Berkshire’s 2026 annual shareholder meeting full transcript

CNBC Transcript: Berkshire Hathaway Chairman Warren Buffett Sits Down with CNBC’s Becky Quick During the 2026 Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting Today

Watch the 2026 Berkshire Hathaway annual shareholders meeting — 5/2/2026

https://news.futunn.com/en/post/72470772/2026-berkshire-hathaway-annual-meeting-transcript-buffett-steps-down-abel

Q&A Session

Question 1 - Where does human judgment remain a competitive advantage for Berkshire?

Question: Considering the current artificial intelligence tools, where does human judgment remain a competitive advantage for Berkshire?

Ajit: Artificial intelligence is also very trendy at present. In both the insurance sector and non-insurance sectors, people are rushing in. Clearly, if AI truly materializes as expected, there is no doubt that it will be a game-changer on a massive scale.

Currently, we see AI being used as a productivity tool, a mechanism to reduce labor costs and execute routine repetitive tasks. I don’t believe AI has reached the level where it can make decisions on matters requiring judgment, such as pricing or claims processing. That will take many more years. And I tend to be skeptical. If someone told me they could solve that problem, I would be surprised. So, if you expect AI to tell you which stocks to buy and which to sell, I don’t think that will happen.

Question 2: How to balance patience and action?

Question: As a young investor navigating uncertainty and rapid technological change, I often struggle to balance patience with action. How do you personally distinguish between the two?

Answer:

One of Berkshire’s greatest strengths is our patience and discipline in deploying capital. Over time, opportunities will always present themselves to you. That doesn’t mean there aren’t opportunities now, but it also doesn’t mean you need to deploy all your capital or spend all your money right now.

This is indeed the approach we take every day, recognizing that holding substantial cash and U.S. Treasuries is a significant asset, as in our case. I view holding that cash as an asset—it’s a huge opportunity. When you sense a powerful value proposition in an opportunity, you’ll feel it at that moment. When will we see those moments?

We have articulated our investment philosophy, a very important part of which is that we must have a deep understanding of what we are investing in. We seek profound comprehension — you mentioned technology and the rapid evolution and pace of change you observe. I always start from that point, and I know this is how we have consistently operated at Berkshire: Do we understand the business? Do we understand the opportunity? More importantly, do we understand the risks involved?

Then, we want to have a very clear view of its economic prospects over the next 5 to 10 years. Yes, the coming year is important, but we don't invest just for one year. We must take a long-term view of where the opportunity is headed. We go further — we intend to hold these investments indefinitely.

So we think this way: We want to have strong confidence in the management team there, who are capable and operate with high integrity. But most importantly, value must first justify the deployment of our capital. We are not in a rush to deploy capital into suboptimal opportunities.

We want to ensure it aligns with our principles, and then, as I mentioned earlier, we act decisively, swiftly, and commit substantial capital.

Question 3: How to balance the oversight of wholly-owned subsidiaries with stock investments, and how to view a large stock investment portfolio.

Question: Greg, considering your background as a corporate operator, which is different from Warren’s origins as a public market investor, can you share how you balance your time between overseeing wholly-owned subsidiaries and managing the current $288 billion stock investment portfolio? Additionally, will your operator perspective change the way you evaluate new investment opportunities compared to Warren’s historical approach?

Abel: I have operated various businesses at Berkshire Energy for many years, followed by my experience as Vice Chairman of Non-Insurance Operations. Fortunately, Ajit and I have held these excellent roles for the past eight, now nine, years. This has provided me with a very valuable opportunity to understand these businesses.

As I’ve already mentioned, we have exceptional businesses and leadership, but opportunities still exist. It does remind me that I will spend a certain amount of time on these businesses to ensure we allocate capital appropriately, continue to assess risks within these operations, and promote operational excellence. Because, listen, it’s easy as an insider to look at internal metrics and convince yourself that you're doing well. You need to look outward and ask: What do customers see and feel? What are our competitors doing? I think this is where we can add value on the operational side.

I mentioned giving Adam Wright more responsibilities, or rather, expanding his duties across 32 businesses. He brings excellent operational knowledge, and we also have the team on the insurance side.

