Opportunity -ost

We bought a company day before yesterday, I guess it was. And we are spending close to $3 billion U.S. It’s a Canadian company. And we think we will be better off financially because we did that and we thought it was the best thing that we could do with the $3 billion on that day. And those are the yardsticks that we have. And what I do know is that I’ve never seen a CEO who wanted to do a deal where the CFO didn’t come in and say it exceeded the cost of capital. It’s just — it’s a game, as far as we’re concerned. And we think we can evaluate businesses. And we know the capital we have available. And we have things that we can sell to buy. Not businesses, but marketable securities that we can sell to buy businesses if we like. And we are constantly measuring that opportunity cost that Charlie talked about in the movie. It’s an important subject. And one that I think has had more nonsense written about it than about anything. But I’ll turn it over to Charlie to go over — GREGG WARREN: If Berkshire’s size is expected to be an ongoing constraint for growth, does it make more sense for the firm to target a larger collection of smaller companies that are growing faster and can do so for a longer period of time, rather than looking to bag a big elephant that is in all likelihood already reached maturity, leaves the firm to sit on larger-thannormal cash balances for a longer period of time, even if it means paying a higher price for the growth? And if the answer is no, then what is the opportunity cost to Berkshire shareholders for keeping a lot of excess cash on hand until the right deal comes along?