlike Ted, we can't be called out if we resist three pitches that are barely in the strike zone; nevertheless, just standing there, day after day, with my bat on my shoulder is not my idea of fun.

Unconventional Commitments

When we can't find our favorite commitment -- a well-run and sensibly-priced business with fine economics -- we usually opt to put new money into very short-term instruments of the highest quality. Sometimes, however, we venture elsewhere. Obviously we believe that the alternative commitments we make are more likely to result in profit than loss. But we also realize that they do not offer the certainty of profit that exists in a wonderful business secured at an attractive price. Finding that kind of opportunity, we know that we are going to make money -- the only question being when. With alternative investments, we think that we are going to make money. But we also recognize that we will sometimes realize losses, occasionally of substantial size.

We had three non-traditional positions at yearend. The first was derivative contracts for 14.0 million barrels of oil, that being what was then left of a 45.7 million barrel position we established in 1994-95. Contracts for 31.7 million barrels were settled in 1995-97, and these supplied us with a pre-tax gain of about $61.9 million. Our remaining contracts expire during 1998 and 1999. In these, we had an unrealized gain of $11.6 million at yearend. Accounting rules require that commodity positions be carried at market value. Therefore, both our annual and quarterly financial statements reflect any unrealized gain or loss in these contracts. When we established our contracts, oil for future delivery seemed modestly underpriced. Today, though, we have no opinion as to its attractiveness.

Our second non-traditional commitment is in silver. Last year, we purchased 111.2 million ounces. Marked to market, that position produced a pre-tax gain of $97.4 million for us in 1997. In a way, this is a return to the past for me: Thirty years ago, I bought silver because I anticipated its demonetization by the U.S. Government. Ever since, I have followed the metal's fundamentals but not owned it. In recent years, bullion inventories have fallen materially, and last summer Charlie and I concluded that a higher price would be needed to establish equilibrium between supply and demand. Inflation expectations, it should be noted, play no part in our calculation of silver's value.

Finally, our largest non-traditional position at yearend was $4.6 billion, at amortized cost, of long-term zero-coupon obligations of the U.S. Treasury. These securities pay no interest. Instead, they provide their holders a return by way of the discount at which they are purchased, a characteristic that makes their market prices move rapidly when interest rates change. If rates rise, you lose heavily with zeros, and if rates fall, you make outsized gains. Since rates fell in 1997, we ended the year with an unrealized pre-tax gain of $598.8 million in our zeros. Because we carry the securities at market value, that gain is reflected in yearend book value.

In purchasing zeros, rather than staying with cash-equivalents, we risk looking very foolish: A macro-based commitment such as this never has anything close to a 100% probability of being successful. However, you pay Charlie and me to use our best judgment -- not to avoid embarrassment -- and we will occasionally make an unconventional move when we believe the odds favor it. Try to think kindly of us when we blow one. Along with President Clinton, we will be feeling your pain: The Munger family has more than 90% of its net worth in Berkshire and the Buffetts more than 99%.

How We Think About Market Fluctuations

A short quiz: If you plan to eat hamburgers throughout your life and are not a cattle producer, should you wish for higher or lower prices for beef? Likewise, if you are going to buy a car from time to time but are not an auto manufacturer, should you prefer higher or lower car prices? These questions, of course, answer themselves.

But now for the final exam: If you expect to be a net saver during the next five years, should you hope for a higher or lower stock market during that period? Many investors get this one wrong. Even though they are going to be net buyers of stocks for many years to come, they are elated when stock prices rise and depressed when they fall. In effect, they rejoice because prices have risen for the "hamburgers" they will soon be buying. This reaction makes no sense. Only those who will be sellers of equities in the near future should be happy at seeing stocks rise. Prospective purchasers should much prefer sinking prices.

For shareholders of Berkshire who do not expect to sell, the choice is even clearer. To begin with, our owners are automatically saving even if they spend every dime they personally earn: Berkshire "saves" for them by retaining all earnings, thereafter using these savings to purchase businesses and securities. Clearly, the more cheaply we make these buys, the more profitable our owners' indirect savings program will be.

Furthermore, through Berkshire you own major positions in companies that consistently repurchase their shares. The benefits that these programs supply us grow as prices fall: When stock prices are low, the funds that an investee spends on repurchases increase our ownership of that company by a greater amount than is the case when prices are higher. For example, the repurchases that Coca-Cola, The Washington Post and Wells Fargo made in past years at very low prices benefitted Berkshire far more than do today's repurchases, made at loftier prices.

At the end of every year, about 97% of Berkshire's shares are held by the same investors who owned them at the start of the year. That makes them savers. They should therefore rejoice when markets decline and allow both us and our investees to deploy funds more advantageously.

So smile when you read a headline that says "Investors lose as market falls." Edit it in your mind to "Disinvestors lose as market falls -- but investors gain." Though writers often forget this truism, there is a buyer for every seller and what hurts one necessarily helps the other. (As they say in golf matches: "Every putt makes someone happy.")

We gained enormously from the low prices placed on many equities and businesses in the 1970s and 1980s. Markets that then were hostile to investment transients were friendly to those taking up permanent residence. In recent years, the actions we took in those decades have been validated, but we have found few new opportunities. In its role as a corporate "saver," Berkshire continually looks for ways to sensibly deploy capital, but it may be some time before we find opportunities that get us truly excited.

Insurance Operations -- Overview

What does excite us, however, is our insurance business. GEICO is flying, and we expect that it will continue to do so. Before we expound on that, though, let's discuss "float" and how to measure its cost. Unless you understand this subject, it will be impossible for you to make an informed judgment about Berkshire's intrinsic value.

To begin with, float is money we hold but don't own. In an insurance operation, float arises because premiums are received before losses are paid, an interval that sometimes extends over many years. During that time, the insurer invests the money. Typically, this pleasant activity carries with it a downside: The premiums that an insurer takes in usually do not cover the losses and expenses it eventually must pay. That leaves it running an "underwriting loss," which is the cost of float. An insurance business has value if its cost of float over time is less than the cost the company would otherwise incur to obtain funds. But the business is a lemon if its cost of float is higher than market rates for money.

A caution is appropriate here: Because loss costs must be estimated, insurers have enormous latitude in figuring their underwriting results, and that makes it very difficult for investors to calculate a company's true cost of float. Estimating errors, usually innocent but sometimes not, can be huge. The consequences of these miscalculations flow directly into earnings. An experienced observer can usually detect large-scale errors in reserving, but the general public can typically do no more than accept what's presented, and at times I have been amazed by the numbers that big-name auditors have implicitly blessed. As for Berkshire, Charlie and I attempt to be conservative in presenting its underwriting results to you, because we have found that virtually all surprises in insurance are unpleasant ones.

As the numbers in the following table show, Berkshire's insurance business has been a huge winner. For the table, we have calculated our float -- which we generate in large amounts relative to our premium volume -- by adding net loss reserves, loss adjustment reserves, funds held under reinsurance assumed and unearned premium reserves, and then subtracting agents' balances, prepaid acquisition costs, prepaid taxes and deferred charges applicable to assumed reinsurance. Our cost of float is determined by our underwriting loss or profit. In those years when we have had an underwriting profit, such as the last five, our cost of float has been negative. In effect, we have been paid for holding money.

(1) (2) Yearend Yield
Underwriting Approximate on Long-Term
Loss Average Float Cost of Funds Govt. Bonds
(In $ Millions) (Ratio of 1 to 2)

1967 profit 17.3 less than zero 5.50%
1968 profit 19.9 less than zero 5.90%
1969 profit 23.4 less than zero 6.79%
1970 0.37 32.4 1.14% 6.25%
1971 profit 52.5 less than zero 5.81%
1972 profit 69.5 less than zero 5.82%
1973 profit 73.3 less than zero 7.27%
1974 7.36 79.1 9.30% 8.13%
1975 11.35 87.6 12.96% 8.03%
1976 profit 102.6 less than zero 7.30%
1977 profit 139.0 less than zero 7.97%
1978 profit 190.4 less than zero 8.93%
1979 profit 227.3 less than zero 10.08%
1980 profit 237.0 less than zero 11.94%
1981 profit 228.4 less than zero 13.61%
1982 21.56 220.6 9.77% 10.64%
1983 33.87 231.3 14.64% 11.84%
1984 48.06 253.2 18.98% 11.58%
1985 44.23 390.2 11.34% 9.34%
1986 55.84 797.5 7.00% 7.60%
1987 55.43 1,266.7 4.38% 8.95%
1988 11.08 1,497.7 0.74% 9.00%
1989 24.40 1,541.3 1.58% 7.97%
1990 26.65 1,637.3 1.63% 8.24%
1991 119.59 1,895.0 6.31% 7.40%
1992 108.96 2,290.4 4.76% 7.39%
1993 profit 2,624.7 less than zero 6.35%
1994 profit 3,056.6 less than zero 7.88%
1995 profit 3,607.2 less than zero 5.95%
1996 profit 6,702.0 less than zero 6.64%
1997 profit 7,093.1 less than zero 5.92%

Since 1967, when we entered the insurance business, our float has grown at an annual compounded rate of 21.7%. Better yet, it has cost us nothing, and in fact has made us money. Therein lies an accounting irony: Though our float is shown on our balance sheet as a liability, it has had a value to Berkshire greater than an equal amount of net worth would have had.

The expiration of several large contracts will cause our float to decline during the first quarter of 1998, but we expect it to grow substantially over the long term. We also believe that our cost of float will continue to be highly favorable.

Super-Cat Insurance

Occasionally, however, the cost of our float will spike severely. That will occur because of our heavy involvement in the super-cat business, which by its nature is the most volatile of all insurance lines. In this operation, we sell policies that insurance and reinsurance companies purchase in order to limit their losses when mega-catastrophes strike. Berkshire is the preferred market for sophisticated buyers: When the "big one" hits, the financial strength of super-cat writers will be tested, and Berkshire has no peer in this respect.

Since truly major catastrophes are rare occurrences, our super-cat business can be expected to show large profits in most years -- and to record a huge loss occasionally. In other words, the attractiveness of our super-cat business will take a great many years to measure. What you must understand, however, is that a truly terrible year in the super-cat business is not a possibility -- it's a certainty. The only question is when it will come.

Last year, we were very lucky in our super-cat operation. The world suffered no catastrophes that caused huge amounts of insured damage, so virtually all premiums that we received dropped to the bottom line. This pleasant result has a dark side, however. Many investors who are "innocents" -- meaning that they rely on representations of salespeople rather than on underwriting knowledge of their own -- have come into the reinsurance business by means of purchasing pieces of paper that are called "catastrophe bonds." The second word in this term, though, is an Orwellian misnomer: A true bond obliges the issuer to pay; these bonds, in effect, are contracts that lay a provisional promise to pay on the purchaser.

This convoluted arrangement came into being because the promoters of the contracts wished to circumvent laws that prohibit the writing of insurance by entities that haven't been licensed by the state. A side benefit for the promoters is that calling the insurance contract a "bond" may also cause unsophisticated buyers to assume that these instruments involve far less risk than is actually the case.

Truly outsized risks will exist in these contracts if they are not properly priced. A pernicious aspect of catastrophe insurance, however, makes it likely that mispricing, even of a severe variety, will not be discovered for a very long time. Consider, for example, the odds of throwing a 12 with a pair of dice -- 1 out of 36. Now assume that the dice will be thrown once a year; that you, the "bond-buyer," agree to pay $50 million if a 12 appears; and that for "insuring" this risk you take in an annual "premium" of $1 million. That would mean you had significantly underpriced the risk. Nevertheless, you could go along for years thinking you were making money -- indeed, easy money. There is actually a 75.4% probability that you would go for a decade without paying out a dime. Eventually, however, you would go broke.

In this dice example, the odds are easy to figure. Calculations involving monster hurricanes and earthquakes are necessarily much fuzzier, and the best we can do at Berkshire is to estimate a range of probabilities for such events. The lack of precise data, coupled with the rarity of such catastrophes, plays into the hands of promoters, who typically employ an "expert" to advise the potential bond-buyer about the probability of losses. The expert puts no money on the table. Instead, he receives an up-front payment that is forever his no matter how inaccurate his predictions. Surprise: When the stakes are high, an expert can invariably be found who will affirm -- to return to our example -- that the chance of rolling a 12 is not 1 in 36, but more like 1 in 100. (In fairness, we should add that the expert will probably believe that his odds are correct, a fact that makes him less reprehensible -- but more dangerous.)

The influx of "investor" money into catastrophe bonds -- which may well live up to their name -- has caused super-cat prices to deteriorate materially. Therefore, we will write less business in 1998. We have some large multi-year contracts in force, however, that will mitigate the drop. The largest of these are two policies that we described in last year's report -- one covering hurricanes in Florida and the other, signed with the California Earthquake Authority, covering earthquakes in that state. Our "worst-case" loss remains about $600 million after-tax, the maximum we could lose under the CEA policy. Though this loss potential may sound large, it is only about 1% of Berkshire's market value. Indeed, if we could get appropriate prices, we would be willing to significantly increase our "worst-case" exposure.

Our super-cat business was developed from scratch by Ajit Jain, who has contributed to Berkshire's success in a variety of other ways as well. Ajit possesses both the discipline to walk away from business that is inadequately priced and the imagination to then find other opportunities. Quite simply, he is one of Berkshire's major assets. Ajit would have been a star in whatever career he chose; fortunately for us, he enjoys insurance.

Insurance -- GEICO (1-800-555-2756) and Other Primary Operations

Last year I wrote about GEICO's Tony Nicely and his terrific management skills. If I had known then what he had in store for us in 1997, I would have searched for still greater superlatives. Tony, now 54, has been with GEICO for 36 years and last year was his best. As CEO, he has transmitted vision, energy and enthusiasm to all members of the GEICO family -- raising their sights from what has been achieved to what can be achieved.

We measure GEICO's performance by first, the net increase in its voluntary auto policies (that is, not including policies assigned us by the state) and, second, the profitability of "seasoned" auto business, meaning policies that have been with us for more than a year and are thus past the period in which acquisition costs cause them to be money-losers. In 1996, in-force business grew 10%, and I told you how pleased I was, since that rate was well above anything we had seen in two decades. Then, in 1997, growth jumped to 16%.

Below are the new business and in-force figures for the last five years:

New Voluntary Voluntary Auto
Years Auto Policies Policies in Force

1993 354,882 2,011,055
1994 396,217 2,147,549
1995 461,608 2,310,037
1996 617,669 2,543,699
1997 913,176 2,949,439

Of course, any insurer can grow rapidly if it gets careless about underwriting. GEICO's underwriting profit for the year, though, was 8.1% of premiums, far above its average. Indeed, that percentage was higher than we wish it to be: Our goal is to pass on most of the benefits of our low-cost operation to our customers, holding ourselves to about 4% in underwriting profit. With that in mind, we reduced our average rates a bit during 1997 and may well cut them again this year. Our rate changes varied, of course, depending on the policyholder and where he lives; we strive to charge a rate that properly reflects the loss expectancy of each driver.

GEICO is not the only auto insurer obtaining favorable results these days. Last year, the industry recorded profits that were far better than it anticipated or can sustain. Intensified competition will soon squeeze margins very significantly. But this is a development we welcome: Long term, a tough market helps the low-cost operator, which is what we are and intend to remain.
Last year I told you about the record 16.9% profit-sharing contribution that GEICO's associates had earned and explained that two simple variables set the amount: policy growth and profitability of seasoned business. I further explained that 1996's performance was so extraordinary that we had to enlarge the chart delineating the possible payouts. The new configuration didn't make it through 1997: We enlarged the chart's boundaries again and awarded our 10,500 associates a profit-sharing contribution amounting to 26.9% of their base compensation, or $71 million. In addition, the same two variables -- policy growth and profitability of seasoned business -- determined the cash bonuses that we paid to dozens of top executives, starting with Tony.

At GEICO, we are paying in a way that makes sense for both our owners and our managers. We distribute merit badges, not lottery tickets: In none of Berkshire's subsidiaries do we relate compensation to our stock price, which our associates cannot affect in any meaningful way. Instead, we tie bonuses to each unit's business performance, which is the direct product of the unit's people. When that performance is terrific -- as it has been at GEICO -- there is nothing Charlie and I enjoy more than writing a big check.

GEICO's underwriting profitability will probably fall in 1998, but the company's growth could accelerate. We're planning to step on the gas: GEICO's marketing expenditures this year will top $100 million, up 50% from 1997. Our market share today is only 3%, a level of penetration that should increase dramatically in the next decade. The auto insurance industry is huge -- it does about $115 billion of volume annually -- and there are tens of millions of drivers who would save substantial money by switching to us.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

In the 1995 report, I described the enormous debt that you and I owe to Lorimer Davidson. On a Saturday early in 1951, he patiently explained the ins and outs of both GEICO and its industry to me -- a 20-year-old stranger who'd arrived at GEICO's headquarters uninvited and unannounced. Davy later became the company's CEO and has remained my friend and teacher for 47 years. The huge rewards that GEICO has heaped on Berkshire would not have materialized had it not been for his generosity and wisdom. Indeed, had I not met Davy, I might never have grown to understand the whole field of insurance, which over the years has played such a key part in Berkshire's success.

Davy turned 95 last year, and it's difficult for him to travel. Nevertheless, Tony and I hope that we can persuade him to attend our annual meeting, so that our shareholders can properly thank him for his important contributions to Berkshire. Wish us luck.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Though they are, of course, far smaller than GEICO, our other primary insurance operations turned in results last year that, in aggregate, were fully as stunning. National Indemnity's traditional business had an underwriting profit of 32.9% and, as usual, developed a large amount of float compared to premium volume. Over the last three years, this segment of our business, run by Don Wurster, has had a profit of 24.3%. Our homestate operation, managed by Rod Eldred, recorded an underwriting profit of 14.1% even though it continued to absorb the expenses of geographical expansion. Rod's three-year record is an amazing 15.1%. Berkshire's workers' compensation business, run out of California by Brad Kinstler, had a modest underwriting loss in a difficult environment; its three-year underwriting record is a positive 1.5%. John Kizer, at Central States Indemnity, set a new volume record while generating good underwriting earnings. At Kansas Bankers Surety, Don Towle more than lived up to the high expectations we had when we purchased the company in 1996.

In aggregate, these five operations recorded an underwriting profit of 15.0%. The two Dons, along with Rod, Brad and John, have created significant value for Berkshire, and we believe there is more to come.

Sources of Reported Earnings

The table that follows shows the main sources of Berkshire's reported earnings. In this presentation, purchase-accounting adjustments are not assigned to the specific businesses to which they apply, but are instead aggregated and shown separately. This procedure lets you view the earnings of our businesses as they would have been reported had we not purchased them. For the reasons discussed on pages 69 and 70, this form of presentation seems to us to be more useful to investors and managers than one utilizing generally-accepted accounting principles (GAAP), which require purchase-premiums to be charged off business-by-business. The total earnings we show in the table are, of course, identical to the GAAP total in our audited financial statements.

(in millions)
Berkshire's Share
of Net Earnings
(after taxes and
Pre-Tax Earnings minority interests)
1997 1996 1997 1996
Operating Earnings:
Insurance Group:
Underwriting -- Super-Cat. . . . . . . .$ 283.0 $ 167.0 $ 182.7 $ 107.4
Underwriting -- Other Reinsurance. . . . (155.2) (174. Cool

(100.1) (112.4)
Underwriting -- GEICO. . . . . . . . . . 280.7 171.4 181.1 110.2
Underwriting -- Other Primary. . . . . . 52.9 58.5 34.1 37.6
Net Investment Income. . . . . . . . . . 882.3 726.2 703.6 593.1
Buffalo News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.9 50.4 32.7 29.5
Finance Businesses . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.1 23.1 18.0 14.9
FlightSafety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139.5 3.1(1) 84.4 1.9(1)
Home Furnishings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56.8(2) 43.8 32.2(2) 24.8
Jewelry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.6 27.8 18.3 16.1
Scott Fetzer(excluding finance operation). 118.9 121.7 77.3 81.6
See's Candies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58.6 51.9 35.0 30.8
Shoe Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.8 61.6 32.2 41.0
Purchase-Accounting Adjustments. . . . . . (104.9) (75.7) (97.0) (70.5)
Interest Expense(3). . . . . . . . . . . . (106.6) (94.3) (67.1) (56.6)
Shareholder-Designated Contributions . . . (15.4) (13.3) (9.9) (8.5)
Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.7 73.0 37.0 42.2
-------- -------- -------- --------
Operating Earnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,715.7 1,221.4 1,194.5 883.1
Capital Gains from Investments . . . . . . . 1,111.9 2,484.5 707.1 1,605.5
-------- -------- -------- --------
Total Earnings - All Entities. . . . . . . .$2,827.6 $3,705.9 $1,901.6 $2,488.6
======== ======== ======== ========

(1) From date of acquisition, December 23, 1996.
(2) Includes Star Furniture from July 1, 1997.
(3) Excludes interest expense of Finance Businesses.

Overall, our operating businesses continue to perform exceptionally well, far outdoing their industry norms. We are particularly pleased that profits improved at Helzberg's after a disappointing 1996. Jeff Comment, Helzberg's CEO, took decisive steps early in 1997 that enabled the company to gain real momentum by the crucial Christmas season. In the early part of this year, as well, sales remained strong.

Casual observers may not appreciate just how extraordinary the performance of many of our businesses has been: If the earnings history of, say, Buffalo News or Scott Fetzer is compared to the records of their publicly-owned peers, their performance might seem to have been unexceptional. But most public companies retain two-thirds or more of their earnings to fund their corporate growth. In contrast, those Berkshire subsidiaries have paid 100% of their earnings to us, their parent company, to fund our growth.

In effect, the records of the public companies reflect the cumulative benefits of the earnings they have retained, while the records of our operating subsidiaries get no such boost. Over time, however, the earnings these subsidiaries have distributed have created truly huge amounts of earning power elsewhere in Berkshire. The News, See's and Scott Fetzer have alone paid us $1.8 billion, which we have gainfully employed elsewhere. We owe their managements our gratitude for much more than the earnings that are detailed in the table.

Additional information about our various businesses is given on pages 36 - 50, where you will also find our segment earnings reported on a GAAP basis. In addition, on pages 55 - 61, we have rearranged Berkshire's financial data into four segments on a non-GAAP basis, a presentation that corresponds to the way Charlie and I think about the company. Our intent is to supply you with the financial information that we would wish you to give us if our positions were reversed.

Look-Through Earnings

Reported earnings are a poor measure of economic progress at Berkshire, in part because the numbers shown in the table presented earlier include only the dividends we receive from investees -- though these dividends typically represent only a small fraction of the earnings attributable to our ownership. Not that we mind this division of money, since on balance we regard the undistributed earnings of investees as more valuable to us than the portion paid out. The reason is simple: Our investees often have the opportunity to reinvest earnings at high rates of return. So why should we want them paid out?

To depict something closer to economic reality at Berkshire than reported earnings, though, we employ the concept of "look-through" earnings. As we calculate these, they consist of: (1) the operating earnings reported in the previous section, plus; (2) our share of the retained operating earnings of major investees that, under GAAP accounting, are not reflected in our profits, less; (3) an allowance for the tax that would be paid by Berkshire if these retained earnings of investees had instead been distributed to us. When tabulating "operating earnings" here, we exclude purchase-accounting adjustments as well as capital gains and other major non-recurring items.