Now, turning to the stock portfolio and time allocation. There are still tremendous opportunities when deploying capital from our balance sheet. I shared the scale of our cash and U.S. Treasury holdings. I want to emphasize that if you look at our current stock portfolio, as I outlined in the letter, we have a concentrated portfolio. We highlight this by referring to it as the core, but the best description is that it truly is a concentrated portfolio. We have what we call core and concentrated investments.

In my letter, I emphasized our investments in Japan. Interestingly, if you examine some of the companies where we hold significant positions, I’d like to add that for these companies, we may still be purchasing shares or rationalizing suitable positions within the portfolio. So, the first group I highlighted is just under $200 billion and remains at that level. We now have close to $100 billion, or $85 billion. Then, adding other investments by Berkshire, such as in Bank of America, Chevron, and Google, there’s another $70 billion. This underscores that a very large portion of our total investments is highly concentrated in a limited portfolio, with active management of these investments being minimal, which is precisely what I wanted to emphasize.

We are equally familiar with those businesses. We know the management teams. These are matters that Warren and I still absolutely collaborate on and discuss. You don’t need to talk about them every day, but if something arises in one of these businesses, we will discuss it during that week or month. It might concern their direction or what we’ve learned. Japanese companies just reported their results within the past 48 hours, which was a lively topic of discussion. Warren and I talked yesterday morning about their performance and what we’re seeing there. So, these are core holdings, but that doesn’t mean we set them aside or they’re just concentrated investments we keep evaluating.

Ted manages an additional $200 billion, or slightly less than that, in capital, but his responsibilities go far beyond that. He clearly assists us with our various other opportunities or helps evaluate risks or capital allocation within the business. So we’re fortunate to have that, but when you consider the management structure surrounding it and the workload required, it’s a very manageable portfolio.

As we’ve already mentioned, the opportunity to deploy this cash and U.S. Treasuries at the right time is a very significant opportunity—whether in equities, operational businesses, or even in insurance.

Regarding time allocation, yes, we do spend some time on operations, and we prioritize that because we see tremendous opportunities for continued improvement and narrowing gaps in operational excellence. We see opportunities within our existing portfolio, but those are either about increasing our stake or adjusting the scale. Then, we continuously assess what other opportunities exist in the market, whether acquiring an entire private or public company. Similarly, we also consider, if we were to own part of a company, what incremental opportunities might arise. Those opportunities are assessed in the same way, as I said, by looking at economic prospects, and it ties closely into the previous answer.

Jain: I truly believe that capital allocation and operational management are two sides of the same coin. Warren said something years ago that I think makes perfect sense: A good capital allocator will become a good operational manager, and vice versa.

Abel: When you think about our operating companies, as I mentioned earlier, we have a very deep bench of talent. We have exceptional operators who understand their businesses, industries, and customers. Yes, do we still have room for improvement? Absolutely, it’s a process of continuous improvement, and we work to close those gaps. But we have outstanding teams there. Whether it’s Ajit, myself, or Adam Wright, we spend time ensuring we’re satisfied with how we allocate capital, understand the risks, and recognize those gaps.

Question 4: Patience has an opportunity cost; how do long-term investors think about capital allocation?

Question: How should long-term investors think about their approach to capital allocation today when patience carries real opportunity costs? How can individuals balance patience with action, especially given Mr. Buffett’s decades-long performance record that has set the standard?

Abel: Returning to our approach to capital allocation and the long-term strategy we employ, it is highly aligned with our owners and shareholders present here. They adopt a very long-term approach to investing. We are fortunate to have such a unique owner base among our shareholders. Over the long term, Berkshire will encounter significant opportunities. This again brings us back to the patience and discipline in capital allocation. Do we know what will happen tomorrow? Or whether that event will occur three years from now or two years from now? But market dislocations will emerge, which will once again enable us to take action. That’s where our disciplined approach comes into play—knowing what our investment philosophy is around these activities.

It’s not that we don’t see outstanding companies today. There are many we would love to own. I would be cautious. Over the long term, we would be very pleased to hold those companies because they are excellent businesses with strong management teams, which we evaluate carefully. I would say, when you think about the world, it doesn’t mean there are dozens of such companies, but they do exist. However, relative to the opportunities, the economic prospects of the company, and the risks involved, we are not interested in acquiring these companies at those prices, whether it be partial ownership or full ownership. It does not mean that the opportunity won’t arise in the future.

