巴菲特和三个孩子

11月25日，沃伦·巴菲特发布最新致鼓舞信，秘书将其慈善捐赠总数加多逾10亿好意思元，同期更新了他厌世后的财富分派研究。

巴菲特在信中，为“如何对待财富”这一不朽议题，给出了我方的谜底。

对于财富传承、慈善捐赠、子女教学，反念念了我方得手的原因，分享家庭财富理念，明确抒发反对“世及财富”…

以下为巴菲特11月25日致鼓舞信（全文）：

当日，沃伦·巴菲特将把1,600股A类股票转念为240万股B类股票，以便将这些B类股票赠予四个家庭基金会：150万股赠予苏西·汤普森·巴菲特基金会(Susan T. Buffett Foundation)，各30万股赠予谢伍德基金会、霍华德·G·巴菲特基金会和诺沃基金会。

我今天所作念的赠与使我握有的伯克希尔哈撒韦A类股份减少至206,363股（价值约1480亿好意思元），自2006年我作念出捐钱承诺以来，我的握股减少了56.6%。

在2004年，我的第一任配头苏西过世之前，咱们两东谈主共同握有508,998股A类股份。多年来，咱们王人合计她会比我活得更久，随后分派咱们的大部分财富，但事实并非如斯。

苏西厌世时，她的遗产大致为30亿好意思元，其中约96%捐馈遗了咱们的基金会。

此外，她还给咱们的三个孩子每东谈主留住了1000万好意思元，这是咱们初次赐与他们的大额礼物。

这些遗产反应了咱们的一种信念：

相等阔气的父母应该给孩子留住饱胀的财富，让他们不错奋发蹈厉，但不应该多到让他们无知无识。

苏西和我经久以来一直饱读吹孩子们参与微型慈善行为，并对他们的温情、致力于和后果感到餍足。

可是，在苏西厌世时，我的孩子们还莫得准备好看守伯克希尔股份带来的多量财富。

不外，自从我在2006年作念配置前捐赠承诺并随后扩大这一承诺以来，他们的慈善行为得到了显赫加多。

如今，孩子们仍是远远高出了咱们的盼愿。

在我厌世后，他们将实足负责冉冉分派我总共的伯克希尔股票。这些股票现时占我总财富的99.5%。

时候老是奏凯者。

但它是善变的——只怕以致不刚正、狞恶。

死一火可能在人命发轫到来，只怕却会恭候近一个世纪才来访谒。到现时为止，我一直相等行运，但用不了多久，它也会找到我。

可是，我幸免被留意到的好运也有它的纰谬。

自2006年我作念出承诺以来，我的孩子们的预期存活年数已彰着镌汰，他们现时辨别是71岁、69岁和66岁。

我从未但愿建造一个财富世及制，也不肯制定高出我子女范围除外的经久研究。

我相等了解并实足信任我的三个孩子。

但对于将来的世代，情况就不同了。

谁能预见将来的后代在面对多量财富的分派时会有若何的优先事项、聪敏和诚意，尤其是在可能截然相背的慈善环境下？

尽管如斯，我集中的巨额财富可能需要比我的孩子寿命更长的时候来实足分派。

而由三个健在且诡计明确的头脑来作念出决策，显然比由一位已故之东谈主更为聪敏。

因此，我已指定了三名潜在的继任受托东谈主。他们与我的孩子相等熟悉，并得到了咱们一致招供。他们的年岁比我的孩子稍小。

