Buffett to hand Berkshire to Greg Abel

On Saturday 3 May 2025, at Berkshire Hathaway’s shareholder meeting in Omaha, Warren Buffett announced that he will step down as chief executive at the end of the year and asked the board to appoint Greg Abel in his place. Berkshire later confirmed that Abel will take up the post on 1 January 2026. Buffett, who is 94, has run the company since 1965 and will remain chairman of the board.

The news drew the markets’ attention, but for a firm advising business owners and families its interest lies elsewhere: it is an example of how a handover is approached in a company heavily concentrated in one person. Neither the facts nor this text imply any recommendation on securities; the point is to understand what makes a well-prepared succession different from an improvised one.

A handover announced years ahead

Abel, aged 62, has for years run Berkshire’s non-insurance activities, which include railroads, energy and other industrial businesses. Buffett had publicly named him as successor in 2021, so the May announcement does not reveal the successor but sets the timetable. That continuity between what was said and what is done reduces uncertainty for employees, managers, shareholders and customers.

In many family businesses the opposite happens: the founder delays the decision out of attachment to the role, to avoid conflict or because the right moment never arrives. The result is usually a transition forced by illness or death, when there is no longer time to train the successor, divide roles or communicate the change calmly. Planning ahead costs less than improvising under pressure, and when the handover is known in advance teams can organise themselves and third parties such as banks or suppliers value the predictability.

Chair and chief executive

The case also shows that leaving the executive role does not mean disappearing. Buffett keeps the chairmanship of the board, so authority and experience remain available during the transition while day-to-day management passes to someone else. Separating the chief executive role from the chair is a common formula in family groups to accompany a handover, although it requires clear definition of who decides what.

The risk of this formula is ambiguity: if the successor has no real autonomy, or the founder intervenes in everything, the transition becomes permanent tutelage. It is advisable to set down in writing which decisions belong to each body, when the split will be reviewed and how disagreements between the person leaving the post and the person taking it over will be resolved.

What to review in your company

For a business owner, the useful questions are simple. Is there a written succession plan, with candidates and timeframes? Is there a family protocol governing the entry of new generations and the exit of those who do not wish to continue? What happens to control of the company, and to the liquidity needed to meet taxes or equalisation between heirs? Who would decide if the post fell vacant tomorrow? Where there are several heirs with different interests, those who work in the company and those who are only owners, the balance between them is usually the most delicate part.

The answers are best reviewed when there is no urgency, and they usually involve shareholder agreements, wills, control structures and the taxation of transfers. Each family is different, so there is no single formula. This information is general and is not advice; consult your adviser on how to plan the handover in your case.

A well-prepared handover is less noticeable when it arrives, and that is exactly the point.

This article is general information. It is not legal, tax or investment advice, and it does not take anyone’s particular circumstances into account.