Warren Buffett's AI Bets: 22% of Berkshire Hathaway's $282 Billion Stock Portfolio Is in These 2 Artificial Intelligence Stocks
At the end of this year, Warren Buffett will be stepping down as Berkshire Hathaway 's CEO. Buffett has built an incredible track record of success since taking over the business in 1965 and using it as the foundation for an investment conglomerate that would go on to become one of the world's largest and most successful companies.
Buffett mostly made his name and delivered fantastic returns for shareholders through the principles of value investing, but Berkshire has also come to have a larger exposure to technology trends and growth stocks in recent years. And in the tech space, no trend is bigger or more important than artificial intelligence (AI) right now. With that in mind, read on for a look at two stocks that account for roughly 22% of Berkshire Hathaway's $282 billion stock portfolio.
1. Apple
Keith Noonan (Apple): With a market capitalization of $3 trillion, Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) stands as the world's third-largest company, trailing only Microsoft and Nvidia. Coming in at 21.6% of Berkshire's total stock portfolio, it's also the investment conglomerate's single largest publicly traded company. It retains that distinction even though Buffett's company sold more than 600 million shares of Apple stock last year.
In general, Berkshire Hathaway has been reducing its stock holdings and building up its cash position recently. The move likely reflects concerns that the market at large has become expensive relative to the level of macroeconomic and geopolitical risks that Berkshire's analysts see on the horizon. On the other hand, the move to significantly reduce its Apple holdings likely reflects some specific concerns facing the business.
While Apple's leading position in mobile hardware gives it a strong foundation to build out its artificial intelligence (AI) business, the company also seems to be behind leading players including Microsoft, Alphabet, and Meta Platforms in some key respects. For example, Apple has reportedly had significant trouble getting its next-gen, AI-powered Siri platform up to the performance levels that developers were targeting.
Additionally, Apple is facing some significant challenges in the Chinese market. The rollout of the company's Apple Intelligence platform was delayed last year because Apple had not found a Chinese company to partner with to roll out the software locally. As a result, sales for the iPhone 16 were relatively soft in the market. The mobile hardware giant has now partnered with Alibaba Group Holding to make its AI software available, but Chinese customers are still showing increased preference for domestic technology brands -- and geopolitical dynamics could create continued headwinds.
Berkshire's move to reduce its position in Apple has meant that Buffett's company has also actually reduced its investment exposure to the overall AI trend. On the other hand, Apple has still retained its status as Berkshire's largest stock holding -- and it seems clear that Buffett remains a big fan of the business. Apple has yet to match the AI successes of some other top tech players, but the company's many strengths suggest it still has many opportunities to be a big winner in the space.
2. Amazon
Jennifer Saibil (Amazon): Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN) makes up a small percentage of the Berkshire Hathaway portfolio, and Buffett didn't even buy it. He said that one of the portfolio's investing managers, Todd Combs or Ted Weschler, pushed the button on Amazon stock, because tech isn't really in his wheelhouse. However, he's also said that he made a mistake by not buying it earlier.
Amazon is so much more than AI, but generative AI is leading it forward today, representing its greatest growth opportunities. Amazon Web Services (AWS) is Amazon's cloud computing business, where much of the generative AI is taking place. It's the largest cloud services business in the world, with 30% of the market, according to Statista.
CEO Andy Jassy believes that very soon all apps will be built with a generative AI component, like databases and storage today. Most of that is going to be built on the cloud, and as the leader, Amazon will account for a vast amount of it. "Before this generation of AI, we thought AWS had the chance to ultimately be a multi-hundred-billion dollar revenue run rate business," Jassy said on a recent earnings call. "We now think it could be even larger."
To make that happen, Amazon offers the largest assortment of generative AI tools and services throughout the three layers of its program. The bottom layer is complete customization for its largest clients to build their own large language models (LLMs), the foundation of generative AI. The middle layer is semi-custom solutions through the Amazon Bedrock program, and Amazon offers several tools in the top layer for small businesses that need ready-made programs. These are tools like the ability to create full product descriptions based on prompts.
AWS already pulls more than its own weight for Amazon. Sales increased 17% year over year in the first quarter, making it the second-fastest-growing segment behind advertising, and it accounted for 63% of operating income.
Will Berkshire Hathaway buy more Amazon stock after Buffett steps down as CEO at the end of the year? It will be interesting to see whether or not the equity positions change without Buffett in the top spot.
Should you invest $1,000 in Apple right now?
Before you buy stock in Apple, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Apple wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $669,517!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $868,615!*
Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor 's total average return is792% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to171%for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor.
