71 is way past retirement age in many countries. Also didn’t know Warren Buffett is 96 already. Maybe it’s time to pass the torch to someone younger from a different generation
Or it could be very beneficial - you don't need to know anything about finance to judge the quality of this particular decision, so it's easier to cast doubt on other gospels
The decision was not based on competency so I can judge based on the factors that were considered. It's clear that this was done because of nepotism and I struggle to find other reasons. While you can hide behind ambiguity (it _could_ be very beneficial) there is no indication that it is at this time.
there's nothing wrong with leaving things to your kids to run.
that's the point of the effort after all.
warren as smart as he is was tryna go against the grain of thousands of human evolution. if you train your kids - then most likely they would've values similar to yours. hit or miss but most times a hit.
A lot of rich men, when younger, say that they will not leave so much of the wealth to their children. Then they get older and realize what other old men realized.
Yeah, the "upside" to nepotism is that, if you or your brother or your buddy did a good job raising the kid, you have someone who has had solid training for longer than it's possible for any other candidate to have had, and a better understanding of their character than you can get from interviewing another candidate a few times. Hiring Joe's kid is a no brainer, if you trust Joe, less risk of a really bad hire even if he doesn't turn out to be stellar.
The other downside of nepotism -- besides the risk that Joe did a shit job and won't admit it or maybe can't evaluate his kid objectively -- is that even if the kid is the bee's knees, a great hire, it's not really fair -- there's almost certainly other candidates who are just as good and trustworthy as Joe's kid but they can't compete with either Joe's kid. It doesn't really matter what sort of references or credentials a candidate can show you if you can serve as a reference for the other candidate. You can't really run a meritocracy like that.
for the downside - countless cultures have had preventative mechanism for that.
if your biological child is an idiot/wasteman - then you could adopt - the Roman Empire ran on adopted children, with biological children seen as wasteman.
the other way it's done e.g with Japanese businesses - again adopt your son in law and give him your surname.
the thing about giving helm to the sons - is usually you would've had a whole lifetime to evaluate the candidate 20+ years. do mistakes happen yeah, but honestly the risk is overblown.
>there's nothing wrong with leaving things to your kids to run.
where that's true or not, that's not what happened. this is more like "there's nothing wrong with trying to help your son in his career and getting him a job."
Berkshire Hathaway's market cap is a trillion, and Warren Buffet's net worth has never been close to that, i.e. it's not his company so he's not leaving it to his son to run.
You might admire Warren Buffet's acumen and think he'd be good at picking people, but all (for varying values of all) parents believe in their children so it's not easy to tell if you'd be getting his best advice in this case if you were another major shareholder in Berkshire.
He was giving it to the Gates Foundation for Bill & Melinda Gates to manage, but that deal went into limbo when Bill showed up in the Epstein files and Melinda divorced him.
Though unlikely the case here, family foundations should always be looked at as a likely source of corruption.
You cannot bribe me directly - that would be caught. However you can donate money to my family foundation and my kids (or spouse) will draw a large salary from it while doing almost nothing and they do some good for the world so it looks like a charity. Of course the kids/spouse will support me in various ways that all rich kids will.
Again, probably not what is happening here, but every time you hear of a family foundation you should ask who they are using it to corruption in some form. Even when it doesn't seem to be you should still look.
Even very large salaries are probably not a very significant amount of wealth for these people. I think this is a case where "all large numbers look the same."
If Warren just directly gave his money to his three children equally, and paid 40% inheritance tax on that money, and then the children each just used 1% of that wealth per year, then they'd each get:
144000000000 * 0.6 / 3 / 100 = $288 million each year.
No foundation pays its CEO 10% of that much money. I think we may have to accept that in fact this is a way to give money to charitable causes, not just horde it.
I believe they wouldn't have to because of the stepped-up-basis, but my point is that even if somehow they were paying the full 40%, it's still an inconceivably large amount of money.
