5 ms·

As I understand, the son is there not to lead the company (Greg Abel is the CEO), but to oversee their family's share in the enterprise.

yuuu 13d ago
I thought he was giving away 99% of his wealth?
- apothegm 13d ago
  Still leaves an absurd amount of wealth to manage.
- bragr 13d ago
  Well he's not dead yet.
  - Betelbuddy 13d ago
    That is what I told the tax man...they did not buy it...
- mrlonglong 13d ago
  Can he give me a few million then?
  - andrewstuart 13d ago
    And me please. 2 mill.
  - ozim 13d ago
    Few million? I would be set for the rest of my life if I got half a mill falling from sky today, I guess I could even make it work with 250k. Currently I am pondering how absurd amount of money a billion of dollars is. When loads of people can only -earn and eat through/spend not save- $1 million; working their asses off for something like 20 years.
    - david-gpu 13d ago
      For what it is worth, if you want your withdrawals to last for decades, then you are limited to around a yearly inflation-adjusted cap of around 3% of the original principal per year, gross of taxes, if you invest in low-cost passive index funds. That is a budget of $30K/year for every million you have invested in the market. If you are interested, the /r/fire and /r/financialindependence subreddits are useful.
    - quickthrowman 13d ago
      > I would be set for the rest of my life if I got half a mill falling from sky today, I guess I could even make it work with 250k. Maybe you only have a few years left to live? If not, I’m not sure where one can live on $10,000 to $15,000 a year and pay for shelter, food, clothing, and healthcare. It costs more than that per year for health insurance for one adult over 40 in the US. That is what $500k grants you, chop those in half for $250k.
      - mrlonglong 12d ago
        This is the biggest argument for socialism, you pay the taxes, get free health care and free education, every one gets the same irrespective of their status. Why do Americans get scared every time they hear "socialism"? Is it because billionaires have told them it's like "communism"? Are they so brainwashed they can't vote for policies to enable this sort of thing? No wonder the life expectancy in the US is lower than in Europe.
    - stockresearcher 12d ago
      > pondering how absurd amount of money… You may enjoy reading Brewster’s Millions, or watching one of the many movie adaptations made over the years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster's_Millions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster's_Millions
- sarjann 13d ago
  Probably in a charitable trust that will be managed by the family. With the trust owning the shares.
  - nostrademons 13d ago
    He was giving it to the Gates Foundation for Bill & Melinda Gates to manage, but that deal went into limbo when Bill showed up in the Epstein files and Melinda divorced him.
    - csdreamer7 13d ago
      The money he is giving away is going to foundations managed by his children (last I read).
      - nostrademons 13d ago
        That's recent, just as of the last couple months. Historically the children's foundations have been a sideshow and he's given the bulk of his wealth away to the Gates Foundation. You can see that from the dollar amounts: this year's gift to the children's foundations was 1M BRK-B shares (the equivalent of about $500M) to each, while he's given away a total of $66B, over 120x as much.
      - bluGill 13d ago
        Though unlikely the case here, family foundations should always be looked at as a likely source of corruption. You cannot bribe me directly - that would be caught. However you can donate money to my family foundation and my kids (or spouse) will draw a large salary from it while doing almost nothing and they do some good for the world so it looks like a charity. Of course the kids/spouse will support me in various ways that all rich kids will. Again, probably not what is happening here, but every time you hear of a family foundation you should ask who they are using it to corruption in some form. Even when it doesn't seem to be you should still look.
        aetherson 13d ago
- hshdjdjdif 13d ago
  he is giving 99% to the buffet family foundation ofc
- u1hcw9nx 13d ago
  He has. His family manages the foundation that owns BRK stock.
  - infecto 13d ago
    Isn’t that the usual loophole though? He definitely continues to donate large amounts but I always question setting up a trust that the kids run.
    - Grombobulous 13d ago
      Right, donating your present wealth because you expect to continue receiving an astronomical amount of wealth in perpetuity through your company ownership is not all that grand of a gesture. Certainly better than many alternatives, but it’s not a gesture that should make the median income person feel like existing as an excessively wealthy person should be okay/legal. In my opinion, personal wealth/asset control above a certain level deemed excessive (perhaps $100 million then adjusted for inflation moving forward) should be taxed at 100% and put into a special fund intended to help pay for social services, healthcare, housing the homeless, etc. In the case of asset control perhaps a good method would be to distribute excessively valued ownership stakes to employees or random members of the public (e.g., many of Elon Musk’s shares in his companies forfeited and distributed to others).
      - idiotsecant 13d ago
        This makes sense as long as public control makes the outcome of that money better than letting the bazillionare control it. I'm not sure which way the actual truth tilts, but I suspect it's sometimes one and sometimes the other.
        Grombobulous 13d ago
        In my opinion, giving one person that level of economic and social control as a concept is more of the issue than optimizing for the most positive outcome. E.g., the most intelligent and benevolent king in history might be better in those particular outcomes than democracy, but we should still pick democracy because the concept of giving one person too much powerful is too dangerous. I think our society needs to think of wealth more in these terms than it does at present.
- iso1631 13d ago
  Still leaves $1.5b, that's a hell of an income if you stick it in any widespread passive fund, and still 100 times more than even the 1% mark in the US.