See the 10 stocks »
*Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025
Suzanne Frey, an executive at Alphabet, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Randi Zuckerberg, a former director of market development and spokeswoman for Facebook and sister to Meta Platforms CEO Mark Zuckerberg, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. John Mackey, former CEO of Whole Foods Market, an Amazon subsidiary, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Jennifer Saibil has positions in Apple. Keith Noonan has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Berkshire Hathaway, Meta Platforms, Microsoft, and Nvidia. The Motley Fool recommends Alibaba Group and recommends the following options: long January 2026 $395 calls on Microsoft and short January 2026 $405 calls on Microsoft. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
an hour ago
- Globe and Mail
Where Will Archer Aviation Stock Be in 3 Years?
Makers of electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft (eVTOLs) aim to revolutionize the transportation industry by allowing people to literally fly above urban traffic on short-haul routes. Archer Aviation (NYSE: ACHR) is an early mover in the air taxi space, and with its market cap at just $5.83 billion now, new investors can still get in early on what could be an exciting long-term growth opportunity. That said, potential rewards often correlate with potential risk in the stock market. And in late May, a report from short-seller Culper Research cast doubts about the quality of Archer Aviation's communications with investors and the public. Remember that short-sellers make money when a stock falls. Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now. Continue » Culper Research is short Archer Aviation On May 20, Culper Research published a report titled "Archer Aviation (ACHR): When You Can't Earn Airtime in the Sky, Buy it on Late Night Television" and featuring an image of Archer Aviation CEO Adam Goldstein alongside Jimmy Fallon, host of The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon. Culper Research claims the company "systematically misled" investors about its progress toward developing and testing its flagship Midnight aircraft. The report cites examples from employee emails, photos, and public statements that the short-seller believes contradict Archer Aviation's claims about the progress of its eVTOL program. The stock didn't immediately drop after the report, but was down about 18% from the close of trading May 19 to the close on June 5. Archer's management fired back in a statement, dismissing the claims as "baseless" and questioning Culper's credibility. Short-sellers profit when the price of a stock that they have shorted goes down, which gives them an incentive to present such a company's situation as negatively as possible. That gives me pause about the Culper report. Furthermore, even if Archer Aviation is overselling the progress of its eVTOL program, that's par for the course for speculative tech companies. For example, Tesla CEO Elon Musk has frequently made projections about timelines and projects (such as self-driving) that have rarely played out the way he said they would. Expectations of some exaggerations and delays are likely already priced into Archer Aviation's stock. Focus on the fundamentals Instead of getting caught up in news stories and short-seller allegations, investors should focus on Archer Aviation's financial reports. This data should give investors the best indications of how long the company can sustain its operations while it waits for factors outside its control, such as regulatory approvals. So far, the situation is complicated. In the first quarter, its operating losses stood at $144 million, compared to $142 million in the prior-year period. This was mainly due to research and development outflows, as it spent more to bring the Midnight aircraft closer to commercialization. However, with around $1 billion in cash and equivalents on its balance sheet, Archer Aviation could sustain that rate of cash burn for about seven more quarters before it would need to seek outside sources of capital. The company is also working on expanding its manufacturing capabilities through a partnership with multinational automaker Stellantis. The companies are teaming up to build a manufacturing facility in Covington, Georgia, that will eventually be capable of producing up to 650 aircraft annually, with Stellantis contributing expertise and capital to the project. Archer Aviation expects to be able to produce two Midnight aircraft per month by the end of 2025. What will the next three years have in store? Like many speculative companies, Archer Aviation presents a hugely optimistic vision for its future. While the company is still awaiting final approvals from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the U.S., in international markets, it seems to be moving much faster. Early "launch edition" customers for its eVTOLs include Ethiopian Airlines and Abu Dhabi Aviation, which plans to take delivery of Midnight aircraft later this year. Over the next three years, Archer's revenue growth could accelerate dramatically as it secures more clients and ramps up production. But while this is exciting news for investors, it is unclear if these customers plan to merely test and experiment with eVTOLS or incorporate them into large-scale revenue-generating operations. Furthermore, investors shouldn't be surprised if there are delays and disappointments associated with the aircraft's commercialization, especially considering the allegations made in Culper Research's report. Archer Aviation remains a high-risk, high-potential-reward bet and it's not clear where it will be in three years. Should you invest $1,000 in Archer Aviation right now? Before you buy stock in Archer Aviation, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Archer Aviation wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $669,517!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $868,615!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor 's total average return is792% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to173%for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025
Toronto Sun
an hour ago
- Toronto Sun
Global streamers fight CRTC's rule requiring them to fund Canadian content