Even if that kind of corruption isn't there, these charities are still a net negative for society. Why do the super rich rail against taxes but then donate all of their money to family foundations? There are multiple reasons. Pull on that thread.
It's more of a way to secure the fortune. You can't "secure" the personalities of all your offspring. If one of them gets out of line it could have disastrous consequences. Keeping it in a controlled institution boxes them in.
Still leaves $1.5b, that's a hell of an income if you stick it in any widespread passive fund, and still 100 times more than even the 1% mark in the US.
Most of them seemingly have control problems where even if they do, it is in the form of a giant money pile still under their control that they give away the returns of, usually also completely under their control.
Plenty of other charities in the world. Just because he stopped giving to the Gates Foundation over Epstein ties doesn't mean he won't send the money somewhere else.
Sure. The thing with the Gates Foundation is that it was able to handle billions. Most charities aren't equipped to effectively manage and deploy that kind of wealth. The Gates Foundation made it easy for billionaires to send a large lump sum to one place that was equipped to deal with it.
Having to part out all his wealth $5m at a time to spread it around without overwhelming the systems in place, would be a second act that I'm not sure Buffett has the time for.
It bothers me how he and other billionaires think that it's all worth it letting them get so rich because they "give it away". It's almost insulting.
You know who could have used all that money all this time? The people you leeched it away from via this thing known as taxes and a functioning government. But no, let's give it away to private foundations who will serve only their needs.
> but to oversee their family's share in the enterprise
Not exactly, he's there to oversee the culture of Berkshire and ensure it's continuity. Buffett is donating all of his wealth (and has already donated $66B), so there isn't a fortune to protect.
Berkshire is an institution of sorts at this point, and requires strong stewardship to prevent enshittification (for lack of a better word).
He's there to maintain the very unique culture of the company. I think it's sort of like if they have his son there he of all people should know Buffett's/Berkshire's culture and be able to best maintain it. He's got a few years to figure out a successor. But yeah this is mostly about the unique culture they have.
It's also entirely possible he's essentially competent at the job of being a board member which is a pretty do-little job if the CEO is doing a good job.
They can just add those people to the board. It’s not a set number and they don’t regularly add or remove people unless they think they can bring something to the table. Sometimes that is simply “holds a bajillion shares” but if they wanted a High Frequency Trading CEO on the board for insight into that, they could add both his kid and that CEO.
It's more a ceremonial thing, since as it plainly indicates in the headline his son, until today known only as Placeholder Buffet, has been waiting to receive a name for 71 years
While I liked your comment enough to upvote, I then realized that Chairman isn't an operational position. It's more a position where the person can exercise ownership of a company (to put it in layman terms). In your analogy he wouldn't be the athlete, more like the person who gets the winning money (assuming his son also has shares) and chooses the trainer/coach of the athletes (which still needs skill btw).
Warren was CEO until 9 months ago. While yes, he's been chairman for 50 years, he's been an exclusive chairman for only 9 months. The role is ambiguous anyways and it's pretty obvious that someone else won't have the authority Warren has. And his son has been a director for 30 years so it's not like he's a new hire
He was chairman and CEO for a long time. Since he has only been a chairman for not that long I don't think it's fair to say that he's been a very active chairman for a long time.
"Company culture" at Berkshire Hathway doesn't mean the same as at most companies. BH buys companies and don't interfere with them. So while BH employs upwards of 100k people, the people whose culture the CEO cares about is probably under 100 people.
This is the answer. While it is very real to talk about "employee culture" as company culture, in this particular case, the "culture" I was talking about was from a corporate/investment/acquisition level. Howards job is not to understand how each company that BRK owns is run, that is the CEO's job. But Howards job is to look at BRK from a high level and make sure that the CEO is executing in the same way that Warren set up, namely – buying companies and stocks at a "fair" price or below, and not micromanaging the companies that they acquire. If the CEO is not living up to that, Howard's (and the board's) one card that they can play is to replace the CEO.
