Business
Warren Buffett Plans to Step Down as Berkshire Hathaway CEO by End of 2025
Warren E. Buffett has been at the forefront of American capitalism for decades as the chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway, the conglomerate he built into a $1.1 trillion colossus.
By the end of the year, he is preparing to give up that role.
Mr. Buffett said at Berkshire’s annual shareholder meeting on Saturday that he plans to ask the company’s board to approve making Gregory Abel, his heir apparent, the chief executive by the end of the year.
Mr. Abel would have “the final word” when it comes to the company’s operations, how it invests and more, Mr. Buffett, 94, told the tens of thousands of Berkshire shareholders at the meeting in Omaha.
But Mr. Buffett added that he “would still hang around and conceivably be useful in a few cases.” He will remain chairman of Berkshire — turning that role over to his son Howard Buffett upon his death — and remains the company’s single biggest shareholder, with a roughly 14 percent stake that is worth about $164 billion.
Mr. Buffett’s plan, which he said had been known only to two of his children who sit on the company’s board, Howard and Susan Buffett, was greeted by a minute-long standing ovation by Berkshire shareholders. Mr. Abel, 62, appeared surprised by his boss’s announcement. After the announcement, several board members attending Berkshire’s meeting hugged each other.
Though Mr. Buffett looked in good health, having led several hours of questions from investors on Saturday, changes to this year’s annual meeting — his 60th at Berkshire — reflected his advancing age. He used a cane, which he first mentioned in the company’s annual letter in February, and shortened the shareholder question session by several hours.
If the board approves the plan, it would signify the end of an era for one of the most successful companies in modern capitalist history, and one of its most famous investors. Mr. Buffett has amassed a Midas-like fortune by being a savvy stock picker, buying up companies and holding them for the long term.
Through that investing philosophy, he assembled a conglomerate that runs a huge insurance operation, a major railroad, dozens of consumer companies and oversees a vast stock portfolio.
Among Berkshire’s most notable holdings are names that many consumers recognize: the auto insurer Geico, the BNSF railroad, the power utility Berkshire Hathaway Energy, Dairy Queen, See’s Candies, Fruit of the Loom, the paint company Benjamin Moore and the private jet company NetJets. Together, those businesses helped Berkshire grow a cash hoard that now sits at nearly $348 billion, more than the stock market valuation of McDonald’s.
Berkshire’s financial firepower has made Mr. Buffett one of the most influential businessmen in the world, giving his pronouncements on many topics, including politics, great weight. That included his criticism of President Trump’s trade policies, which Mr. Buffett took aim at on Saturday.
“Trade should not be a weapon,” Mr. Buffett said at the annual meeting. “I don’t think it’s right and I don’t think it’s wise.”
Mr. Buffett’s comments on tariffs were far from his first foray into politics. A Democratic supporter, his name was attached to a proposal years ago by former President Barack Obama that would have raised taxes on millionaires. But Mr. Buffett has kept a low profile for months, and even on Saturday he did not mention Mr. Trump by name.
Mr. Buffett’s plan to step down would complete one of the most-watched leadership transitions in corporate America. For years, he faced questions about who could take over Berkshire, a uniquely complicated business, and a number of executives had been floated as his successor.
But in 2021, Mr. Buffett finally confirmed that it would be Mr. Abel who joined the Berkshire fold when the company bought his energy business in 2000. Since then, the Canadian executive has risen through the ranks, turning what is now called Berkshire Hathaway Energy into one of America’s biggest power producers.
Mr. Abel is currently the vice chairman of Berkshire’s businesses other than insurance. Oversight of the conglomerate’s behemoth insurance operations has remained with Ajit Jain, a longtime Buffett lieutenant. Mr. Buffett and other executives have professed their belief that Mr. Abel could maintain Berkshire’s culture.
“Greg is ready,” Ronald L. Olson, a longtime Berkshire director who is also stepping down, told CNBC after Mr. Buffett’s announcement on Saturday.
Mr. Olson added that he hoped Mr. Buffett could serve as a valuable sounding board for Mr. Abel, much as Charles T. Munger, Mr. Buffett’s longtime business partner who died in 2023, did.
Together, Mr. Buffett and Mr. Munger entertained investors and more — notably at the Berkshire annual meetings, now in their 60th year — with a sort of vaudeville act, Mr. Buffett as the wry optimist and Mr. Munger as the sharp-tongued pessimist.