不外，这些继任者现时仍在候补名单上。

我但愿苏西、霍华德和彼得或者亲身分派我的总共资产。

他们每个东谈主王人尊重我的意愿，即分派我握有的伯克希尔股份的有诡计毫不亏负伯克希尔鼓舞也曾赋予查理·芒格和我的弘大信任。

从2006年到2024年的这段时候，我有契机不雅察我的每个孩子在行动中的发扬。他们在这段时候学到了许多对于大界限慈善和东谈主类行动的常识。

他们每个东谈主王人已看守20至30东谈主的团队多年，并对影响慈善组织的私有工作动态有了长远了解。

一些阔气的一又友对我对孩子以及潜在继任者的极大信任感到酷好。

他们尤其对我要求总共基金会决策必须一致通过这项法例感到诧异。

他们问，这奈何可能行得通？

对此，我阐明注解谈，我的孩子们将长期面对诚笃一又友和其他东谈主的恳切苦求。

另一个执行是，当有东谈主要求大额慈善捐钱时，「拒却」常常会促使潜在受助者筹商不同的战略——举例寻找另一个一又友或提议一个不同的状貌。

那些或者分派多量资金的东谈主老是被视为「契机诡计」。这种不欢喜的执行是弗成幸免的。

因此，我设定了「合座一致情愿」的法例。

这项限度不错让孩子们对寻求捐钱的东谈主作出立即且最终的答覆：

“这弗成能得回我手足的情愿”。

这么的回应会让我的孩子们的生计变得更毒害。

天然，这项「合座一致」条目并非全能之策——若是你有九个或十个子女或继子女，这显然弗成行。

况兼，这也无法贬责如何每年高效分派数十亿好意思元的沉重问题。

我有一个建议，适用于总共父母，不管他们的财富是普通如故极为阔气。

当你的孩子够熟悉时，在你签署遗嘱之前，确保每个孩子王人涌现你的决定背后的逻辑，以及他们在你厌世后将要承担的背负。

若是他们有任何问题或建议，请厚爱倾听，并选择那些合理的见解。你不但愿在你无法回适时，孩子们对遗嘱的决定问「为什么」。

这些年来，我的三个孩子王人曾向我提议问题或见解，我也常常选择他们的建议。为我方的主义申辩并莫得什么分歧。当年我的父亲也这么对我。

我每隔几年就会修改遗嘱，正常仅仅作念一些小更正，并尽量保握简便。

多年来，查理（芒格）和我见过好多家庭因遗嘱的身后条目而分裂，因为受益东谈主对遗嘱感到困惑，以致震怒。

童年时间的忌妒以及确切或想像中的不刚正待遇常常会被放大，尤其是当犬子在钞票方面或蹙迫职位上比女儿受到更多偏疼时。

查理和我也看过一些豪阔的父母在过世前与家东谈主充分盘问遗嘱安排的例子，这反而让家庭干系更亲密。

还有什么比这更令东谈主餍足的呢？

当我写下这些笔墨时，我依然感受到我方的行运，这种行运始于1930年我以白东谈主男性的身份配置在好意思国。

我的两个姊妹，天然，早在1920年通过的《第十九修正案》中就被明确承诺将与男性享有对等的权益。毕竟，这亦然咱们十三个从属国在1776年所传递的音书。

可是，1930年时，我配置的这个国度还未着实好意思满这些早期的愿景。在比莉·简·金、桑德拉·戴·奥康纳、鲁斯·巴德·金斯伯格以及无数其他东谈主的致力于下，情况在20世纪70年代开动改变。