The importance of top executive decisions is overstated, they often do no better than random chance. But their decisions are not where their value lies.
The important part is that they own their decisions, or at least appear to do so. And in doing that, they gain trust for the company, they are the company face. It is more of a performance than a technical job. By that, I don't mean it is fake, people will notice if you don't know what you are talking about, and it won't inspire confidence, which is what leaders try to avoid at all costs.
LLMs will probably be at least as good at decision making (I mean, that's almost a dice roll), and they can be convincing, which is important too, but they are completely lacking in the trust department. No one want to work for a machine, no one want to do business negotiations with a machine either. That's why it is important to have a human on top.
Yes, the powerful always do this. It might be challenging to find an exception.
It's not as rewarding to consider that you've reached your position by more good luck than effort, so you hand down advice from on high because clearly you're smarter than everyone else (doesn't help that many people treat you this was to gain access).
Then you continue to do whatever you want despite your own advice because of course... you're smarter than everyone else.
This is a position on the board. The Buffett estate gets an important board role because it represents their family’s large stake. Choosing someone in the family is consistent with this structure.
The article you’re picking the quote from is about estate taxes.
But his family inheriting his ownership of the company contradicts his statements about estate taxes in that article. And passing the chairman position to his son may even be part of a plan to pass wealth to him that avoids estate taxes.
Buffett has been planning this since at least 2011:
CHICAGO (MarketWatch) -- Warren Buffett has told the CBS News program "60 Minutes" that after he dies, he wants his son to become non-executive chairman of Berkshire Hathaway. Howard Buffett, a farmer with no college degree, would be a good successor, the elder Buffett said, because he understands the values of the company.
He must actually like farming because he didn't have to become a farmer. Of course, knowing that the family fortune has your back even if the farm doesn't work out probably helps.
Describing him just as a "a farmer" seems kind of ridiculous. Here has extensive business experience unrelated to his farm. From the Wikipedia page on him [1]:
> Buffett was Corporate Vice President and Assistant to the Chairman of Archer Daniels Midland Company from 1992 to 1995, Director of Archer Daniels Midland Company from 1991 to 1995, Director of the Board of Directors of The GSI Group from 1995 to 2001, director of ConAgra Foods from 2002 to 2006, director of Agro Tech Foods Ltd. until October 26, 2006, and director at Sloan Implement. He became a Lindsay Corporation director in 1995, and served as chairman from 2002 to 2003. and in 2008, announced he would let his term as a director expire in January 2010.
> He is, as of 1992, a director of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., and President of Buffett Farms.
> Howard G. Buffett has been a Director of The Coca-Cola Company since December 9, 2010. From 1993 to 2004 he was a director of Coca-Cola Enterprises, the world's largest Coca-Cola bottler.
> Describing him just as a "a farmer" seems kind of ridiculous.
Not at all. From a New York Times article [1]:
> In 1986, he began running a 400-acre farm north of Omaha that his father purchased for him.
> Howard now manages a 1,500-acre farm in central Illinois that is owned by his family, and still operates the 400-acre farm in Nebraska.
1,900 acres is a lot of farm!
What surprises me more? He is a board member since 1993, but doesn't have a university degree. I am surprised that they did not send him to an executive MBA programme.
From that same NYT article:
> Mr. Buffett, who goes by “Howie,” attended three colleges in the 1970s, Augustana College in Rock Island, Ill.; Chapman College in Orange, Calif.; and the University of California at Irvine. He did not graduate from any of them.
Sat on a couple of boards and the non exec chair mostly just guards the culture and can fire the CEO. Abel runs the business. That's a very different job from Howard's.
Maybe someone can enlighten me, but what's the point of "never selling"? Stocks are not a collectible that you can just look at for fun. Their whole point is to sell for profit, at some time. Maybe it's just me but if you "never cash out", that seems a waste of capital. Or perhaps this is a marketing stunt wealthy people sometimes to? Akin to "I live in a small house".
