I'm gonna say... no.
At a time of extraordinary geopolitical and economic change around the world, the same question shareholders were concerned about in 2003 still applies: can anyone replicate Buffett’s performance? The core class of Berkshire “A” shares closed on Friday at a record $809,808.50, up 20 per cent on the year. When Buffett gained control of what was then an ailing textile manufacturer in 1965, the shares were worth less than $20.
The inevitability of [Buffet's] departure has done nothing to mitigate the shock. Among Buffett’s most devoted followers, it is comparable to the recent death of Pope Francis.
All we need for success, says Buffett...
Not convinced the rulers in charge are doing a great job at that.
Berkshire is no longer the nimble vehicle that Buffett and Munger used to sweep up undervalued corporate assets in the last quarter of the 20th century. At times, even they struggled to find investments big enough to “move the needle” for their shareholders, as Buffett put it last year. (#895016)
That is also a perennial financial-market/alpha/overperformance problem (#971152); returns are not size independent.
Most based take so far:
THe man himself, the alleged kind of the boomers, pretty much agrees:
Buffett has long attributed much of this success to the “ovarian lottery” that saw him born white, male and relatively well off, with the ability and capacity to invest at an auspicious time for US capitalism.
Any Buffettologists among the Stackers?? #836811
non-paywalled: https://archive.md/SD1Ic