手脚男性身份的受益者，我很早就礼服我方会变得阔气。但不管是我，或是其他任何东谈主，王人无法预见好意思国以前几十年来所能达到的财富界限。

这种变化令东谈主畏怯——以致高出了福特、卡内基、摩根，以致洛克菲勒的想像，数十亿好意思元成为了新的「百万好意思元」。

我配置时碰巧大少见的开动，情况看起来并不乐不雅。可是，复利的着实威力常常体现时人命的终末二十年。

因为莫得“踩到香蕉皮”，我现时以94岁乐龄依然活跃，领有多量的储蓄——不错将这些“延长销耗的单元”传递给那些配置时抽到了“短签”的东谈主。

我也很行运，我的慈善理念得到了两任配头的尽心全意扶植并被进一步拓展。

不管是我的第一任配头苏西，或是第二任的阿斯特丽德，王人不信托世及财富的理念。

相背，咱们一致合计，对等的契机应该从配置时开动，而相等骄慢式的生计款式天然正当，但并弗成取。

手脚一个家庭，咱们领有了咱们需要或心爱的一切，但咱们从未试图透过领有别东谈主渴慕的东西来获取乐趣。

让我很是沸腾的是，许多伯克希尔的早期鼓舞也零丁变成了近似的理念。

他们储蓄、生计得很好、护理好我方的家庭，并透过复利的力量，将他们的储蓄升沉为大额以致多量财富，回馈社会。

他们的「财富支票」被平淡地分派给那些不太行运的东谈主。

秉握着这么的理念，我从二十多岁后期开动以我方想要的款式生计。

现时，我看着我的孩子们成长为优秀且阔气见效的公民。他们在许多问题上的不雅点与我和彼此不同，但他们分享的中枢价值经久坚忍不移。

小苏西、霍华德和彼得在径直匡助他东谈主方面花了比我更多的时候。他们享受经济上的餍足，但并未被财富所困扰。他们从母亲那处学到了这些价值不雅，而她一定会为他们感到骄贵。

我亦然。

BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC.

NEWS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 25, 2024

Omaha, NE (BRK.A; BRK.B) –

Today, Warren E. Buffett will convert 1,600 A shares into 2,400,000 B shares in order to give these Bshares to four family foundations: 1,500,000 shares to The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation and 300,000 shares to each of The Sherwood Foundation, The Howard G. Buffett Foundation and NoVo Foundation.

Mr. Buffett’s comments to his fellow shareholders follow:

The gifts I am making today reduce my holdings of Berkshire Hathaway Class A shares to206,363, a 56.6% decrease since my 2006 pledge. In 2004, before Susie, my first wife, died, the two of us owned 508,998 Class A shares. For decades, we had both thought that she would outlive me and subsequently distribute the vast majority of our large fortune. That was not to be.

When Susie died, her estate was roughly $3 billion, with about 96% of this sum going to ourfoundation. Additionally, she left $10 million to each of our three children, the first large gift we had given to any of them. These bequests reflected our belief that hugely wealthy parents should leave their children enough so they can do anything but not enough that they can do nothing.

Susie and I had long encouraged our children in small philanthropic activities and had beenpleased with their enthusiasm, diligence and results. At her death, however, they were not ready to handle the staggering wealth that Berkshire shares had generated. Nevertheless, their philanthropic activities were dramatically increased by the 2006 lifetime pledge that I subsequently made and later expanded.

The children have now more than justified our hopes and, upon my death, will have fullresponsibility for gradually distributing all of my Berkshire holdings. These now account for 99½% of my wealth.

Father time always wins. But he can be fickle – indeed unfair and even cruel – sometimesending life at birth or soon thereafter while, at other times, waiting a century or so before paying a visit. To date, I’ve been very lucky, but, before long, he will get around to me.

There is, however, a downside to my good fortune in avoiding his notice. The expected lifespan of my children has materially diminished since the 2006 pledge. They are now 71, 69 and 66.

I’ve never wished to create a dynasty or pursue any plan that extended beyond the children. Iknow the three well and trust them completely. Future generations are another matter. Who can foresee the priorities, intelligence and fidelity of successive generations to deal with the distribution of extraordinary wealth amid what may be a far different philanthropic landscape? Still, the massive wealth I’ve collected may take longer to deploy than my children live. And tomorrow’s decisions are likely to be better made by three live and well-directed brains than by a dead hand.

As such, three potential successor trustees have been designated. Each is well known to mychildren and makes sense to all of us. They are also somewhat younger than my children.

But these successors are on the wait list. I hope Susie, Howie and Peter themselves disburseall of my assets.

Each respects my wish that the disposition program for my holdings of Berkshire shares in noway betrays the exceptional trust Berkshire shareholders bestowed upon Charlie Munger and me. The 2006-2024 period gave me the chance to observe each of my children in action and they have learned much about large-scale philanthropy and human behavior. Each has overseen teams of 20-30 for many years and has observed the unique employment dynamics affecting philanthropic organizations.

Wealthy friends have been curious about the extraordinary confidence I have in my childrenand their possible alternates. They express particular surprise at my requirement that all foundation actions will require a unanimous vote. How can this be workable?