Published Jun 08, 2025 • 4 minute read Fans are reflected in a Disney+ logo during the Walt Disney D23 Expo in Anaheim, Calif., Sept. 9, 2022. Photo by PATRICK T. FALLON / AFP / FILES / Getty Images OTTAWA — Some of the world's biggest streaming companies will argue in court on Monday that they shouldn't have to make CRTC-ordered financial contributions to Canadian content and news. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account The companies are fighting an order from the federal broadcast regulator that says they must pay five per cent of their annual Canadian revenues to funds devoted to producing Canadian content, including local TV news. The case, which consolidates several appeals by streamers, will be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto. Apple, Amazon and Spotify are fighting the CRTC's 2024 order. Motion Picture Association-Canada, which represents such companies as Netflix and Paramount, is challenging a section of the CRTC's order requiring them to contribute to local news. In December, the court put a pause on the payments _ estimated to be at least $1.25 million annually per company. Amazon, Apple and Spotify had argued that if they made the payments and then won the appeal and overturned the CRTC order, they wouldn't be able to recover the money. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. In court documents, the streamers put forward a long list of arguments on why they shouldn't have to pay, including technical points regarding the CRTC's powers under the Broadcasting Act. Spotify argued that the contribution requirement amounts to a tax, which the CRTC doesn't have the authority to impose. The music streamer also took issue with the CRTC requiring the payments without first deciding how it will define Canadian content. Amazon argued the federal cabinet specified the CRTC's requirements have to be 'equitable.' It said the contribution requirement is 'inequitable because it applies only to foreign online undertakings and only to such undertakings with more than $25 million in annual Canadian broadcasting revenues.' Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Apple also said the regulator 'acted prematurely' and argued the CRTC didn't consider whether the order was 'equitable.' It pointed out Apple is required to contribute five per cent, while radio stations must only pay 0.5 per cent — and streamers don't have the same access to the funds into which they pay. The CRTC imposes different rules on Canadian content contributions from traditional media players. It requires large English-language broadcasters to contribute 30 per cent of revenues to Canadian programming. Motion Picture Association_Canada is only challenging one aspect of the CRTC's order — the part requiring companies to contribute 1.5 per cent of revenues to a fund for local news on independent TV stations. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. It said in court documents that none of the streamers 'has any connection to news production' and argued the CRTC doesn't have the authority to require them to fund news. 'What the CRTC did, erroneously, is purport to justify the … contribution simply on the basis that local news is important and local news operations provided by independent television stations are short of money,' it said. 'That is a reason why news should be funded by someone, but is devoid of any analysis, legal or factual, as to why it is equitable for foreign online undertakings to fund Canadian news production.' In its response, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters said the CRTC has wide authority under the Broadcasting Act. It argued streamers have contributed to the funding crisis facing local news. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'While the industry was once dominated by traditional television and radio services, those services are now in decline, as Canadians increasingly turn to online streaming services,' the broadcasters said. 'For decades, traditional broadcasting undertakings have supported the production of Canadian content through a complex array of CRTC-directed measures … By contrast, online undertakings have not been required to provide any financial support to the Canadian broadcasting system, despite operating here for well over a decade.' A submission from the federal government in defence of the CRTC argued the regulator was within its rights to order the payments. 'The orders challenged in these proceedings … are a valid exercise of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's regulatory powers. These orders seek to remedy the inequity that has resulted from the ascendance of online streaming giants like the Appellants,' the office of the attorney general said. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'Online undertakings have greatly profited from their access to Canadian audiences, without any corresponding obligation to make meaningful contributions supporting Canadian programming and creators — an obligation that has long been imposed on traditional domestic broadcasters.' The government said that if the streamers get their way, that would preserve 'an inequitable circumstance in which domestic broadcasters — operating in an industry under economic strain _ shoulder a disproportionate regulatory burden.' 'This result would be plainly out of step with the policy aims of Parliament' and cabinet, it added. The court hearing comes as trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada have cast a shadow over the CRTC's attempts to regulate online streamers. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The regulator launched a suite of proceedings and hearings as part of its implementation of the Online Streaming Act, legislation that in 2023 updated the Broadcasting Act to set up the CRTC to regulate streaming companies. In January, as U.S. President Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term, groups representing U.S. businesses and big tech companies warned the CRTC that its efforts to modernize Canadian content rules could worsen trade relations and lead to retaliation. Then, as the CRTC launched its hearing on modernizing the definition of Canadian content in May, Netflix, Paramount and Apple cancelled their individual appearances. While the companies didn't provide a reason, the move came shortly after Trump threatened to impose a tariff of up to 100 per cent on movies made outside the United States. Foreign streamers have long pointed to their existing spending in Canada in response to calls to bring them into the regulated system. Read More Sports Sunshine Girls Sunshine Girls Columnists World