- crossroadsguy 13d ago
  [delayed]
- Betelbuddy 13d ago
  Yes the Billionaires pledge...a masterpiece of public relations...or he could have have paid more taxes than his Secretary...but he never did...
- Waterluvian 13d ago
  Most of them seemingly have control problems where even if they do, it is in the form of a giant money pile still under their control that they give away the returns of, usually also completely under their control.
  - toomuchtodo 13d ago
    What's interesting is they cannot, but their ex partners go much further in their giving (Melinda French, MacKenzie Scott, for example).
    - Waterluvian 13d ago
      I wonder if there's a survivorship bias there: those who can and do reject the status quo.
      - toomuchtodo 13d ago
        My hot take is that men with extreme wealth and power are desperate to keep it as part of their identity, where the women I mentioned do not have the same character and personality flaws, and therefore use it as a tool to do good because they are not optimizing for status, power, and wealth: they are optimizing to do good. Doesn't always hold, there are exceptions. "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority." -- Lord Action
        DennisP 13d ago
        One giant exception was Chuck Feeney, who made $8 billion on duty free shops and gave almost all of it away, much of it anonymously. By the end of his life he and his wife had a couple million and lived in a rented apartment.
        toomuchtodo 13d ago
- al_borland 13d ago
  That’s now in limbo https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/warren-buffett-breaks-lifetime-pledge-144757141.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/warren-buffett-...
  - DennisP 13d ago
    Plenty of other charities in the world. Just because he stopped giving to the Gates Foundation over Epstein ties doesn't mean he won't send the money somewhere else.
    - al_borland 13d ago
      Sure. The thing with the Gates Foundation is that it was able to handle billions. Most charities aren't equipped to effectively manage and deploy that kind of wealth. The Gates Foundation made it easy for billionaires to send a large lump sum to one place that was equipped to deal with it. Having to part out all his wealth $5m at a time to spread it around without overwhelming the systems in place, would be a second act that I'm not sure Buffett has the time for.
      - DennisP 13d ago
        That's a good point but the Gates Foundation isn't alone; there are a fair number of other foundations in the $10-100 billion range. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_charitable_foundations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_charitable_...
        fakedang 12d ago
        None that operate at the scale of deployment that BMGF operates in.
        DennisP 12d ago
        Since the BMGF is only the fifth largest, how do you justify that statement?
- JauntTrooper 13d ago
  1% of $140 billion is still $1.4 billion.
- Zaraif13 13d ago
  I don't think his son becoming Chairman has anything to do with how much of his wealth he's giving away.
- Betelbuddy 13d ago
  [dead]
- bmitc 13d ago
  It bothers me how he and other billionaires think that it's all worth it letting them get so rich because they "give it away". It's almost insulting. You know who could have used all that money all this time? The people you leeched it away from via this thing known as taxes and a functioning government. But no, let's give it away to private foundations who will serve only their needs.
mgfist 13d ago
> but to oversee their family's share in the enterprise Not exactly, he's there to oversee the culture of Berkshire and ensure it's continuity. Buffett is donating all of his wealth (and has already donated $66B), so there isn't a fortune to protect. Berkshire is an institution of sorts at this point, and requires strong stewardship to prevent enshittification (for lack of a better word).
- rayiner 13d ago
  And this is how you get constitutional monarchy.
- almostarockstar 13d ago
  Some better words just off the top of my head: - to prevent institutional degradation. - to avoid cultural shift for the worse. - to keep hold of and nurture that culture.
  - donut 13d ago
    Those phrases soften what happens too much.
  - idiotsecant 13d ago
    no, enshittification is accurate.
jjallen 13d ago
He's there to maintain the very unique culture of the company. I think it's sort of like if they have his son there he of all people should know Buffett's/Berkshire's culture and be able to best maintain it. He's got a few years to figure out a successor. But yeah this is mostly about the unique culture they have.
- Waterluvian 13d ago
  Does this actually work or is this just the best option he's got given he cannot live forever?
- WarmWash 13d ago
  He also has been on the board since 1993. So it's not like his son is walking in today as the new guy. He was elected by the board too, rather than directly placed by Warren.
  - koolba 13d ago
    > He was elected by the board too, rather than directly placed by Warren. I don’t think the last name hurt his chances in 1993 either.
    - jjallen 13d ago
      You would want someone who is intimately familiar with the culture to be involved for a long time in case something happened to Warren.
      - thundercleeze 13d ago
        I imagine there were some other candidates in 1993 that didn't share Buffet's genetics.
        rtkwe 13d ago
        It's also entirely possible he's essentially competent at the job of being a board member which is a pretty do-little job if the CEO is doing a good job.
inopinatus 13d ago
It's more a ceremonial thing, since as the headline plainly indicates, his son, until today known only as Placeholder Buffet, has been waiting to receive a name for 71 years
- Onavo 13d ago
  He didn't actually name his son Placeholder right?
  - fwip 13d ago
    No, it's a joke on the headline. "Names son."
  - endofreach 13d ago
    He no warren musket
  - yesitcan 13d ago
    Yes he did. It’s a popular Gen Z name.
    - pixl97 13d ago
      Heh, when I was young some old guy told me if you lived long enough all the new names you'd see would be stupid or crazy. He wasn't wrong.
- projektfu 13d ago
  It's been a real drag being called "null" when your first name is blank.

