I just got back from Omaha, Nebraska, from my second Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting. The original plan was to land Thursday so I could spend all of Friday roaming the talks and the famous ecosystem that builds up around the event. Saturday would bring the main course —the shareholders meeting— followed by one more conference in the afternoon, and then the traditional Panamanian dinner at Gorat’s.
It didn’t go exactly as planned. A visa hiccup forced me to push back my flight, and between delays I ended up arriving Friday afternoon. Goodbye to Friday’s talks. People told me they were excellent, and that stung, because the thing I most wanted to confirm this year was whether the parallel ecosystem —the side conferences, the small groups, the investor meet-ups— was still alive. From what I heard and saw afterward: yes, it still has energy.
A hotel with a privileged view
I stayed at the Kimpton Cottonwood, on the famous Farnam Street. As it turns out, Warren Buffett’s offices are right next door, in Blackstone Plaza —the historic Kiewit Plaza, home to Berkshire Hathaway since 1962, which was renamed after it sold in 2019. Buffett’s house is on that same street, five minutes away. There’s a reason Shane Parrish’s excellent podcast is called Farnam Street: he devoted it to learning and writing about the wisdom of Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger, and named it after the street where the office sits.
Celebrities gathered at the Kimpton all weekend. One night there was a private Berkshire event in the lobby, and judging by the number of suited bodyguards outside, we figured Buffett was inside. Another day, right at the entrance, I had Bill Murray —yes, the actor— next to me; turns out he’s been a Berkshire shareholder since the 70s. And to top it off, Li Lu, the “Warren Buffett of China,” was hosting a private event on the 8th floor. Three of us Panamanians tried to sneak in, but we got stopped at the door: invitation only. For those who don’t know him, Li Lu is the only person Charlie Munger ever trusted to manage his personal money.
Blackstone Plaza at night —the historic Kiewit Plaza, home to Warren Buffett’s offices on Farnam Street.
The Greg Abel era: less charisma, more operations
Saturday was, in a word, transition. Greg Abel led his first meeting as CEO, with Buffett (95) sitting in the audience for the first time in 60 years. The play looks a lot like Apple’s when Tim Cook replaced Steve Jobs: when the founder-legend steps away, the new CEO elevates the executive bench to show the depth of management and prove the company is bigger than any one person.
Last year Buffett was very general —he barely talked about the business; it was all life wisdom, anecdotes, philosophy. This year, with Greg, the tone flipped 180°:
Metrics and rankings, no filter. BNSF moved from 5th to 4th among the six Class I railroads. Operating margin rose 250 basis points in 2025. Union Pacific, the leader, sits at 39.5%. Clear gap, clear plan. Warren probably would have been too shy to talk that way about an asset he owns in public; Greg said it without blinking.
In-house technology. The mantra: be builders of technology, not buyers. They moved GEICO’s tech lead into a senior role at Berkshire Hathaway Energy and BNSF to replicate the playbook.
“Narrow AI.” Greg hates the bare term “AI.” Three principles: a human always in the loop, reproducibility as a safeguard, and AI that is additive to the business (no “AI for AI’s sake”).
They brought the general managers of GEICO, BNSF and NetJets/Consumer Products on stage. For the first time we saw those operators live, defending their businesses.
Does Greg have Warren’s charisma? No. And nobody expects him to: he’s an operator, not a comedian. And I think that’s the right call: if you’re not charismatic, you’d better teach people how you think as a business. The Q&A reflected it too. Buffett used to get questions like “what would you do if you could spend one more day with Charlie Munger?” Nobody asks Greg that: they ask him about AI, insurance succession, autonomous trucking, decentralization, tariffs. It’s much more about the business. In a way, you come away understanding the company better this year.
The CHI Health Center at the first meeting with Greg Abel as CEO.
The tribute to Buffett —and the reality
The most moving part of the day: they officially raised Warren’s “jersey” —number 60, for his 60 years as CEO— to the rafters of the CHI Health Center, next to Charlie Munger’s. The arena erupted. Then Warren took the mic and, speaking about Greg, said: “He’s doing everything I did, and a little more, and he’s doing it better in every case.” 100% Buffett.