Because if you don't sell you don't pay taxes. You can instead borrow against the asset and get a credit for the interest you pay. The joys of being filthy rich.
If it pays a dividend there is income. Buy and hold is a very common approach to investing. Overtime the cost basis of a good stock will decrease. Some could be sold to invest in other things.
Buy and hold is a hedge against inflation as good if goods increases the the stock reflects the relative expansion of the money supply.
Technically you can borrow money against your share, if you think your share gains will be higher than the interest rate you essentially have free money (although, obviously, not risk free). So that is a use for never selling shares.
wealth needs to be kept somewhere. you can either keep it in cash where it inflates away. or in bonds that also inflates away but slower or stocks that is a hedge against inflation.
so the point is protecting your wealth against inflation and continuing the compounding over long stretches of time.
you can liquidate as required or even borrow against it like the very rich do.
Not true. He bought his first stock at 11 by pooling money with his sister, and sold after it dropped 30% then bounced back up to a profit. The stock was "Cities Service" which became Citgo later.
I've read this years ago in "The Warren Buffett Portfolio", but couldn't find a definitive source for this response quickly, so here (https://www.fool.com/how-to-invest/2014/03/15/the-very-first...) is the reference I used to recount the details above.
Wording. That stock in question he first bought at 13 is Texas Pacific Land and he still owns it. It may not have been "his first ever" but he holds that one still.
1. The next generation has been groomed by Buffet Himself, passing on as much knowledge as he can, but of course, this successor didn't create the fortune, doesn't appreciate it as much, and doesn't have as strong of judgement. However, he is surrounded by the old guard and wise mentors. But as those wither away, he is unable to determine who the worthy successors in his circle should be, slowly the inner circle begins to weaken too.
2. The next successor gets an even less effective set of principles from the first, only knowing off-hand how the money was made in the first place, they are a manager only. They also have no idea how the original people were selected or what makes a good inner circle. Soon it devolves into yes-men and people who seem superficially qualified to manage things.
3. The next successor has little no skills, other than showing up to meetings and going with what advisors say. Because the decision making of the original Buffet mentality has been so diluted, they only know superficial / surface understanding, akin to anyone who read the short books on the subject. They don't know how to do the deep diligence that made BH great. The inner circle is all sycophants, climbers, and clingers. Bad investments, debacles, and poor judgment create losses. Investors begin to panic sell, soon the BH stock crashes in value, losing 90% of the fortune.
And so on... Not hard to see how its like handing off a complex but successful open source project to your progeny instead of the most qualified developers. Pretty soon, its just an unmaintainable mess. They don't understand why things are the way they are, maybe they aren't as good a programmer as great grandpa. They definitely don't know how to hire and keep the best talent that originally built the thing. Pretty soon complexity budget and community good will are exhausted, people move to something newer and more dynamic.
It probably will happen over time as entropy does its thing, but the structure is different than what you describe.
For one, Howard is not the successor, Greg Abel is. Howard is a Stewart of culture, but he is not the leader.
He also isn’t inheriting Buffetts fortune so the generational rot won’t be the same.
Next, both Greg and Howard have been at Berkshire for decades, and however is next up will likely be similar. So there is time to pass on the values.
Laslty, Berkshire is a decentralized company. The company itself has less than 50 employees. All of the companies they own have their own leadership structures and cultures, and Berkshire does not burden itself in managing it. This makes the successor problem a lot easier
There's a big difference between keeping all of your ownership and giving it to the son and paying a huge salary and making him non-executive chairman while giving away most of your wealth.
A lot of negativity here on Buffett. I doubt any mega-billionaire is a total saint, but by comparison Warren seems like a guy who tried to do good in the world.
We should hope for fewer billionaires, but as long as we have them, we should hope for more Warrens.