This is what we prepare for: First, maintaining discipline; second, recognizing certain core opportunities that we value or consider fairly priced. This indeed brings us back to the importance of discipline.

When you ask me personally how to balance patience with action, it aligns again with my role here. I am fortunate to work with Warren, Ajit, and others, and we do this because we love and believe in Berkshire. Warren has brought immense commitment to Berkshire, with deep understanding and passion for it. Based on that, he aims to create something truly long-lasting, including the opportunities it might generate. Personally, and I know for all of us, we bring the same enthusiasm and fully intend to continue doing this in a manner consistent with the past.

Question 5: Providing insurance for ships crossing the Strait of Hormuz

Question 6: How to manage the investment portfolio built by Warren Buffett?

Question: How to manage the investment portfolio built by Warren Buffett?

Abel: Regarding the management of the existing investment portfolio and its contents, as you mentioned, it was built by Warren, but these are companies that Warren knows very well. And I am very confident that I understand these businesses and their economic prospects. So that's why when I articulated in the letter, I really wanted to convey a message: yes, we are very satisfied with these companies, we understand them, yes, this is a concentrated portfolio, but you know, their businesses will evolve and risks may arise. So we will continue to evaluate it, but this is a portfolio we are very comfortable with.

Warren Buffett mentioned Tim Cook's remarkable success at Apple. Warren and Tim recently discussed this, and they talked about how Warren's investment in Apple wasn't because it was a tech stock. He looked at what the product was and how much individual consumers valued it. It was an extraordinary perspective, but it's also a very similar perspective that I think many of us would apply.

Take the electricity business, for example. I know a lot about it; I know how to ensure power generation and transmission, and so on. But am I really that interested in how the Apple iPhone is manufactured? I might be curious about where they manufacture it and some of the risks and challenges surrounding that. But I have full confidence in our team when we discuss it on a broader basis. We will review and ask ourselves: do we understand its value and why the product has value? That actually comes down to its value to consumers.

I think the unique opportunity we have, and we are very fortunate that Warren comes to the office every day. We are lucky that we can discuss other potential opportunities that might exist and bring different skill sets. But ultimately, we will quickly narrow it down, identify what the opportunity is, why it has value, why consumers, or users in whatever industry, why that company and that product can endure? And related to that, where are the risks associated with it. That’s basically Warren’s approach, and it’s my approach as well.

As for our existing portfolio, we will always be clear about what we have invested in. But in terms of understanding the opportunities and risks within it, we are very confident that we have a clear view, and we are satisfied with our current situation.

Question 7: Succession planning for Jain and the insurance business, as well as Abel’s succession plan.

These two succession plans are clearly important topics. Ajit joined Berkshire in 1986 and has been the architect of our insurance business, creating an unparalleled franchise with a culture and discipline that are exceptional.

When Warren announced the transition plan last year, the first step was to bring together the top five managers of our insurance business to discuss operations and culture. This was an extraordinary opportunity for me to expand my knowledge base in insurance. What I observed in that team was deep management and insurance expertise, embodying the same values and culture emphasized by Ajit.

Maintaining a disciplined culture is challenging. In the insurance industry, instructing underwriters accustomed to active roles to 'take a break for a few months' is not easy. However, Ajit has an excellent team, and our board takes succession planning very seriously. We have a plan in place, and if either Ajit or I were unable to fulfill our duties, the board knows what actions to take.

Regarding culture and underwriting orientation, I follow some simple rules. The number of people actually involved in decision-making is very small; my top three executives have worked together for over 35 years. Compensation plans consist of fixed salaries rather than complex formulas that allow individuals to benefit from upside gains while Berkshire assumes downside risks. We shield them from market fluctuations so they can focus on doing the right thing.

Over the years, I've seen all kinds of compensation plans. I once told Warren: give me a compensation plan, and I can find loopholes in it, which you wouldn't discover until many years later. Add to that employees wanting to renegotiate when they lose, and being happy to walk away with everything when they win. This is a huge challenge.

