So there are BRK.A and BRK.B. The face value of BRK.A is 1,500 times of that of BRK.B, and BRK.A has 10,000 times the voting rights of BRK.B. BRK.A is normally traded at about 1,500 times the price of BRK.B. My question is: why is the price proportional to the face value, not the amount of voting rights?
When you buy shares you get dividend rights and voting rights. But Berkshire Hathaway is famous for never paying dividends. So to my understanding, this means you are practically buying the voting rights alone, so I wonder why anyone would pay 1/1500th of the price to buy 1/10000th of the voting rights. What am I missing?
My question isn't why people buy shares without dividend. It's why the price is proportional to the nominal face value. Since the IPO of BRK.B, it's always been traded at more or less 1/1500th of the price (adjusted, of course because share splits) of class A. I also know that they will maybe pay dividends in the future, but it's not 100% definite, and even if it was, to me it sounds like the price has to be somewhere between 1/1500 (dividend rights) and 1/10000 (voting rights).
So for all this to make sense, I think the amount of the shares Berkshire Hathaway buys back depends on the current market status so that they are exactly proportional to the face value, precisely. If they from now on chose to buy back BRK.B, for example, 5% more (relatively), BRK.B will be traded at a more expensive price. Is this correct?