The following table sets forth our 1997 look-through earnings, though I warn you that the figures can be no more than approximate, since they are based on a number of judgment calls. (The dividends paid to us by these investees have been included in the operating earnings itemized on page 11, mostly under "Insurance Group: Net Investment Income.")

Berkshire's Share
of Undistributed
Berkshire's Approximate Operating Earnings
Berkshire's Major Investees Ownership at Yearend(1) (in millions)(2)

American Express Company 10.7% $161
The Coca-Cola Company 8.1% 216
The Walt Disney Company 3.2% 65
Freddie Mac 8.6% 86
The Gillette Company 8.6% 82
The Washington Post Company 16.5% 30
Wells Fargo & Company 7.8% 103
------
Berkshire's share of undistributed earnings of major investees 743
Hypothetical tax on these undistributed investee earnings(3) (105)
Reported operating earnings of Berkshire 1,292
------
Total look-through earnings of Berkshire $1,930
======

(1) Does not include shares allocable to minority interests
(2) Calculated on average ownership for the year
(3) The tax rate used is 14%, which is the rate Berkshire
pays on the dividends it receives

Acquisitions of 1997

In 1997, we agreed to acquire Star Furniture and International Dairy Queen (a deal that closed early in 1998). Both businesses fully meet our criteria: They are understandable; possess excellent economics; and are run by outstanding people.

The Star transaction has an interesting history. Whenever we buy into an industry whose leading participants aren't known to me, I always ask our new partners, "Are there any more at home like you?" Upon our purchase of Nebraska Furniture Mart in 1983, therefore, the Blumkin family told me about three outstanding furniture retailers in other parts of the country. At the time, however, none was for sale.

Many years later, Irv Blumkin learned that Bill Child, CEO of R.C. Willey -- one of the recommended three -- might be interested in merging, and we promptly made the deal described in the 1995 report. We have been delighted with that association -- Bill is the perfect partner. Furthermore, when we asked Bill about industry standouts, he came up with the remaining two names given me by the Blumkins, one of these being Star Furniture of Houston. But time went by without there being any indication that either of the two was available.

On the Thursday before last year's annual meeting, however, Bob Denham of Salomon told me that Melvyn Wolff, the long-time controlling shareholder and CEO of Star, wanted to talk. At our invitation, Melvyn came to the meeting and spent his time in Omaha confirming his positive feelings about Berkshire. I, meanwhile, looked at Star's financials, and liked what I saw.

A few days later, Melvyn and I met in New York and made a deal in a single, two-hour session. As was the case with the Blumkins and Bill Child, I had no need to check leases, work out employment contracts, etc. I knew I was dealing with a man of integrity and that's what counted.

Though the Wolff family's association with Star dates back to 1924, the business struggled until Melvyn and his sister Shirley Toomin took over in 1962. Today Star operates 12 stores -- ten in Houston and one each in Austin and Bryan -- and will soon move into San Antonio as well. We won't be surprised if Star is many times its present size a decade from now.

Here's a story illustrating what Melvyn and Shirley are like: When they told their associates of the sale, they also announced that Star would make large, special payments to those who had helped them succeed -- and then defined that group as everyone in the business. Under the terms of our deal, it was Melvyn and Shirley's money, not ours, that funded this distribution. Charlie and I love it when we become partners with people who behave like that.

The Star transaction closed on July 1. In the months since, we've watched Star's already-excellent sales and earnings growth accelerate further. Melvyn and Shirley will be at the annual meeting, and I hope you get a chance to meet them.

Next acquisition: International Dairy Queen. There are 5,792 Dairy Queen stores operating in 23 countries -- all but a handful run by franchisees -- and in addition IDQ franchises 409 Orange Julius operations and 43 Karmelkorn operations. In 190 locations, "treat centers" provide some combination of the three products.

For many years IDQ had a bumpy history. Then, in 1970, a Minneapolis group led by John Mooty and Rudy Luther took control. The new managers inherited a jumble of different franchising agreements, along with some unwise financing arrangements that had left the company in a precarious condition. In the years that followed, management rationalized the operation, extended food service to many more locations, and, in general, built a strong organization.

Last summer Mr. Luther died, which meant his estate needed to sell stock. A year earlier, Dick Kiphart of William Blair & Co., had introduced me to John Mooty and Mike Sullivan, IDQ's CEO, and I had been impressed with both men. So, when we got the chance to merge with IDQ, we offered a proposition patterned on our FlightSafety acquisition, extending selling shareholders the option of choosing either cash or Berkshire shares having a slightly lower immediate value. By tilting the consideration as we did, we encouraged holders to opt for cash, the type of payment we by far prefer. Even then, only 45% of IDQ shares elected cash.

Charlie and I bring a modicum of product expertise to this transaction: He has been patronizing the Dairy Queens in Cass Lake and Bemidji, Minnesota, for decades, and I have been a regular in Omaha. We have put our money where our mouth is.

A Confession

I've mentioned that we strongly prefer to use cash rather than Berkshire stock in acquisitions. A study of the record will tell you why: If you aggregate all of our stock-only mergers (excluding those we did with two affiliated companies, Diversified Retailing and Blue Chip Stamps), you will find that our shareholders are slightly worse off than they would have been had I not done the transactions. Though it hurts me to say it, when I've issued stock, I've cost you money.

Be clear about one thing: This cost has not occurred because we were misled in any way by sellers or because they thereafter failed to manage with diligence and skill. On the contrary, the sellers were completely candid when we were negotiating our deals and have been energetic and effective ever since.

Instead, our problem has been that we own a truly marvelous collection of businesses, which means that trading away a portion of them for something new almost never makes sense. When we issue shares in a merger, we reduce your ownership in all of our businesses -- partly-owned companies such as Coca-Cola, Gillette and American Express, and all of our terrific operating companies as well. An example from sports will illustrate the difficulty we face: For a baseball team, acquiring a player who can be expected to bat .350 is almost always a wonderful event -- except when the team must trade a .380 hitter to make the deal.

Because our roster is filled with .380 hitters, we have tried to pay cash for acquisitions, and here our record has been far better. Starting with National Indemnity in 1967, and continuing with, among others, See's, Buffalo News, Scott Fetzer and GEICO, we have acquired -- for cash -- a number of large businesses that have performed incredibly well since we bought them. These acquisitions have delivered Berkshire tremendous value -- indeed, far more than I anticipated when we made our purchases.

We believe that it is almost impossible for us to "trade up" from our present businesses and managements. Our situation is the opposite of Camelot's Mordred, of whom Guenevere commented, "The one thing I can say for him is that he is bound to marry well. Everybody is above him." Marrying well is extremely difficult for Berkshire.

So you can be sure that Charlie and I will be very reluctant to issue shares in the future. In those cases when we simply must do so -- when certain shareholders of a desirable acquiree insist on getting stock -- we will include an attractive cash option in order to tempt as many of the sellers to take cash as is possible.

Merging with public companies presents a special problem for us. If we are to offer any premium to the acquiree, one of two conditions must be present: Either our own stock must be overvalued relative to the acquiree's, or the two companies together must be expected to earn more than they would if operated separately. Historically, Berkshire has seldom been overvalued. In this market, moreover, undervalued acquirees are almost impossible to find. That other possibility -- synergy gains -- is usually unrealistic, since we expect acquirees to operate after we've bought them just as they did before. Joining with Berkshire does not normally raise their revenues nor cut their costs.

Indeed, their reported costs (but not their true ones) will rise after they are bought by Berkshire if the acquiree has been granting options as part of its compensation packages. In these cases, "earnings" of the acquiree have been overstated because they have followed the standard -- but, in our view, dead wrong -- accounting practice of ignoring the cost to a business of issuing options. When Berkshire acquires an option-issuing company, we promptly substitute a cash compensation plan having an economic value equivalent to that of the previous option plan. The acquiree's true compensation cost is thereby brought out of the closet and charged, as it should be, against earnings.

The reasoning that Berkshire applies to the merger of public companies should be the calculus for all buyers. Paying a takeover premium does not make sense for any acquirer unless a) its stock is overvalued relative to the acquiree's or b) the two enterprises will earn more combined than they would separately. Predictably, acquirers normally hew to the second argument because very few are willing to acknowledge that their stock is overvalued. However, voracious buyers -- the ones that issue shares as fast as they can print them -- are tacitly conceding that point. (Often, also, they are running Wall Street's version of a chain-letter scheme.)

In some mergers there truly are major synergies -- though oftentimes the acquirer pays too much to obtain them -- but at other times the cost and revenue benefits that are projected prove illusory. Of one thing, however, be certain: If a CEO is enthused about a particularly foolish acquisition, both his internal staff and his outside advisors will come up with whatever projections are needed to justify his stance. Only in fairy tales are emperors told that they are naked.

Common Stock Investments

Below we present our common stock investments. Those with a market value of more than $750 million are itemized.

12/31/97

Shares Company Cost* Market
(dollars in millions)

49,456,900 American Express Company $1,392.7 $ 4,414.0
200,000,000 The Coca-Cola Company 1,298.9 13,337.5
21,563,414 The Walt Disney Company 381.2 2,134.8
63,977,600 Freddie Mac 329.4 2,683.1
48,000,000 The Gillette Company 600.0 4,821.0
23,733,198 Travelers Group Inc. 604.4 1,278.6
1,727,765 The Washington Post Company 10.6 840.6
6,690,218 Wells Fargo & Company 412.6 2,270.9
Others 2,177.1 4,467.2
-------- ----------
Total Common Stocks $7,206.9 $ 36,247.7
======== ==========

* Represents tax-basis cost which, in aggregate, is $1.8 billion less than GAAP cost.

We made net sales during the year that amounted to about 5% of our beginning portfolio. In these, we significantly reduced a few of our holdings that are below the $750 million threshold for itemization, and we also modestly trimmed a few of the larger positions that we detail. Some of the sales we made during 1997 were aimed at changing our bond-stock ratio moderately in response to the relative values that we saw in each market, a realignment we have continued in 1998.

Our reported positions, we should add, sometimes reflect the investment decisions of GEICO's Lou Simpson. Lou independently runs an equity portfolio of nearly $2 billion that may at times overlap the portfolio that I manage, and occasionally he makes moves that differ from mine.

Though we don't attempt to predict the movements of the stock market, we do try, in a very rough way, to value it. At the annual meeting last year, with the Dow at 7,071 and long-term Treasury yields at 6.89%, Charlie and I stated that we did not consider the market overvalued if 1) interest rates remained where they were or fell, and 2) American business continued to earn the remarkable returns on equity that it had recently recorded. So far, interest rates have fallen -- that's one requisite satisfied -- and returns on equity still remain exceptionally high. If they stay there -- and if interest rates hold near recent levels -- there is no reason to think of stocks as generally overvalued. On the other hand, returns on equity are not a sure thing to remain at, or even near, their present levels.

In the summer of 1979, when equities looked cheap to me, I wrote a Forbes article entitled "You pay a very high price in the stock market for a cheery consensus." At that time skepticism and disappointment prevailed, and my point was that investors should be glad of the fact, since pessimism drives down prices to truly attractive levels. Now, however, we have a very cheery consensus. That does not necessarily mean this is the wrong time to buy stocks: Corporate America is now earning far more money than it was just a few years ago, and in the presence of lower interest rates, every dollar of earnings becomes more valuable. Today's price levels, though, have materially eroded the "margin of safety" that Ben Graham identified as the cornerstone of intelligent investing.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

In last year's annual report, I discussed Coca-Cola, our largest holding. Coke continues to increase its market dominance throughout the world, but, tragically, it has lost the leader responsible for its outstanding performance. Roberto Goizueta, Coke's CEO since 1981, died in October. After his death, I read every one of the more than 100 letters and notes he had written me during the past nine years. Those messages could well serve as a guidebook for success in both business and life.

In these communications, Roberto displayed a brilliant and clear strategic vision that was always aimed at advancing the well-being of Coke shareholders. Roberto knew where he was leading the company, how he was going to get there, and why this path made the most sense for his owners -- and, equally important, he had a burning sense of urgency about reaching his goals. An excerpt from one handwritten note he sent to me illustrates his mind-set: "By the way, I have told Olguita that what she refers to as an obsession, you call focus. I like your term much better." Like all who knew Roberto, I will miss him enormously.

Consistent with his concern for the company, Roberto prepared for a seamless succession long before it seemed necessary. Roberto knew that Doug Ivester was the right man to take over and worked with Doug over the years to ensure that no momentum would be lost when the time for change arrived. The Coca-Cola Company will be the same steamroller under Doug as it was under Roberto.

Convertible Preferreds

Two years ago, I gave you an update on the five convertible preferreds that we purchased through private placements in the 1987-1991 period. At the time of that earlier report, we had realized a small profit on the sale of our Champion International holding. The four remaining preferred commitments included two, Gillette and First Empire State, that we had converted into common stock in which we had large unrealized gains, and two others, USAir and Salomon, that had been trouble-prone. At times, the last two had me mouthing a line from a country song: "How can I miss you if you won't go away?"

Since I delivered that report, all four holdings have grown significantly in value. The common stocks of both Gillette and First Empire have risen substantially, in line with the companies' excellent performance. At yearend, the $600 million we put into Gillette in 1989 had appreciated to $4.8 billion, and the $40 million we committed to First Empire in 1991 had risen to $236 million.

Our two laggards, meanwhile, have come to life in a very major way. In a transaction that finally rewarded its long-suffering shareholders, Salomon recently merged into Travelers Group. All of Berkshire's shareholders -- including me, very personally -- owe a huge debt to Deryck Maughan and Bob Denham for, first, playing key roles in saving Salomon from extinction following its 1991 scandal and, second, restoring the vitality of the company to a level that made it an attractive acquisition for Travelers. I have often said that I wish to work with executives that I like, trust and admire. No two fit that description better than Deryck and Bob.

Berkshire's final results from its Salomon investment won't be tallied for some time, but it is safe to say that they will be far better than I anticipated two years ago. Looking back, I think of my Salomon experience as having been both fascinating and instructional, though for a time in 1991-92 I felt like the drama critic who wrote: "I would have enjoyed the play except that I had an unfortunate seat. It faced the stage."

The resuscitation of US Airways borders on the miraculous. Those who have watched my moves in this investment know that I have compiled a record that is unblemished by success. I was wrong in originally purchasing the stock, and I was wrong later, in repeatedly trying to unload our holdings at 50 cents on the dollar.

Two changes at the company coincided with its remarkable rebound: 1) Charlie and I left the board of directors and 2) Stephen Wolf became CEO. Fortunately for our egos, the second event was the key: Stephen Wolf's accomplishments at the airline have been phenomenal.

There still is much to do at US Airways, but survival is no longer an issue. Consequently, the company made up the dividend arrearages on our preferred during 1997, adding extra payments to compensate us for the delay we suffered. The company's common stock, furthermore, has risen from a low of $4 to a recent high of $73.

Our preferred has been called for redemption on March 15. But the rise in the company's stock has given our conversion rights, which we thought worthless not long ago, great value. It is now almost certain that our US Airways shares will produce a decent profit -- that is, if my cost for Maalox is excluded -- and the gain could even prove indecent.

Next time I make a big, dumb decision, Berkshire shareholders will know what to do: Phone Mr. Wolf.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

In addition to the convertible preferreds, we purchased one other private placement in 1991, $300 million of American Express Percs. This security was essentially a common stock that featured a tradeoff in its first three years: We received extra dividend payments during that period, but we were also capped in the price appreciation we could realize. Despite the cap, this holding has proved extraordinarily profitable thanks to a move by your Chairman that combined luck and skill -- 110% luck, the balance skill.

Our Percs were due to convert into common stock in August 1994, and in the month before I was mulling whether to sell upon conversion. One reason to hold was Amex's outstanding CEO, Harvey Golub, who seemed likely to maximize whatever potential the company had (a supposition that has since been proved -- in spades). But the size of that potential was in question: Amex faced relentless competition from a multitude of card-issuers, led by Visa. Weighing the arguments, I leaned toward sale.

Here's where I got lucky. During that month of decision, I played golf at Prouts Neck, Maine with Frank Olson, CEO of Hertz. Frank is a brilliant manager, with intimate knowledge of the card business. So from the first tee on I was quizzing him about the industry. By the time we reached the second green, Frank had convinced me that Amex's corporate card was a terrific franchise, and I had decided not to sell. On the back nine I turned buyer, and in a few months Berkshire owned 10% of the company.

We now have a $3 billion gain in our Amex shares, and I naturally feel very grateful to Frank. But George Gillespie, our mutual friend, says that I am confused about where my gratitude should go. After all, he points out, it was he who arranged the game and assigned me to Frank's foursome.

Quarterly Reports to Shareholders

In last year's letter, I described the growing costs we incur in mailing quarterly reports and the problems we have encountered in delivering them to "street-name" shareholders. I asked for your opinion about the desirability of our continuing to print reports, given that we now publish our quarterly and annual communications on the Internet, at our site, www.berkshirehathaway.com. Relatively few shareholders responded, but it is clear that at least a small number who want the quarterly information have no interest in getting it off the Internet. Being a life-long sufferer from technophobia, I can empathize with this group.

The cost of publishing quarterlies, however, continues to balloon, and we have therefore decided to send printed versions only to shareholders who request them. If you wish the quarterlies, please complete the reply card that is bound into this report. In the meantime, be assured that all shareholders will continue to receive the annual report in printed form.

Those of you who enjoy the computer should check out our home page. It contains a large amount of current information about Berkshire and also all of our annual letters since 1977. In addition, our website includes links to the home pages of many Berkshire subsidiaries. On these sites you can learn more about our subsidiaries' products and -- yes -- even place orders for them.

We are required to file our quarterly information with the SEC no later than 45 days after the end of each quarter. One of our goals in posting communications on the Internet is to make this material information -- in full detail and in a form unfiltered by the media -- simultaneously available to all interested parties at a time when markets are closed. Accordingly, we plan to send our 1998 quarterly information to the SEC on three Fridays, May 15, August 14, and November 13, and on those nights to post the same information on the Internet. This procedure will put all of our shareholders, whether they be direct or "street-name," on an equal footing. Similarly, we will post our 1998 annual report on the Internet on Saturday, March 13, 1999, and mail it at about the same time.

Shareholder-Designated Contributions

About 97.7% of all eligible shares participated in Berkshire's 1997 shareholder-designated contributions program. Contributions made were $15.4 million, and 3,830 charities were recipients. A full description of the program appears on pages 52 - 53.

Cumulatively, over the 17 years of the program, Berkshire has made contributions of $113.1 million pursuant to the instructions of our shareholders. The rest of Berkshire's giving is done by our subsidiaries, which stick to the philanthropic patterns that prevailed before they were acquired (except that their former owners themselves take on the responsibility for their personal charities). In aggregate, our subsidiaries made contributions of $8.1 million in 1997, including in-kind donations of $4.4 million.

Every year a few shareholders miss out on our contributions program because they don't have their shares registered in their own names on the prescribed record date or because they fail to get the designation form back to us within the 60-day period allowed. Charlie and I regret this. But if replies are received late, we have to reject them because we can't make exceptions for some shareholders while refusing to make them for others.

To participate in future programs, you must own Class A shares that are registered in the name of the actual owner, not the nominee name of a broker, bank or depository. Shares not so registered on August 31, 1998, will be ineligible for the 1998 program. When you get the contributions form from us, return it promptly so that it does not get put aside or forgotten.

The Annual Meeting

Woodstock Weekend at Berkshire will be May 2-4 this year. The finale will be the annual meeting, which will begin at 9:30 a.m. on Monday, May 4. Last year we met at Aksarben Coliseum, and both our staff and the crowd were delighted with the venue. There was only one crisis: The night before the meeting, I lost my voice, thereby fulfilling Charlie's wildest fantasy. He was crushed when I showed up the next morning with my speech restored.

Last year about 7,500 attended the meeting. They represented all 50 states, as well as 16 countries, including Australia, Brazil, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Greece. Taking into account several overflow rooms, we believe that we can handle more than 11,000 people, and that should put us in good shape this year even though our shareholder count has risen significantly. Parking is ample at Aksarben; acoustics are excellent; and seats are comfortable.

The doors will open at 7 a.m. on Monday and at 8:30 we will again feature the world premiere of a movie epic produced by Marc Hamburg, our CFO. The meeting will last until 3:30, with a short break at noon. This interval will permit the exhausted to leave unnoticed and allow time for the hardcore to lunch at Aksarben's concession stands. Charlie and I enjoy questions from owners, so bring up whatever is on your mind.

Berkshire products will again be for sale in the halls outside the meeting room. Last year -- not that I pay attention to this sort of thing -- we again set sales records, moving 2,500 pounds of See's candy, 1,350 pairs of Dexter shoes, $75,000 of World Books and related publications, and 888 sets of Quikut knives. We also took orders for a new line of apparel, featuring our Berkshire logo, and sold about 1,000 polo, sweat, and T-shirts. At this year's meeting, we will unveil our 1998 collection.

GEICO will again be on hand with a booth staffed by star associates from its regional offices. Find out whether you can save money by shifting your auto insurance to GEICO. About 40% of those who check us out learn that savings are possible. The proportion is not 100% because insurers differ in their underwriting judgments, with some favoring drivers who live in certain geographical areas and work at certain occupations more than we do. We believe, however, that we more frequently offer the low price than does any other national carrier selling insurance to all comers. In the GEICO informational material that accompanies this report, you will see that in 38 states we now offer a special discount of as much as 8% to our shareholders. We also have applications pending that would extend this discount to drivers in other states.

An attachment to the proxy material that is enclosed with this report explains how you can obtain the card you will need for admission to the meeting. We expect a large crowd, so get plane, hotel and car reservations promptly. American Express (800-799-6634) will be happy to help you with arrangements. As usual, we will have buses at the larger hotels that will take you to and from the meeting and also deliver you to Nebraska Furniture Mart, Borsheim's and the airport after its conclusion. You are likely, however, to find a car handy.

NFM's main store, located on a 75-acre site about a mile from Aksarben, is open from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekdays, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturdays, and noon to 6 p.m. on Sundays. During the period from May 1 to May 5, shareholders who present NFM with the coupon that will accompany their meeting ticket will be entitled to a discount that is otherwise restricted to its employees.

Borsheim's normally is closed on Sunday but will be open for shareholders from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on May 3rd. Last year was our second-best shareholder's day, exceeded only by 1996's. I regard this slippage as an anomaly and hope that you will prove me right this year. Charlie will be available for autographs. He smiles, however, only if the paper he signs is a Borsheim's sales ticket. Shareholders who wish to visit on Saturday (10 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.) or on Monday (10 a.m.-8 p.m.) should be sure to identify themselves as Berkshire owners so that Susan Jacques, Borsheim's CEO, can make you especially welcome. Susan, I should add, had a fabulous year in 1997. As a manager, she is everything that an owner hopes for.

On Sunday afternoon we will also have a special treat for bridge players in the mall outside of Borsheim's. There, Bob Hamman -- a legend of the game for more than three decades -- will take on all comers. Join in and dazzle Bob with your skill.

My favorite steakhouse, Gorat's, opens one Sunday a year -- for Berkshire shareholders on the night before the annual meeting. Last year the restaurant started serving at 4 p.m. and finished about 1:30 a.m, an endurance trial that was the result of taking 1,100 reservations vs. a seating capacity of 235. If you make a reservation and then can't attend, be sure to let Gorat's know promptly, since it goes to great effort to help us and we want to reciprocate. You can make reservations beginning on April 1st (but not before) by calling 402-551-3733. Last year I had to leave Gorat's a little early because of my voice problem, but this year I plan to leisurely savor every bite of my rare T-bone and double order of hash browns.