Question 8: When will Berkshire Hathaway's utility companies phase out fossil fuels?

Question: When will Berkshire's utility companies phase out fossil fuels and transition to renewable energy alternatives, thereby ceasing to cause irreparable harm to the environment and the future of my generation?

Abel: We operate as stewards of these assets, serving our states and customers. First and foremost, we must fully comply with existing laws, including federal regulations. Our team is committed to both compliance and doing what is right. We have plans regarding resources and timelines for phasing out coal-fired and gas-fired units, which are largely driven by state policies. State governments will determine how we operate and how long these assets remain in service, as ultimately, it is the customers who bear the costs and risks.

Consider our utility in Iowa, where approximately 93% of the energy comes from renewable sources, leading the nation at an affordable cost. However, we still operate coal-fired plants, which are necessary for stabilizing the system during peak periods but are used only when absolutely needed.

The challenge lies in the significant pressure that hyperscale data centers place on the system. If artificial intelligence continues to develop, the number of carbon-based units in use will increase, putting substantial strain on the system and the entire industry.

Question 9: How does geopolitics affect Berkshire subsidiaries?

Question: What impact has the current geopolitical situation in the Middle East had on Berkshire's subsidiaries?

Abel: It indeed affects all our businesses in various ways. But what makes me most proud is that we manage these businesses with a long-term perspective. When the phone rings, you know challenges will arise—but that's okay. We discuss, we work hard, and we always find a way to overcome. Regarding situations related to the war with Iran and conflicts in the Middle East, I’ve seen the team adopt this attitude again: This is the reality we face. What is the best solution for our customers? How can we continue serving them as we always have?

I mentioned the drag-reducing agent from LSBI Pipeline Company. They typically do not sell large quantities of their products to the Middle East, but when they begin addressing this challenge, significant developments occur. This does not mean our business has been unaffected. Our chemical group, for instance, saw their input costs nearly double in a very short period. Over time, prices will adjust according to our contracts, and this situation will rebalance. In terms of managing our operations, we are simply focused on maintaining steady, long-term execution.

BNSF CEO: Railroads are indeed a strong reflection of both industrial and consumer economic conditions, as our freight volumes span various commodities. We have observed several distinct impacts stemming from the Middle Eastern conflict. Supply chain disruptions have created opportunities for some of these commodities, with rising demand for aggregates, steel, and other raw materials. The largest segment of our business is intermodal transport, which becomes more competitive as fuel prices increase. However, if fuel prices remain excessively high over the long term, it will affect consumer demand, impacting all aspects of our operations.

Yes, we are seeing some impacts. Several large retailers have noted that consumers are now forced to make choices about what to purchase. If the high fuel price environment persists for an extended period, I do believe we will see these customer impacts ripple through to our business.

Adam Johnson

On the consumer goods side and in physical retail, this has indeed affected some demand.

While acknowledging these pressures, Johnson noted that his businesses have long been accustomed to navigating volatility and finding solutions. We are prepared to address these situations and make adjustments where necessary. However, this is indeed affecting parts of our retail and consumer goods businesses.

Question 10: How does Berkshire manage its decentralized model? How does BNSF maintain competitiveness?

Question: Berkshire’s system relies on decentralization. Each manager acts as the CEO of their subsidiary. Which operating units require more oversight, and how are underperforming managers handled? BNSF's profitability lags behind its competitors; how will it maintain a competitive advantage against rivals and new technologies?

Abel: I emphasized the decentralized model, risk discipline, and capital allocation. We have an outstanding group of leaders and businesses who are closest to their customers. If they think like owners, we achieve excellent results across the entire corporate group.

However, the decentralized model does not mean we shirk responsibility. This autonomy means you embrace it, along with a great sense of accountability and pride in doing things well. We have high expectations: Are they managing risks? Do they see themselves as the Chief Risk Officer? Are they good at allocating the capital at hand? If we observe underperformance or poor decisions, that’s when we step in and discuss.

BNSF CEO: We fully understand that it is crucial to continue driving efficient operations, maintaining a competitive cost structure, and narrowing the gap in profitability with our competitors.