The “BUFFETT · 60 · 1965-2025” banner raised to the rafters, honoring his 60 years as CEO.
Warren went back to the Apple story —the $35 billion they invested ten years ago turned into $185 billion pre-tax, “and I didn’t have to do a damn thing”— and used the moment to recognize Tim Cook (also stepping down), who was in the audience. Later Becky Quick interviewed him live and he dropped lines that are already classics: “the market is a church with a casino next door” and “the best time to buy is when nobody answers the phone.”
Throughout the day, Warren drew the parallel more than once between himself and Steve Jobs, and between Greg Abel and Tim Cook: the visionary who creates, the operator who scales. I’m not the one making the comparison —he made it himself, from the stage.
The tribute in the exhibit hall: “With Gratitude, Warren Buffett, Chairman.”
But I’ll be honest with you: Buffett made me sad. He looks very old. When he speaks he struggles to modulate, struggles to laugh, and there are moments you can’t fully understand him. He doesn’t have much time left, and that brings me to the elephant in the room.
Warren Buffett, 95, at the microphone in the blue sweater that went viral.
What happens the day Buffett is gone?
This year the energy was clearly lower. My eyeball estimate: 30-40% fewer attendees than last year (the press put it around 25,000, versus 40,000 in 2025). The exhibit hall was quieter at the register. And the question that haunts me is: what happens the year Warren isn’t there?
You can already see the moves to fill the vacuum, and it’s clear there will be competition to be the gathering place for value investors next year:
Tom Gayner (Markel) wants to build a whole weekend like Berkshire’s.
Bill Ackman said he’ll be much more active on social media and at public conferences, partly to promote his new funds.
Will any of them come close to Buffett? I doubt it. Warren combines something almost impossible to replicate: a six-decade track record, a legendary communicator, and a cultural figure beyond finance. But a power vacuum is clearly forming in the symbolic leadership of value investing, and several people will try to grab the baton. My bet: there won’t be a single successor, but a fragmentation —each great investor with their own “meeting” in a different town.
The after-party: Kanbrick and the Panamanian dinner
Walking out of the main meeting, I went to the exhibit hall for my annual shopping: Brooks sneakers (thanks, Dan Sheridan), a coffee mug, a signed baseball. It’s one of the nicest spaces of the weekend: you walk among Berkshire’s brands, discovering products and services you’d otherwise never see.
Then I had the good fortune of getting into a very good session by Kanbrick, the firm built by Tracy Britt Cool (former financial assistant to Buffett, former CEO of Pampered Chef) and her partner Brian Humphrey. What they’re doing is brilliant: a “Berkshire for smaller companies” —a long-term home, patient capital, 10+ year holds, conservative leverage (~2.5-3x, versus 4-6x for traditional PE), an identical philosophy at a more manageable scale. Their thesis: the world didn’t need another middle-market PE shop; it needed a long-term home with operator DNA.
Three ideas I took home and applied straight to Porta Norte:
The compounding equation. 20% a year for 20 years turns into ~38x. That’s the math any long-term builder should have written on the wall. In solarpunk real estate with a 50-year horizon, that discipline is our competitive advantage.
The 4 Ms to evaluate counterparties (developers, institutions, businesses entering Porta Norte): Market, Moat, Management, More potential. “More potential” is their personal version of the margin of safety: not in price, but in what you can co-create with the partner.
Patience compounds. Tracy and Brian have spent five years investing in their community of CEOs (~4,000 people), and two of their portfolio companies came out of it. The lesson: build community before you need the deal flow. It applies directly to how we cultivate relationships with investors, residents and operators at Porta Norte.
Then, at night, the traditional dinner at Gorat’s, the steakhouse Buffett made famous. We were about 12-14 Panamanians at the table (some had already left by the time I took the photo), and that’s a high number for any conference in the United States: the trip from Panama takes at least 12-14 hours with layovers, almost as long as flying to Madrid. The passion it takes to make this trip every year is high, and it says something about the kind of people who do it.
The traditional Panamanian dinner at Gorat’s, the steakhouse Buffett made famous.
The next day I flew back to Panama early. I still regret missing Friday’s talks, but Saturday —even with the lower energy— was worth every hour in the air.