yuuu 13d ago

I thought he was giving away 99% of his wealth?

apothegm 13d ago
Still leaves an absurd amount of wealth to manage.
bragr 13d ago
Well he's not dead yet.
- Betelbuddy 13d ago
  That is what I told the tax man...they did not buy it...
mrlonglong 13d ago
Can he give me a few million then?
- andrewstuart 13d ago
  And me please. 2 mill.
- ozim 13d ago
  Few million? I would be set for the rest of my life if I got half a mill falling from sky today, I guess I could even make it work with 250k. Currently I am pondering how absurd amount of money a billion of dollars is. When loads of people can only -earn and eat through/spend not save- $1 million; working their asses off for something like 20 years.
  - david-gpu 13d ago
    For what it is worth, if you want your withdrawals to last for decades, then you are limited to around a yearly inflation-adjusted cap of around 3% of the original principal per year, gross of taxes, if you invest in low-cost passive index funds. That is a budget of $30K/year for every million you have invested in the market. If you are interested, the /r/fire and /r/financialindependence subreddits are useful.
  - quickthrowman 13d ago
    > I would be set for the rest of my life if I got half a mill falling from sky today, I guess I could even make it work with 250k. Maybe you only have a few years left to live? If not, I’m not sure where one can live on $10,000 to $15,000 a year and pay for shelter, food, clothing, and healthcare. It costs more than that per year for health insurance for one adult over 40 in the US. That is what $500k grants you, chop those in half for $250k.
    - mrlonglong 12d ago
      This is the biggest argument for socialism, you pay the taxes, get free health care and free education, every one gets the same irrespective of their status. Why do Americans get scared every time they hear "socialism"? Is it because billionaires have told them it's like "communism"? Are they so brainwashed they can't vote for policies to enable this sort of thing? No wonder the life expectancy in the US is lower than in Europe.
  - stockresearcher 12d ago
    > pondering how absurd amount of money… You may enjoy reading Brewster’s Millions, or watching one of the many movie adaptations made over the years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster's_Millions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster's_Millions
sarjann 13d ago
Probably in a charitable trust that will be managed by the family. With the trust owning the shares.
- nostrademons 13d ago
  He was giving it to the Gates Foundation for Bill & Melinda Gates to manage, but that deal went into limbo when Bill showed up in the Epstein files and Melinda divorced him.
  - csdreamer7 13d ago
    The money he is giving away is going to foundations managed by his children (last I read).
    - nostrademons 13d ago
      That's recent, just as of the last couple months. Historically the children's foundations have been a sideshow and he's given the bulk of his wealth away to the Gates Foundation. You can see that from the dollar amounts: this year's gift to the children's foundations was 1M BRK-B shares (the equivalent of about $500M) to each, while he's given away a total of $66B, over 120x as much.
    - bluGill 13d ago
      Though unlikely the case here, family foundations should always be looked at as a likely source of corruption. You cannot bribe me directly - that would be caught. However you can donate money to my family foundation and my kids (or spouse) will draw a large salary from it while doing almost nothing and they do some good for the world so it looks like a charity. Of course the kids/spouse will support me in various ways that all rich kids will. Again, probably not what is happening here, but every time you hear of a family foundation you should ask who they are using it to corruption in some form. Even when it doesn't seem to be you should still look.
      - aetherson 13d ago
hshdjdjdif 13d ago
he is giving 99% to the buffet family foundation ofc
u1hcw9nx 13d ago
He has. His family manages the foundation that owns BRK stock.
- infecto 13d ago
  Isn’t that the usual loophole though? He definitely continues to donate large amounts but I always question setting up a trust that the kids run.
  - Grombobulous 13d ago
    Right, donating your present wealth because you expect to continue receiving an astronomical amount of wealth in perpetuity through your company ownership is not all that grand of a gesture. Certainly better than many alternatives, but it’s not a gesture that should make the median income person feel like existing as an excessively wealthy person should be okay/legal. In my opinion, personal wealth/asset control above a certain level deemed excessive (perhaps $100 million then adjusted for inflation moving forward) should be taxed at 100% and put into a special fund intended to help pay for social services, healthcare, housing the homeless, etc. In the case of asset control perhaps a good method would be to distribute excessively valued ownership stakes to employees or random members of the public (e.g., many of Elon Musk’s shares in his companies forfeited and distributed to others).