Berkshire’s latest financial report card underscored the complications that Mr. Abel will confront as chief executive.
The company reported a sharp drop in first-quarter earnings, with operating income — Mr. Buffett’s preferred measure — down 14 percent from the same time a year ago to $9.6 billion. Using generally accepted accounting principles, Berkshire reported a nearly 64 percent drop in net income, largely because of paper investment losses.
But while markets have grown more volatile in response to Mr. Trump’s whipsawing approach to trade, Mr. Buffett professed little worry about the effects of that volatility on Berkshire.
“It’s really nothing,” he told shareholders, suggesting that riding out market vicissitudes was part of stock investing.
The company reported that a “majority” of its businesses had lower sales and earnings in the first three months of the year, particularly in insurance underwriting income, which was hit by losses tied to the California wildfires.
In a regulatory filing on Saturday, Berkshire warned that Mr. Trump’s trade policies were generating “considerable uncertainty,” which could affect the company’s operating results. “We are currently unable to reliably predict the potential impact on our businesses, whether through changes in product costs, supply chain costs and efficiency, and customer demand for our products and services.”
Berkshire’s cash pile grew to $347.7 billion, a record, reflecting that Mr. Buffett has not found the kind of blockbuster investment opportunities that helped put the company on the map. In the past, he has acknowledged that given Berkshire’s size, it is nearly impossible now for Berkshire to find deals that could meaningfully augment its earnings.
During his question-and-answer session with shareholders at the annual meeting on Saturday, Mr. Buffett acknowledged stocking up on cash to prepare for any potential buying opportunity. He revealed that he had weighed a potential $10 billion investment, but later refused to elaborate.
Berkshire continued to be a net seller of stocks, selling $4.68 billion worth of equity in the quarter, compared with $3.18 billion in purchases.
One matter that Mr. Buffett did not directly address on Saturday is what would happen to Todd Combs and Ted Weschler, whom he hired more than a decade ago to help pick stocks for Berkshire. The two have been widely expected to become Berkshire’s stock pickers after Mr. Buffett steps away, though Mr. Combs has also become the chief executive of Geico.
A number of prominent corporate and business leaders were on hand on Saturday, including the Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, Tim Cook of Apple (which is one of Berkshire’s biggest stock holdings) and the billionaire financier William A. Ackman. Two first timers, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Priscilla Chan, the wife of Meta’s chief executive Mark Zuckerberg, were also present.
Andrew Ross Sorkin contributed reporting.
Business
Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk
new video loaded: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

By Kirsten Grind, Melanie Bencosme, James Surdam and Sean Havey
February 27, 2026
Business
Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office
Trump has crowed about the gains in the U.S. stock market during his term, but in 2025 investors saw more opportunity in the rest of the world.
If you’re a stock market investor you might be feeling pretty good about how your portfolio of U.S. equities fared in the first year of President Trump’s term.
All the major market indices seemed to be firing on all cylinders, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 index gaining 17.9% through the full year.
But if you’re the type of investor who looks for things to regret, pay no attention to the rest of the world’s stock markets. That’s because overseas markets did better than the U.S. market in 2025 — a lot better. The MSCI World ex-USA index — that is, all the stock markets except the U.S. — gained more than 32% last year, nearly double the percentage gains of U.S. markets.
That’s a major departure from recent trends. Since 2013, the MSCI US index had bested the non-U.S. index every year except 2017 and 2022, sometimes by a wide margin — in 2024, for instance, the U.S. index gained 24.6%, while non-U.S. markets gained only 4.7%.
The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade.
— Katie Martin, Financial Times
Broken down into individual country markets (also by MSCI indices), in 2025 the U.S. ranked 21st out of 23 developed markets, with only New Zealand and Denmark doing worse. Leading the pack were Austria and Spain, with 86% gains, but superior records were turned in by Finland, Ireland and Hong Kong, with gains of 50% or more; and the Netherlands, Norway, Britain and Japan, with gains of 40% or more.
Investment analysts cite several factors to explain this trend. Judging by traditional metrics such as price/earnings multiples, the U.S. markets have been much more expensive than those in the rest of the world. Indeed, they’re historically expensive. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index traded in 2025 at about 23 times expected corporate earnings; the historical average is 18 times earnings.
