Another Berkshire Hathaway Inc. annual meeting is in the books. The masters of ceremony, Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger, were as sage, humorous and optimistic about America’s future as ever.
But seeing them up there in front of shareholders, it was hard not to be reminded of the fact that the beloved investors are 87 and 94 years old, respectively. Their combined age is older than Berkshire Hathaway itself, a company that traces its roots to the Industrial Revolution.
On Saturday, Buffett and Munger held their annual question-and-answer session with stockholders, always the most anticipated part of Berkshire’s weekend-long extravaganza in Omaha, Nebraska. It’s remarkable that they’re able to host such a massive event so enthusiastically year after year. With a little help from some Coca-Cola and peanut brittle, the duo sits through hours of questions on topics spanning global trade, investing strategy and even small business details such as the pricing decisions made for See’s Candies products.
1
It seems clear that Abel, Jain or both are likely to take over for Buffett when he’s gone. Why, then, didn’t they have a seat at the table Saturday?
Looking to the Future
At the end of 2017, Berkshire Hathaway had the oldest board in the SP 500, but adding Warren Buffett’s successor candidates Greg Abel and Ajit Jain brought down its average
Source: Bloomberg
It’s because Buffett doesn’t seem ready to share the stage—literally and figuratively—with anyone but Munger. He may never be. For years he’s been trying to make investors more comfortable with the idea of someone else at the helm, but he’s always stopped short of publicly identifying that someone and really giving them the pulpit.
The first question of the day was whether the billionaire is already “semi-retired,” to which Buffett quipped that he’s been semi-retired for decades. That got laughs, but I think the question should have been phrased differently. It’s obvious that Buffett is still heavily involved in investment decisions and leads acquisition strategy (even if he’s always believed in not meddling with the operations of Berkshire’s various independently managed subsidiaries). The right question would have been: While you are still unquestionably the capital-allocator-in-chief, shouldn’t you be giving Berkshire shareholders a chance to truly get to know your eventual successor?