Reflection
It’s my second year going, and I increasingly see this trip as investing practice, not financial tourism. Annual meetings are a powerful way to:
Get to know the companies you’re invested in better, and decide whether to add or trim your exposure.
Watch management: see their faces, hear how they think, judge how they’re aging (literally and figuratively).
Recharge your passion by surrounding yourself with people who care about these things. Let’s be honest: very few people in the world know —or want— to talk about combined ratios, capital allocation and moats in depth.
When you’re in a room with thousands of people who flew 12-14 hours to hear a CEO talk about the 10-Q, you realize something: there’s a tribe that thinks this way, and surrounding yourself with them makes you a better investor. More than any book or course.
I’m left wanting to go to other meetings —Markel, Constellation Software, Fairfax, maybe. If you want to learn to think like a long-term owner, events like these are the best education there is.
See you next year, Omaha. I hope Warren is still there.
And what do I think about BRK?
People ask me this a lot, so I’ll cut to it. Today BRK-A is around $750,000 and BRK-B around $500. It depends on what you’re after and the price you pay, but my read is this: Berkshire is fairly valued and the S&P 500 is, to me, overvalued. That’s why right now I like Berkshire quite a bit more than the index.
Don’t expect high returns over the medium term —I’d aim for something like 6% a year. I see it as almost as safe as a T-Bill, but with better yield: country diversification, a fortress balance sheet, and a common-sense discount. Very conservative.
That’s why I keep investing in it alongside my parents. For my personal portfolio I hold a position, but these days I prefer less conservative things with a better expected return. Different horses for different courses.
Acabo de regresar de Omaha, Nebraska, de mi segundo Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting. El plan original era llegar el jueves para aprovechar el viernes entero recorriendo charlas y el famoso ecosistema que se arma en paralelo al evento. El sábado caería el plato fuerte —la junta de accionistas— y en la tarde una conferencia más, antes de cerrar con la cena tradicional de los panameños en Gorat’s.
No salió exactamente como pensaba. Tuve un problema con la visa que me obligó a atrasar el vuelo, y entre tantos retrasos terminé llegando el viernes en la tarde. Adiós a las charlas del viernes. Me dijeron que estuvieron buenísimas y eso me dolió, porque lo que más quería confirmar este año era si el ecosistema paralelo —las side conferences, los grupos pequeños, los meet-ups de inversionistas— seguía vivo. Por lo que escuché y vi después: sí, sigue con energía.
El hotel con vista privilegiada
Me quedé en el Kimpton Cottonwood, sobre la famosa Farnam Street. Resulta que justo al lado quedan las oficinas de Warren Buffett, en Blackstone Plaza —el histórico Kiewit Plaza, sede de Berkshire Hathaway desde 1962, que cambió de nombre cuando lo compraron en 2019—. La casa de Buffett queda en esa misma calle, a cinco minutos. Por algo el magnífico podcast de Shane Parrish se llama Farnam Street: se dedicó a aprender y publicar sobre la sabiduría de Warren Buffett y Charlie Munger, y lo bautizó con la calle de la oficina.
En el Kimpton se congregaron celebridades todo el fin de semana. Una noche había un evento privado de Berkshire en el lobby, y por la cantidad de guardaespaldas trajeados afuera, pensamos que Buffett estaba adentro. Otro día, en la entrada, tenía al lado mío a Bill Murray —sí, el actor—, que resulta ser accionista de Berkshire desde los años 70. Y para rematar, Li Lu, el «Warren Buffett de China», hacía un evento privado en el piso 8. Tres panameños intentamos colarnos, pero nos pararon en la puerta: era con invitación. Para los que no lo conozcan, Li Lu es la única persona a quien Charlie Munger le confió su dinero personal para que se lo administrara.
Blackstone Plaza de noche —el histórico Kiewit Plaza, donde están las oficinas de Warren Buffett en Farnam Street.
La era Greg Abel: menos carisma, más operación
El sábado fue, en una palabra, transición. Greg Abel lideró su primera junta como CEO, con Buffett (95 años) sentado en la audiencia por primera vez en 60 años. La jugada se parece mucho a la de Apple cuando Tim Cook reemplazó a Steve Jobs: cuando se va el fundador-leyenda, el nuevo CEO realza al equipo ejecutivo para demostrar la profundidad del management y que la empresa va más allá de una sola persona.