I’ve explained that my children will forever be besieged with earnest requests from verysincere friends and others. A second reality: When large philanthropic gifts are requested, a “no”frequently prompts would-be grantees to ponder a different approach – another friend, a different project, whatever. Those who can distribute huge sums are forever regarded as “targets of opportunity.” This unpleasant reality comes with the territory.

Hence, the “unanimous decision” provision. That restriction enables an immediate and finalreply to grant-seekers: “It’s not something that would ever receive my brother’s consent.” And that answer will improve the lives of my children.

My unanimity clause, of course, is not a panacea – it clearly isn’t workable if you have nineor ten children or stepchildren. And it doesn’t solve the daunting problem of intelligently distributing many billions annually.

I have one further suggestion for all parents, whether they are of modest or staggeringwealth. When your children are mature, have them read your will before you sign it.

Be sure each child understands both the logic for your decisions and the responsibilities theywill encounter upon your death. If any have questions or suggestions, listen carefully and adopt those found sensible. You don’t want your children asking “Why?” in respect to testamentary decisions when you are no longer able to respond.

Over the years, I have had questions or commentary from all three of my children and haveoften adopted their suggestions. There is nothing wrong with my having to defend my thoughts. My dad did the same with me.

I change my will every couple of years – often only in very minor ways – and keep thingssimple. Over the years, Charlie and I saw many families driven apart after the posthumous dictates of the will left beneficiaries confused and sometimes angry. Jealousies, along with actual or imagined slights during childhood, became magnified, particularly when sons were favored over daughters, either in monetary ways or by positions of importance.

Charlie and I also witnessed a few cases where a wealthy parent’s will that was fullydiscussed before death helped the family become closer. What could be more satisfying?

As I write this, I continue my lucky streak that began in 1930 with my birth in the UnitedStates as a white male. My two sisters had, of course, been explicitly promised by the 19th Amendment’s enactment in 1920 that they would be treated equally with males. This, after all, had been the message of our thirteen colonies in 1776.

In 1930, however, I emerged in a country that hadn’t yet gotten around to fulfilling its earlieraspirations. Aided by Billie Jean King, Sandra Day O’Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and countless others, things began changing in the 1970s.

So favored by my male status, very early on I had confidence that I would become rich. Butin no way did I, or anyone else, dream of the fortunes that have become attainable in America during the last few decades. It has been mind-blowing – beyond the imaginations of Ford, Carnegie, Morgan or even Rockefeller. Billions became the new millions.

Things didn’t look great when I arrived at the beginning of The Great Depression. But thereal action from compounding takes place in the final twenty years of a lifetime. By not stepping on any banana peels, I now remain in circulation at 94 with huge sums in savings – call these units of deferred consumption – that can be passed along to others who were given a very short straw at birth.

I am also lucky that my philanthropic philosophy has been enthusiastically embraced – andwidened – by both of my wives. Neither I, Susie Sr. nor Astrid, who succeeded her, believed in dynastic wealth.

Instead, we shared a view that equal opportunity should begin at birth and extreme “look-at-me” styles of living should be legal but not admirable. As a family, we have had everything weneeded or simply liked, but we have not sought enjoyment from the fact that others craved what we had.

It also has been a particular pleasure to me that so many early Berkshire shareholders haveindependently arrived at a similar view. They have saved – lived well – taken good care of their families – and by extended compounding of their savings passed along large, sometimes huge, sums back into society. Their “claim checks” are being widely distributed to others less lucky.

With this philosophy, I have lived the way I wanted to live since my late 20s, and I have nowwatched my children grow into good and productive citizens. They have different views in many cases from both me and their siblings but have common values that are unwavering.

Susie Jr., Howie and Peter have each spent far more time directly helping others than I have.They enjoy being comfortable financially, but they are not preoccupied with wealth. Their mother, from whom they learned these values, would be very proud of them.

As am I.

About Berkshire

Berkshire Hathaway and its subsidiaries engage in diverse business activities including insurance andreinsurance, utilities and energy, freight rail transportation, manufacturing, services and retailing. Common stock of the company is listed on the New York Stock Exchange, trading symbols BRK.A and BRK.B.