After this warmup, Charlie and I will head for the Dairy Queen on 114th, just south of Dodge. There are 12 great Dairy Queens in metropolitan Omaha, but the 114th Street location is the best suited to handle the large crowd that we expect. South of the property, there are hundreds of parking spaces on both sides of the street. Also, this Dairy Queen will extend its Sunday hours to 11 p.m. in order to accommodate our shareholders.

The 114th Street operation is now run by two sisters, Coni Birge and Deb Novotny, whose grandfather put up the building in 1962 at what was then the outer edge of the city. Their mother, Jan Noble, took over in 1972, and Coni and Deb continue as third generation owner-managers. Jan, Coni and Deb will all be on hand Sunday evening, and I hope that you meet them. Enjoy one of their hamburgers if you can't get into Gorat's. And then, around eight o'clock, join me in having a Dusty Sundae for dessert. This item is a personal specialty -- the Dairy Queen will furnish you a copy of my recipe -- and will be offered only on Shareholder Sunday.

The Omaha Royals and Albuquerque Dukes will play baseball on Saturday evening, May 2nd, at Rosenblatt Stadium. As usual, your Chairman, shamelessly exploiting his 25% ownership of the team, will take the mound. But this year you will see something new.

In past games, much to the bafflement of the crowd, I have shaken off the catcher's first call. He has consistently asked for my sweeping curve, and I have just as regularly resisted. Instead, I have served up a pathetic fast ball, which on my best day was clocked at eight miles per hour (with a following wind).

There's a story behind my unwillingness to throw the curve ball. As some of you may know, Candy Cummings invented the curve in 1867 and used it to great effect in the National Association, where he never won less than 28 games in a season. The pitch, however, drew immediate criticism from the very highest of authorities, namely Charles Elliott, then president of Harvard University, who declared, "I have heard that this year we at Harvard won the baseball championship because we have a pitcher who has a fine curve ball. I am further instructed that the purpose of the curve ball is to deliberately deceive the batter. Harvard is not in the business of teaching deception." (I'm not making this up.)

Ever since I learned of President Elliott's moral teachings on this subject, I have scrupulously refrained from using my curve, however devastating its effect might have been on hapless batters. Now, however, it is time for my karma to run over Elliott's dogma and for me to quit holding back. Visit the park on Saturday night and marvel at the majestic arc of my breaking ball.

Our proxy statement includes information about obtaining tickets to the game. We will also provide an information packet describing the local hot spots, including, of course, those 12 Dairy Queens.

Come to Omaha -- the cradle of capitalism -- in May and enjoy yourself.

Warren E. Buffett
February 27, 1998 Chairman of the Board

BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC.

To the Shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. :

Our gain in net worth during 1998 was $25.9 billion, which increased the per-share book value of both our Class A and Class B stock by 48.3%. Over the last 34 years (that is, since present management took over) per-share book value has grown from $19 to $37,801, a rate of 24.7% compounded annually.*

* All figures used in this report apply to Berkshire's A shares, the successor to the only stock that the company had outstanding before 1996. The B shares have an economic interest equal to 1/30th that of the A.

Normally, a gain of 48.3% would call for handsprings -- but not this year. Remember Wagner, whose music has been described as better than it sounds? Well, Berkshire's progress in 1998 -- though more than satisfactory -- was not as good as it looks. That's because most of that 48.3% gain came from our issuing shares in acquisitions.

To explain: Our stock sells at a large premium over book value, which means that any issuing of shares we do -- whether for cash or as consideration in a merger -- instantly increases our per-share book-value figure, even though we've earned not a dime. What happens is that we get more per-share book value in such transactions than we give up. These transactions, however, do not deliver us any immediate gain in per-share intrinsic value, because in this respect what we give and what we get are roughly equal. And, as Charlie Munger, Berkshire's Vice Chairman and my partner, and I can't tell you too often (though you may feel that we try), it's the per-share gain in intrinsic value that counts rather than the per-share gain in book value. Though Berkshire's intrinsic value grew very substantially in 1998, the gain fell well short of the 48.3% recorded for book value. Nevertheless, intrinsic value still far exceeds book value. (For a more extensive discussion of these terms, and other investment and accounting concepts, please refer to our Owner's Manual, on pages 56-64, in which we set forth our owner-related business principles. Intrinsic value is discussed on pages 61 and 62.)

We entered 1999 with the best collection of businesses and managers in our history. The two companies we acquired in 1998, General Re and Executive Jet, are first-class in every way -- more about both later -- and the performance of our operating businesses last year exceeded my hopes. GEICO, once again, simply shot the lights out. On the minus side, several of the public companies in which we have major investments experienced significant operating shortfalls that neither they nor I anticipated early in the year. Consequently, our equity portfolio did not perform nearly as well as did the S&P 500. The problems of these companies are almost certainly temporary, and Charlie and I believe that their long-term prospects are excellent.

In our last three annual reports, we furnished you a table that we regard as central to estimating Berkshire's intrinsic value. In the updated version of that table, which follows, we trace our two key components of value, including General Re on a pro-forma basis as if we had owned it throughout the year. The first column lists our per-share ownership of investments (including cash and equivalents but excluding securities held in our financial products operation) and the second column shows our per-share earnings from Berkshire's operating businesses before taxes and purchase-accounting adjustments (discussed on pages 62 and 63), but after all interest and corporate expenses. The second column excludes all dividends, interest and capital gains that we realized from the investments presented in the first column. In effect, the columns show how Berkshire would look if it were split into two parts, with one entity holding our investments and the other operating all of our businesses and bearing all corporate costs.

Investments
Per Share

Pre-tax Earnings Per Share
With All Income from
Investments Excluded

Year

1968

.....................................................................

$ 53

$ 2.87

1978

.....................................................................

465

12.85

1988

.....................................................................

4,876

145.77

1998

.....................................................................

47,647

474.45

Here are the growth rates of the two segments by decade:

Investments Per Share

Pre-tax Earnings Per Share With All Income from Investments Excluded

Decade Ending

1978

.....................................................................

24.2%

16.2%

1988

.....................................................................

26.5%

27.5%

1998

.....................................................................

25.6%

12.5%

Annual Growth Rate, 1968-1998 ...................

25.4%

18.6%

During 1998, our investments increased by $9,604 per share, or 25.2%, but per-share operating earnings fell by 33.9%. General Re (included, as noted, on a pro-forma basis) explains both facts. This company has very large investments, and these greatly increased our per-share investment figure. But General Re also had an underwriting loss in 1998, and that hurt operating earnings. Had we not acquired General Re, per-share operating earnings would have shown a modest gain.

Though certain of our acquisitions and operating strategies may from time to time affect one column more than the other, we continually work to increase the figures in both. But one thing is certain: Our future rates of gain will fall far short of those achieved in the past. Berkshire's capital base is now simply too large to allow us to earn truly outsized returns. If you believe otherwise, you should consider a career in sales but avoid one in mathematics (bearing in mind that there are really only three kinds of people in the world: those who can count and those who can't).

Currently we are working to compound a net worth of $57.4 billion, the largest of any American corporation (though our figure will be eclipsed if the merger of Exxon and Mobil takes place). Of course, our lead in net worth does not mean that Berkshire outranks all other businesses in value: Market value is what counts for owners and General Electric and Microsoft, for example, have valuations more than three times Berkshire's. Net worth, though, measures the capital that managers must deploy, and at Berkshire that figure has indeed become huge.

Nonetheless, Charlie and I will do our best to increase intrinsic value in the future at an average rate of 15%, a result we consider to be at the very peak of possible outcomes. We may have years when we exceed 15%, but we will most certainly have other years when we fall far short of that -- including years showing negative returns -- and those will bring our average down. In the meantime, you should understand just what an average gain of 15% over the next five years implies: It means we will need to increase net worth by $58 billion. Earning this daunting 15% will require us to come up with big ideas: Popcorn stands just won't do. Today's markets are not friendly to our search for "elephants," but you can be sure that we will stay focused on the hunt.

Whatever the future holds, I make you one promise: I'll keep at least 99% of my net worth in Berkshire for as long as I am around. How long will that be? My model is the loyal Democrat in Fort Wayne who asked to be buried in Chicago so that he could stay active in the party. To that end, I've already selected a "power spot" at the office for my urn.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Our financial growth has been matched by employment growth: We now have 47,566 on our payroll, with the acquisitions of 1998 bringing 7,074 employees to us and internal growth adding another 2,500. To balance this gain of 9,500 in hands-on employees, we have enlarged the staff at world headquarters from 12 to 12.8. (The .8 doesn't refer to me or Charlie: We have a new person in accounting, working four days a week.) Despite this alarming trend toward corporate bloat, our after-tax overhead last year was about $3.5 million, or well under one basis point (.01 of 1%) of the value of the assets we manage.

Taxes

One beneficiary of our increased size has been the U.S. Treasury. The federal income taxes that Berkshire and General Re have paid, or will soon pay, in respect to 1998 earnings total $2.7 billion. That means we shouldered all of the U.S. Government's expenses for more than a half-day.

Follow that thought a little further: If only 625 other U.S. taxpayers had paid the Treasury as much as we and General Re did last year, no one else -- neither corporations nor 270 million citizens -- would have had to pay federal income taxes or any other kind of federal tax (for example, social security or estate taxes). Our shareholders can truly say that they "gave at the office."

Writing checks to the IRS that include strings of zeros does not bother Charlie or me. Berkshire as a corporation, and we as individuals, have prospered in America as we would have in no other country. Indeed, if we lived in some other part of the world and completely escaped taxes, I'm sure we would be worse off financially (and in many other ways as well). Overall, we feel extraordinarily lucky to have been dealt a hand in life that enables us to write large checks to the government rather than one requiring the government to regularly write checks to us -- say, because we are disabled or unemployed.

Berkshire's tax situation is sometimes misunderstood. First, capital gains have no special attraction for us: A corporation pays a 35% rate on taxable income, whether it comes from capital gains or from ordinary operations. This means that Berkshire's tax on a long-term capital gain is fully 75% higher than what an individual would pay on an identical gain.

Some people harbor another misconception, believing that we can exclude 70% of all dividends we receive from our taxable income. Indeed, the 70% rate applies to most corporations and also applies to Berkshire in cases where we hold stocks in non-insurance subsidiaries. However, almost all of our equity investments are owned by our insurance companies, and in that case the exclusion is 59.5%. That still means a dollar of dividends is considerably more valuable to us than a dollar of ordinary income, but not to the degree often assumed.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Berkshire truly went all out for the Treasury last year. In connection with the General Re merger, we wrote a $30 million check to the government to pay an SEC fee tied to the new shares created by the deal. We understand that this payment set an SEC record. Charlie and I are enormous admirers of what the Commission has accomplished for American investors. We would rather, however, have found another way to show our admiration.

GEICO (1-800-847-7536)

Combine a great idea with a great manager and you're certain to obtain a great result. That mix is alive and well at GEICO. The idea is low-cost auto insurance, made possible by direct-to-customer marketing, and the manager is Tony Nicely. Quite simply, there is no one in the business world who could run GEICO better than Tony does. His instincts are unerring, his energy is boundless, and his execution is flawless. While maintaining underwriting discipline, Tony is building an organization that is gaining market share at an accelerating rate.

This pace has been encouraged by our compensation policies. The direct writing of insurance -- that is, without there being an agent or broker between the insurer and its policyholder -- involves a substantial front-end investment. First-year business is therefore unprofitable in a major way. At GEICO, we do not wish this cost to deter our associates from the aggressive pursuit of new business -- which, as it renews, will deliver significant profits -- so we leave it out of our compensation formulas. What's included then? We base 50% of our associates' bonuses and profit sharing on the earnings of our "seasoned" book, meaning policies that have been with us for more than a year. The other 50% is tied to growth in policyholders -- and here we have stepped on the gas.

In 1995, the year prior to its acquisition by Berkshire, GEICO spent $33 million on marketing and had 652 telephone counselors. Last year the company spent $143 million, and the counselor count grew to 2,162. The effects that these efforts had at the company are shown by the new business and in-force figures below:

New Auto

Auto Policies

Years

Policies*

In-Force*

1993

354,882

2,011,055

1994

396,217

2,147,549

1995

461,608

2,310,037

1996

617,669

2,543,699

1997

913,176

2,949,439

1998

1,317,761

3,562,644

* "Voluntary" only; excludes assigned risks and the like.

In 1999, we will again increase our marketing budget, spending at least $190 million. In fact, there is no limit to what Berkshire is willing to invest in GEICO's new-business activity, as long as we can concurrently build the infrastructure the company needs to properly serve its policyholders.

Because of the first-year costs, companies that are concerned about quarterly or annual earnings would shy from similar investments, no matter how intelligent these might be in terms of building long-term value. Our calculus is different: We simply measure whether we are creating more than a dollar of value per dollar spent -- and if that calculation is favorable, the more dollars we spend the happier I am.

There is far more to GEICO's success, of course, than low prices and a torrent of advertising. The handling of claims must also be fair, fast and friendly -- and ours is. Here's an impartial scorecard on how we shape up: In New York, our largest-volume state, the Insurance Department recently reported that GEICO's complaint ratio in 1997 was not only the lowest of the five largest auto insurers but was also less than half the average of the other four.

GEICO's 1998 profit margin of 6.7% was better than we had anticipated -- and, indeed, better than we wished. Our results reflect an industry-wide phenomenon: In recent years, both the frequency of auto accidents and their severity have unexpectedly declined. We responded by reducing rates 3.3% in 1998, and we will reduce them still more in 1999. These moves will soon bring profit margins down -- at the least to 4%, which is our target, and perhaps considerably lower. Whatever the case, we believe that our margins will continue to be much better than those of the industry.

With GEICO's growth and profitability both outstanding in 1998, so also were its profit-sharing and bonus payments. Indeed, the profit-sharing payment of $103 million or 32.3% of salary -- which went to all 9,313 associates who had been with us for more than a year -- may well have been the highest percentage payment at any large company in the country. (In addition, associates benefit from a company-funded pension plan.)

The 32.3% may turn out to be a high-water mark, given that the profitability component in our profit-sharing calculation is almost certain to come down in the future. The growth component, though, may well increase. Overall, we expect the two benchmarks together to dictate very significant profit-sharing payments for decades to come. For our associates, growth pays off in other ways as well: Last year we promoted 4,612 people.

Impressive as the GEICO figures are, we have far more to do. Our market share improved significantly in 1998 -- but only from 3% to 3½%. For every policyholder we now have, there are another ten who should be giving us their business.

Some of you who are reading this may be in that category. About 40% of those who check our rates find that they can save money by doing business with us. The proportion is not 100% because insurers differ in their underwriting judgements, with some giving more credit than we do to drivers who live in certain geographical areas or work at certain occupations. We believe, however, that we more frequently offer the low price than does any other national carrier selling insurance to all comers. Furthermore, in 40 states we can offer a special discount -- usually 8% -- to our shareholders. So give us a call and check us out.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

You may think that one commercial in this section is enough. But I have another to present, this one directed at managers of publicly-owned companies.

At Berkshire we feel that telling outstanding CEOs, such as Tony, how to run their companies would be the height of foolishness. Most of our managers wouldn't work for us if they got a lot of backseat driving. (Generally, they don't have to work for anyone, since 75% or so are independently wealthy.) Besides, they are the Mark McGwires of the business world and need no advice from us as to how to hold the bat or when to swing.

Nevertheless, Berkshire's ownership may make even the best of managers more effective. First, we eliminate all of the ritualistic and nonproductive activities that normally go with the job of CEO. Our managers are totally in charge of their personal schedules. Second, we give each a simple mission: Just run your business as if: 1) you own 100% of it; 2) it is the only asset in the world that you and your family have or will ever have; and 3) you can't sell or merge it for at least a century. As a corollary, we tell them they should not let any of their decisions be affected even slightly by accounting considerations. We want our managers to think about what counts, not how it will be counted.

Very few CEOs of public companies operate under a similar mandate, mainly because they have owners who focus on short-term prospects and reported earnings. Berkshire, however, has a shareholder base -- which it will have for decades to come -- that has the longest investment horizon to be found in the public-company universe. Indeed, a majority of our shares are held by investors who expect to die still holding them. We can therefore ask our CEOs to manage for maximum long-term value, rather than for next quarter's earnings. We certainly don't ignore the current results of our businesses -- in most cases, they are of great importance -- but we never want them to be achieved at the expense of our building ever-greater competitive strengths.
I believe the GEICO story demonstrates the benefits of Berkshire's approach. Charlie and I haven't taught Tony a thing -- and never will -- but we have created an environment that allows him to apply all of his talents to what's important. He does not have to devote his time or energy to board meetings, press interviews, presentations by investment bankers or talks with financial analysts. Furthermore, he need never spend a moment thinking about financing, credit ratings or "Street" expectations for earnings per share. Because of our ownership structure, he also knows that this operational framework will endure for decades to come. In this environment of freedom, both Tony and his company can convert their almost limitless potential into matching achievements.

If you are running a large, profitable business that will thrive in a GEICO-like environment, check our acquisition criteria on page 21 and give me a call. I promise a fast answer and will mention your inquiry to no one except Charlie.

Executive Jet Aviation (1-800-848-6436)

To understand the huge potential at Executive Jet Aviation (EJA), you need some understanding of its business, which is selling fractional shares of jets and operating the fleet for its many owners. Rich Santulli, CEO of EJA, created the fractional ownership industry in 1986, by visualizing an important new way of using planes. Then he combined guts and talent to turn his idea into a major business.

In a fractional ownership plan, you purchase a portion -- say 1/8th -- of any of a wide variety of jets that EJA offers. That purchase entitles you to 100 hours of flying time annually. ("Dead-head" hours don't count against your allotment, and you are also allowed to average your hours over five years.) In addition, you pay both a monthly management fee and a fee for hours actually flown.

Then, on a few hours notice, EJA makes your plane, or another at least as good, available to you at your choice of the 5500 airports in the U.S. In effect, calling up your plane is like phoning for a taxi.

I first heard about the NetJets® program, as it is called, about four years ago from Frank Rooney, our manager at H.H. Brown. Frank had used and been delighted with the service and suggested that I meet Rich to investigate signing up for my family's use. It took Rich about 15 minutes to sell me a quarter (200 hours annually) of a Hawker 1000. Since then, my family has learned firsthand -- through flying 900 hours on 300 trips -- what a friendly, efficient, and safe operation EJA runs. Quite simply, they love this service. In fact, they quickly grew so enthusiastic that I did a testimonial ad for EJA long before I knew there was any possibility of our purchasing the business. I did, however, ask Rich to give me a call if he ever got interested in selling. Luckily, he phoned me last May, and we quickly made a $725 million deal, paying equal amounts of cash and stock.

EJA, which is by far the largest operator in its industry, has more than 1,000 customers and 163 aircraft (including 23 "core" aircraft that are owned or leased by EJA itself, so that it can make sure that service is first-class even during the times when demand is heaviest). Safety, of course, is the paramount issue in any flight operation, and Rich's pilots -- now numbering about 650 -- receive extensive training at least twice a year from FlightSafety International, another Berkshire subsidiary and the world leader in pilot training. The bottom line on our pilots: I've sold the Berkshire plane and will now do all of my business flying, as well as my personal flying, with NetJets' crews.

Being the leader in this industry is a major advantage for all concerned. Our customers gain because we have an armada of planes positioned throughout the country at all times, a blanketing that allows us to provide unmatched service. Meanwhile, we gain from the blanketing because it reduces dead-head costs. Another compelling attraction for our clients is that we offer products from Boeing, Gulfstream, Falcon, Cessna, and Raytheon, whereas our two competitors are owned by manufacturers that offer only their own planes. In effect, NetJets is like a physician who can recommend whatever medicine best fits the needs of each patient; our competitors, in contrast, are producers of a "house" brand that they must prescribe for one and all.

In many cases our clients, both corporate and individual, own fractions of several different planes and can therefore match specific planes to specific missions. For example, a client might own 1/16th of three different jets (each giving it 50 hours of flying time), which in total give it a virtual fleet, obtained for a small fraction of the cost of a single plane.

Significantly, it is not only small businesses that can benefit from fractional ownership. Already, some of America's largest companies use NetJets as a supplement to their own fleet. This saves them big money in both meeting peak requirements and in flying missions that would require their wholly-owned planes to log a disproportionate amount of dead-head hours.

When a plane is slated for personal use, the clinching argument is that either the client signs up now or his children likely will later. That's an equation I explained to my wonderful Aunt Alice 40 years ago when she asked me whether she could afford a fur coat. My reply settled the issue: "Alice, you aren't buying it; your heirs are."

EJA's growth has been explosive: In 1997, it accounted for 31% of all corporate jets ordered in the world. Nonetheless, Rich and I believe that the potential of fractional ownership has barely been scratched. If many thousands of owners find it sensible to own 100% of a plane -- which must be used 350-400 hours annually if it's to make economic sense -- there must be a large multiple of that number for whom fractional ownership works.

In addition to being a terrific executive, Rich is fun. Like most of our managers, he has no economic need whatsoever to work. Rich spends his time at EJA because it's his baby -- and he wants to see how far he can take it. We both already know the answer, both literally and figuratively: to the ends of the earth.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

And now a small hint to Berkshire directors: Last year I spent more than nine times my salary at Borsheim's and EJA. Just think how Berkshire's business would boom if you'd only spring for a raise.

General Re

On December 21, we completed our $22 billion acquisition of General Re Corp. In addition to owning 100% of General Reinsurance Corporation, the largest U.S. property-casualty reinsurer, the company also owns (including stock it has an arrangement to buy) 82% of the oldest reinsurance company in the world, Cologne Re. The two companies together reinsure all lines of insurance and operate in 124 countries.

For many decades, General Re's name has stood for quality, integrity and professionalism in reinsurance -- and under Ron Ferguson's leadership, this reputation has been burnished still more. Berkshire can add absolutely nothing to the skills of General Re's and Cologne Re's managers. On the contrary, there is a lot that they can teach us.

Nevertheless, we believe that Berkshire's ownership will benefit General Re in important ways and that its earnings a decade from now will materially exceed those that would have been attainable absent the merger. We base this optimism on the fact that we can offer General Re's management a freedom to operate in whatever manner will best allow the company to exploit its strengths.

Let's look for a moment at the reinsurance business to understand why General Re could not on its own do what it can under Berkshire. Most of the demand for reinsurance comes from primary insurers who want to escape the wide swings in earnings that result from large and unusual losses. In effect, a reinsurer gets paid for absorbing the volatility that the client insurer wants to shed.

Ironically, though, a publicly-held reinsurer gets graded by both its owners and those who evaluate its credit on the smoothness of its own results. Wide swings in earnings hurt both credit ratings and p/e ratios, even when the business that produces such swings has an expectancy of satisfactory profits over time. This market reality sometimes causes a reinsurer to make costly moves, among them laying off a significant portion of the business it writes (in transactions that are called "retrocessions") or rejecting good business simply because it threatens to bring on too much volatility.

Berkshire, in contrast, happily accepts volatility, just as long as it carries with it the expectation of increased profits over time. Furthermore, we are a Fort Knox of capital, and that means volatile earnings can't impair our premier credit ratings. Thus we have the perfect structure for writing -- and retaining -- reinsurance in virtually any amount. In fact, we've used this strength over the past decade to build a powerful super-cat business.