El año pasado Buffett fue muy general —casi no habló del negocio; fue todo sabiduría de vida, anécdotas, filosofía—. Este año, con Greg, el tono cambió 180°:
Métricas y rankings, sin filtro. BNSF pasó del 5.º al 4.º lugar entre las seis Class I railroads. El margen operativo subió 250 puntos básicos en 2025. Union Pacific, el líder, está en 39.5%. Brecha clara, plan claro. A Warren probablemente le habría dado pena hablar así de un activo propio en público; Greg lo dijo sin pestañear.
Tecnología in-house. El mantra: ser builders de tecnología, no compradores. Movieron al líder técnico de GEICO a un rol senior en Berkshire Hathaway Energy y BNSF para replicar el playbook.
«Narrow AI». Greg detesta el término «AI» a secas. Tres principios: humano siempre en el loop, reproducibilidad como salvaguarda, y que la AI sea aditiva al negocio (nada de «AI por AI»).
Subieron a los gerentes generales de GEICO, BNSF y NetJets/Consumer Products al escenario. Por primera vez vimos a esos operadores en vivo, defendiendo sus negocios.
¿Tiene Greg el carisma de Warren? No. Y nadie pretende que lo tenga: él es un operador, no un comediante. Y me parece lo correcto: si no eres carismático, mejor enseñas cómo piensas como negocio. Las preguntas también lo reflejaron. A Buffett le hacían cosas tipo «¿qué harías si pudieras pasar un día más con Charlie Munger?». A Greg nadie le pregunta eso: le preguntan de AI, sucesión en seguros, autonomous trucking, descentralización, tarifas. Es mucho más sobre el negocio. Hasta cierto punto, uno termina conociendo mejor la empresa este año.
El CHI Health Center en la primera junta con Greg Abel como CEO.
El homenaje a Buffett —y la realidad
Lo más emotivo del día: izaron oficialmente el «jersey» de Warren —el número 60, por sus 60 años como CEO— hasta las vigas del CHI Health Center, junto al de Charlie Munger. La arena explotó en aplausos. Después Warren tomó el micrófono y, hablando de Greg, dijo: «Está haciendo todo lo que yo hacía, y un poco más, y lo está haciendo mejor en todos los casos.» 100% Buffett.
El banner «BUFFETT · 60 · 1965-2025» izado a las vigas, en homenaje a sus 60 años como CEO.
Warren volvió al cuento de Apple —los 35 mil millones que invirtieron hace diez años se convirtieron en 185 mil millones pre-tax, «y no tuve que hacer ni una maldita cosa»— y aprovechó para reconocer a Tim Cook (también retirándose) que estaba en la audiencia. Más tarde Becky Quick lo entrevistó en vivo y soltó frases ya antológicas: «el mercado es una iglesia con un casino al lado» y «los mejores tiempos para comprar son cuando nadie contesta el teléfono.»
A lo largo del día, Warren trazó varias veces el paralelo entre él y Steve Jobs, y entre Greg Abel y Tim Cook: el visionario que crea, el operador que escala. La comparación no la inventé yo —la hizo él mismo desde el escenario.
El homenaje en el exhibit hall: «With Gratitude, Warren Buffett, Chairman».
Pero te voy a ser honesto: Buffett me dio tristeza. Se ve muy viejo. Cuando habla le cuesta modular, le cuesta reírse, hay momentos en que no se le entiende del todo. Le queda poco tiempo, y eso me lleva al elefante en la sala.
Warren Buffett, 95 años, al micrófono con la sudadera azul que se hizo viral.
¿Qué pasa el día que Buffett no esté?
Este año la energía estaba claramente más baja. Mi estimado a ojo: 30-40% menos asistentes que el año pasado (la prensa habló de unos 25,000, contra 40,000 en 2025). El exhibit hall estuvo más mudo a la hora de comprar. Y la pregunta que me persigue es: ¿qué pasa el año en que falte Warren?
Ya se empiezan a ver movimientos para llenar el vacío, y se nota que va a haber competencia por ser la sede de los inversionistas value el próximo año:
Tom Gayner (Markel) quiere armar un fin de semana entero parecido al de Berkshire.