    - idiotsecant 13d ago
      This makes sense as long as public control makes the outcome of that money better than letting the bazillionare control it. I'm not sure which way the actual truth tilts, but I suspect it's sometimes one and sometimes the other.
      - Grombobulous 13d ago
        In my opinion, giving one person that level of economic and social control as a concept is more of the issue than optimizing for the most positive outcome. E.g., the most intelligent and benevolent king in history might be better in those particular outcomes than democracy, but we should still pick democracy because the concept of giving one person too much powerful is too dangerous. I think our society needs to think of wealth more in these terms than it does at present.
iso1631 13d ago
Still leaves $1.5b, that's a hell of an income if you stick it in any widespread passive fund, and still 100 times more than even the 1% mark in the US.
crossroadsguy 13d ago
[delayed]
Betelbuddy 13d ago
Yes the Billionaires pledge...a masterpiece of public relations...or he could have have paid more taxes than his Secretary...but he never did...
Waterluvian 13d ago
Most of them seemingly have control problems where even if they do, it is in the form of a giant money pile still under their control that they give away the returns of, usually also completely under their control.
- toomuchtodo 13d ago
  What's interesting is they cannot, but their ex partners go much further in their giving (Melinda French, MacKenzie Scott, for example).
  - Waterluvian 13d ago
    I wonder if there's a survivorship bias there: those who can and do reject the status quo.
    - toomuchtodo 13d ago
      My hot take is that men with extreme wealth and power are desperate to keep it as part of their identity, where the women I mentioned do not have the same character and personality flaws, and therefore use it as a tool to do good because they are not optimizing for status, power, and wealth: they are optimizing to do good. Doesn't always hold, there are exceptions. "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority." -- Lord Action
      - DennisP 13d ago
        One giant exception was Chuck Feeney, who made $8 billion on duty free shops and gave almost all of it away, much of it anonymously. By the end of his life he and his wife had a couple million and lived in a rented apartment.
        toomuchtodo 13d ago
al_borland 13d ago
That’s now in limbo https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/warren-buffett-breaks-lifetime-pledge-144757141.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/warren-buffett-...
- DennisP 13d ago
  Plenty of other charities in the world. Just because he stopped giving to the Gates Foundation over Epstein ties doesn't mean he won't send the money somewhere else.
  - al_borland 13d ago
    Sure. The thing with the Gates Foundation is that it was able to handle billions. Most charities aren't equipped to effectively manage and deploy that kind of wealth. The Gates Foundation made it easy for billionaires to send a large lump sum to one place that was equipped to deal with it. Having to part out all his wealth $5m at a time to spread it around without overwhelming the systems in place, would be a second act that I'm not sure Buffett has the time for.
    - DennisP 13d ago
      That's a good point but the Gates Foundation isn't alone; there are a fair number of other foundations in the $10-100 billion range. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_charitable_foundations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_charitable_...
      - fakedang 12d ago
        None that operate at the scale of deployment that BMGF operates in.
        DennisP 12d ago
        Since the BMGF is only the fifth largest, how do you justify that statement?
JauntTrooper 13d ago
1% of $140 billion is still $1.4 billion.
Zaraif13 13d ago
I don't think his son becoming Chairman has anything to do with how much of his wealth he's giving away.
Betelbuddy 13d ago
[dead]
bmitc 13d ago
It bothers me how he and other billionaires think that it's all worth it letting them get so rich because they "give it away". It's almost insulting. You know who could have used all that money all this time? The people you leeched it away from via this thing known as taxes and a functioning government. But no, let's give it away to private foundations who will serve only their needs.