What General Re gives us, however, is the distribution force, technical facilities and management that will allow us to employ our structural strength in every facet of the industry. In particular, General Re and Cologne Re can now accelerate their push into international markets, where the preponderance of industry growth will almost certainly occur. As the merger proxy statement spelled out, Berkshire also brings tax and investment benefits to General Re. But the most compelling reason for the merger is simply that General Re's outstanding management can now do what it does best, unfettered by the constraints that have limited its growth.

Berkshire is assuming responsibility for General Re's investment portfolio, though not for Cologne Re's. We will not, however, be involved in General Re's underwriting. We will simply ask the company to exercise the discipline of the past while increasing the proportion of its business that is retained, expanding its product line, and widening its geographical coverage -- making these moves in recognition of Berkshire's financial strength and tolerance for wide swings in earnings. As we've long said, we prefer a lumpy 15% return to a smooth 12%.

Over time, Ron and his team will maximize General Re's new potential. He and I have known each other for many years, and each of our companies has initiated significant business that it has reinsured with the other. Indeed, General Re played a key role in the resuscitation of GEICO from its near-death status in 1976.

Both Ron and Rich Santulli plan to be at the annual meeting, and I hope you get a chance to say hello to them.

The Economics of Property-Casualty Insurance

With the acquisition of General Re -- and with GEICO's business mushrooming -- it becomes more important than ever that you understand how to evaluate an insurance company. The key determinants are: (1) the amount of float that the business generates; (2) its cost; and (3) most important of all, the long-term outlook for both of these factors.

To begin with, float is money we hold but don't own. In an insurance operation, float arises because premiums are received before losses are paid, an interval that sometimes extends over many years. During that time, the insurer invests the money. Typically, this pleasant activity carries with it a downside: The premiums that an insurer takes in usually do not cover the losses and expenses it eventually must pay. That leaves it running an "underwriting loss," which is the cost of float. An insurance business has value if its cost of float over time is less than the cost the company would otherwise incur to obtain funds. But the business is a lemon if its cost of float is higher than market rates for money.

A caution is appropriate here: Because loss costs must be estimated, insurers have enormous latitude in figuring their underwriting results, and that makes it very difficult for investors to calculate a company's true cost of float. Errors of estimation, usually innocent but sometimes not, can be huge. The consequences of these miscalculations flow directly into earnings. An experienced observer can usually detect large-scale errors in reserving, but the general public can typically do no more than accept what's presented, and at times I have been amazed by the numbers that big-name auditors have implicitly blessed. As for Berkshire, Charlie and I attempt to be conservative in presenting its underwriting results to you, because we have found that virtually all surprises in insurance are unpleasant ones.

The table that follows shows the float generated by Berkshire's insurance operations since we entered the business 32 years ago. The data are for every fifth year and also the last, which includes General Re's huge float. For the table we have calculated our float -- which we generate in large amounts relative to our premium volume -- by adding net loss reserves, loss adjustment reserves, funds held under reinsurance assumed and unearned premium reserves, and then subtracting agents balances, prepaid acquisition costs, prepaid taxes and deferred charges applicable to assumed reinsurance. (Got that?)
Year

Average Float

(in $ millions)

1967

17

1972

70

1977

139

1982

221

1987

1,267

1992

2,290

1997

7,093

1998

22,762 (yearend)

Impressive as the growth in our float has been -- 25.4% compounded annually -- what really counts is the cost of this item. If that becomes too high, growth in float becomes a curse rather than a blessing.

At Berkshire, the news is all good: Our average cost over the 32 years has been well under zero. In aggregate, we have posted a substantial underwriting profit, which means that we have been paid for holding a large and growing amount of money. This is the best of all worlds. Indeed, though our net float is recorded on our balance sheet as a liability, it has had more economic value to us than an equal amount of net worth would have had. As long as we can continue to achieve an underwriting profit, float will continue to outrank net worth in value.
During the next few years, Berkshire's growth in float may well be modest. The reinsurance market is soft, and in this business, relationships change slowly. Therefore, General Re's float -- 2/3rds of our total -- is unlikely to increase significantly in the near term. We do expect, however, that our cost of float will remain very attractive compared to that of other insurers.

Sources of Reported Earnings

The table that follows shows the main sources of Berkshire's reported earnings. In this presentation, purchase-accounting adjustments are not assigned to the specific businesses to which they apply, but are instead aggregated and shown separately. This procedure lets you view the earnings of our businesses as they would have been reported had we not purchased them. For the reasons discussed on pages 62 and 63, this form of presentation seems to us to be more useful to investors and managers than one utilizing generally-accepted accounting principles (GAAP), which require purchase-premiums to be charged off business-by-business. The total earnings we show in the table are, of course, identical to the GAAP total in our audited financial statements.

(in millions)
Berkshire's Share

of Net Earnings

(after taxes and

Pre-Tax Earnings

minority interests)

1998

1997

1998

1997

Operating Earnings:

Insurance Group:

Underwriting -- Super-Cat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$154

$283

$100

$183

Underwriting -- Other Reinsurance . . . . . . . . . .

(175)

(155)

(114)

(100)

Underwriting -- GEICO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

269

281

175

181

Underwriting -- Other Primary . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17

53

10

34

Net Investment Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

974

882

731

704

Buffalo News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

53

56

32

33

Finance and Financial Products Businesses . . . .

205

28

133

18

Flight Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

181

(1)

140

110

(1)

84

Home Furnishings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

72

57

(2)

41

32

(2)

International Dairy Queen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

58

--

35

--

Jewelry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39

32

23

18

Scott Fetzer (excluding finance operation) . . . . .

137

119

85

77

See's Candies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

62

59

40

35

Shoe Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33

49

23

32

General Re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

26

(3)

--

16

(3)

--

Purchase-Accounting Adjustments . . . . . . . . . . .

(123)

(101)

(118)

(94)

Interest Expense (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(100)

(107)

(63)

(67)

Shareholder-Designated Contributions . . . . . . . .

(17)

(15)

(11)

(10)

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34

60

29

37

Operating Earnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1,899

1,721

1,277

1,197

Capital Gains from Investments . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2,415

1,106

1,553

704

Total Earnings - All Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$4,314

$2,827

$ 2,830

$1,901

=====

=====

=====

=====

(1) Includes Executive Jet from August 7, 1998.
(2) Includes Star Furniture from July 1, 1997.

(3) From date of acquisition, December 21, 1998.
(4) Excludes interest expense of Finance Businesses.

You can be proud of our operating managers. They almost invariably deliver earnings that are at the very top of what conditions in their industries allow, meanwhile fortifying their businesses' long-term competitive strengths. In aggregate, they have created many billions of dollars of value for you.

An example: In my 1994 letter, I reported on Ralph Schey's extraordinary performance at Scott Fetzer. Little did I realize that he was just warming up. Last year Scott Fetzer, operating with no leverage (except for a conservative level of debt in its finance subsidiary), earned a record $96.5 million after-tax on its $112 million net worth.

Today, Berkshire has an unusually large number of individuals, such as Ralph, who are truly legends in their industries. Many of these joined us when we purchased their companies, but in recent years we have also identified a number of strong managers internally. We further expanded our corps of all-stars in an important way when we acquired General Re and EJA.

Charlie and I have the easy jobs at Berkshire: We do very little except allocate capital. And, even then, we are not all that energetic. We have one excuse, though: In allocating capital, activity does not correlate with achievement. Indeed, in the fields of investments and acquisitions, frenetic behavior is often counterproductive. Therefore, Charlie and I mainly just wait for the phone to ring.

Our managers, however, work very hard -- and it shows. Naturally, they want to be paid fairly for their efforts, but pay alone can't explain their extraordinary accomplishments. Instead, each is primarily motivated by a vision of just how far his or her business can go -- and by a desire to be the one who gets it there. Charlie and I thank them on your behalf and ours.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Additional information about our various businesses is given on pages 39-53, where you will also find our segment earnings reported on a GAAP basis. In addition, on pages 65-71, we have rearranged Berkshire's financial data into four segments on a non-GAAP basis, a presentation that corresponds to the way Charlie and I think about the company.

Normally, we follow this section with one on "Look-Through" Earnings. Because the General Re acquisition occurred near yearend, though, neither a historical nor a pro-forma calculation of a 1998 number seems relevant. We will resume the look-through calculation in next year's report.

Investments

Below we present our common stock investments. Those with a market value of more than $750 million are itemized.

12/31/98

Shares

Company

Cost*

Market

(dollars in millions)

50,536,900

American Express Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$1,470

$ 5,180

200,000,000

The Coca-Cola Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1,299

13,400

51,202,242

The Walt Disney Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

281

1,536

60,298,000

Freddie Mac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

308

3,885

96,000,000

The Gillette Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

600

4,590

1,727,765

The Washington Post Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

999

63,595,180

Wells Fargo & Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

392

2,540

Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2,683

5,135

Total Common Stocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$ 7,044

$ 37,265

=====

=====

* Represents tax-basis cost which, in aggregate, is $1.5 billion less than GAAP cost.

During the year, we slightly increased our holdings in American Express, one of our three largest commitments, and left the other two unchanged. However, we trimmed or substantially cut many of our smaller positions. Here, I need to make a confession (ugh): The portfolio actions I took in 1998 actually decreased our gain for the year. In particular, my decision to sell McDonald's was a very big mistake. Overall, you would have been better off last year if I had regularly snuck off to the movies during market hours.

At yearend, we held more than $15 billion in cash equivalents (including high-grade securities due in less than one year). Cash never makes us happy. But it's better to have the money burning a hole in Berkshire's pocket than resting comfortably in someone else's. Charlie and I will continue our search for large equity investments or, better yet, a really major business acquisition that would absorb our liquid assets. Currently, however, we see nothing on the horizon.

Once we knew that the General Re merger would definitely take place, we asked the company to dispose of the equities that it held. (As mentioned earlier, we do not manage the Cologne Re portfolio, which includes many equities.) General Re subsequently eliminated its positions in about 250 common stocks, incurring $935 million of taxes in the process. This "clean sweep" approach reflects a basic principle that Charlie and I employ in business and investing: We don't back into decisions.

Last year I deviated from my standard practice of not disclosing our investments (other than those we are legally required to report) and told you about three unconventional investments we had made. There were several reasons behind that disclosure. First, questions about our silver position that we had received from regulatory authorities led us to believe that they wished us to publicly acknowledge this investment. Second, our holdings of zero-coupon bonds were so large that we wanted our owners to know of this investment's potential impact on Berkshire's net worth. Third, we simply wanted to alert you to the fact that we sometimes do make unconventional commitments.

Normally, however, as discussed in the Owner's Manual on page 61, we see no advantage in talking about specific investment actions. Therefore -- unless we again take a position that is particularly large -- we will not post you as to what we are doing in respect to any specific holding of an unconventional sort. We can report, however, that we have eliminated certain of the positions discussed last year and added certain others.

Our never-comment-even-if-untrue policy in regard to investments may disappoint "piggybackers" but will benefit owners: Your Berkshire shares would be worth less if we discussed what we are doing. Incidentally, we should warn you that media speculation about our investment moves continues in most cases to be incorrect. People who rely on such commentary do so at their own peril.

Accounting -- Part 1

Our General Re acquisition put a spotlight on an egregious flaw in accounting procedure. Sharp-eyed shareholders reading our proxy statement probably noticed an unusual item on page 60. In the pro-forma statement of income -- which detailed how the combined 1997 earnings of the two entities would have been affected by the merger -- there was an item stating that compensation expense would have been increased by $63 million.

This item, we hasten to add, does not signal that either Charlie or I have experienced a major personality change. (He still travels coach and quotes Ben Franklin.) Nor does it indicate any shortcoming in General Re's accounting practices, which have followed GAAP to the letter. Instead, the pro-forma adjustment came about because we are replacing General Re's longstanding stock option plan with a cash plan that ties the incentive compensation of General Re managers to their operating achievements. Formerly what counted for these managers was General Re's stock price; now their payoff will come from the business performance they deliver.

The new plan and the terminated option arrangement have matching economics, which means that the rewards they deliver to employees should, for a given level of performance, be the same. But what these people could have formerly anticipated earning from new option grants will now be paid in cash. (Options granted in past years remain outstanding.)

Though the two plans are an economic wash, the cash plan we are putting in will produce a vastly different accounting result. This Alice-in-Wonderland outcome occurs because existing accounting principles ignore the cost of stock options when earnings are being calculated, even though options are a huge and increasing expense at a great many corporations. In effect, accounting principles offer management a choice: Pay employees in one form and count the cost, or pay them in another form and ignore the cost. Small wonder then that the use of options has mushroomed. This lop-sided choice has a big downside for owners, however: Though options, if properly structured, can be an appropriate, and even ideal, way to compensate and motivate top managers, they are more often wildly capricious in their distribution of rewards, inefficient as motivators, and inordinately expensive for shareholders.

Whatever the merits of options may be, their accounting treatment is outrageous. Think for a moment of that $190 million we are going to spend for advertising at GEICO this year. Suppose that instead of paying cash for our ads, we paid the media in ten-year, at-the-market Berkshire options. Would anyone then care to argue that Berkshire had not borne a cost for advertising, or should not be charged this cost on its books?

Perhaps Bishop Berkeley -- you may remember him as the philosopher who mused about trees falling in a forest when no one was around -- would believe that an expense unseen by an accountant does not exist. Charlie and I, however, have trouble being philosophical about unrecorded costs. When we consider investing in an option-issuing company, we make an appropriate downward adjustment to reported earnings, simply subtracting an amount equal to what the company could have realized by publicly selling options of like quantity and structure. Similarly, if we contemplate an acquisition, we include in our evaluation the cost of replacing any option plan. Then, if we make a deal, we promptly take that cost out of hiding.

Readers who disagree with me about options will by this time be mentally quarreling with my equating the cost of options issued to employees with those that might theoretically be sold and traded publicly. It is true, to state one of these arguments, that employee options are sometimes forfeited -- that lessens the damage done to shareholders -- whereas publicly-offered options would not be. It is true, also, that companies receive a tax deduction when employee options are exercised; publicly-traded options deliver no such benefit. But there's an offset to these points: Options issued to employees are often repriced, a transformation that makes them much more costly than the public variety.

It's sometimes argued that a non-transferable option given to an employee is less valuable to him than would be a publicly-traded option that he could freely sell. That fact, however, does not reduce the cost of the non-transferable option Giving an employee a company car that can only be used for certain purposes diminishes its value to the employee, but does not in the least diminish its cost to the employer.

The earning revisions that Charlie and I have made for options in recent years have frequently cut the reported per-share figures by 5%, with 10% not all that uncommon. On occasion, the downward adjustment has been so great that it has affected our portfolio decisions, causing us either to make a sale or to pass on a stock purchase we might otherwise have made.

A few years ago we asked three questions in these pages to which we have not yet received an answer: "If options aren't a form of compensation, what are they? If compensation isn't an expense, what is it? And, if expenses shouldn't go into the calculation of earnings, where in the world should they go?"

Accounting -- Part 2

The role that managements have played in stock-option accounting has hardly been benign: A distressing number of both CEOs and auditors have in recent years bitterly fought FASB's attempts to replace option fiction with truth and virtually none have spoken out in support of FASB. Its opponents even enlisted Congress in the fight, pushing the case that inflated figures were in the national interest.

Still, I believe that the behavior of managements has been even worse when it comes to restructurings and merger accounting. Here, many managements purposefully work at manipulating numbers and deceiving investors. And, as Michael Kinsley has said about Washington: "The scandal isn't in what's done that's illegal but rather in what's legal."

It was once relatively easy to tell the good guys in accounting from the bad: The late 1960's, for example, brought on an orgy of what one charlatan dubbed "bold, imaginative accounting" (the practice of which, incidentally, made him loved for a time by Wall Street because he never missed expectations). But most investors of that period knew who was playing games. And, to their credit, virtually all of America's most-admired companies then shunned deception.

In recent years, probity has eroded. Many major corporations still play things straight, but a significant and growing number of otherwise high-grade managers -- CEOs you would be happy to have as spouses for your children or as trustees under your will -- have come to the view that it's okay to manipulate earnings to satisfy what they believe are Wall Street's desires. Indeed, many CEOs think this kind of manipulation is not only okay, but actually their duty.

These managers start with the assumption, all too common, that their job at all times is to encourage the highest stock price possible (a premise with which we adamantly disagree). To pump the price, they strive, admirably, for operational excellence. But when operations don't produce the result hoped for, these CEOs resort to unadmirable accounting stratagems. These either manufacture the desired "earnings" or set the stage for them in the future.

Rationalizing this behavior, these managers often say that their shareholders will be hurt if their currency for doing deals -- that is, their stock -- is not fully-priced, and they also argue that in using accounting shenanigans to get the figures they want, they are only doing what everybody else does. Once such an everybody's-doing-it attitude takes hold, ethical misgivings vanish. Call this behavior Son of Gresham: Bad accounting drives out good.

The distortion du jour is the "restructuring charge," an accounting entry that can, of course, be legitimate but that too often is a device for manipulating earnings. In this bit of legerdemain, a large chunk of costs that should properly be attributed to a number of years is dumped into a single quarter, typically one already fated to disappoint investors. In some cases, the purpose of the charge is to clean up earnings misrepresentations of the past, and in others it is to prepare the ground for future misrepresentations. In either case, the size and timing of these charges is dictated by the cynical proposition that Wall Street will not mind if earnings fall short by $5 per share in a given quarter, just as long as this deficiency ensures that quarterly earnings in the future will consistently exceed expectations by five cents per share.

This dump-everything-into-one-quarter behavior suggests a corresponding "bold, imaginative" approach to -- golf scores. In his first round of the season, a golfer should ignore his actual performance and simply fill his card with atrocious numbers -- double, triple, quadruple bogeys -- and then turn in a score of, say, 140. Having established this "reserve," he should go to the golf shop and tell his pro that he wishes to "restructure" his imperfect swing. Next, as he takes his new swing onto the course, he should count his good holes, but not the bad ones. These remnants from his old swing should be charged instead to the reserve established earlier. At the end of five rounds, then, his record will be 140, 80, 80, 80, 80 rather than 91, 94, 89, 94, 92. On Wall Street, they will ignore the 140 -- which, after all, came from a "discontinued" swing -- and will classify our hero as an 80 shooter (and one who never disappoints).

For those who prefer to cheat up front, there would be a variant of this strategy. The golfer, playing alone with a cooperative caddy-auditor, should defer the recording of bad holes, take four 80s, accept the plaudits he gets for such athleticism and consistency, and then turn in a fifth card carrying a 140 score. After rectifying his earlier scorekeeping sins with this "big bath," he may mumble a few apologies but will refrain from returning the sums he has previously collected from comparing scorecards in the clubhouse. (The caddy, need we add, will have acquired a loyal patron.)

Unfortunately, CEOs who use variations of these scoring schemes in real life tend to become addicted to the games they're playing -- after all, it's easier to fiddle with the scorecard than to spend hours on the practice tee -- and never muster the will to give them up. Their behavior brings to mind Voltaire's comment on sexual experimentation: "Once a philosopher, twice a pervert."

In the acquisition arena, restructuring has been raised to an art form: Managements now frequently use mergers to dishonestly rearrange the value of assets and liabilities in ways that will allow them to both smooth and swell future earnings. Indeed, at deal time, major auditing firms sometimes point out the possibilities for a little accounting magic (or for a lot). Getting this push from the pulpit, first-class people will frequently stoop to third-class tactics. CEOs understandably do not find it easy to reject auditor-blessed strategies that lead to increased future "earnings."

An example from the property-casualty insurance industry will illuminate the possibilities. When a p-c company is acquired, the buyer sometimes simultaneously increases its loss reserves, often substantially. This boost may merely reflect the previous inadequacy of reserves -- though it is uncanny how often an actuarial "revelation" of this kind coincides with the inking of a deal. In any case, the move sets up the possibility of 'earnings" flowing into income at some later date, as reserves are released.

Berkshire has kept entirely clear of these practices: If we are to disappoint you, we would rather it be with our earnings than with our accounting. In all of our acquisitions, we have left the loss reserve figures exactly as we found them. After all, we have consistently joined with insurance managers knowledgeable about their business and honest in their financial reporting. When deals occur in which liabilities are increased immediately and substantially, simple logic says that at least one of those virtues must have been lacking -- or, alternatively, that the acquirer is laying the groundwork for future infusions of "earnings."

Here's a true story that illustrates an all-too-common view in corporate America. The CEOs of two large banks, one of them a man who'd made many acquisitions, were involved not long ago in a friendly merger discussion (which in the end didn't produce a deal). The veteran acquirer was expounding on the merits of the possible combination, only to be skeptically interrupted by the other CEO: "But won't that mean a huge charge," he asked, "perhaps as much as $1 billion?" The "sophisticate" wasted no words: "We'll make it bigger than that -- that's why we're doing the deal."

A preliminary tally by R. G. Associates, of Baltimore, of special charges taken or announced during 1998 -- that is, charges for restructuring, in-process R&D, merger-related items, and write-downs -- identified no less than 1,369 of these, totaling $72.1 billion. That is a staggering amount as evidenced by this bit of perspective: The 1997 earnings of the 500 companies in Fortune's famous list totaled $324 billion.

Clearly the attitude of disrespect that many executives have today for accurate reporting is a business disgrace. And auditors, as we have already suggested, have done little on the positive side. Though auditors should regard the investing public as their client, they tend to kowtow instead to the managers who choose them and dole out their pay. ("Whose bread I eat, his song I sing.")

A big piece of news, however, is that the SEC, led by its chairman, Arthur Levitt, seems determined to get corporate America to clean up its act. In a landmark speech last September, Levitt called for an end to "earnings management." He correctly observed, "Too many corporate managers, auditors and analysts are participants in a game of nods and winks." And then he laid on a real indictment: "Managing may be giving way to manipulating; integrity may be losing out to illusion."

I urge you to read the Chairman's speech (you can find it on the Internet at www.sec.gov) and to support him in his efforts to get corporate America to deliver a straight story to its owners. Levitt's job will be Herculean, but it is hard to think of another more important for him to take on.

Reports to Shareholders

Berkshire's Internet site, www.berkshirehathaway.com, has become a prime source for information about the company. While we continue to send an annual report to all shareholders, we now send quarterlies only to those who request them, letting others read these at our site. In this report, we again enclose a card that can be returned by those wanting to get printed quarterlies in 1999.

Charlie and I have two simple goals in reporting: 1) We want to give you the information that we would wish you to give us if our positions were reversed; and 2) We want to make Berkshire's information accessible to all of you simultaneously. Our ability to reach that second goal is greatly helped by the Internet.

In another portion of his September speech, Arthur Levitt deplored what he called "selective disclosure." His remarks were timely: Today, many companies matter-of-factly favor Wall Street analysts and institutional investors in a variety of ways that often skirt or cross the line of unfairness. These practices leave the great bulk of shareholders at a distinct disadvantage to a favored class.

At Berkshire, we regard the holder of one share of B stock as the equal of our large institutional investors. We, of course, warmly welcome institutions as owners and have gained a number of them through the General Re merger. We hope also that these new holders find that our owner's manual and annual reports offer them more insights and information about Berkshire than they garner about other companies from the investor relations departments that these corporations typically maintain. But if it is "earnings guidance" or the like that shareholders or analysts seek, we will simply guide them to our public documents.

This year we plan to post our quarterly reports on the Internet after the close of the market on May 14, August 13, and November 12. We also expect to put the 1999 annual report on our website on Saturday, March 11, 2000, and to mail the print version at roughly the same time.

We promptly post press releases on our website. This means that you do not need to rely on the versions of these reported by the media but can instead read the full text on your computer.