Warrens team was famous for extracting undervalued companies from the market, and formed a solid rational investment posture that lasted decades.
By comparison, most other companies including your Bank are often just a group of clowns in cheap suits offloading their mistakes onto suckers. I used to think people that complained were crazy, until I started comparative investing a few ETF.
Warren drove the same old car for years, as unlike most of wall street is not selling his image. You don't have to like the guy, but we can respect his resolve. If he is leaving, it is a bad sign or his story is ending. =3
true he drove the same old car for years, however he traveled via private jet for most of his milage. Which brings me to a fun story:
Buffett originally called corporate private jets an "indefensible" luxury. When he did eventually buy a jet he named it "The Indefensible", later changing the name to "The Indispensable."
There are some things to like. Despite being so wealthy, he advocated for higher taxes on the wealthy. I think that in itself is worthy of praise and worthy of ignoring anything else. The fact he distanced himself from Gates because of the Epstein connection. In addition I get the general feeling amassing wealth was more of a game to him. Obviously he did not use it that much or even abuse it. Still, I do think the way he made money was investing in a lot of basically monopolies where it's questionable if that's really doing a service to society. There's nothing wrong with it per se, but I don't think that it's very beneficial to really anyone except himself. If you are a big believer in the free market economy and investment (which I am not), you might also disagree with his views. For instance, he was always very openly critical about investments like cars etc. because you can't pick the winner out of the thousands of entrants into this invention. This makes a lot of sense if you want to grow your wealth. But if you think about it, if everyone did that, there would be no car and ultimately nothing else, and so even his returns would be much smaller because the economy would be much smaller. That people rush in to create a booming market where a lot of wealth is ultimately squandered is a prerequisite to progress. In a capitalist world at least.
For a billionaire, it's probably the most we can except from anyone really.
What about all the people that Berkshire provides with gainful employment? What about all the goods and services its businesses provide to communities? What about all the tax it pays? What about the wealth he created for his investors? What about the high standards of corporate governance he upheld in the companies he controlled? You don’t hear about corporate sleaze and kleptocratic management at Berkshire companies. What about the fact that rather than consuming his personal wealth he’s left it mostly to a charitable foundation?
I literally said in my first sentence that the fact he's a billionaire advocating for paying taxes makes him praise worthy and more important than any criticism you might think of. I do think there is a lot to admire and I've used some good advice he's given (not to me personally).
I just think it's interesting that the people who should be criticizing him are actually other capitalists. Because real meaningful economic progress comes from investing in new groundbreaking things, not getting a good return on insurance float or See's Candies. That is all. He says he won't invest in cars, but also that it was obvious it was a machine that would change the world. Coca Cola is another big home run of his, yet a company who's contribution to society is probably overall negative. Etc. That I admire some things or a lot of things even does not mean I idolize anyone.
Well I think you need both. You need stable, well run businesses like insurance or confectioners, and you need high risk moonshots. I
want the people with most business acumen running the former and the people with the most creative energy running the latter. Businesses like SpaceX wouldn’t be possible without a highly developed financial sector.
I can agree with that, but even with this perspective you should be critical of parts of Buffett's position since he basically advocates never investing into such companies because you can't predict the winner.
A legend through early 2000s. The game changed starting 2013-14 and he never adjusted. Bailed or undervalued a bunch of tech names that could have yield 2-3x his actual return. Recent example is them bailing on TSM because of Chinese invasion fears.
Berkshire HQ has exactly 27 people. so I think those comments about culture are spot on. but the issue of "what would walt/steve/warren do?" will eventually bite you in the ass.
To anyone who owns BRK-B shares (or BRK-A if you have that kind of money), over the next decade your money will likely grow on par with if not at a slightly higher rate than keeping it in an S&P 500 Index fund. Regardless of board or management changes, BRK will stay a better long term bet than an index fund. Both options have similar amounts of risk.
