Alright, let's talk about Warren Buffett. The Oracle of Omaha, right? The guy who’s supposedly the antithesis of all that Silicon Valley flash and Wall Street greed. He’s always been the folksy grandpa of finance, the one who lives in the same house, eats the same breakfast, and preaches long-term value. But lately, even old Warren's showing his true colors, and frankly, I'm not surprised. This isn't just a pivot. No, it’s a full-blown U-turn into the same old billionaire playbook, dressed up in a folksy sweater.
Buffett, bless his 95-year-old heart, just dropped a letter admitting his "grand philanthropic plans" didn't "prove feasible." Give me a break. You're Warren Buffett, you've got $150 billion rattling around, and you're telling me philanthropy is too complicated? This ain't rocket science, dude; it's giving away money. But hey, it's easier to blame "ill-conceived wealth transfers by political hacks, dynastic choices and, yes, inept or quirky philanthropists" than to admit maybe your own grand vision was... well, hard. Or maybe, just maybe, you realized giving away 99% of your wealth during your lifetime wasn't as fun as accumulating it.
So, what's the solution to this seemingly insurmountable challenge of giving away your own cash? You hand it over to your kids. All three of 'em, now in their 60s and 70s, are suddenly "at their prime in respect to experience and wisdom." Funny, I thought the prime for active philanthropy might be, you know, a bit younger than 72. But hey, "ruling from the grave does not have a great record," he says, as he effectively sets up a multi-billion-dollar dynasty under the guise of avoiding one. He's carving out $500 million a year for their foundations – Sherwood, Howard G., NoVo – plus a tidy $750 million for his late wife's organization. It's like a trust fund, but with a saintly glow. The whole thing smells less like genuine philanthropic evolution and more like a carefully managed exit strategy, ensuring the Buffett name stays gilded while the actual heavy lifting of systemic change... well, that’s still TBD. Are we really supposed to believe this is a more effective way to tackle global issues than a focused, large-scale foundation? Or is it just easier to let the family run a few smaller shops?
Then there’s The Giving Pledge, that grand pronouncement he co-founded with Bill Gates and Melinda French Gates back in 2010. Remember that? "Donate at least 50% of your wealth to charity!" Buffett himself pledged over 99%. Sounds noble, right? Turns out, it's about as binding as a New Year's resolution after two weeks. The Institute for Policy Studies reports only nine out of 256 signatories have actually followed through on giving away half their wealth. Nine! That's a pathetic batting average, even for me on a bad day. The truth is, for most of these folks, wealth accumulation has outrun any token charitable donation at a speed that would make a cheetah blush.
Buffett's own giving has topped $60 billion, mostly to the Gates Foundation. But even there, the cracks showed. Reports about the Gates Foundation becoming "bureaucratically bloated" gave him a convenient out, and he resigned shortly after the Gates divorce. It's a classic move: "I'm out, it's gotten too big, too slow, not my problem anymore." Meanwhile, you've got MacKenzie Scott actually moving mountains with rapid, large-scale giving, while guys like Elon Musk are busy trying to become the world's first trillionaire, barely bothering to throw crumbs at charity. It really makes you wonder if The Giving Pledge was ever anything more than a PR stunt, a way to make the ultra-rich feel a little less guilty about their obscene fortunes... and honestly, it seems like the answer is a resounding yes.
And speaking of obscene fortunes, let's talk about CEO pay. Buffett, in his annual Thanksgiving letter (because nothing says gratitude like a good old corporate smackdown), railed against the SEC rules requiring companies to disclose CEO-to-median-worker pay ratios. He's right, offcourse, that it backfired. The intention was to "embarrass CEOs" after the 2008 crash. What happened instead? CEOs started looking at their rivals, puffing out their chests, and telling their boards, "I'm worth more than that guy." It's like a gilded pissing contest, played out in proxy statements now five times longer than they used to be. "Envy and greed walk hand in hand," Buffett wrote, and he ain't wrong. I can practically hear the clinking of champagne glasses in some mahogany-paneled boardroom as a CEO, fresh off seeing Musk's insane $1 trillion package, tells his board, "Well, if he gets it..."
He hits the nail on the head: "What consultant ever recommended a serious cut in CEO compensation or board payments?" None, that's who. They're all on the gravy train, hand-in-glove with the executives they're supposed to be advising. Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol raking in $97.8 million – 6,666 times the median employee – while Buffett himself still pulls a mere $100,000 salary (plus a cool $305,111 for home security, let's not forget). That contrast is stark, I'll give him that. But it doesn't change the fact that this whole system is rigged. The rules meant to curb excess just became a new metric for one-upmanship. It's not about performance anymore; it's about perceived status in the billionaire boys' club. Or maybe I'm just a cynic, what do I know?
Look, whether it's "rethinking" philanthropy or calling out CEO pay, Buffett's recent moves are less about true reform and more about managing his legacy and, crucially, maintaining control. He's not giving up his Berkshire Hathaway stake until his chosen successor, Greg Abel, is "fully settled." It's a game of chess, played on a board made of billions, where the pieces are his children, his reputation, and the very concept of "giving back." The Oracle might be getting old, but he's still playing the long game, and it’s one where the house always wins.
ONON Stock: Unpacking the Future Potential
2025-11-13