Despite the pathetic technical skills of your Chairman, I'm delighted to report that GEICO, Borsheim's, See's, and The Buffalo News are now doing substantial business via the Internet. We've also recently begun to offer annuity products on our website. This business was developed by Ajit Jain, who over the last decade has personally accounted for a significant portion of Berkshire's operating earnings. While Charlie and I sleep, Ajit keeps thinking of new ways to add value to Berkshire.

Shareholder-Designated Contributions

About 97.5% of all eligible shares participated in Berkshire's 1998 shareholder-designated contributions program, with contributions totaling $16.9 million. A full description of the program appears on pages 54-55.

Cumulatively, over the 18 years of the program, Berkshire has made contributions of $130 million pursuant to the instructions of our shareholders. The rest of Berkshire's giving is done by our subsidiaries, which stick to the philanthropic patterns that prevailed before they were acquired (except that their former owners themselves take on the responsibility for their personal charities). In aggregate, our subsidiaries made contributions of $12.5 million in 1998, including in-kind donations of $2.0 million.

To participate in future programs, you must own Class A shares that are registered in the name of the actual owner, not the nominee name of a broker, bank or depository. Shares not so registered on August 31, 1999, will be ineligible for the 1999 program. When you get the contributions form from us, return it promptly so that it does not get put aside or forgotten. Designations received after the due date will not be honored.

The Annual Meeting

This year's Woodstock for Capitalists will be held May 1-3, and we may face a problem. Last year more than 10,000 people attended our annual meeting, and our shareholders list has since doubled. So we don't quite know what attendance to expect this year. To be safe, we have booked both Aksarben Coliseum, which holds about 14,000 and the Holiday Convention Centre, which can seat an additional 5,000. Because we know that our Omaha shareholders will want to be good hosts to the out-of-towners (many of them come from outside the U.S), we plan to give those visitors first crack at the Aksarben tickets and to subsequently allocate these to greater Omaha residents on a first-come, first-served basis. If we exhaust the Aksarben tickets, we will begin distributing Holiday tickets to Omaha shareholders.

If we end up using both locations, Charlie and I will split our pre-meeting time between the two. Additionally, we will have exhibits and also the Berkshire movie, large television screens and microphones at both sites. When we break for lunch, many attendees will leave Aksarben, which means that those at Holiday can, if they wish, make the five-minute trip to Aksarben and finish out the day there. Buses will be available to transport people who don't have cars.

The doors will open at both locations at 7 a.m. on Monday, and at 8:30 we will premier the 1999 Berkshire movie epic, produced by Marc Hamburg, our CFO. The meeting will last from 9:30 until 3:30, interrupted only by the short lunch break.

An attachment to the proxy material that is enclosed with this report explains how you can obtain the badge you will need for admission to the meeting and other events. As for plane, hotel and car reservations, we have again signed up American Express (800-799-6634) to give you special help. In our normal fashion, we will run buses from the larger hotels to the meeting. After the meeting, these will make trips back to the hotels and to Nebraska Furniture Mart, Borsheim's and the airport. Even so, you are likely to find a car useful.

The full line of Berkshire products will be available at Aksarben, and the more popular items will also be at Holiday. Last year we set sales records across-the-board, moving 3,700 pounds of See's candy, 1,635 pairs of Dexter shoes, 1,150 sets of Quikut knives and 3,104 Berkshire shirts and hats. Additionally, $26,944 of World Book products were purchased as well as more than 2,000 golf balls with the Berkshire Hathaway logo. Charlie and I are pleased but not satisfied with these numbers and confidently predict new records in all categories this year. Our 1999 apparel line will be unveiled at the meeting, so please defer your designer purchases until you view our collection.

Dairy Queen will also be on hand and will again donate all proceeds to the Children's Miracle Network. Last year we sold about 4,000 Dilly® bars, fudge bars and vanilla/orange bars. Additionally, GEICO will have a booth that will be manned by a number of our top counselors from around the country, all of them ready to supply you with auto insurance quotes. In almost all cases, GEICO will be able to offer you a special shareholder's discount. Check out whether we can save you some money.

The piece de resistance of our one-company trade show will be a 79-foot-long, nearly 12-foot-wide, fully-outfitted cabin of a 737 Boeing Business Jet ("BBJ"), which is NetJets' newest product. This plane has a 14-hour range; is designed to carry 19 passengers; and offers a bedroom, an office, and two showers. Deliveries to fractional owners will begin in the first quarter of 2000.

The BBJ will be available for your inspection on May 1-3 near the entrance to the Aksarben hall. You should be able to minimize your wait by making your visit on Saturday or Sunday. Bring along your checkbook in case you decide to make an impulse purchase.

NFM's multi-stored complex, located on a 75-acre site about a mile from Aksarben, is open from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekdays, and 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. This operation did $300 million in business during 1998 and offers an unrivaled breadth of merchandise -- furniture, electronics, appliances, carpets and computers -- all at can't-be-beat prices. During the April 30th to May 4th period, shareholders presenting their meeting badge will receive a discount that is customarily given only to its employees.

Borsheim's normally is closed on Sunday but will be open for shareholders from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on May 2nd. On annual meeting weekend last year, the store did an incredible amount of business. Sales were double those of the previous year, and the store's volume on Sunday greatly exceeded volume for any day in Borsheim's history. Charlie attributes this record to the fact that he autographed sales tickets that day and, while I have my doubts about this proposition, we are not about to mess with a winning formula. Please give him writer's cramp. On last year's Sunday, Borsheim's wrote 2,501 tickets during the eight hours it was open. For those of you who are mathematically challenged, that is one ticket every 11 seconds.

Shareholders who wish to avoid Sunday's crowd can visit Borsheim's on Saturday (10 a.m.-5:30 p.m.) or on Monday (10 a.m.-8 p.m.). Be sure to identify yourself as a Berkshire owner so that Susan Jacques, Borsheim's CEO, can quote you a "shareholder-weekend" price. Susan joined us in 1983 as a $4-per-hour salesperson and was made CEO in 1994. This move ranks as one of my best managerial decisions.

Bridge players can look forward to a thrill on Sunday, when Bob Hamman -- the best the game has ever seen -- will turn up to play with our shareholders in the mall outside of Borsheim's. Bob plays without sorting his cards -- hey, maybe that's what's wrong with my game. We will also have a couple of other tables at which another expert or two will be playing.

Gorat's -- my favorite steakhouse -- will again be open especially for Berkshire shareholders on the Sunday night before the meeting. Though Gorat's served from 4 p.m. until about 1 a.m. last year, its crew was swamped, and some of our shareholders had an uncomfortable wait. This year fewer reservations will be accepted, and we ask that you don't come on Sunday without a reservation. In other years, many of our shareholders have chosen to visit Gorat's on Friday, Saturday or Monday. You can make reservations beginning on April 1 (but not before) by calling 402-551-3733. The cognoscenti will continue to order rare T-bones with double orders of hash browns.

The Omaha Golden Spikes (neé the Omaha Royals) will meet the Iowa Cubs on Saturday evening, May 1st, at Rosenblatt Stadium. Your Chairman, whose breaking ball had the crowd buzzing last year, will again take the mound. This year I plan to introduce my "flutterball." It's a real source of irritation to me that many view our annual meeting as a financial event rather than the sports classic I consider it to be. Once the world sees my flutterball, that misperception will be erased.

Our proxy statement includes instructions about obtaining tickets to the game and also a large quantity of other information that should help you to enjoy your visit. I particularly urge the 60,000 shareholders that we gained through the Gen Re merger to join us. Come and meet your fellow capitalists.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

It wouldn't be right to close without a word about the 11.8 people who work with me in Berkshire's corporate office. In addition to handling the myriad of tax, regulatory and administrative matters that come with owning dozens of businesses, this group efficiently and cheerfully manages various special projects, some of which generate hundreds of inquiries. Here's a sample of what went on in 1998:

* 6,106 shareholders designated 3,880 charities to receive contributions.
* Kelly Muchemore processed about 17,500 admission tickets for the annual meeting, along with orders and checks for 3,200 baseball tickets.
* Kelly and Marc Hamburg produced and directed the Aksarben extravaganza, a job that required them to arrange the presentations made by our subsidiaries, prepare our movie, and sometimes lend people a hand with travel and lodging.
* Debbie Bosanek satisfied the varying needs of the 46 media organizations (13 of them non-U.S.) that covered the meeting, and meanwhile, as always, skillfully assisted me in every aspect of my job.
* Debbie and Marc assembled the data for our annual report and oversaw the production and distribution of 165,000 copies. (This year the number will be 325,000.)
* Marc handled 95% of the details -- and much of the substance -- connected with our completing two major mergers.
* Kelly, Debbie and Deb Ray dealt efficiently with tens of thousands of requests for annual reports and financial information that came through the office.

You and I are paying for only 11.8 people, but we are getting what would at most places be the output of 100. To all of the 11.8, my thanks.

March 1, 1999

Warren E. Buffett
Chairman of the Board

To the Shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.:

Our gain in net worth during 1999 was $358 million, which increased the per-share book value of both our Class A and Class B stock by 0.5%. Over the last 35 years (that is, since present management took over) per-share book value has grown from $19 to $37,987, a rate of 24.0% compounded annually.*

* All figures used in this report apply to Berkshire's A shares, the successor to the only stock that the company had outstanding before 1996. The B shares have an economic interest equal to 1/30th that of the A.

The numbers on the facing page show just how poor our 1999 record was. We had the worst absolute performance of my tenure and, compared to the S&P, the worst relative performance as well. Relative results are what concern us: Over time, bad relative numbers will produce unsatisfactory absolute results.

Even Inspector Clouseau could find last year's guilty party: your Chairman. My performance reminds me of the quarterback whose report card showed four Fs and a D but who nonetheless had an understanding coach. "Son," he drawled, "I think you're spending too much time on that one subject."

My "one subject" is capital allocation, and my grade for 1999 most assuredly is a D. What most hurt us during the year was the inferior performance of Berkshire's equity portfolio -- and responsibility for that portfolio, leaving aside the small piece of it run by Lou Simpson of GEICO, is entirely mine. Several of our largest investees badly lagged the market in 1999 because they've had disappointing operating results. We still like these businesses and are content to have major investments in them. But their stumbles damaged our performance last year, and it's no sure thing that they will quickly regain their stride.

The fallout from our weak results in 1999 was a more-than-commensurate drop in our stock price. In 1998, to go back a bit, the stock outperformed the business. Last year the business did much better than the stock, a divergence that has continued to the date of this letter. Over time, of course, the performance of the stock must roughly match the performance of the business.

Despite our poor showing last year, Charlie Munger, Berkshire's Vice Chairman and my partner, and I expect that the gain in Berkshire's intrinsic value over the next decade will modestly exceed the gain from owning the S&P. We can't guarantee that, of course. But we are willing to back our conviction with our own money. To repeat a fact you've heard before, well over 99% of my net worth resides in Berkshire. Neither my wife nor I have ever sold a share of Berkshire and -- unless our checks stop clearing -- we have no intention of doing so.

Please note that I spoke of hoping to beat the S&P "modestly." For Berkshire, truly large superiorities over that index are a thing of the past. They existed then because we could buy both businesses and stocks at far more attractive prices than we can now, and also because we then had a much smaller capital base, a situation that allowed us to consider a much wider range of investment opportunities than are available to us today.

Our optimism about Berkshire's performance is also tempered by the expectation -- indeed, in our minds, the virtual certainty -- that the S&P will do far less well in the next decade or two than it has done since 1982. A recent article in Fortune expressed my views as to why this is inevitable, and I'm enclosing a copy with this report.

Our goal is to run our present businesses well -- a task made easy because of the outstanding managers we have in place -- and to acquire additional businesses having economic characteristics and managers comparable to those we already own. We made important progress in this respect during 1999 by acquiring Jordan's Furniture and contracting to buy a major portion of MidAmerican Energy. We will talk more about these companies later in the report but let me emphasize one point here: We bought both for cash, issuing no Berkshire shares. Deals of that kind aren't always possible, but that is the method of acquisition that Charlie and I vastly prefer.

Guides to Intrinsic Value

I often talk in these pages about intrinsic value, a key, though far from precise, measurement we utilize in our acquisitions of businesses and common stocks. (For an extensive discussion of this, and other investment and accounting terms and concepts, please refer to our Owner's Manual on pages 55 - 62. Intrinsic value is discussed on page 60.)

In our last four reports, we have furnished you a table that we regard as useful in estimating Berkshire's intrinsic value. In the updated version of that table, which follows, we trace two key components of value. The first column lists our per-share ownership of investments (including cash and equivalents but excluding assets held in our financial products operation) and the second column shows our per-share earnings from Berkshire's operating businesses before taxes and purchase-accounting adjustments (discussed on page 61), but after all interest and corporate expenses. The second column excludes all dividends, interest and capital gains that we realized from the investments presented in the first column. In effect, the columns show how Berkshire would look if it were split into two parts, with one entity holding our investments and the other operating all of our businesses and bearing all corporate costs.

Pre-tax Earnings
(Loss) Per Share

Investments

With All Income from
Year
Per Share

Investments Excluded
1969 ........................................................................... $ 45

$ 4.39
1979 ...........................................................................

577

13.07
1989 ...........................................................................

7,200

108.86
1999 ...........................................................................
47,339

(458.55)

Here are the growth rates of the two segments by decade:

Pre-tax Earnings Per Share

Investments

With All Income from
Decade Ending
Per Share

Investments Excluded
1979 ............................................. 29.0% 11.5%
1989 ............................................. 28.7% 23.6%
1999 ............................................. 20.7% N.A.

Annual Growth Rate, 1969-1999 ................. 25.4% N.A.

In 1999, our per-share investments changed very little, but our operating earnings, affected by negatives that overwhelmed some strong positives, fell apart. Most of our operating managers deserve a grade of A for delivering fine results and for having widened the difference between the intrinsic value of their businesses and the value at which these are carried on our balance sheet. But, offsetting this, we had a huge -- and, I believe, aberrational -- underwriting loss at General Re. Additionally, GEICO's underwriting profit fell, as we had predicted it would. GEICO's overall performance, though, was terrific, outstripping my ambitious goals.

We do not expect our underwriting earnings to improve in any dramatic way this year. Though GEICO's intrinsic value should grow by a highly satisfying amount, its underwriting performance is almost certain to weaken. That's because auto insurers, as a group, will do worse in 2000, and because we will materially increase our marketing expenditures. At General Re, we are raising rates and, if there is no mega-catastrophe in 2000, the company's underwriting loss should fall considerably. It takes some time, however, for the full effect of rate increases to kick in, and General Re is therefore likely to have another unsatisfactory underwriting year.

You should be aware that one item regularly working to widen the amount by which intrinsic value exceeds book value is the annual charge against income we take for amortization of goodwill -- an amount now running about $500 million. This charge reduces the amount of goodwill we show as an asset and likewise the amount that is included in our book value. This is an accounting matter having nothing to do with true economic goodwill, which increases in most years. But even if economic goodwill were to remain constant, the annual amortization charge would persistently widen the gap between intrinsic value and book value.

Though we can't give you a precise figure for Berkshire's intrinsic value, or even an approximation, Charlie and I can assure you that it far exceeds our $57.8 billion book value. Businesses such as See's and Buffalo News are now worth fifteen to twenty times the value at which they are carried on our books. Our goal is to continually widen this spread at all subsidiaries.

A Managerial Story You Will Never Read Elsewhere

Berkshire's collection of managers is unusual in several important ways. As one example, a very high percentage of these men and women are independently wealthy, having made fortunes in the businesses that they run. They work neither because they need the money nor because they are contractually obligated to -- we have no contracts at Berkshire. Rather, they work long and hard because they love their businesses. And I use the word "their" advisedly, since these managers are truly in charge -- there are no show-and-tell presentations in Omaha, no budgets to be approved by headquarters, no dictums issued about capital expenditures. We simply ask our managers to run their companies as if these are the sole asset of their families and will remain so for the next century.

Charlie and I try to behave with our managers just as we attempt to behave with Berkshire's shareholders, treating both groups as we would wish to be treated if our positions were reversed. Though "working" means nothing to me financially, I love doing it at Berkshire for some simple reasons: It gives me a sense of achievement, a freedom to act as I see fit and an opportunity to interact daily with people I like and trust. Why should our managers -- accomplished artists at what they do -- see things differently?

In their relations with Berkshire, our managers often appear to be hewing to President Kennedy's charge, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." Here's a remarkable story from last year: It's about R. C. Willey, Utah's dominant home furnishing business, which Berkshire purchased from Bill Child and his family in 1995. Bill and most of his managers are Mormons, and for this reason R. C. Willey's stores have never operated on Sunday. This is a difficult way to do business: Sunday is the favorite shopping day for many customers. Bill, nonetheless, stuck to his principles -- and while doing so built his business from $250,000 of annual sales in 1954, when he took over, to $342 million in 1999.

Bill felt that R. C. Willey could operate successfully in markets outside of Utah and in 1997 suggested that we open a store in Boise. I was highly skeptical about taking a no-Sunday policy into a new territory where we would be up against entrenched rivals open seven days a week. Nevertheless, this was Bill's business to run. So, despite my reservations, I told him to follow both his business judgment and his religious convictions.

Bill then insisted on a truly extraordinary proposition: He would personally buy the land and build the store -- for about $9 million as it turned out -- and would sell it to us at his cost if it proved to be successful. On the other hand, if sales fell short of his expectations, we could exit the business without paying Bill a cent. This outcome, of course, would leave him with a huge investment in an empty building. I told him that I appreciated his offer but felt that if Berkshire was going to get the upside it should also take the downside. Bill said nothing doing: If there was to be failure because of his religious beliefs, he wanted to take the blow personally.

The store opened last August and immediately became a huge success. Bill thereupon turned the property over to us -- including some extra land that had appreciated significantly -- and we wrote him a check for his cost. And get this: Bill refused to take a dime of interest on the capital he had tied up over the two years.

If a manager has behaved similarly at some other public corporation, I haven't heard about it. You can understand why the opportunity to partner with people like Bill Child causes me to tap dance to work every morning.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

A footnote: After our "soft" opening in August, we had a grand opening of the Boise store about a month later. Naturally, I went there to cut the ribbon (your Chairman, I wish to emphasize, is good for something). In my talk I told the crowd how sales had far exceeded expectations, making us, by a considerable margin, the largest home furnishings store in Idaho. Then, as the speech progressed, my memory miraculously began to improve. By the end of my talk, it all had come back to me: Opening a store in Boise had been my idea.

The Economics of Property/Casualty Insurance

Our main business -- though we have others of great importance -- is insurance. To understand Berkshire, therefore, it is necessary that you understand how to evaluate an insurance company. The key determinants are: (1) the amount of float that the business generates; (2) its cost; and (3) most critical of all, the long-term outlook for both of these factors.

To begin with, float is money we hold but don't own. In an insurance operation, float arises because premiums are received before losses are paid, an interval that sometimes extends over many years. During that time, the insurer invests the money. This pleasant activity typically carries with it a downside: The premiums that an insurer takes in usually do not cover the losses and expenses it eventually must pay. That leaves it running an "underwriting loss," which is the cost of float. An insurance business has value if its cost of float over time is less than the cost the company would otherwise incur to obtain funds. But the business is a lemon if its cost of float is higher than market rates for money.

A caution is appropriate here: Because loss costs must be estimated, insurers have enormous latitude in figuring their underwriting results, and that makes it very difficult for investors to calculate a company's true cost of float. Errors of estimation, usually innocent but sometimes not, can be huge. The consequences of these miscalculations flow directly into earnings. An experienced observer can usually detect large-scale errors in reserving, but the general public can typically do no more than accept what's presented, and at times I have been amazed by the numbers that big-name auditors have implicitly blessed. In 1999 a number of insurers announced reserve adjustments that made a mockery of the "earnings" that investors had relied on earlier when making their buy and sell decisions. At Berkshire, we strive to be conservative and consistent in our reserving. Even so, we warn you that an unpleasant surprise is always possible.

The table that follows shows (at intervals) the float generated by the various segments of Berkshire's insurance operations since we entered the business 33 years ago upon acquiring National Indemnity Company (whose traditional lines are included in the segment "Other Primary"). For the table we have calculated our float -- which we generate in large amounts relative to our premium volume -- by adding net loss reserves, loss adjustment reserves, funds held under reinsurance assumed and unearned premium reserves, and then subtracting agents balances, prepaid acquisition costs, prepaid taxes and deferred charges applicable to assumed reinsurance. (Got that?)

Yearend Float (in $ millions)

Year

GEICO

General Re Other
Reinsurance Other
Primary

Total
1967 20 20
1977 40 131 171
1987 701 807 1,508
1997 2,917 4,014 455 7,386

1998 3,125 14,909 4,305 415 22,754
1999 3,444 15,166 6,285 403 25,298

Growth of float is important -- but its cost is what's vital. Over the years we have usually recorded only a small underwriting loss -- which means our cost of float was correspondingly low -- or actually had an underwriting profit, which means we were being paid for holding other people's money. Indeed, our cumulative result through 1998 was an underwriting profit. In 1999, however, we incurred a $1.4 billion underwriting loss that left us with float cost of 5.8%. One mildly mitigating factor: We enthusiastically welcomed $400 million of the loss because it stems from business that will deliver us exceptional float over the next decade. The balance of the loss, however, was decidedly unwelcome, and our overall result must be judged extremely poor. Absent a mega-catastrophe, we expect float cost to fall in 2000, but any decline will be tempered by our aggressive plans for GEICO, which we will discuss later.

There are a number of people who deserve credit for manufacturing so much "no-cost" float over the years. Foremost is Ajit Jain. It's simply impossible to overstate Ajit's value to Berkshire: He has from scratch built an outstanding reinsurance business, which during his tenure has earned an underwriting profit and now holds $6.3 billion of float.

In Ajit, we have an underwriter equipped with the intelligence to properly rate most risks; the realism to forget about those he can't evaluate; the courage to write huge policies when the premium is appropriate; and the discipline to reject even the smallest risk when the premium is inadequate. It is rare to find a person possessing any one of these talents. For one person to have them all is remarkable.

Since Ajit specializes in super-cat reinsurance, a line in which losses are infrequent but extremely large when they occur, his business is sure to be far more volatile than most insurance operations. To date, we have benefitted from good luck on this volatile book. Even so, Ajit's achievements are truly extraordinary.

In a smaller but nevertheless important way, our "other primary" insurance operation has also added to Berkshire's intrinsic value. This collection of insurers has delivered a $192 million underwriting profit over the past five years while supplying us with the float shown in the table. In the insurance world, results like this are uncommon, and for their feat we thank Rod Eldred, Brad Kinstler, John Kizer, Don Towle and Don Wurster.

As I mentioned earlier, the General Re operation had an exceptionally poor underwriting year in 1999 (though investment income left the company well in the black). Our business was extremely underpriced, both domestically and internationally, a condition that is improving but not yet corrected. Over time, however, the company should develop a growing amount of low-cost float. At both General Re and its Cologne subsidiary, incentive compensation plans are now directly tied to the variables of float growth and cost of float, the same variables that determine value for owners.

Even though a reinsurer may have a tightly focused and rational compensation system, it cannot count on every year coming up roses. Reinsurance is a highly volatile business, and neither General Re nor Ajit's operation is immune to bad pricing behavior in the industry. But General Re has the distribution, the underwriting skills, the culture, and -- with Berkshire's backing -- the financial clout to become the world's most profitable reinsurance company. Getting there will take time, energy and discipline, but we have no doubt that Ron Ferguson and his crew can make it happen.