The first thing we are truly focused on in 2025 is improving the operational efficiency of single-car operations. Enhancing the single-car network can free up resources, create capacity, and allow you to handle the same or even greater freight volume with fewer assets. In the first quarter of this year, we handled more freight than in the first quarter of last year, but we used 260 fewer locomotives.

The second area revolves around our technological transformation. We are attracting data scientists and operations research professionals, integrating them with our operational staff at the Network Operations Center to study digital twins and provide predictive ETAs for customers. Our fuel efficiency reached a record high in the first quarter.

Regarding competition with trucks, we have the largest intermodal network among all railway companies. In the past, we operated trains with five people, but now most of our trains are operated by only two people. However, we need to be allowed to innovate, and we require regulatory support enabling railways to compete with trucks.

NetJets CEO: I returned on June 1, 2015. I asked a question: How many people truly understand both ends of our business? NetJets is complex—we fly to thousands of airports across 150 countries. I didn't like the answer—it was far too few.

We began rebuilding the culture from there. I remember preparing for my first board meeting, where I was talking about growth. Greg kindly pulled me aside and said, 'Why don't you worry Warren less and focus on reducing the debt first?' That was a lesson I took to heart.

We emphasized safety and service. Warren acquired NetJets in 1998 after becoming a customer, saying, 'I want safety, and I want service.' We have remained highly focused on ensuring everyone stays aligned with that vision. This has largely been the reason we were able to repay our debt, return cash to Berkshire Hathaway, and become a leader in the service industry.

Question 11: The impact of tariffs on investment portfolios?

Question: Is Berkshire Hathaway considering seeking tariff exemptions or compensation programs for its wholly owned operating businesses facing import costs? How significant is this impact across the entire portfolio?

Abel: The impact of tariffs on our entire portfolio is very similar to the discussion about the situation in the Middle East. We have already gone through it once during the first term of the current administration and learned lessons from it, so we are better prepared. It’s about rolling up our sleeves and managing it ourselves. We will find ways to continue serving our clients, recovering these tariffs through contracts signed directly with customers or via the products we are manufacturing. Our team has done an excellent job handling this issue. There are many things to clarify at the moment, but we are not actively seeking these solutions.

BNSF CEO: In terms of compensation, no, but I would like to say a few words about the impact of tariffs. In early 2025, we saw some customers shipping ahead of the implementation of tariffs, which led to increased freight volumes. Then, in the second half of 2025, it stabilized, and by 2026, our customers had indeed adapted and adjusted to the tariffs. That said, it did introduce some uncertainty. From a planning perspective, this has been very challenging for our customers, leaving some capital on the sidelines when it comes to investing in manufacturing facilities. It is the uncertainty caused by the tariffs that we have truly observed affecting our customers.

NetJets CEO: I’ll use Berkshire Hathaway Automotive as an example; its new car sales this year have slightly declined compared to last year, partly due to the impact of tariffs. The issue is that tariffs change daily, and simply understanding these “bouncing ball” tariffs is a job in itself.

Among the 32 consumer goods, services, and retail companies in the portfolio, their average age is 88 years. When I call those CEOs, they say: 'We’ve been dealing with tariffs for 100 years.' Think about the CEOs over the past seven or eight years — we’ve had to deal with a global pandemic, the highest inflation in 40 years, and now the “bouncing ball” tariffs. Companies have done an excellent job managing these issues, and I believe we are in a fairly good position for the future.

Question 12: Japan Investment Portfolio

Question: Berkshire Hathaway’s investments in five Japanese trading houses are passive, acquired at good prices using yen financing for solid businesses. Your transaction with Tokyo Marine, however, is fundamentally different—a ten-year joint M&A and reinsurance partnership. This represents an unprecedented level of operational integration for Berkshire internationally. What does this look like in practice? Does this indicate a shift toward more active international partnerships under your leadership?

Abel: Tokyo Marine has performed exceptionally well. I briefly mentioned earlier that this is a strategic relationship, not a financial transaction. We are pleased with our 2.5% investment in Tokyo Marine, which will be a long-term investment. It is similar to our other five investments in Japan, which we genuinely view as permanent because it transcends the investment itself and is more about the relationships we wish to build there. You will continue to see this reflected in the detailed underwriting opportunities where we jointly participate in their risks and rewards, effectively representing 2.5% of their current book. Again, while this is part of a financial transaction, it also involves significant trust.