Investment managers also have become nervous about the concentration of market gains within the U.S. technology sector, especially in companies associated with artificial intelligence R&D. Fears that AI is an investment bubble that could take down the S&P’s highest fliers have investors looking elsewhere for returns.
But one factor recurs in almost all the market analyses tracking relative performance by U.S. and non-U.S. markets: Donald Trump.
Investors started 2025 with optimism about Trump’s influence on trading opportunities, given his apparent commitment to deregulation and his braggadocio about America’s dominant position in the world and his determination to preserve, even increase it.
That hasn’t been the case for months.
”The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade,” Katie Martin of the Financial Times wrote this week. “Wherever you look in financial markets, you see signs that global investors are going out of their way to avoid Donald Trump’s America.”
Two Trump policy initiatives are commonly cited by wary investment experts. One, of course, is Trump’s on-and-off tariffs, which have left investors with little ability to assess international trade flows. The Supreme Court’s invalidation of most Trump tariffs and the bellicosity of his response, which included the immediate imposition of new 10% tariffs across the board and the threat to increase them to 15%, have done nothing to settle investors’ nerves.
Then there’s Trump’s driving down the value of the dollar through his agitation for lower interest rates, among other policies. For overseas investors, a weaker dollar makes U.S. assets more expensive relative to the outside world.
It would be one thing if trade flows and the dollar’s value reflected economic conditions that investors could themselves parse in creating a picture of investment opportunities. That’s not the case just now. “The current uncertainty is entirely man-made (largely by one orange-hued man in particular) but could well continue at least until the US mid-term elections in November,” Sam Burns of Mill Street Research wrote on Dec. 29.
Trump hasn’t been shy about trumpeting U.S. stock market gains as emblems of his policy wisdom. “The stock market has set 53 all-time record highs since the election,” he said in his State of the Union address Tuesday. “Think of that, one year, boosting pensions, 401(k)s and retirement accounts for the millions and the millions of Americans.”
Trump asserted: “Since I took office, the typical 401(k) balance is up by at least $30,000. That’s a lot of money. … Because the stock market has done so well, setting all those records, your 401(k)s are way up.”
Trump’s figure doesn’t conform to findings by retirement professionals such as the 401(k) overseers at Bank of America. They reported that the average account balance grew by only about $13,000 in 2025. I asked the White House for the source of Trump’s claim, but haven’t heard back.
Interpreting stock market returns as snapshots of the economy is a mug’s game. Despite that, at her recent appearance before a House committee, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi tried to deflect questions about her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein records by crowing about it.
“The Dow is over 50,000 right now, she declared. “Americans’ 401(k)s and retirement savings are booming. That’s what we should be talking about.”
I predicted that the administration would use the Dow industrial average’s break above 50,000 to assert that “the overall economy is firing on all cylinders, thanks to his policies.” The Dow reached that mark on Feb. 6. But Feb. 11, the day of Bondi’s testimony, was the last day the index closed above 50,000. On Thursday, it closed at 49,499.50, or about 1.4% below its Feb. 10 peak close of 50,188.14.
To use a metric suggested by economist Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan, if you invested $48,488 in the Dow on the day Trump took office last year, when the Dow closed at 48,448 points, you would have had $50,000 on Feb. 6. That’s a gain of about 3.2%. But if you had invested the same amount in the global stock market not including the U.S. (based on the MSCI World ex-USA index), on that same day you would have had nearly $60,000. That’s a gain of nearly 24%.
Broader market indices tell essentially the same story. From Jan. 17, 2025, the last day before Trump’s inauguration, through Thursday’s close, the MSCI US stock index gained a cumulative 16.3%. But the world index minus the U.S. gained nearly 42%.
The gulf between U.S. and non-U.S. performance has continued into the current year. The S&P 500 has gained about 0.74% this year through Wednesday, while the MSCI World ex-USA index has gained about 8.9%. That’s “the best start for a calendar year for global stocks relative to the S&P 500 going back to at least 1996,” Morningstar reports.
It wouldn’t be unusual for the discrepancy between the U.S. and global markets to shrink or even reverse itself over the course of this year.
That’s what happened in 2017, when overseas markets as tracked by MSCI beat the U.S. by more than three percentage points, and 2022, when global markets lost money but U.S. markets underperformed the rest of the world by more than five percentage points.
Economic conditions change, and often the stock markets march to their own drummers. The one thing less likely to change is that Trump is set to remain president until Jan. 20, 2029. Make your investment bets accordingly.