GEICO (1-800-847-7536 or GEICO.com)

GEICO made exceptional progress in 1999. The reasons are simple: We have a terrific business idea being implemented by an extraordinary manager, Tony Nicely. When Berkshire purchased GEICO at the beginning of 1996, we handed the keys to Tony and asked him to run the operation exactly as if he owned 100% of it. He has done the rest. Take a look at his scorecard:

New Auto

Auto Policies
Years
Policies(1)(2)

In-Force(1)
1993 346,882 2,011,055
1994 384,217 2,147,549
1995 443,539 2,310,037
1996 592,300 2,543,699
1997 868,430 2,949,439
1998 1,249,875 3,562,644
1999 1,648,095 4,328,900

(1) "Voluntary" only; excludes assigned risks and the like.
(2) Revised to exclude policies moved from one GEICO company to another.

In 1995, GEICO spent $33 million on marketing and had 652 telephone counselors. Last year the company spent $242 million, and the counselor count grew to 2,631. And we are just starting: The pace will step up materially in 2000. Indeed, we would happily commit $1 billion annually to marketing if we knew we could handle the business smoothly and if we expected the last dollar spent to produce new business at an attractive cost.

Currently two trends are affecting acquisition costs. The bad news is that it has become more expensive to develop inquiries. Media rates have risen, and we are also seeing diminishing returns -- that is, as both we and our competitors step up advertising, inquiries per ad fall for all of us. These negatives are partly offset, however, by the fact that our closure ratio -- the percentage of inquiries converted to sales -- has steadily improved. Overall, we believe that our cost of new business, though definitely rising, is well below that of the industry. Of even greater importance, our operating costs for renewal business are the lowest among broad-based national auto insurers. Both of these major competitive advantages are sustainable. Others may copy our model, but they will be unable to replicate our economics.

The table above makes it appear that GEICO's retention of policyholders is falling, but for two reasons appearances are in this case deceiving. First, in the last few years our business mix has moved away from "preferred" policyholders, for whom industrywide retention rates are high, toward "standard" and "non-standard" policyholders for whom retention rates are much lower. (Despite the nomenclature, the three classes have similar profit prospects.) Second, retention rates for relatively new policyholders are always lower than those for long-time customers -- and because of our accelerated growth, our policyholder ranks now include an increased proportion of new customers. Adjusted for these two factors, our retention rate has changed hardly at all.

We told you last year that underwriting margins for both GEICO and the industry would fall in 1999, and they did. We make a similar prediction for 2000. A few years ago margins got too wide, having enjoyed the effects of an unusual and unexpected decrease in the frequency and severity of accidents. The industry responded by reducing rates -- but now is having to contend with an increase in loss costs. We would not be surprised to see the margins of auto insurers deteriorate by around three percentage points in 2000.

Two negatives besides worsening frequency and severity will hurt the industry this year. First, rate increases go into effect only slowly, both because of regulatory delay and because insurance contracts must run their course before new rates can be put in. Second, reported earnings of many auto insurers have benefitted in the last few years from reserve releases, made possible because the companies overestimated their loss costs in still-earlier years. This reservoir of redundant reserves has now largely dried up, and future boosts to earnings from this source will be minor at best.

In compensating its associates -- from Tony on down -- GEICO continues to use two variables, and only two, in determining what bonuses and profit-sharing contributions will be: 1) its percentage growth in policyholders and 2) the earnings of its "seasoned" business, meaning policies that have been with us for more than a year. We did outstandingly well on both fronts during 1999 and therefore made a profit-sharing payment of 28.4% of salary (in total, $113.3 million) to the great majority of our associates. Tony and I love writing those checks.

At Berkshire, we want to have compensation policies that are both easy to understand and in sync with what we wish our associates to accomplish. Writing new business is expensive (and, as mentioned, getting more expensive). If we were to include those costs in our calculation of bonuses -- as managements did before our arrival at GEICO -- we would be penalizing our associates for garnering new policies, even though these are very much in Berkshire's interest. So, in effect, we say to our associates that we will foot the bill for new business. Indeed, because percentage growth in policyholders is part of our compensation scheme, we reward our associates for producing this initially-unprofitable business. And then we reward them additionally for holding down costs on our seasoned business.

Despite the extensive advertising we do, our best source of new business is word-of-mouth recommendations from existing policyholders, who on the whole are pleased with our prices and service. An article published last year by Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine gives a good picture of where we stand in customer satisfaction: The magazine's survey of 20 state insurance departments showed that GEICO's complaint ratio was well below the ratio for most of its major competitors.

Our strong referral business means that we probably could maintain our policy count by spending as little as $50 million annually on advertising. That's a guess, of course, and we will never know whether it is accurate because Tony's foot is going to stay on the advertising pedal (and my foot will be on his). Nevertheless, I want to emphasize that a major percentage of the $300-$350 million we will spend in 2000 on advertising, as well as large additional costs we will incur for sales counselors, communications and facilities, are optional outlays we choose to make so that we can both achieve significant growth and extend and solidify the promise of the GEICO brand in the minds of Americans.

Personally, I think these expenditures are the best investment Berkshire can make. Through its advertising, GEICO is acquiring a direct relationship with a huge number of households that, on average, will send us $1,100 year after year. That makes us -- among all companies, selling whatever kind of product -- one of the country's leading direct merchandisers. Also, as we build our long-term relationships with more and more families, cash is pouring in rather than going out (no Internet economics here). Last year, as GEICO increased its customer base by 766,256, it gained $590 million of cash from operating earnings and the increase in float.

In the past three years, we have increased our market share in personal auto insurance from 2.7% to 4.1%. But we rightfully belong in many more households -- maybe even yours. Give us a call and find out. About 40% of those people checking our rates find that they can save money by doing business with us. The proportion is not 100% because insurers differ in their underwriting judgments, with some giving more credit than we do to drivers who live in certain geographic areas or work at certain occupations. Our closure rate indicates, however, that we more frequently offer the low price than does any other national carrier selling insurance to all comers. Furthermore, in 40 states we can offer a special discount -- usually 8% -- to our shareholders. Just be sure to identify yourself as a Berkshire owner so that our sales counselor can make the appropriate adjustment.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

It's with sadness that I report to you that Lorimer Davidson, GEICO's former Chairman, died last November, a few days after his 97th birthday. For GEICO, Davy was a business giant who moved the company up to the big leagues. For me, he was a friend, teacher and hero. I have told you of his lifelong kindnesses to me in past reports. Clearly, my life would have developed far differently had he not been a part of it. Tony, Lou Simpson and I visited Davy in August and marveled at his mental alertness -- particularly in all matters regarding GEICO. He was the company's number one supporter right up to the end, and we will forever miss him.

Aviation Services

Our two aviation services companies -- FlightSafety International ("FSI") and Executive Jet Aviation ("EJA") -- are both runaway leaders in their field. EJA, which sells and manages the fractional ownership of jet aircraft, through its NetJets® program, is larger than its next two competitors combined. FSI trains pilots (as well as other transportation professionals) and is five times or so the size of its nearest competitor.

Another common characteristic of the companies is that they are still managed by their founding entrepreneurs. Al Ueltschi started FSI in 1951 with $10,000, and Rich Santulli invented the fractional-ownership industry in 1986. These men are both remarkable managers who have no financial need to work but thrive on helping their companies grow and excel.

Though these two businesses have leadership positions that are similar, they differ in their economic characteristics. FSI must lay out huge amounts of capital. A single flight simulator can cost as much as $15 million -- and we have 222. Only one person at a time, furthermore, can be trained in a simulator, which means that the capital investment per dollar of revenue at FSI is exceptionally high. Operating margins must therefore also be high, if we are to earn a reasonable return on capital. Last year we made capital expenditures of $215 million at FSI and FlightSafety Boeing, its 50%-owned affiliate.

At EJA, in contrast, the customer owns the equipment, though we, of course, must invest in a core fleet of our own planes to ensure outstanding service. For example, the Sunday after Thanksgiving, EJA's busiest day of the year, strains our resources since fractions of 169 planes are owned by 1,412 customers, many of whom are bent on flying home between 3 and 6 p.m. On that day, and certain others, we need a supply of company-owned aircraft to make sure all parties get where they want, when they want.

Still, most of the planes we fly are owned by customers, which means that modest pre-tax margins in this business can produce good returns on equity. Currently, our customers own planes worth over $2 billion, and in addition we have $4.2 billion of planes on order. Indeed, the limiting factor in our business right now is the availability of planes. We now are taking delivery of about 8% of all business jets manufactured in the world, and we wish we could get a bigger share than that. Though EJA was supply-constrained in 1999, its recurring revenues -- monthly management fees plus hourly flight fees -- increased 46%.

The fractional-ownership industry is still in its infancy. EJA is now building critical mass in Europe, and over time we will expand around the world. Doing that will be expensive -- very expensive -- but we will spend what it takes. Scale is vital to both us and our customers: The company with the most planes in the air worldwide will be able to offer its customers the best service. "Buy a fraction, get a fleet" has real meaning at EJA.

EJA enjoys another important advantage in that its two largest competitors are both subsidiaries of aircraft manufacturers and sell only the aircraft their parents make. Though these are fine planes, these competitors are severely limited in the cabin styles and mission capabilities they can offer. EJA, in contrast, offers a wide array of planes from five suppliers. Consequently, we can give the customer whatever he needs to buy -- rather than his getting what the competitor's parent needs to sell.

Last year in this report, I described my family's delight with the one-quarter (200 flight hours annually) of a Hawker 1000 that we had owned since 1995. I got so pumped up by my own prose that shortly thereafter I signed up for one-sixteenth of a Cessna V Ultra as well. Now my annual outlays at EJA and Borsheim's, combined, total ten times my salary. Think of this as a rough guideline for your own expenditures with us.

During the past year, two of Berkshire's outside directors have also signed on with EJA. (Maybe we're paying them too much.) You should be aware that they and I are charged exactly the same price for planes and service as is any other customer: EJA follows a "most favored nations" policy, with no one getting a special deal.

And now, brace yourself. Last year, EJA passed the ultimate test: Charlie signed up. No other endorsement could speak more eloquently to the value of the EJA service. Give us a call at 1-800-848-6436 and ask for our "white paper" on fractional ownership.

Acquisitions of 1999

At both GEICO and Executive Jet, our best source of new customers is the happy ones we already have. Indeed, about 65% of our new owners of aircraft come as referrals from current owners who have fallen in love with the service.

Our acquisitions usually develop in the same way. At other companies, executives may devote themselves to pursuing acquisition possibilities with investment bankers, utilizing an auction process that has become standardized. In this exercise the bankers prepare a "book" that makes me think of the Superman comics of my youth. In the Wall Street version, a formerly mild-mannered company emerges from the investment banker's phone booth able to leap over competitors in a single bound and with earnings moving faster than a speeding bullet. Titillated by the book's description of the acquiree's powers, acquisition-hungry CEOs -- Lois Lanes all, beneath their cool exteriors -- promptly swoon.

What's particularly entertaining in these books is the precision with which earnings are projected for many years ahead. If you ask the author-banker, however, what his own firm will earn next month, he will go into a protective crouch and tell you that business and markets are far too uncertain for him to venture a forecast.

Here's one story I can't resist relating: In 1985, a major investment banking house undertook to sell Scott Fetzer, offering it widely -- but with no success. Upon reading of this strikeout, I wrote Ralph Schey, then and now Scott Fetzer's CEO, expressing an interest in buying the business. I had never met Ralph, but within a week we had a deal. Unfortunately, Scott Fetzer's letter of engagement with the banking firm provided it a $2.5 million fee upon sale, even if it had nothing to do with finding the buyer. I guess the lead banker felt he should do something for his payment, so he graciously offered us a copy of the book on Scott Fetzer that his firm had prepared. With his customary tact, Charlie responded: "I'll pay $2.5 million not to read it."

At Berkshire, our carefully-crafted acquisition strategy is simply to wait for the phone to ring. Happily, it sometimes does so, usually because a manager who sold to us earlier has recommended to a friend that he think about following suit.

Which brings us to the furniture business. Two years ago I recounted how the acquisition of Nebraska Furniture Mart in 1983 and my subsequent association with the Blumkin family led to follow-on transactions with R. C. Willey (1995) and Star Furniture (1997). For me, these relationships have all been terrific. Not only did Berkshire acquire three outstanding retailers; these deals also allowed me to become friends with some of the finest people you will ever meet.

Naturally, I have persistently asked the Blumkins, Bill Child and Melvyn Wolff whether there are any more out there like you. Their invariable answer was the Tatelman brothers of New England and their remarkable furniture business, Jordan's.

I met Barry and Eliot Tatelman last year and we soon signed an agreement for Berkshire to acquire the company. Like our three previous furniture acquisitions, this business had long been in the family -- in this case since 1927, when Barry and Eliot's grandfather began operations in a Boston suburb. Under the brothers' management, Jordan's has grown ever more dominant in its region, becoming the largest furniture retailer in New Hampshire as well as Massachusetts.

The Tatelmans don't just sell furniture or manage stores. They also present customers with a dazzling entertainment experience called "shoppertainment." A family visiting a store can have a terrific time, while concurrently viewing an extraordinary selection of merchandise. The business results are also extraordinary: Jordan's has the highest sales per square foot of any major furniture operation in the country. I urge you to visit one of their stores if you are in the Boston area -- particularly the one at Natick, which is Jordan's newest. Bring money.

Barry and Eliot are classy people -- just like their counterparts at Berkshire's three other furniture operations. When they sold to us, they elected to give each of their employees at least 50¢ for every hour that he or she had worked for Jordan's. This payment added up to $9 million, which came from the Tatelmans' own pockets, not from Berkshire's. And Barry and Eliot were thrilled to write the checks.

Each of our furniture operations is number one in its territory. We now sell more furniture than anyone else in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Texas, Nebraska, Utah and Idaho. Last year Star's Melvyn Wolff and his sister, Shirley Toomim, scored two major successes: a move into San Antonio and a significant enlargement of Star's store in Austin.

There's no operation in the furniture retailing business remotely like the one assembled by Berkshire. It's fun for me and profitable for you. W. C. Fields once said, "It was a woman who drove me to drink, but unfortunately I never had the chance to thank her." I don't want to make that mistake. My thanks go to Louie, Ron and Irv Blumkin for getting me started in the furniture business and for unerringly guiding me as we have assembled the group we now have.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Now, for our second acquisition deal: It came to us through my good friend, Walter Scott, Jr., chairman of Level 3 Communications and a director of Berkshire. Walter has many other business connections as well, and one of them is with MidAmerican Energy, a utility company in which he has substantial holdings and on whose board he sits. At a conference in California that we both attended last September, Walter casually asked me whether Berkshire might be interested in making a large investment in MidAmerican, and from the start the idea of being in partnership with Walter struck me as a good one. Upon returning to Omaha, I read some of MidAmerican's public reports and had two short meetings with Walter and David Sokol, MidAmerican's talented and entrepreneurial CEO. I then said that, at an appropriate price, we would indeed like to make a deal.

Acquisitions in the electric utility industry are complicated by a variety of regulations including the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. Therefore, we had to structure a transaction that would avoid Berkshire gaining voting control. Instead we are purchasing an 11% fixed-income security, along with a combination of common stock and exchangeable preferred that will give Berkshire just under 10% of the voting power of MidAmerican but about 76% of the equity interest. All told, our investment will be about $2 billion.

Walter characteristically backed up his convictions with real money: He and his family will buy more MidAmerican stock for cash when the transaction closes, bringing their total investment to about $280 million. Walter will also be the controlling shareholder of the company, and I can't think of a better person to hold that post.

Though there are many regulatory constraints in the utility industry, it's possible that we will make additional commitments in the field. If we do, the amounts involved could be large.

Acquisition Accounting

Once again, I would like to make some comments about accounting, in this case about its application to acquisitions. This is currently a very contentious topic and, before the dust settles, Congress may even intervene (a truly terrible idea).

When a company is acquired, generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP") currently condone two very different ways of recording the transaction: "purchase" and "pooling." In a pooling, stock must be the currency; in a purchase, payment can be made in either cash or stock. Whatever the currency, managements usually detest purchase accounting because it almost always requires that a "goodwill" account be established and subsequently written off -- a process that saddles earnings with a large annual charge that normally persists for decades. In contrast, pooling avoids a goodwill account, which is why managements love it.

Now, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") has proposed an end to pooling, and many CEOs are girding for battle. It will be an important fight, so we'll venture some opinions. To begin with, we agree with the many managers who argue that goodwill amortization charges are usually spurious. You'll find my thinking about this in the appendix to our 1983 annual report, which is available on our website, and in the Owner's Manual on pages 55 - 62.

For accounting rules to mandate amortization that will, in the usual case, conflict with reality is deeply troublesome: Most accounting charges relate to what's going on, even if they don't precisely measure it. As an example, depreciation charges can't with precision calibrate the decline in value that physical assets suffer, but these charges do at least describe something that is truly occurring: Physical assets invariably deteriorate. Correspondingly, obsolescence charges for inventories, bad debt charges for receivables and accruals for warranties are among the charges that reflect true costs. The annual charges for these expenses can't be exactly measured, but the necessity for estimating them is obvious.

In contrast, economic goodwill does not, in many cases, diminish. Indeed, in a great many instances -- perhaps most -- it actually grows in value over time. In character, economic goodwill is much like land: The value of both assets is sure to fluctuate, but the direction in which value is going to go is in no way ordained. At See's, for example, economic goodwill has grown, in an irregular but very substantial manner, for 78 years. And, if we run the business right, growth of that kind will probably continue for at least another 78 years.

To escape from the fiction of goodwill charges, managers embrace the fiction of pooling. This accounting convention is grounded in the poetic notion that when two rivers merge their streams become indistinguishable. Under this concept, a company that has been merged into a larger enterprise has not been "purchased" (even though it will often have received a large "sell-out" premium). Consequently, no goodwill is created, and those pesky subsequent charges to earnings are eliminated. Instead, the accounting for the ongoing entity is handled as if the businesses had forever been one unit.

So much for poetry. The reality of merging is usually far different: There is indisputably an acquirer and an acquiree, and the latter has been "purchased," no matter how the deal has been structured. If you think otherwise, just ask employees severed from their jobs which company was the conqueror and which was the conquered. You will find no confusion. So on this point the FASB is correct: In most mergers, a purchase has been made. Yes, there are some true "mergers of equals," but they are few and far between.

Charlie and I believe there's a reality-based approach that should both satisfy the FASB, which correctly wishes to record a purchase, and meet the objections of managements to nonsensical charges for diminution of goodwill. We would first have the acquiring company record its purchase price -- whether paid in stock or cash -- at fair value. In most cases, this procedure would create a large asset representing economic goodwill. We would then leave this asset on the books, not requiring its amortization. Later, if the economic goodwill became impaired, as it sometimes would, it would be written down just as would any other asset judged to be impaired.

If our proposed rule were to be adopted, it should be applied retroactively so that acquisition accounting would be consistent throughout America -- a far cry from what exists today. One prediction: If this plan were to take effect, managements would structure acquisitions more sensibly, deciding whether to use cash or stock based on the real consequences for their shareholders rather than on the unreal consequences for their reported earnings.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

In our purchase of Jordan's, we followed a procedure that will maximize the cash produced for our shareholders but minimize the earnings we report to you. Berkshire purchased assets for cash, an approach that on our tax returns permits us to amortize the resulting goodwill over a 15-year period. Obviously, this tax deduction materially increases the amount of cash delivered by the business. In contrast, when stock, rather than assets, is purchased for cash, the resulting writeoffs of goodwill are not tax-deductible. The economic difference between these two approaches is substantial.

From the economic standpoint of the acquiring company, the worst deal of all is a stock-for-stock acquisition. Here, a huge price is often paid without there being any step-up in the tax basis of either the stock of the acquiree or its assets. If the acquired entity is subsequently sold, its owner may owe a large capital gains tax (at a 35% or greater rate), even though the sale may truly be producing a major economic loss.

We have made some deals at Berkshire that used far-from-optimal tax structures. These deals occurred because the sellers insisted on a given structure and because, overall, we still felt the acquisition made sense. We have never done an inefficiently-structured deal, however, in order to make our figures look better.

Sources of Reported Earnings

The table that follows shows the main sources of Berkshire's reported earnings. In this presentation, purchase-accounting adjustments are not assigned to the specific businesses to which they apply, but are instead aggregated and shown separately. This procedure lets you view the earnings of our businesses as they would have been reported had we not purchased them. For the reasons discussed on page 61, this form of presentation seems to us to be more useful to investors and managers than one utilizing generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), which require purchase-premiums to be charged off business-by-business. The total earnings we show in the table are, of course, identical to the GAAP total in our audited financial statements.

(in millions)

Berkshire's Share

of Net Earnings

(after taxes and

Pre-Tax Earnings

minority interests)

1999

1998

1999

1998

Operating Earnings:
Insurance Group:
Underwriting -- Reinsurance .................... $(1,440) $(21) $(927) $(14)
Underwriting -- GEICO .......................... 24 269 16 175
Underwriting -- Other Primary ................. 22 17 14 10
Net Investment Income ............................ 2,482 974 1,764 731
Buffalo News ........................................... 55 53 34 32
Finance and Financial Products Businesses 125 205 86 133
Flight Services ......................................... 225 181 (1) 132 110 (1)
Home Furnishings .................................... 79 (2) 72 46 (2) 41
International Dairy Queen ........................ 56 58 35 35
Jewelry ................................................... 51 39 31 23
Scott Fetzer (excluding finance operation) 147 137 92 85
See's Candies ......................................... 74 62 46 40
Shoe Group ............................................ 17 33 11 23
Purchase-Accounting Adjustments ......... (739) (123) (648) (118)
Interest Expense (3) ............................... (109) (100) (70) (63)
Shareholder-Designated Contributions .... (17) (17) (11) (11)
Other ...................................................... 33 60 (4) 20 45 (4)
Operating Earnings .................................... 1,085 1,899 671 1,277
Capital Gains from Investments ................. 1,365 2,415 886 1,553
Total Earnings - All Entities ....................... $2,450 $4,314 $1,557 $ 2,830
===== ===== ===== =====
(1) Includes Executive Jet from August 7, 1998. (3) Excludes interest expense of Finance Businesses.

(2) Includes Jordan's Furniture from November 13, 1999.
(4) Includes General Re operations for ten days in 1998.

Almost all of our manufacturing, retailing and service businesses had excellent results in 1999. The exception was Dexter Shoe, and there the shortfall did not occur because of managerial problems: In skills, energy and devotion to their work, the Dexter executives are every bit the equal of our other managers. But we manufacture shoes primarily in the U.S., and it has become extremely difficult for domestic producers to compete effectively. In 1999, approximately 93% of the 1.3 billion pairs of shoes purchased in this country came from abroad, where extremely low-cost labor is the rule.

Counting both Dexter and H. H. Brown, we are currently the leading domestic manufacturer of shoes, and we are likely to continue to be. We have loyal, highly-skilled workers in our U.S. plants, and we want to retain every job here that we can. Nevertheless, in order to remain viable, we are sourcing more of our output internationally. In doing that, we have incurred significant severance and relocation costs that are included in the earnings we show in the table.

A few years back, Helzberg's, our 200-store jewelry operation, needed to make operating adjustments to restore margins to appropriate levels. Under Jeff Comment's leadership, the job was done and profits have dramatically rebounded. In the shoe business, where we have Harold Alfond, Peter Lunder, Frank Rooney and Jim Issler in charge, I believe we will see a similar improvement over the next few years.