The third point regarding the partnership emphasizes various aspects, but how we hope this relationship evolves remains undefined. So we will let it develop naturally. This partner shares the same culture and values as us. There is no doubt that it will be outstanding for many years to come. However, regarding seeking outright acquisitions in insurance or other sectors, that will evolve over time, and clearly, it will be a topic Ajit and the executive team at Tokyo Marine will discuss. If such opportunities arise, we would be very pleased.

Question 13: Will Berkshire divest or split its businesses?

When we consider this issue, in some cases, we may not be the best owners of a business. If there are labor issues we cannot resolve, or reputational risks we are unwilling to expose Berkshire Hathaway to, then that company does not belong to the Berkshire family. If a business is unsustainable and no longer generates operating cash for our shareholders, and if someone else can operate it more successfully, we must consider this.

We take very seriously our obligation to ensure that capital is appropriately allocated. In fact, we have already announced the sale of Pacific Corporation's utility in Washington State. In Washington State, the policies they want Pacific Corporation to implement would significantly impact costs for our other states. Our other states would bear costs imposed by another state, so we chose to exit and found an excellent buyer. When we purchase something, we always approach it with a 'forever hold' mindset, but it must be a proven relationship; if that relationship breaks down, we will find a better path forward.

Regarding the second part of the question, absolutely not splitting. We are a conglomerate, but an efficient one without layers of management or numerous committees dictating how our businesses should operate. Many conglomerates end up with layer upon layer of costs that do not add value to the entire company, but we avoid that.

Our conglomerate structure operates without bureaucracy and bloated costs, allowing us to transfer capital between groups in a highly tax-efficient manner. For this reason, we will not divest subsidiaries or split any group.

Question 14: Prioritize security or seize more investment opportunities? Prefer technology companies or cash flow companies?

Question: Compared to Warren, what is the most significant evolution in your personal framework for assessing cash flow certainty and margin of safety? Specifically, are you more inclined toward technology companies that demonstrate similarly robust cash flows?

Abel: Regarding how Warren views investment approaches—what we call our margin of safety in investments and how we handle things—we absolutely align. It starts with our culture and values, and how we’ve handled everything over the years.

If I go back to examining opportunities in the energy sector, it quickly shifts to: Do we truly understand the risks involved? At the time we were acquiring Nevada Energy, I had three major risks clearly in mind and was eager to discuss them with Warren. Our immediate conversation focused on fully understanding the economic benefits, then directly moving to the biggest risks. One of the risks was rooftop solar—how it would disrupt that business. That risk indeed surfaced 12 months later, 18 months later, and we successfully managed it. We think about risks differently; we view them through the lens of Berkshire and look ten years ahead: What will this business look like in ten years? If we don’t understand what it will look like in ten years, we won’t proceed. We must have a vision of what the future will be, and that’s at the core of how we operate.

Now, when it comes to technology companies, we would never say that a particular industry is something we must participate in. If there’s a company in the technology sector that we understand in terms of its opportunities and risks, and if the valuation is reasonable, then just because it belongs to the tech industry doesn’t exclude us from considering it.

Question 15: Who is Abel’s 'Charlie Munger'?

Abel: We are very fortunate to still have Warren as our chairman, which sets the stage for an excellent transition. We have a highly capable board of directors, and I can easily reach out to any of them on a case-by-case basis. When I was answering a question about Warren in Omaha, I said that we want Berkshire to endure. I hope to lead Berkshire, and I will be a strong leader. But you need to surround yourself with great people—and they’re already here.

Regarding non-insurance businesses, I have been very fortunate to work with the 32 companies managed by Adam and another 18 firms. Clearly, I have an excellent working relationship with Jain and am fortunate to frequently seek his advice. Then there are our CEOs—we are lucky to have such a remarkable group of individuals. For any given situation, I contact any one of them to seek their opinions.

Fortunately, due to Berkshire and the way we were created, we are surrounded by incredibly abundant resources. Berkshire will endure, and it will do so as a team.