Berkshire "pro" arguments:
1. No dividends, no income taxes! Until you sell. Or until they change the no-dividend policy. Which they may do sometime, Buffet hinted (IIRC).
2. If you buy a "real" share (Berkshire Class A), you can attend the Berkshire annual stockholders' meeting, aka the Woodstock of Capitalism. Only A holders can go.
3. If A shares are a bit steep (as they are for me), you can buy Class B shares for about $200 each. You get all the financial benefits of A shares proportionally, plus the ability to sell shares in small numbers to meet cash needs.
4. Long term orientation might provide sustainable edge over normal stocks.
5. Different organizational style, dividend policy and internal approach provide diversification compared to regular stocks.
6. Buffett claims his chosen successors will do a great job after he's gone and the wonderful managers will keep going.
7. Uncle Warren is the best capitalist ever and should be trusted from the grave!
Berkshire "con" arguments:
1. It's a conglomerate, it won't outperform forever.
2. No dividends. Can't value it as income provider.
3. Class A shares too big to sell conveniently.
4. If it does outperform, a Class A's growth will distort a small portfolio.
5. Actually, it's gathering so much cash it may start issuing dividends. Uncertainty, plus tax hassles.
6. When Uncle Warren dies, stockholders will bail out, leaving you with a loss.
7. When Uncle Warren dies, his successors will be less good, some of the managers will leave, and sustained returns will drop.
8. Due to its insurance operations' "float", Berkshire has a lot of disguised leverage. If it goes bad, it could go real bad, underperforming the market.
No idea which set of arguments is right.