See's Candies deserves a special comment, given that it achieved a record operating margin of 24% last year. Since we bought See's for $25 million in 1972, it has earned $857 million pre-tax. And, despite its growth, the business has required very little additional capital. Give the credit for this performance to Chuck Huggins. Charlie and I put him in charge the day of our purchase, and his fanatical insistence on both product quality and friendly service has rewarded customers, employees and owners.

Chuck gets better every year. When he took charge of See's at age 46, the company's pre-tax profit, expressed in millions, was about 10% of his age. Today he's 74, and the ratio has increased to 100%. Having discovered this mathematical relationship -- let's call it Huggins' Law -- Charlie and I now become giddy at the mere thought of Chuck's birthday.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Additional information about our various businesses is given on pages 39 - 54, where you will also find our segment earnings reported on a GAAP basis. In addition, on pages 63 - 69, we have rearranged Berkshire's financial data into four segments on a non-GAAP basis, a presentation that corresponds to the way Charlie and I think about the company.

Look-Through Earnings

Reported earnings are an inadequate measure of economic progress at Berkshire, in part because the numbers shown in the table presented earlier include only the dividends we receive from investees -- though these dividends typically represent only a small fraction of the earnings attributable to our ownership. Not that we mind this division of money, since on balance we regard the undistributed earnings of investees as more valuable to us than the portion paid out. The reason for our thinking is simple: Our investees often have the opportunity to reinvest earnings at high rates of return. So why should we want them paid out?

To depict something closer to economic reality at Berkshire than reported earnings, though, we employ the concept of "look-through" earnings. As we calculate these, they consist of: (1) the operating earnings reported in the previous section, plus; (2) our share of the retained operating earnings of major investees that, under GAAP accounting, are not reflected in our profits, less; (3) an allowance for the tax that would be paid by Berkshire if these retained earnings of investees had instead been distributed to us. When tabulating "operating earnings" here, we exclude purchase-accounting adjustments as well as capital gains and other major non-recurring items.

The following table sets forth our 1999 look-through earnings, though I warn you that the figures can be no more than approximate, since they are based on a number of judgment calls. (The dividends paid to us by these investees have been included in the operating earnings itemized on page 13, mostly under "Insurance Group: Net Investment Income.")

Berkshire's Approximate Berkshire's Share of Undistributed
Berkshire's Major Investees Ownership at Yearend(1) Operating Earnings (in millions)(2)

American Express Company ...........
11.3%

$228
The Coca-Cola Company ...............
8.1%

144
Freddie Mac ..................................
8.6%

127
The Gillette Company ....................
9.0%

53
M&T Bank ...................................
6.5%

17
The Washington Post Company .....
18.3%

30
Wells Fargo & Company ...............
3.6%

108

Berkshire's share of undistributed earnings of major investees
707
Hypothetical tax on these undistributed investee earnings(3)
(99)
Reported operating earnings of Berkshire
1,318
Total look-through earnings of Berkshire
$ 1,926

=====

(1) Does not include shares allocable to minority interests
(2) Calculated on average ownership for the year
(3) The tax rate used is 14%, which is the rate Berkshire pays on the dividends it receives

Investments

Below we present our common stock investments. Those that had a market value of more than $750 million at the end of 1999 are itemized.
12/31/99
Shares Company Cost* Market
(dollars in millions)
50,536,900 American Express Company ....... $1,470 $ 8,402
200,000,000 The Coca-Cola Company ........ 1,299 11,650
59,559,300 Freddie Mac ................ 294 2,803
96,000,000 The Gillette Company .......... 600 3,954
1,727,765 The Washington Post Company ....... 11 960
59,136,680 Wells Fargo & Company ........ 349 2,391
Others ...................... 4,180 6,848
Total Common Stocks ............. $8,203 $37,008
===== ======
* Represents tax-basis cost which, in aggregate, is $691 million less than GAAP cost.
We made few portfolio changes in 1999. As I mentioned earlier, several of the companies in which we have large investments had disappointing business results last year. Nevertheless, we believe these companies have important competitive advantages that will endure over time. This attribute, which makes for good long-term investment results, is one Charlie and I occasionally believe we can identify. More often, however, we can't -- not at least with a high degree of conviction. This explains, by the way, why we don't own stocks of tech companies, even though we share the general view that our society will be transformed by their products and services. Our problem -- which we can't solve by studying up -- is that we have no insights into which participants in the tech field possess a truly durable competitive advantage.

Our lack of tech insights, we should add, does not distress us. After all, there are a great many business areas in which Charlie and I have no special capital-allocation expertise. For instance, we bring nothing to the table when it comes to evaluating patents, manufacturing processes or geological prospects. So we simply don't get into judgments in those fields.

If we have a strength, it is in recognizing when we are operating well within our circle of competence and when we are approaching the perimeter. Predicting the long-term economics of companies that operate in fast-changing industries is simply far beyond our perimeter. If others claim predictive skill in those industries -- and seem to have their claims validated by the behavior of the stock market -- we neither envy nor emulate them. Instead, we just stick with what we understand. If we stray, we will have done so inadvertently, not because we got restless and substituted hope for rationality. Fortunately, it's almost certain there will be opportunities from time to time for Berkshire to do well within the circle we've staked out.

Right now, the prices of the fine businesses we already own are just not that attractive. In other words, we feel much better about the businesses than their stocks. That's why we haven't added to our present holdings. Nevertheless, we haven't yet scaled back our portfolio in a major way: If the choice is between a questionable business at a comfortable price or a comfortable business at a questionable price, we much prefer the latter. What really gets our attention, however, is a comfortable business at a comfortable price.

Our reservations about the prices of securities we own apply also to the general level of equity prices. We have never attempted to forecast what the stock market is going to do in the next month or the next year, and we are not trying to do that now. But, as I point out in the enclosed article, equity investors currently seem wildly optimistic in their expectations about future returns.

We see the growth in corporate profits as being largely tied to the business done in the country (GDP), and we see GDP growing at a real rate of about 3%. In addition, we have hypothesized 2% inflation. Charlie and I have no particular conviction about the accuracy of 2%. However, it's the market's view: Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) yield about two percentage points less than the standard treasury bond, and if you believe inflation rates are going to be higher than that, you can profit by simply buying TIPS and shorting Governments.

If profits do indeed grow along with GDP, at about a 5% rate, the valuation placed on American business is unlikely to climb by much more than that. Add in something for dividends, and you emerge with returns from equities that are dramatically less than most investors have either experienced in the past or expect in the future. If investor expectations become more realistic -- and they almost certainly will -- the market adjustment is apt to be severe, particularly in sectors in which speculation has been concentrated.

Berkshire will someday have opportunities to deploy major amounts of cash in equity markets -- we are confident of that. But, as the song goes, "Who knows where or when?" Meanwhile, if anyone starts explaining to you what is going on in the truly-manic portions of this "enchanted" market, you might remember still another line of song: "Fools give you reasons, wise men never try."

Share Repurchases

Recently, a number of shareholders have suggested to us that Berkshire repurchase its shares. Usually the requests were rationally based, but a few leaned on spurious logic.

There is only one combination of facts that makes it advisable for a company to repurchase its shares: First, the company has available funds -- cash plus sensible borrowing capacity -- beyond the near-term needs of the business and, second, finds its stock selling in the market below its intrinsic value, conservatively-calculated. To this we add a caveat: Shareholders should have been supplied all the information they need for estimating that value. Otherwise, insiders could take advantage of their uninformed partners and buy out their interests at a fraction of true worth. We have, on rare occasions, seen that happen. Usually, of course, chicanery is employed to drive stock prices up, not down.

The business "needs" that I speak of are of two kinds: First, expenditures that a company must make to maintain its competitive position (e.g., the remodeling of stores at Helzberg's) and, second, optional outlays, aimed at business growth, that management expects will produce more than a dollar of value for each dollar spent (R. C. Willey's expansion into Idaho).

When available funds exceed needs of those kinds, a company with a growth-oriented shareholder population can buy new businesses or repurchase shares. If a company's stock is selling well below intrinsic value, repurchases usually make the most sense. In the mid-1970s, the wisdom of making these was virtually screaming at managements, but few responded. In most cases, those that did made their owners much wealthier than if alternative courses of action had been pursued. Indeed, during the 1970s (and, spasmodically, for some years thereafter) we searched for companies that were large repurchasers of their shares. This often was a tipoff that the company was both undervalued and run by a shareholder-oriented management.

That day is past. Now, repurchases are all the rage, but are all too often made for an unstated and, in our view, ignoble reason: to pump or support the stock price. The shareholder who chooses to sell today, of course, is benefitted by any buyer, whatever his origin or motives. But the continuing shareholder is penalized by repurchases above intrinsic value. Buying dollar bills for $1.10 is not good business for those who stick around.

Charlie and I admit that we feel confident in estimating intrinsic value for only a portion of traded equities and then only when we employ a range of values, rather than some pseudo-precise figure. Nevertheless, it appears to us that many companies now making repurchases are overpaying departing shareholders at the expense of those who stay. In defense of those companies, I would say that it is natural for CEOs to be optimistic about their own businesses. They also know a whole lot more about them than I do. However, I can't help but feel that too often today's repurchases are dictated by management's desire to "show confidence" or be in fashion rather than by a desire to enhance per-share value.

Sometimes, too, companies say they are repurchasing shares to offset the shares issued when stock options granted at much lower prices are exercised. This "buy high, sell low" strategy is one many unfortunate investors have employed -- but never intentionally! Managements, however, seem to follow this perverse activity very cheerfully.

Of course, both option grants and repurchases may make sense -- but if that's the case, it's not because the two activities are logically related. Rationally, a company's decision to repurchase shares or to issue them should stand on its own feet. Just because stock has been issued to satisfy options -- or for any other reason -- does not mean that stock should be repurchased at a price above intrinsic value. Correspondingly, a stock that sells well below intrinsic value should be repurchased whether or not stock has previously been issued (or may be because of outstanding options).

You should be aware that, at certain times in the past, I have erred in not making repurchases. My appraisal of Berkshire's value was then too conservative or I was too enthused about some alternative use of funds. We have therefore missed some opportunities -- though Berkshire's trading volume at these points was too light for us to have done much buying, which means that the gain in our per-share value would have been minimal. (A repurchase of, say, 2% of a company's shares at a 25% discount from per-share intrinsic value produces only a ½% gain in that value at most -- and even less if the funds could alternatively have been deployed in value-building moves.)

Some of the letters we've received clearly imply that the writer is unconcerned about intrinsic value considerations but instead wants us to trumpet an intention to repurchase so that the stock will rise (or quit going down). If the writer wants to sell tomorrow, his thinking makes sense -- for him! -- but if he intends to hold, he should instead hope the stock falls and trades in enough volume for us to buy a lot of it. That's the only way a repurchase program can have any real benefit for a continuing shareholder.

We will not repurchase shares unless we believe Berkshire stock is selling well below intrinsic value, conservatively calculated. Nor will we attempt to talk the stock up or down. (Neither publicly or privately have I ever told anyone to buy or sell Berkshire shares.) Instead we will give all shareholders -- and potential shareholders -- the same valuation-related information we would wish to have if our positions were reversed.

Recently, when the A shares fell below $45,000, we considered making repurchases. We decided, however, to delay buying, if indeed we elect to do any, until shareholders have had the chance to review this report. If we do find that repurchases make sense, we will only rarely place bids on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE"). Instead, we will respond to offers made directly to us at or below the NYSE bid. If you wish to offer stock, have your broker call Mark Millard at 402-346-1400. When a trade occurs, the broker can either record it in the "third market" or on the NYSE. We will favor purchase of the B shares if they are selling at more than a 2% discount to the A. We will not engage in transactions involving fewer than 10 shares of A or 50 shares of B.

Please be clear about one point: We will never make purchases with the intention of stemming a decline in Berkshire's price. Rather we will make them if and when we believe that they represent an attractive use of the Company's money. At best, repurchases are likely to have only a very minor effect on the future rate of gain in our stock's intrinsic value.

Shareholder-Designated Contributions

About 97.3% of all eligible shares participated in Berkshire's 1999 shareholder-designated contributions program, with contributions totaling $17.2 million. A full description of the program appears on pages 70 - 71.

Cumulatively, over the 19 years of the program, Berkshire has made contributions of $147 million pursuant to the instructions of our shareholders. The rest of Berkshire's giving is done by our subsidiaries, which stick to the philanthropic patterns that prevailed before they were acquired (except that their former owners themselves take on the responsibility for their personal charities). In aggregate, our subsidiaries made contributions of $13.8 million in 1999, including in-kind donations of $2.5 million.

To participate in future programs, you must own Class A shares that are registered in the name of the actual owner, not the nominee name of a broker, bank or depository. Shares not so registered on August 31, 2000, will be ineligible for the 2000 program. When you get the contributions form from us, return it promptly so that it does not get put aside or forgotten. Designations received after the due date will not be honored.

The Annual Meeting

This year's Woodstock Weekend for Capitalists will follow a format slightly different from that of recent years. We need to make a change because the Aksarben Coliseum, which served us well the past three years, is gradually being closed down. Therefore, we are relocating to the Civic Auditorium (which is on Capitol Avenue between 18th and 19th, behind the Doubletree Hotel), the only other facility in Omaha offering the space we require.

The Civic, however, is located in downtown Omaha, and we would create a parking and traffic nightmare if we were to meet there on a weekday. We will, therefore, convene on Saturday, April 29, with the doors opening at 7 a.m., the movie beginning at 8:30 and the meeting itself commencing at 9:30. As in the past, we will run until 3:30 with a short break at noon for food, which will be available at the Civic's concession stands.

An attachment to the proxy material that is enclosed with this report explains how you can obtain the credential you will need for admission to the meeting and other events. As for plane, hotel and car reservations, we have again signed up American Express (800-799-6634) to give you special help. In our normal fashion, we will run buses from the larger hotels to the meeting. After the meeting, the buses will make trips back to the hotels and to Nebraska Furniture Mart, Borsheim's and the airport. Even so, you are likely to find a car useful.

We have scheduled the meeting in 2002 and 2003 on the customary first Saturday in May. In 2001, however, the Civic is already booked on that Saturday, so we will meet on April 28. The Civic should fit our needs well on any weekend, since there will then be more than ample parking in nearby lots and garages as well as on streets. We will also be able to greatly enlarge the space we give exhibitors. So, overcoming my normal commercial reticence, I will see that you have a wide display of Berkshire products at the Civic that you can purchase. As a benchmark, in 1999 shareholders bought 3,059 pounds of See's candy, $16,155 of World Book Products, 1,928 pairs of Dexter shoes, 895 sets of Quikut knives, 1,752 golf balls with the Berkshire Hathaway logo and 3,446 items of Berkshire apparel. I know you can do better.

Last year, we also initiated the sale of at least eight fractions of Executive Jet aircraft. We will again have an array of models at the Omaha airport for your inspection on Saturday and Sunday. Ask an EJA representative at the Civic about viewing any of these planes.

Dairy Queen will also be on hand at the Civic and again will donate all proceeds to the Children's Miracle Network. Last year we sold 4,586 Dilly® bars, fudge bars and vanilla/orange bars. Additionally, GEICO will have a booth that will be staffed by a number of our top counselors from around the country, all of them ready to supply you with auto insurance quotes. In most cases, GEICO will be able to offer you a special shareholder's discount. Bring the details of your existing insurance, and check out whether we can save you some money.

Finally, Ajit Jain and his associates will be on hand to offer both no-commission annuities and a liability policy with jumbo limits of a size rarely available elsewhere. Talk to Ajit and learn how to protect yourself and your family against a $10 million judgment.

NFM's newly remodeled complex, located on a 75-acre site on 72nd Street between Dodge and Pacific, is open from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekdays and 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. This operation offers an unrivaled breadth of merchandise -- furniture, electronics, appliances, carpets and computers -- all at can't-be-beat prices. In 1999 NFM did more than $300 million of business at its 72nd Street location, which in a metropolitan area of 675,000 is an absolute miracle. During the Thursday, April 27 to Monday, May 1 period, any shareholder presenting his or her meeting credential will receive a discount that is customarily given only to employees. We have offered this break to shareholders the last couple of years, and sales have been amazing. In last year's five-day "Berkshire Weekend," NFM's volume was $7.98 million, an increase of 26% from 1998 and 51% from 1997.

Borsheim's -- the largest jewelry store in the country except for Tiffany's Manhattan store -- will have two shareholder-only events. The first will be a champagne and dessert party from 6 p.m.-10 p.m. on Friday, April 28. The second, the main gala, will be from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sunday, April 30. On that day, Charlie and I will be on hand to sign sales tickets. Shareholder prices will be available Thursday through Monday, so if you wish to avoid the largest crowds, which will form on Friday evening and Sunday, come at other times and identify yourself as a shareholder. On Saturday, we will be open until 7 p.m. Borsheim's operates on a gross margin that is fully twenty percentage points below that of its major rivals, so be prepared to be blown away by both our prices and selection.

In the mall outside of Borsheim's, we will again have Bob Hamman -- the best bridge player the game has ever seen -- available to play with our shareholders on Sunday. We will also have a few other experts playing at additional tables. In 1999, we had more demand than tables, but we will cure that problem this year.

Patrick Wolff, twice US chess champion, will again be in the mall playing blindfolded against all comers. He tells me that he has never tried to play more than four games simultaneously while handicapped this way but might try to bump that limit to five or six this year. If you're a chess fan, take Patrick on -- but be sure to check his blindfold before your first move.

Gorat's -- my favorite steakhouse -- will again be open exclusively for Berkshire shareholders on Sunday, April 30, and will be serving from 4 p.m. until about midnight. Please remember that you can't come to Gorat's on Sunday without a reservation. To make one, call 402-551-3733 on April 3 (but not before). If Sunday is sold out, try Gorat's on one of the other evenings you will be in town. I make a "quality check" of Gorat's about once a week and can report that their rare T-bone (with a double order of hash browns) is still unequaled throughout the country.

The usual baseball game will be held at Rosenblatt Stadium at 7 p.m. on Saturday night. This year the Omaha Golden Spikes will play the Iowa Cubs. Come early, because that's when the real action takes place. Those who attended last year saw your Chairman pitch to Ernie Banks.

This encounter proved to be the titanic duel that the sports world had long awaited. After the first few pitches -- which were not my best, but when have I ever thrown my best? -- I fired a brushback at Ernie just to let him know who was in command. Ernie charged the mound, and I charged the plate. But a clash was avoided because we became exhausted before reaching each other.

Ernie was dissatisfied with his performance last year and has been studying the game films all winter. As you may know, Ernie had 512 home runs in his career as a Cub. Now that he has spotted telltale weaknesses in my delivery, he expects to get #513 on April 29. I, however, have learned new ways to disguise my "flutterball." Come and watch this matchup.

I should add that I have extracted a promise from Ernie that he will not hit a "come-backer" at me since I would never be able to duck in time to avoid it. My reflexes are like Woody Allen's, who said his were so slow that he was once hit by a car being pushed by two guys.

Our proxy statement contains instructions about obtaining tickets to the game and also a large quantity of other information that should help you enjoy your visit in Omaha. Join us at the Capitalist Caper on Capitol Avenue.

March 1, 2000

Warren E. Buffett
Chairman of the Board

Berkshire's Corporate Performance vs. the S&P 500

Annual Percentage Change

Year

in Per-Share
Book Value of
Berkshire
(1)

in S&P 500
with Dividends
Included
(2)

Relative
Results
(1)-(2)

1965

23.8

10.0

13.8

1966

20.3

(11.7)

32.0

1967

11.0

30.9

(19.9)

1968

19.0

11.0

8.0

1969

16.2

(8.4)

24.6

1970

12.0

3.9

8.1

1971

16.4

14.6

1.8

1972

21.7

18.9

2.8

1973

4.7

(14. Cool

19.5

1974

5.5

(26.4)

31.9

1975

21.9

37.2

(15.3)

1976

59.3

23.6

35.7

1977

31.9

(7.4)

39.3

1978

24.0

6.4

17.6

1979

35.7

18.2

17.5

1980

19.3

32.3

(13.0)

1981

31.4

(5.0)

36.4

1982

40.0

21.4

18.6

1983

32.3

22.4

9.9

1984

13.6

6.1

7.5

1985

48.2

31.6

16.6

1986

26.1

18.6

7.5

1987

19.5

5.1

14.4

1988

20.1

16.6

3.5

1989

44.4

31.7

12.7

1990

7.4

(3.1)

10.5

1991

39.6

30.5

9.1

1992

20.3

7.6

12.7

1993

14.3

10.1

4.2

1994

13.9

1.3

12.6

1995

43.1

37.6

5.5

1996

31.8

23.0

8.8

1997

34.1

33.4

.7

1998

48.3

28.6

19.7

1999

.5

21.0

(20.5)

2000

6.5

(9.1)

15.6

Average Annual Gain ¾ 1965-2000

23.6%

11.8%

11.8%

Overall Gain ¾ 1964-2000

207,821%

5,383%

202,438%

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 other respects, the results are calculated using the numbers originally reported.

The S&P 500 numbers are pre-tax whereas the Berkshire numbers are after-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 in years when the index showed a negative return. Over the years, the tax costs would have caused the aggregate lag to be substantial.

BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC.

To the Shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.:

Our gain in net worth during 2000 was $3.96 billion, which increased the per-share book value of both our Class A and Class B stock by 6.5%. Over the last 36 years (that is, since present management took over) per-share book value has grown from $19 to $40,442, a gain of 23.6% compounded annually.*

* All figures used in this report apply to Berkshire's A shares, the successor to the only stock that the company had outstanding before 1996. The B shares have an economic interest equal to 1/30th that of the A.

Overall, we had a decent year, our book-value gain having outpaced the performance of the S&P 500. And, though this judgment is necessarily subjective, we believe Berkshire’s gain in per-share intrinsic value moderately exceeded its gain in book value. (Intrinsic value, as well as other key investment and accounting terms and concepts, are explained in our Owner’s Manual on pages 59-66. Intrinsic value is discussed on page 64.)

Furthermore, we completed two significant acquisitions that we negotiated in 1999 and initiated six more. All told, these purchases have cost us about $8 billion, with 97% of that amount paid in cash and 3% in stock. The eight businesses we’ve acquired have aggregate sales of about $13 billion and employ 58,000 people. Still, we incurred no debt in making these purchases, and our shares outstanding have increased only 1/3 of 1%. Better yet, we remain awash in liquid assets and are both eager and ready for even larger acquisitions.

I will detail our purchases in the next section of the report. But I will tell you now that we have embraced the 21st century by entering such cutting-edge industries as brick, carpet, insulation and paint. Try to control your excitement.

On the minus side, policyholder growth at GEICO slowed to a halt as the year progressed. It has become much more expensive to obtain new business. I told you last year that we would get our money’s worth from stepped-up advertising at GEICO in 2000, but I was wrong. We’ll examine the reasons later in the report.

Another negative ¾ which has persisted for several years ¾ is that we see our equity portfolio as only mildly attractive. We own stocks of some excellent businesses, but most of our holdings are fully priced and are unlikely to deliver more than moderate returns in the future. We’re not alone in facing this problem: The long-term prospect for equities in general is far from exciting.

Finally, there is the negative that recurs annually: Charlie Munger, Berkshire’s Vice Chairman and my partner, and I are a year older than when we last reported to you. Mitigating this adverse development is the indisputable fact that the age of your top managers is increasing at a considerably lower rate ¾ percentage-wise ¾ than is the case at almost all other major corporations. Better yet, this differential will widen in the future.