Business
How the S&P 500 Stock Index Became So Skewed to Tech and A.I.
Nvidia, the chipmaker that became the world’s most valuable public company two years ago, was alone worth more than $4.75 trillion as of Thursday morning. Its value, or market capitalization, is more than double the combined worth of all the companies in the energy sector, including oil giants like Exxon Mobil and Chevron.
The chipmaker’s market cap has swelled so much recently, it is now 20 percent greater than the sum of all of the companies in the materials, utilities and real estate sectors combined.
What unifies these giant tech companies is artificial intelligence. Nvidia makes the hardware that powers it; Microsoft, Apple and others have been making big bets on products that people can use in their everyday lives.
But as worries grow over lavish spending on A.I., as well as the technology’s potential to disrupt large swaths of the economy, the outsize influence that these companies exert over markets has raised alarms. They can mask underlying risks in other parts of the index. And if a handful of these giants falter, it could mean widespread damage to investors’ portfolios and retirement funds in ways that could ripple more broadly across the economy.
The dynamic has drawn comparisons to past crises, notably the dot-com bubble. Tech companies also made up a large share of the stock index then — though not as much as today, and many were not nearly as profitable, if they made money at all.
How the current moment compares with past pre-crisis moments
To understand how abnormal and worrisome this moment might be, The New York Times analyzed data from S&P Dow Jones Indices that compiled the market values of the companies in the S&P 500 in December 1999 and August 2007. Each date was chosen roughly three months before a downturn to capture the weighted breakdown of the index before crises fully took hold and values fell.
The companies that make up the index have periodically cycled in and out, and the sectors were reclassified over the last two decades. But even after factoring in those changes, the picture that emerges is a market that is becoming increasingly one-sided.
In December 1999, the tech sector made up 26 percent of the total.
In August 2007, just before the Great Recession, it was only 14 percent.
Today, tech is worth a third of the market, as other vital sectors, such as energy and those that include manufacturing, have shrunk.
Since then, the huge growth of the internet, social media and other technologies propelled the economy.
Now, never has so much of the market been concentrated in so few companies. The top 10 make up almost 40 percent of the S&P 500.
How much of the S&P 500 is occupied by the top 10 companies
With greater concentration of wealth comes greater risk. When so much money has accumulated in just a handful of companies, stock trading can be more volatile and susceptible to large swings. One day after Nvidia posted a huge profit for its most recent quarter, its stock price paradoxically fell by 5.5 percent. So far in 2026, more than a fifth of the stocks in the S&P 500 have moved by 20 percent or more. Companies and industries that are seen as particularly prone to disruption by A.I. have been hard hit.
The volatility can be compounded as everyone reorients their businesses around A.I, or in response to it.
The artificial intelligence boom has touched every corner of the economy. As data centers proliferate to support massive computation, the utilities sector has seen huge growth, fueled by the energy demands of the grid. In 2025, companies like NextEra and Exelon saw their valuations surge.
The industrials sector, too, has undergone a notable shift. General Electric was its undisputed heavyweight in 1999 and 2007, but the recent explosion in data center construction has evened out growth in the sector. GE still leads today, but Caterpillar is a very close second. Caterpillar, which is often associated with construction, has seen a spike in sales of its turbines and power-generation equipment, which are used in data centers.
One large difference between the big tech companies now and their counterparts during the dot-com boom is that many now earn money. A lot of the well-known names in the late 1990s, including Pets.com, had soaring valuations and little revenue, which meant that when the bubble popped, many companies quickly collapsed.
Nvidia, Apple, Alphabet and others generate hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue each year.
And many of the biggest players in artificial intelligence these days are private companies. OpenAI, Anthropic and SpaceX are expected to go public later this year, which could further tilt the market dynamic toward tech and A.I.
Methodology
Sector values reflect the GICS code classification system of companies in the S&P 500. As changes to the GICS system took place from 1999 to now, The New York Times reclassified all companies in the index in 1999 and 2007 with current sector values. All monetary figures from 1999 and 2007 have been adjusted for inflation.
-
World2 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts2 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Montana1 week ago2026 MHSA Montana Wrestling State Championship Brackets And Results – FloWrestling
-
Louisiana5 days agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Oklahoma1 week agoWildfires rage in Oklahoma as thousands urged to evacuate a small city
-
Denver, CO2 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Technology7 days agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Technology6 days agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making