I hold BRK stocks and I expect it to underperform the market on average (but also be a very good hedge in case of big downturn).
BRK is in big part short term treasuries then a stock portfolio then a core business (insurance, energy, rail, manufacturing etc.). While it's reasonable to expect the core business to outperform there is no way the whole thing is a favorite to do so because cash is a big drag.
> but also be a very good hedge in case of big downturn
Are you aware that BRK cratered during the 2009 stock market crash? During a crash, except gov't bonds, pretty much everything sells off equally. There is a joke on Wall Street after 2009: During a crash, correlation on all assets goes to one (1.0).
In the last 10 years, their returns are nearly identical. However, each decade that you look back, BRK does better and better. But think about that: It's actually slowing down over the last 50 years. I predict will be equal or less the S&P 500 for the next two decades. BRK hardly invests in anything high tech (including bio-tech). They will be missing out on many hypergrowth opportunities.
Family Dynasty of Billionaires. The Dallas TV series was quite good, Larry Hagman as villain - but compared to the real world billionaires, Larry roleplaying as J. R. was a saint compared to what in reality is going on. Can we finally admit that the Epstein network was: a) much bigger than originally known or assumed, and b) not the only criminal abuse network? I mean we already see how much dirt is covered by Trump here. Now imagine we would have real investigations. How much would be revealed ...
164 comments
[ 5.5 ms ] story [ 129 ms ] threadAlso, since the NYT says nothing else about the son: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Graham_Buffett In context, his recent involvement in local politics seems rather odd.
They all seem very similar to the British "new nobility" in the mid-late 19th century, albeit with less syphilis and opium.
Squinting at a [Compact] 1971 Oxford English Dictionary - the pedophilic meaning postdates that edition.
that's the point of the effort after all.
warren as smart as he is was tryna go against the grain of thousands of human evolution. if you train your kids - then most likely they would've values similar to yours. hit or miss but most times a hit.
The other downside of nepotism -- besides the risk that Joe did a shit job and won't admit it or maybe can't evaluate his kid objectively -- is that even if the kid is the bee's knees, a great hire, it's not really fair -- there's almost certainly other candidates who are just as good and trustworthy as Joe's kid but they can't compete with either Joe's kid. It doesn't really matter what sort of references or credentials a candidate can show you if you can serve as a reference for the other candidate. You can't really run a meritocracy like that.
if your biological child is an idiot/wasteman - then you could adopt - the Roman Empire ran on adopted children, with biological children seen as wasteman.
the other way it's done e.g with Japanese businesses - again adopt your son in law and give him your surname.
the thing about giving helm to the sons - is usually you would've had a whole lifetime to evaluate the candidate 20+ years. do mistakes happen yeah, but honestly the risk is overblown.
where that's true or not, that's not what happened. this is more like "there's nothing wrong with trying to help your son in his career and getting him a job."
Berkshire Hathaway's market cap is a trillion, and Warren Buffet's net worth has never been close to that, i.e. it's not his company so he's not leaving it to his son to run.
You might admire Warren Buffet's acumen and think he'd be good at picking people, but all (for varying values of all) parents believe in their children so it's not easy to tell if you'd be getting his best advice in this case if you were another major shareholder in Berkshire.
You cannot bribe me directly - that would be caught. However you can donate money to my family foundation and my kids (or spouse) will draw a large salary from it while doing almost nothing and they do some good for the world so it looks like a charity. Of course the kids/spouse will support me in various ways that all rich kids will.
Again, probably not what is happening here, but every time you hear of a family foundation you should ask who they are using it to corruption in some form. Even when it doesn't seem to be you should still look.
If Warren just directly gave his money to his three children equally, and paid 40% inheritance tax on that money, and then the children each just used 1% of that wealth per year, then they'd each get:
144000000000 * 0.6 / 3 / 100 = $288 million each year.