Vancouver Sun
an hour ago
- Vancouver Sun
Apple, Amazon and Spotify challenging CRTC's Canadian content rules in court this week
Some of the world's biggest streaming companies will argue in court on Monday that they shouldn't have to make CRTC-ordered financial contributions to Canadian content and news. The companies are fighting an order from the federal broadcast regulator that says they must pay five per cent of their annual Canadian revenues to funds devoted to producing Canadian content, including local TV news. The case, which consolidates several appeals by streamers, will be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. Apple, Amazon and Spotify are fighting the CRTC's 2024 order. Motion Picture Association-Canada, which represents such companies as Netflix and Paramount, is challenging a section of the CRTC's order requiring them to contribute to local news. In December, the court put a pause on the payments — estimated to be at least $1.25 million annually per company. Amazon, Apple and Spotify had argued that if they made the payments and then won the appeal and overturned the CRTC order, they wouldn't be able to recover the money. In court documents, the streamers put forward a long list of arguments on why they shouldn't have to pay, including technical points regarding the CRTC's powers under the Broadcasting Act. Spotify argued that the contribution requirement amounts to a tax, which the CRTC doesn't have the authority to impose. The music streamer also took issue with the CRTC requiring the payments without first deciding how it will define Canadian content. Amazon argued the federal cabinet specified the CRTC's requirements have to be 'equitable.' It said the contribution requirement is 'inequitable because it applies only to foreign online undertakings and only to such undertakings with more than $25 million in annual Canadian broadcasting revenues.' Apple also said the regulator 'acted prematurely' and argued the CRTC didn't consider whether the order was 'equitable.' It pointed out Apple is required to contribute five per cent, while radio stations must only pay 0.5 per cent — and streamers don't have the same access to the funds into which they pay. The CRTC imposes different rules on Canadian content contributions from traditional media players. It requires large English-language broadcasters to contribute 30 per cent of revenues to Canadian programming. Motion Picture Association-Canada is only challenging one aspect of the CRTC's order — the part requiring companies to contribute 1.5 per cent of revenues to a fund for local news on independent TV stations. It said in court documents that none of the streamers 'has any connection to news production' and argued the CRTC doesn't have the authority to require them to fund news. 'What the CRTC did, erroneously, is purport to justify the … contribution simply on the basis that local news is important and local news operations provided by independent television stations are short of money,' it said. 'That is a reason why news should be funded by someone, but is devoid of any analysis, legal or factual, as to why it is equitable for foreign online undertakings to fund Canadian news production.' In its response, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters said the CRTC has wide authority under the Broadcasting Act. It argued streamers have contributed to the funding crisis facing local news. 'While the industry was once dominated by traditional television and radio services, those services are now in decline, as Canadians increasingly turn to online streaming services,' the broadcasters said. 'For decades, traditional broadcasting undertakings have supported the production of Canadian content through a complex array of CRTC-directed measures … By contrast, online undertakings have not been required to provide any financial support to the Canadian broadcasting system, despite operating here for well over a decade.' A submission from the federal government in defence of the CRTC argued the regulator was within its rights to order the payments. 'The orders challenged in these proceedings … are a valid exercise of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's regulatory powers. These orders seek to remedy the inequity that has resulted from the ascendance of online streaming giants like the Appellants,' the office of the attorney general said. 'Online undertakings have greatly profited from their access to Canadian audiences, without any corresponding obligation to make meaningful contributions supporting Canadian programming and creators — an obligation that has long been imposed on traditional domestic broadcasters.' The government said that if the streamers get their way, that would preserve 'an inequitable circumstance in which domestic broadcasters — operating in an industry under economic strain — shoulder a disproportionate regulatory burden.' 'This result would be plainly out of step with the policy aims of Parliament' and cabinet, it added. The court hearing comes as trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada have cast a shadow over the CRTC's attempts to regulate online streamers. The regulator launched a suite of proceedings and hearings as part of its implementation of the Online Streaming Act, legislation that in 2023 updated the Broadcasting Act to set up the CRTC to regulate streaming companies. In January, as U.S. President Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term, groups representing U.S. businesses and big tech companies warned the CRTC that its efforts to modernize Canadian content rules could worsen trade relations and lead to retaliation. Then, as the CRTC launched its hearing on modernizing the definition of Canadian content in May, Netflix, Paramount and Apple cancelled their individual appearances. While the companies didn't provide a reason, the move came shortly after Trump threatened to impose a tariff of up to 100 per cent on movies made outside the United States. Foreign streamers have long pointed to their existing spending in Canada in response to calls to bring them into the regulated system. Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .
