Warren Buffett's successor has big shoes to fill. This is what Berkshire Hathaway gurus expect from the new boss, Greg Abel.
The head of Berkshire Hathaway's non-insurance operations will be taking over from a titan of American business when he succeeds Warren Buffett as CEO.
Buffett, a legendary investor and philanthropist, has transformed Berkshire from a failing textile mill into a $1 trillion conglomerate during his 60 years in charge. He's widely regarded as a master delegator, talent spotter, capital allocator, and dealmaker who acquired scores of businesses.
Berkshire shares were up 19% year-to-date before Buffett's shock announcement in early May. They've since slumped 12%, while the benchmark S&P 500 has jumped 11%. The company did not respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.
Despite the stock's struggles, the five Berkshire Hathaway gurus Business Insider spoke to are mostly positive about Abel's prospects.
A change in management style
Larry Cunningham, the author of several books about Buffett and the director of the University of Delaware's Weinberg Center, predicted a change in management style.
"Greg Abel is an operator at heart — he'll engage more directly with underperforming subsidiaries, unlike Buffett, who was famously hands-off," Cunningham said. "Berkshire will become known for 'intelligent autonomy.'"
Steven Check, the head of Check Capital Management and a longtime Berkshire shareholder, anticipated a similar shift. Berkshire "may actually be managed better" by Abel as he's "more of a hands-on people manager than Buffett, whose number one interest was capital allocation," he said.
Check also nodded to Charlie Munger's 2014 shareholder letter, in which Buffett's late business partner hailed Abel and Ajit Jain, the boss of Berkshire's insurance operations, as "world-leading," and said that "in some important ways, each is a better business executive than Buffett."
Bill Smead, the founder of Smead Capital Management and a Berkshire investor for more than 30 years, championed Abel as a skilled business acquirer. He said Berkshire's "strength will probably be in buying whole companies because that will be Greg Abel's strength."
Berkshire has acquired many companies during Buffett's tenure, including National Indemnity in 1967, See's Candies in 1972, Nebraska Furniture Mart in 1983, Geico in 1996, BNSF Railway in 2010, Precision Castparts in 2016, Alleghany in 2022, and Pilot Travel Centers over a series of transactions in 2017, 2023, and 2024.
Berkshire Hathaway generated $371 billion in revenue and $47 billion in operating profits last year. It's become so big that there are very few companies it could acquire that would materially boost its bottom line.
Buffett's biggest acquisition to date was buying Precision for more than $32 billion nearly a decade ago. He said at this year's meeting that he would happily shell out $100 billion for the right target.
Abel is set to receive support from Jain along with Berkshire's investment managers, Todd Combs and Ted Weschler, who each manage chunks of Berkshire's roughly $300 billion stock portfolio. The company's biggest holdings include American Express, Apple, Bank of America, Coca-Cola, and Chevron.
Smead said Berkshire's "biggest mistake" was not publicly touting Combs and Weschler's track records as investors more often, as this could have reassured shareholders about the post-Buffett era and tempered the recent stock decline, he added.
John Longo — a finance professor, investment chief, and author of "Buffett's Tips" — echoed Smead in predicting Abel would be more active in striking deals.
Longo said he "would not be shocked" to see Berkshire begin paying a small dividend given its " enormous cash balance and strong free cash flow." That could help "attract a new class of investors" and fuel a stock rally, Longo added.
Brett Gardner, an analyst and the author of "Buffett's Early Investments," said that Buffett plans to remain chairman and can "help if needed." He also praised the company's core assets and board, and described Abel as "immensely talented."
He said Buffett was "irreplaceable" but added that, with Abel, "Berkshire is still in superb hands."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a minute ago
- Yahoo
Trump, Apple CEO announce $100B US manufacturing investment
President Trump and Apple (AAPL) CEO Tim Cook announced Apple's additional $100 billion commitment to manufacturing in the US. Watch the video above to hear Trump's and Cook's remarks from the White House on Wednesday. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Yahoo Finance. This is a significant step toward the ultimate goal of ensuring that iPhones sold in the United States of America also are made in America, with the massive infusion of capital. It's announcing today, Apple will also build a 250,000 square foot server manufacturing facility in Houston and invest billions of dollars to construct data centers across the country, from North Carolina to Iowa to Oregon. That's big stuff. Apple will also open a state-of-the-art manufacturing economy. It's going to be a manufacturing academy in Detroit, and that's a great place to do it, you know. Big things are happening in Michigan and Detroit. They're coming in because of what we've done with the, uh, I call it the great big beautiful bill. I added one word, great. But we have, uh, the probably the biggest, most comprehensive piece of legislation ever passed. It's going to mean, uh, unbelievable numbers of jobs, and no jobs on, think of this, uh, whether it's tips or overtime or Social Security, no tax. So no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security, no tax on overtime, and there's just a small bit of it, uh, for Apple and others businesses, we're talking about the deductions and all of the things. And actually for people that go out and buy a car, first time it's ever been done. We talk about deductions for companies, but they're going to be able to deduct interest when they borrow money to buy a car, if it's made in America. Has to be made in America. So it is amazing. One of the reasons I think I can say that Apple's coming here is the legislation we just passed with this kind of investment. Apple will also open other facilities, rare earth magnets from Texas, and build, oh, I love that you're doing this. I love that. I love that. And build a brand new rare earth recycling line in Mountain Pass, California. I know that area. That's where they have a lot of truly rare earth. That's fantastic. I love that. And Apple will help develop and manufacture semiconductors and semiconductor equipment in Texas, Utah, Arizona, and New York. For years, Americans have watched as many of our leading tech giants built their factories overseas and exported American jobs abroad. I'm glad to be here with you today, and I'm very proud to say that today we're committing an additional 100 billion to the United States, bringing our total US investment to 600 billion over the next four years. As a part of this, we're launching Apple's American Manufacturing Program. It will spur even more production right here in America for critical components used in Apple products all around the world. And we're thrilled to announce that we've already signed new agreements with 10 companies across America to do just that. Related Videos Trump Says Apple Is 'Coming Home' With New Investment Trump Says He Will Impose 100% Tariff on Semiconductors Trump, Apple to Announce Fresh $100 Billion US Investment Apple $100B commitment, McDonald's weakness, Super Micro sinks Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
a minute ago
- Yahoo
Why Novo Nordisk Stock Slipped Today
Key Points It was a double miss for the Wegovy maker in its second quarter. It's been hammered not only by competing licensed drugs, but it also has to contend with copycats. 10 stocks we like better than Novo Nordisk › Novo Nordisk (NYSE: NVO) stock imitated the company's leading product on Wednesday by slimming down in price. The Danish pharmaceutical's shares lost nearly 4% of their value following its latest earnings release, comparing unfavorably to the modest (0.7%) gain of the S&P 500 index. Still growing, but... Novo Nordisk, famous for its Wegovy obesity drug (and its sibling, diabetes treatment Ozempic), unveiled its first half and second quarter of 2025 figures early Wednesday morning. For the quarter, the company booked 76.9 billion Danish kroner ($11.9 billion) in revenue, which was up only marginally on a sequential basis, and 13% higher compared to the same period of 2024. Net income, meanwhile, was down from the previous quarter but up from the year-ago quarter. It rose by 32% year over year to 26.5 billion kroner ($4.1 billion), or 5.96 kroner ($0.92) per share. Both headline numbers missed the consensus analyst estimates, although not by much. Pundits tracking the company were modeling the equivalent of just under $12 billion for revenue, and $0.95 per share on the bottom line. Although Novo Nordisk continues to post double-digit increases thanks largely to Wegovy and Ozempic, it has been in the investor doghouse so far this month. That's because at the end of July, it significantly cut its guidance for both total sales and operating profit. Withering competition Much of this has to do with the intense competition Novo Nordisk is facing due to the runaway success of those medications. These days, pharmacy sector powerhouse Eli Lilly is doing brisk business with a directly competing product, Zepbound, while third parties are copying Wegovy's semaglutide molecule for their own compounded products. The company announced no fewer than 14 new lawsuits on Tuesday, making a total of 146 across 40 U.S. states, to combat the latter. Should you invest $1,000 in Novo Nordisk right now? Before you buy stock in Novo Nordisk, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Novo Nordisk 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 $619,036!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,092,648!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,026% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 180% 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 August 4, 2025 Eric Volkman has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends Novo Nordisk. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Why Novo Nordisk Stock Slipped Today was originally published by The Motley Fool
New York Post
2 minutes ago
- New York Post
Hey, experts — admit what you got so wrong on Trump's tariffs
Economists across the political spectrum predicted that President Donald Trump's trade negotiations would end in disaster. Now that his Aug. 1 deadline has passed without the sky falling — and with multiple advantageous deals completed — it's time to seriously reevaluate the flawed arguments the experts made against his strategy. Many, it turns out, made basic errors in economic reasoning. Advertisement On the left, Nobel laureate and Columbia professor Joseph Stiglitz declared in January that Trump's policy was 'very bad for America and for the world,' while University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers called it 'impressively destructive.' On the right, prominent free-market advocates like George Mason's Donald Boudreaux also voiced strong opposition. Advertisement Yet their arguments against tariffs revealed a fundamental misunderstanding: They decried tariffs as uniquely harmful, while ignoring that the same logic applies to all taxes. Take the common critique that tariffs, as a tax on trade, reduce trade overall. Phil Gramm and Larry Summers — one conservative, one liberal — jointly argued that tariffs 'distort domestic production' by pushing resources toward less efficient uses. They warned tariffs would slow economic growth. Advertisement That's true. But every tax, including sales taxes and income taxes, discourages trade, distorts production and reduces growth. Sales taxes lower consumption. Income taxes discourage work. Corporate taxes deter investment. All taxes distort the economy — tariffs are no exception. Advertisement Another frequent claim is that tariffs hurt consumers. Again, true — just as all taxes do. Logically, opposing tariffs simply because they raise prices and reduce growth means we should oppose all taxes. But unless we abolish government spending — which stands at $7 trillion this year — we need taxes of some kind. That's why economists usually argue for minimizing the total economic damage that all taxes cause across the board. Distortions increase as tax rates do. Before Trump's policies, the average US tariff rate stood at just 2.5% — tiny compared to the 43.4% average top personal income tax rate (including federal and state taxes) or the 27.5% average total corporate tax rate. If we understand a tariff as a tax like any other, higher tariffs could in fact reduce the overall economic burden on American individuals and companies — an outcome that Trump has often touted as his ultimate goal. Advertisement It's unclear whether a 15% tariff is optimal, but it seems apparent now that a 2.5% rate was too low. Economists also missed how negotiation tactics work. Trump began with aggressive tariff threats, horrifying many economists — but the results speak for themselves. The United States has secured deals that dramatically opened foreign markets representing 55% of global GDP. Advertisement Even critics have had to acknowledge the shift. 'To avoid worst of Trump tariffs, [the European Union] accepted a lopsided deal,' The Washington Post conceded, while the London-based Financial Times described how the EU 'succumbed to Trump's tariff steamroller.' 'Under the new deal, US goods into Vietnam will not be taxed while Vietnamese exports will face a 20% US tariff,' the South China Morning Post explained — in coverage that described Hanoi's 'optimism' regarding the agreement. So while the United States is imposing higher tariffs on many imports, other countries lowered or removed their tariffs on American goods, and dropped many of their non-tariff barriers as well. Advertisement These are significant wins that economists failed to anticipate, and that few thought remotely possible even six months ago. Experts also ignored yet another of Trump's reasons for increasing tariffs: as a means of providing for national defense and global freedom of the seas, costs that Americans have borne for a century. Ideally, other countries would help pay for these efforts — how about they just send us a check for the share of benefits they are receiving? Advertisement But since that's not about to happen, tariffs may be the only viable alternative. Trump's trade policies defied economists' dire predictions, delivering substantial gains in opening foreign markets to American exports without tanking the US economy. If tariffs can help lower more damaging taxes while advancing strategic national interests, they deserve a more honest and nuanced evaluation. At the very least, economists should have the guts to admit they were wrong — and take a hard look at their conventional wisdom. John R. Lott Jr., president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, is an economist who has held research or teaching positions at the University of Chicago, Wharton Business School, Stanford, Yale and UCLA.