No foundation pays its CEO 10% of that much money. I think we may have to accept that in fact this is a way to give money to charitable causes, not just horde it.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/warren-buffett-...
Having to part out all his wealth $5m at a time to spread it around without overwhelming the systems in place, would be a second act that I'm not sure Buffett has the time for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_charitable_...
You know who could have used all that money all this time? The people you leeched it away from via this thing known as taxes and a functioning government. But no, let's give it away to private foundations who will serve only their needs.
Not exactly, he's there to oversee the culture of Berkshire and ensure it's continuity. Buffett is donating all of his wealth (and has already donated $66B), so there isn't a fortune to protect.
Berkshire is an institution of sorts at this point, and requires strong stewardship to prevent enshittification (for lack of a better word).
- to prevent institutional degradation.
- to avoid cultural shift for the worse.
- to keep hold of and nurture that culture.
He was elected by the board too, rather than directly placed by Warren.
I don’t think the last name hurt his chances in 1993 either.
He wasn't wrong.
I never saw our CEO in person, never saw our chairman even on a webinar.
And yes it's not their job to be that low level, but they can't have an idea of the culture either.
The importance of top executive decisions is overstated, they often do no better than random chance. But their decisions are not where their value lies.
The important part is that they own their decisions, or at least appear to do so. And in doing that, they gain trust for the company, they are the company face. It is more of a performance than a technical job. By that, I don't mean it is fake, people will notice if you don't know what you are talking about, and it won't inspire confidence, which is what leaders try to avoid at all costs.
LLMs will probably be at least as good at decision making (I mean, that's almost a dice roll), and they can be convincing, which is important too, but they are completely lacking in the trust department. No one want to work for a machine, no one want to do business negotiations with a machine either. That's why it is important to have a human on top.
Here's his Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Graham_Buffett
It's not as rewarding to consider that you've reached your position by more good luck than effort, so you hand down advice from on high because clearly you're smarter than everyone else (doesn't help that many people treat you this was to gain access).
Then you continue to do whatever you want despite your own advice because of course... you're smarter than everyone else.
The article you’re picking the quote from is about estate taxes.
CHICAGO (MarketWatch) -- Warren Buffett has told the CBS News program "60 Minutes" that after he dies, he wants his son to become non-executive chairman of Berkshire Hathaway. Howard Buffett, a farmer with no college degree, would be a good successor, the elder Buffett said, because he understands the values of the company.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/warren-buffett-wants-farmer...
I’m not usually about hereditary succession, but this is an exception I could get behind.
> Buffett was Corporate Vice President and Assistant to the Chairman of Archer Daniels Midland Company from 1992 to 1995, Director of Archer Daniels Midland Company from 1991 to 1995, Director of the Board of Directors of The GSI Group from 1995 to 2001, director of ConAgra Foods from 2002 to 2006, director of Agro Tech Foods Ltd. until October 26, 2006, and director at Sloan Implement. He became a Lindsay Corporation director in 1995, and served as chairman from 2002 to 2003. and in 2008, announced he would let his term as a director expire in January 2010.
> He is, as of 1992, a director of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., and President of Buffett Farms.
> Howard G. Buffett has been a Director of The Coca-Cola Company since December 9, 2010. From 1993 to 2004 he was a director of Coca-Cola Enterprises, the world's largest Coca-Cola bottler.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Graham_Buffett
What surprises me more? He is a board member since 1993, but doesn't have a university degree. I am surprised that they did not send him to an executive MBA programme.
From that same NYT article:
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/18/business/warren-buffett-s...Buy and hold is a hedge against inflation as good if goods increases the the stock reflects the relative expansion of the money supply.
Also some shares pay dividends.
so the point is protecting your wealth against inflation and continuing the compounding over long stretches of time.
you can liquidate as required or even borrow against it like the very rich do.
I've read this years ago in "The Warren Buffett Portfolio", but couldn't find a definitive source for this response quickly, so here (https://www.fool.com/how-to-invest/2014/03/15/the-very-first...) is the reference I used to recount the details above.
It'll all burn eventually.
1. The next generation has been groomed by Buffet Himself, passing on as much knowledge as he can, but of course, this successor didn't create the fortune, doesn't appreciate it as much, and doesn't have as strong of judgement. However, he is surrounded by the old guard and wise mentors. But as those wither away, he is unable to determine who the worthy successors in his circle should be, slowly the inner circle begins to weaken too.
2. The next successor gets an even less effective set of principles from the first, only knowing off-hand how the money was made in the first place, they are a manager only. They also have no idea how the original people were selected or what makes a good inner circle. Soon it devolves into yes-men and people who seem superficially qualified to manage things.
3. The next successor has little no skills, other than showing up to meetings and going with what advisors say. Because the decision making of the original Buffet mentality has been so diluted, they only know superficial / surface understanding, akin to anyone who read the short books on the subject. They don't know how to do the deep diligence that made BH great. The inner circle is all sycophants, climbers, and clingers. Bad investments, debacles, and poor judgment create losses. Investors begin to panic sell, soon the BH stock crashes in value, losing 90% of the fortune.
And so on... Not hard to see how its like handing off a complex but successful open source project to your progeny instead of the most qualified developers. Pretty soon, its just an unmaintainable mess. They don't understand why things are the way they are, maybe they aren't as good a programmer as great grandpa. They definitely don't know how to hire and keep the best talent that originally built the thing. Pretty soon complexity budget and community good will are exhausted, people move to something newer and more dynamic.
For one, Howard is not the successor, Greg Abel is. Howard is a Stewart of culture, but he is not the leader.
He also isn’t inheriting Buffetts fortune so the generational rot won’t be the same.
Next, both Greg and Howard have been at Berkshire for decades, and however is next up will likely be similar. So there is time to pass on the values.
Laslty, Berkshire is a decentralized company. The company itself has less than 50 employees. All of the companies they own have their own leadership structures and cultures, and Berkshire does not burden itself in managing it. This makes the successor problem a lot easier
A super comfortable life with enough money to get you to 105 years old that all you need.
That's what your personal executive team is for.
We should hope for fewer billionaires, but as long as we have them, we should hope for more Warrens.
By comparison, most other companies including your Bank are often just a group of clowns in cheap suits offloading their mistakes onto suckers. I used to think people that complained were crazy, until I started comparative investing a few ETF.
Warren drove the same old car for years, as unlike most of wall street is not selling his image. You don't have to like the guy, but we can respect his resolve. If he is leaving, it is a bad sign or his story is ending. =3
Buffett originally called corporate private jets an "indefensible" luxury. When he did eventually buy a jet he named it "The Indefensible", later changing the name to "The Indispensable."
The guy has a great sense of humor.
For a billionaire, it's probably the most we can except from anyone really.
Doesn’t count for much?
I just think it's interesting that the people who should be criticizing him are actually other capitalists. Because real meaningful economic progress comes from investing in new groundbreaking things, not getting a good return on insurance float or See's Candies. That is all. He says he won't invest in cars, but also that it was obvious it was a machine that would change the world. Coca Cola is another big home run of his, yet a company who's contribution to society is probably overall negative. Etc. That I admire some things or a lot of things even does not mean I idolize anyone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_67JbvXLrmw
(I'm not hating on Buffet/Berkshire)
From here you can compare BRK vs S&P 500 historical performance: https://www.alphaspread.com/comparison/nyse/brk.b/vs/indx/gs...
In the last 10 years, their returns are nearly identical. However, each decade that you look back, BRK does better and better. But think about that: It's actually slowing down over the last 50 years. I predict will be equal or less the S&P 500 for the next two decades. BRK hardly invests in anything high tech (including bio-tech). They will be missing out on many hypergrowth opportunities.