[nthot]

Voting power is in my understanding the real reason. Dollar for dollar a shares have seven times the voting power of a b share. Following his death, the foundations he has bequeathed his wealth to need to sell his shares over the course of ten years. Ordinarily this would result in institutional investors having a majority of the voting power. To avoid this the a shares will be converted to b shares in order to reduce the voting power. A shares are by and large held by investors who have been with Berkshire for decades. Hopefully they will continue the long term focus of Berkshire. Once their progeny start inheriting the shares I think all bets are off. I worry activist investors will convince institutional investors to break Berkshire apart.

[nuclearnice1]

What are your concerns with Berkshire being split up after he passes away?

[nthot]

Many of the individual businesses within Berkshire are able to act with a long term horizon that I think is uncommon within the stock market as a whole. Profits and float are able to be reinvested within Berkshire in a much more tax efficient way than separate companies.

One example is BNSF. Most railroads are on warpath to increase operating margin as much as possible. Cutting routes, laying off staff, and neglecting customer satisfaction are the norm. Imagine being laid off after your company has had its most profitable year ever. These actions are being dictated by institutional investors. BNSF is the only major railroad not taking on precision railroading. It's possible that this will be a failure on BNSF's part, but Berkshire is willing to take the bet and act differently from everyone else on the idea that this will be better long term. Institutional investors are not interested in that.