mgfist 13d ago

> but to oversee their family's share in the enterprise Not exactly, he's there to oversee the culture of Berkshire and ensure it's continuity. Buffett is donating all of his wealth (and has already donated $66B), so there isn't a fortune to protect. Berkshire is an institution of sorts at this point, and requires strong stewardship to prevent enshittification (for lack of a better word).

rayiner 13d ago
And this is how you get constitutional monarchy.
almostarockstar 13d ago
Some better words just off the top of my head: - to prevent institutional degradation. - to avoid cultural shift for the worse. - to keep hold of and nurture that culture.
- donut 13d ago
  Those phrases soften what happens too much.
- idiotsecant 13d ago
  no, enshittification is accurate.

jjallen 13d ago

He's there to maintain the very unique culture of the company. I think it's sort of like if they have his son there he of all people should know Buffett's/Berkshire's culture and be able to best maintain it. He's got a few years to figure out a successor. But yeah this is mostly about the unique culture they have.

Waterluvian 13d ago
Does this actually work or is this just the best option he's got given he cannot live forever?
WarmWash 13d ago
He also has been on the board since 1993. So it's not like his son is walking in today as the new guy. He was elected by the board too, rather than directly placed by Warren.
- koolba 13d ago
  > He was elected by the board too, rather than directly placed by Warren. I don’t think the last name hurt his chances in 1993 either.
  - jjallen 13d ago
    You would want someone who is intimately familiar with the culture to be involved for a long time in case something happened to Warren.
    - thundercleeze 13d ago
      I imagine there were some other candidates in 1993 that didn't share Buffet's genetics.
      - rtkwe 13d ago
        It's also entirely possible he's essentially competent at the job of being a board member which is a pretty do-little job if the CEO is doing a good job.

inopinatus 13d ago

It's more a ceremonial thing, since as the headline plainly indicates, his son, until today known only as Placeholder Buffet, has been waiting to receive a name for 71 years

Onavo 13d ago
He didn't actually name his son Placeholder right?
- fwip 13d ago
  No, it's a joke on the headline. "Names son."
- endofreach 13d ago
  He no warren musket
- yesitcan 13d ago
  Yes he did. It’s a popular Gen Z name.
  - pixl97 13d ago
    Heh, when I was young some old guy told me if you lived long enough all the new names you'd see would be stupid or crazy. He wasn't wrong.
projektfu 13d ago
It's been a real drag being called "null" when your first name is blank.