Charlie and I continue to aim at increasing Berkshire’s per-share value at a rate that, over time, will modestly exceed the gain from owning the S&P 500. As the table on the facing page shows, a small annual advantage in our favor can, if sustained, produce an anything-but-small long-term advantage. To reach our goal we will need to add a few good businesses to Berkshire’s stable each year, have the businesses we own generally gain in value, and avoid any material increase in our outstanding shares. We are confident about meeting the last two objectives; the first will require some luck.

It’s appropriate here to thank two groups that made my job both easy and fun last year ¾ just as they do every year. First, our operating managers continue to run their businesses in splendid fashion, which allows me to spend my time allocating capital rather than supervising them. (I wouldn’t be good at that anyway.)

Our managers are a very special breed. At most large companies, the truly talented divisional managers seldom have the job they really want. Instead they yearn to become CEOs, either at their present employer or elsewhere. Indeed, if they stay put, they and their colleagues are likely to feel they have failed.

At Berkshire, our all-stars have exactly the jobs they want, ones that they hope and expect to keep throughout their business lifetimes. They therefore concentrate solely on maximizing the long-term value of the businesses that they "own" and love. If the businesses succeed, they have succeeded. And they stick with us: In our last 36 years, Berkshire has never had a manager of a significant subsidiary voluntarily leave to join another business.

The other group to which I owe enormous thanks is the home-office staff. After the eight acquisitions more than doubled our worldwide workforce to about 112,000, Charlie and I went soft last year and added one more person at headquarters. (Charlie, bless him, never lets me forget Ben Franklin’s advice: "A small leak can sink a great ship.") Now we have 13.8 people.

This tiny band works miracles. In 2000 it handled all of the details connected with our eight acquisitions, processed extensive regulatory and tax filings (our tax return covers 4,896 pages), smoothly produced an annual meeting to which 25,000 tickets were issued, and accurately dispensed checks to 3,660 charities designated by our shareholders. In addition, the group dealt with all the routine tasks served up by a company with a revenue run-rate of $40 billion and more than 300,000 owners. And, to add to all of this, the other 12.8 are a delight to be around.

I should pay to have my job.

Acquisitions of 2000

Our acquisition technique at Berkshire is simplicity itself: We answer the phone. I’m also glad to report that it rings a bit more often now, because owners and/or managers increasingly wish to join their companies with Berkshire. Our acquisition criteria are set forth on page 23, and the number to call is 402-346-1400.

Let me tell you a bit about the businesses we have purchased during the past 14 months, starting with the two transactions that were initiated in 1999, but closed in 2000. (This list excludes some smaller purchases that were made by the managers of our subsidiaries and that, in most cases, will be integrated into their operations.)

*

I described the first purchase ¾ 76% of MidAmerican Energy ¾ in last year’s report. Because of regulatory constraints on our voting privileges, we perform only a "one-line" consolidation of MidAmerican’s earnings and equity in our financial statements. If we instead fully consolidated the company’s figures, our revenues in 2000 would have been $5 billion greater than we reported, though net income would remain the same.
*

On November 23, 1999, I received a one-page fax from Bruce Cort that appended a Washington Post article describing an aborted buyout of CORT Business Services. Despite his name, Bruce has no connection with CORT. Rather, he is an airplane broker who had sold Berkshire a jet in 1986 and who, before the fax, had not been in touch with me for about ten years.

I knew nothing about CORT, but I immediately printed out its SEC filings and liked what I saw. That same day I told Bruce I had a possible interest and asked him to arrange a meeting with Paul Arnold, CORT’s CEO. Paul and I got together on November 29, and I knew at once that we had the right ingredients for a purchase: a fine though unglamorous business, an outstanding manager, and a price (going by that on the failed deal) that made sense.

Operating out of 117 showrooms, CORT is the national leader in "rent-to-rent" furniture, primarily used in offices but also by temporary occupants of apartments. This business, it should be noted, has no similarity to "rent-to-own" operations, which usually involve the sale of home furnishings and electronics to people having limited income and poor credit.

We quickly purchased CORT for Wesco, our 80%-owned subsidiary, paying about $386 million in cash. You will find more details about CORT’s operations in Wesco’s 1999 and 2000 annual reports. Both Charlie and I enjoy working with Paul, and CORT looks like a good bet to beat our original expectations.
*

Early last year, Ron Ferguson of General Re put me in contact with Bob Berry, whose family had owned U.S. Liability for 49 years. This insurer, along with two sister companies, is a medium-sized, highly-respected writer of unusual risks ¾ "excess and surplus lines" in insurance jargon. After Bob and I got in touch, we agreed by phone on a half-stock, half-cash deal.

In recent years, Tom Nerney has managed the operation for the Berry family and has achieved a rare combination of excellent growth and unusual profitability. Tom is a powerhouse in other ways as well. In addition to having four adopted children (two from Russia), he has an extended family: the Philadelphia Belles, a young-teen girls basketball team that Tom coaches. The team had a 62-4 record last year and finished second in the AAU national tournament.

Few property-casualty companies are outstanding businesses. We have far more than our share, and U.S. Liability adds luster to the collection.
*

Ben Bridge Jeweler was another purchase we made by phone, prior to any face-to-face meeting between me and the management. Ed Bridge, who with his cousin, Jon, manages this 65-store West Coast retailer, is a friend of Barnett Helzberg, from whom we bought Helzberg Diamonds in 1995. Upon learning that the Bridge family proposed to sell its company, Barnett gave Berkshire a strong recommendation. Ed then called and explained his business to me, also sending some figures, and we made a deal, again half for cash and half for stock.

Ed and Jon are fourth generation owner-managers of a business started 89 years ago in Seattle. Both the business and the family ¾ including Herb and Bob, the fathers of Jon and Ed ¾ enjoy extraordinary reputations. Same-store sales have increased by 9%, 11%, 13%, 10%, 12%, 21% and 7% over the past seven years, a truly remarkable record.

It was vital to the family that the company operate in the future as in the past. No one wanted another jewelry chain to come in and decimate the organization with ideas about synergy and cost saving (which, though they would never work, were certain to be tried). I told Ed and Jon that they would be in charge, and they knew I could be believed: After all, it’s obvious that your Chairman would be a disaster at actually running a store or selling jewelry (though there are members of his family who have earned black belts as purchasers).

In their typically classy way, the Bridges allocated a substantial portion of the proceeds from their sale to the hundreds of co-workers who had helped the company achieve its success. We’re proud to be associated with both the family and the company.
*

In July we acquired Justin Industries, the leading maker of Western boots ¾ including the Justin, Tony Lama, Nocona, and Chippewa brands ¾ and the premier producer of brick in Texas and five neighboring states.

Here again, our acquisition involved serendipity. On May 4th, I received a fax from Mark Jones, a stranger to me, proposing that Berkshire join a group to acquire an unnamed company. I faxed him back, explaining that with rare exceptions we don’t invest with others, but would happily pay him a commission if he sent details and we later made a purchase. He replied that the "mystery company" was Justin. I then went to Fort Worth to meet John Roach, chairman of the company and John Justin, who had built the business and was its major shareholder. Soon after, we bought Justin for $570 million in cash.

John Justin loved Justin Industries but had been forced to retire because of severe health problems (which sadly led to his death in late February). John was a class act ¾ as a citizen, businessman and human being. Fortunately, he had groomed two outstanding managers, Harrold Melton at Acme and Randy Watson at Justin Boot, each of whom runs his company autonomously.

Acme, the larger of the two operations, produces more than one billion bricks per year at its 22 plants, about 11.7% of the industry’s national output. The brick business, however, is necessarily regional, and in its territory Acme enjoys unquestioned leadership. When Texans are asked to name a brand of brick, 75% respond Acme, compared to 16% for the runner-up. (Before our purchase, I couldn’t have named a brand of brick. Could you have?) This brand recognition is not only due to Acme’s product quality, but also reflects many decades of extraordinary community service by both the company and John Justin.

I can’t resist pointing out that Berkshire ¾ whose top management has long been mired in the 19th century ¾ is now one of the very few authentic "clicks-and-bricks" businesses around. We went into 2000 with GEICO doing significant business on the Internet, and then we added Acme. You can bet this move by Berkshire is making them sweat in Silicon Valley.
*

In June, Bob Shaw, CEO of Shaw Industries, the world’s largest carpet manufacturer, came to see me with his partner, Julian Saul, and the CEO of a second company with which Shaw was mulling a merger. The potential partner, however, faced huge asbestos liabilities from past activities, and any deal depended on these being eliminated through insurance.

The executives visiting me wanted Berkshire to provide a policy that would pay all future asbestos costs. I explained that though we could write an exceptionally large policy ¾ far larger than any other insurer would ever think of offering ¾ we would never issue a policy that lacked a cap.

Bob and Julian decided that if we didn’t want to bet the ranch on the extent of the acquiree’s liability, neither did they. So their deal died. But my interest in Shaw was sparked, and a few months later Charlie and I met with Bob to work out a purchase by Berkshire. A key feature of the deal was that both Bob and Julian were to continue owning at least 5% of Shaw. This leaves us associated with the best in the business as shown by Bob and Julian’s record: Each built a large, successful carpet business before joining forces in 1998.

Shaw has annual sales of about $4 billion, and we own 87.3% of the company. Leaving aside our insurance operation, Shaw is by far our largest business. Now, if people walk all over us, we won’t mind.
*

In July, Bob Mundheim, a director of Benjamin Moore Paint, called to ask if Berkshire might be interested in acquiring it. I knew Bob from Salomon, where he was general counsel during some difficult times, and held him in very high regard. So my answer was "Tell me more."

In late August, Charlie and I met with Richard Roob and Yvan Dupuy, past and present CEOs of Benjamin Moore. We liked them; we liked the business; and we made a $1 billion cash offer on the spot. In October, their board approved the transaction, and we completed it in December. Benjamin Moore has been making paint for 117 years and has thousands of independent dealers that are a vital asset to its business. Make sure you specify our product for your next paint job.
*

Finally, in late December, we agreed to buy Johns Manville Corp. for about $1.8 billion. This company’s incredible odyssey over the last few decades ¾ too multifaceted to be chronicled here ¾ was shaped by its long history as a manufacturer of asbestos products. The much-publicized health problems that affected many people exposed to asbestos led to JM’s declaring bankruptcy in 1982.

Subsequently, the bankruptcy court established a trust for victims, the major asset of which was a controlling interest in JM. The trust, which sensibly wanted to diversify its assets, agreed last June to sell the business to an LBO buyer. In the end, though, the LBO group was unable to obtain financing.

Consequently, the deal was called off on Friday, December 8th. The following Monday, Charlie and I called Bob Felise, chairman of the trust, and made an all-cash offer with no financing contingencies. The next day the trustees voted tentatively to accept our offer, and a week later we signed a contract.

JM is the nation’s leading producer of commercial and industrial insulation and also has major positions in roofing systems and a variety of engineered products. The company’s sales exceed $2 billion and the business has earned good, if cyclical, returns. Jerry Henry, JM’s CEO, had announced his retirement plans a year ago, but I’m happy to report that Charlie and I have convinced him to stick around.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Two economic factors probably contributed to the rush of acquisition activity we experienced last year. First, many managers and owners foresaw near-term slowdowns in their businesses ¾ and, in fact, we purchased several companies whose earnings will almost certainly decline this year from peaks they reached in 1999 or 2000. The declines make no difference to us, given that we expect all of our businesses to now and then have ups and downs. (Only in the sales presentations of investment banks do earnings move forever upward.) We don’t care about the bumps; what matters are the overall results. But the decisions of other people are sometimes affected by the near-term outlook, which can both spur sellers and temper the enthusiasm of purchasers who might otherwise compete with us.

A second factor that helped us in 2000 was that the market for junk bonds dried up as the year progressed. In the two preceding years, junk bond purchasers had relaxed their standards, buying the obligations of ever-weaker issuers at inappropriate prices. The effects of this laxity were felt last year in a ballooning of defaults. In this environment, "financial" buyers of businesses ¾ those who wish to buy using only a sliver of equity ¾ became unable to borrow all they thought they needed. What they could still borrow, moreover, came at a high price. Consequently, LBO operators became less aggressive in their bidding when businesses came up for sale last year. Because we analyze purchases on an all-equity basis, our evaluations did not change, which means we became considerably more competitive.
Aside from the economic factors that benefited us, we now enjoy a major and growing advantage in making acquisitions in that we are often the buyer of choice for the seller. That fact, of course, doesn’t assure a deal ¾ sellers have to like our price, and we have to like their business and management ¾ but it does help.

We find it meaningful when an owner cares about whom he sells to. We like to do business with someone who loves his company, not just the money that a sale will bring him (though we certainly understand why he likes that as well). When this emotional attachment exists, it signals that important qualities will likely be found within the business: honest accounting, pride of product, respect for customers, and a loyal group of associates having a strong sense of direction. The reverse is apt to be true, also. When an owner auctions off his business, exhibiting a total lack of interest in what follows, you will frequently find that it has been dressed up for sale, particularly when the seller is a "financial owner." And if owners behave with little regard for their business and its people, their conduct will often contaminate attitudes and practices throughout the company.

When a business masterpiece has been created by a lifetime ¾ or several lifetimes ¾ of unstinting care and exceptional talent, it should be important to the owner what corporation is entrusted to carry on its history. Charlie and I believe Berkshire provides an almost unique home. We take our obligations to the people who created a business very seriously, and Berkshire’s ownership structure ensures that we can fulfill our promises. When we tell John Justin that his business will remain headquartered in Fort Worth, or assure the Bridge family that its operation will not be merged with another jeweler, these sellers can take those promises to the bank.

How much better it is for the "painter" of a business Rembrandt to personally select its permanent home than to have a trust officer or uninterested heirs auction it off. Throughout the years we have had great experiences with those who recognize that truth and apply it to their business creations. We’ll leave the auctions to others.

The Economics of Property/Casualty Insurance

Our main business ¾ though we have others of great importance ¾ is insurance. To understand Berkshire, therefore, it is necessary that you understand how to evaluate an insurance company. The key determinants are: (1) the amount of float that the business generates; (2) its cost; and (3) most critical of all, the long-term outlook for both of these factors.

To begin with, float is money we hold but don't own. In an insurance operation, float arises because premiums are received before losses are paid, an interval that sometimes extends over many years. During that time, the insurer invests the money. This pleasant activity typically carries with it a downside: The premiums that an insurer takes in usually do not cover the losses and expenses it eventually must pay. That leaves it running an "underwriting loss," which is the cost of float. An insurance business has value if its cost of float over time is less than the cost the company would otherwise incur to obtain funds. But the business is a lemon if its cost of float is higher than market rates for money.

A caution is appropriate here: Because loss costs must be estimated, insurers have enormous latitude in figuring their underwriting results, and that makes it very difficult for investors to calculate a company's true cost of float. Errors of estimation, usually innocent but sometimes not, can be huge. The consequences of these miscalculations flow directly into earnings. An experienced observer can usually detect large-scale errors in reserving, but the general public can typically do no more than accept what's presented, and at times I have been amazed by the numbers that big-name auditors have implicitly blessed. Both the income statements and balance sheets of insurers can be minefields.

At Berkshire, we strive to be both consistent and conservative in our reserving. But we will make mistakes. And we warn you that there is nothing symmetrical about surprises in the insurance business: They almost always are unpleasant.

The table that follows shows (at intervals) the float generated by the various segments of Berkshire’s insurance operations since we entered the business 34 years ago upon acquiring National Indemnity Company (whose traditional lines are included in the segment "Other Primary"). For the table we have calculated our float ¾ which we generate in large amounts relative to our premium volume ¾ by adding net loss reserves, loss adjustment reserves, funds held under reinsurance assumed and unearned premium reserves, and then subtracting insurance-related receivables, prepaid acquisition costs, prepaid taxes and deferred charges applicable to assumed reinsurance. (Don’t panic, there won’t be a quiz.)
Yearend Float (in $ millions)

Year

GEICO

General Re

Other
Reinsurance

Other
Primary

Total

1967

20

20

1977

40

131

171

1987

701

807

1,508

1997

2,917

4,014

455

7,386

1998

3,125

14,909

4,305

415

22,754

1999

3,444

15,166

6,285

403

25,298

2000

3,943

15,525

7,805

598

27,871

We’re pleased by the growth in our float during 2000 but not happy with its cost. Over the years, our cost of float has been very close to zero, with the underwriting profits realized in most years offsetting the occasional terrible year such as 1984, when our cost was a staggering 19%. In 2000, however, we had an underwriting loss of $1.6 billion, which gave us a float cost of 6%. Absent a mega-catastrophe, we expect our float cost to fall in 2001 ¾ perhaps substantially ¾ in large part because of corrections in pricing at General Re that should increasingly be felt as the year progresses. On a smaller scale, GEICO may experience the same improving trend.

There are two factors affecting our cost of float that are very rare at other insurers but that now loom large at Berkshire. First, a few insurers that are currently experiencing large losses have offloaded a significant portion of these on us in a manner that penalizes our current earnings but gives us float we can use for many years to come. After the loss that we incur in the first year of the policy, there are no further costs attached to this business.

When these policies are properly priced, we welcome the pain-today, gain-tomorrow effects they have. In 1999, $400 million of our underwriting loss (about 27.8% of the total) came from business of this kind and in 2000 the figure was $482 million (34.4% of our loss). We have no way of predicting how much similar business we will write in the future, but what we do get will typically be in large chunks. Because these transactions can materially distort our figures, we will tell you about them as they occur.

Other reinsurers have little taste for this insurance. They simply can’t stomach what huge underwriting losses do to their reported results, even though these losses are produced by policies whose overall economics are certain to be favorable. You should be careful, therefore, in comparing our underwriting results with those of other insurers.

An even more significant item in our numbers ¾ which, again, you won’t find much of elsewhere ¾ arises from transactions in which we assume past losses of a company that wants to put its troubles behind it. To illustrate, the XYZ insurance company might have last year bought a policy obligating us to pay the first $1 billion of losses and loss adjustment expenses from events that happened in, say, 1995 and earlier years. These contracts can be very large, though we always require a cap on our exposure. We entered into a number of such transactions in 2000 and expect to close several more in 2001.

Under GAAP accounting, this "retroactive" insurance neither benefits nor penalizes our current earnings. Instead, we set up an asset called "deferred charges applicable to assumed reinsurance," in an amount reflecting the difference between the premium we receive and the (higher) losses we expect to pay (for which reserves are immediately established). We then amortize this asset by making annual charges to earnings that create equivalent underwriting losses. You will find the amount of the loss that we incur from these transactions in both our quarterly and annual management discussion. By their nature, these losses will continue for many years, often stretching into decades. As an offset, though, we have the use of float ¾ lots of it.

Clearly, float carrying an annual cost of this kind is not as desirable as float we generate from policies that are expected to produce an underwriting profit (of which we have plenty). Nevertheless, this retroactive insurance should be decent business for us.

The net of all this is that a) I expect our cost of float to be very attractive in the future but b) rarely to return to a "no-cost" mode because of the annual charge that retroactive reinsurance will lay on us. Also ¾ obviously ¾ the ultimate benefits that we derive from float will depend not only on its cost but, fully as important, how effectively we deploy it.

Our retroactive business is almost single-handedly the work of Ajit Jain, whose praises I sing annually. It is impossible to overstate how valuable Ajit is to Berkshire. Don’t worry about my health; worry about his.

Last year, Ajit brought home a $2.4 billion reinsurance premium, perhaps the largest in history, from a policy that retroactively covers a major U.K. company. Subsequently, he wrote a large policy protecting the Texas Rangers from the possibility that Alex Rodriguez will become permanently disabled. As sports fans know, "A-Rod" was signed for $252 million, a record, and we think that our policy probably also set a record for disability insurance. We cover many other sports figures as well.

In another example of his versatility, Ajit last fall negotiated a very interesting deal with Grab.com, an Internet company whose goal was to attract millions of people to its site and there to extract information from them that would be useful to marketers. To lure these people, Grab.com held out the possibility of a $1 billion prize (having a $170 million present value) and we insured its payment. A message on the site explained that the chance of anyone winning the prize was low, and indeed no one won. But the possibility of a win was far from nil.

Writing such a policy, we receive a modest premium, face the possibility of a huge loss, and get good odds. Very few insurers like that equation. And they’re unable to cure their unhappiness by reinsurance. Because each policy has unusual ¾ and sometimes unique ¾ characteristics, insurers can’t lay off the occasional shock loss through their standard reinsurance arrangements. Therefore, any insurance CEO doing a piece of business like this must run the small, but real, risk of a horrible quarterly earnings number, one that he would not enjoy explaining to his board or shareholders. Charlie and I, however, like any proposition that makes compelling mathematical sense, regardless of its effect on reported earnings.

At General Re, the news has turned considerably better: Ron Ferguson, along with Joe Brandon, Tad Montross, and a talented supporting cast took many actions during 2000 to bring that company’s profitability back to past standards. Though our pricing is not fully corrected, we have significantly repriced business that was severely unprofitable or dropped it altogether. If there’s no mega-catastrophe in 2001, General Re’s float cost should fall materially.

The last couple of years haven’t been any fun for Ron and his crew. But they have stepped up to tough decisions, and Charlie and I applaud them for these. General Re has several important and enduring business advantages. Better yet, it has managers who will make the most of them.
In aggregate, our smaller insurance operations produced an excellent underwriting profit in 2000 while generating significant float ¾ just as they have done for more than a decade. If these companies were a single and separate operation, people would consider it an outstanding insurer. Because the companies instead reside in an enterprise as large as Berkshire, the world may not appreciate their accomplishments ¾ but I sure do. Last year I thanked Rod Eldred, John Kizer, Don Towle and Don Wurster, and I again do so. In addition, we now also owe thanks to Tom Nerney at U.S. Liability and Michael Stearns, the new head of Cypress.

You may notice that Brad Kinstler, who was CEO of Cypress and whose praises I’ve sung in the past, is no longer in the list above. That’s because we needed a new manager at Fechheimer Bros., our Cincinnati-based uniform company, and called on Brad. We seldom move Berkshire managers from one enterprise to another, but maybe we should try it more often: Brad is hitting home runs in his new job, just as he always did at Cypress.

GEICO (1-800-847-7536 or GEICO.com)
We show below the usual table detailing GEICO’s growth. Last year I enthusiastically told you that we would step up our expenditures on advertising in 2000 and that the added dollars were the best investment that GEICO could make. I was wrong: The extra money we spent did not produce a commensurate increase in inquiries. Additionally, the percentage of inquiries that we converted into sales fell for the first time in many years. These negative developments combined to produce a sharp increase in our per-policy acquisition cost.
Years

New Auto
Policies(1)

Auto Policies
In-Force(1)

1993

346,882

2,011,055

1994

384,217

2,147,549

1995

443,539

2,310,037

1996

592,300

2,543,699

1997

868,430

2,949,439

1998

1,249,875

3,562,644

1999

1,648,095

4,328,900

2000

1,472,853

4,696,842
(1) "Voluntary" only; excludes assigned risks and the like.

» Warren Buffett
» Think Like Warren Buffett
» Warren Buffett's Best Buys
» Investing Legends: Warren Buffett
» What Would Young Buffett Buy?

Warren E. Buffett letters

Warren E. Buffett letters :: Commentaires

Warren E. Buffett letters

Sujets similaires

Sujets similaires