Bill Ackman dijo que va a ser mucho más activo en redes y conferencias públicas, en parte promocionando sus nuevos fondos.
¿Alguno le va a llegar a los talones a Buffett? Lo dudo. Warren combina algo casi imposible de replicar: track record de seis décadas, comunicador legendario y figura cultural más allá de las finanzas. Pero está claro que se está formando un vacío de poder en el liderazgo simbólico de los inversionistas value, y van a ser varios los que intenten agarrar la batuta. Mi apuesta: no habrá un sucesor único, sino una fragmentación —cada gran inversionista tendrá su propia «junta» en distintos pueblos—.
El after: Kanbrick y la cena de los panameños
Saliendo de la junta principal, fui al exhibit hall a hacer mi compra anual: zapatillas Brooks (gracias, Dan Sheridan), una taza de café, una bola de béisbol firmada. Es uno de los espacios más bonitos del fin de semana: uno camina entre las marcas de Berkshire conociendo productos y servicios que de otra forma no vería.
Después tuve la fortuna de meterme a una sesión muy buena de Kanbrick, la firma que armó Tracy Britt Cool (ex–financial assistant de Buffett, ex-CEO de Pampered Chef) con su socio Brian Humphrey. Lo que están haciendo me parece brillante: un «Berkshire para empresas más pequeñas» —long-term home, capital paciente, hold de 10+ años, leverage conservador (~2.5-3x, contra 4-6x del PE tradicional), filosofía idéntica pero a una escala más manejable—. Su tesis: el mundo no necesitaba otro middle-market PE; necesitaba un home de largo plazo con ADN de operador.
Tres ideas que me llevé y que aterricé directo a Porta Norte:
La ecuación del compounding. 20% anual durante 20 años se convierte en ~38x. Es la matemática que cualquier builder de largo plazo debería tener escrita en la pared. En real estate solarpunk con horizonte de 50 años, esa disciplina es nuestra ventaja competitiva.
Las 4 Ms para evaluar contrapartes (developers, instituciones, comerciantes que entran a Porta Norte): Market, Moat, Management, More potential. El «more potential» es su versión personal del margin of safety: no en el precio, sino en lo que pueden co-crear con el partner.
Patience compounds. Tracy y Brian llevan cinco años invirtiendo en su comunidad de CEOs (~4,000 personas), y dos de sus portfolio companies salieron de ahí. La lección: construir comunidad antes de necesitar el deal flow. Aplicable directo a cómo cultivamos relaciones con inversionistas, residentes y operadores en Porta Norte.
Ya en la noche, la cena tradicional en Gorat’s, el steakhouse que Buffett popularizó. Éramos como 12-14 panameños en la mesa (algunos ya se habían ido cuando tomé la foto), y ese es un número alto para cualquier conferencia en Estados Unidos: el viaje desde Panamá toma mínimo 12-14 horas con escalas, casi tanto como ir a Madrid. La pasión que hay que tener para hacer este viaje cada año es muy alta, y dice algo del grupo de gente que lo hace.
La cena tradicional de los panameños en Gorat’s, el steakhouse que Buffett popularizó.
Al día siguiente regresé temprano a Panamá. Sigo lamentando haberme perdido las charlas del viernes, pero la jornada del sábado —aún con la energía más baja— valió cada hora de vuelo.
Reflexión
Es mi segundo año yendo, y cada vez veo más este viaje como práctica de inversionista, no como turismo financiero. Las juntas de accionistas son una forma poderosa de:
Conocer mejor las empresas en las que uno está invertido, y decidir si subir o bajar la exposición.
Supervisar al management: verle la cara, escuchar cómo piensa, evaluar cómo está envejeciendo (literal y figuradamente).
Recargar la pasión rodeándote de gente que valora estos temas. Seamos honestos: muy poca gente en el mundo sabe —o quiere— hablar de combined ratios, capital allocation y moats con profundidad.
Cuando estás en una sala con miles de personas que volaron 12-14 horas para escuchar a un CEO hablar del 10-Q, te das cuenta de algo: hay una tribu de gente que piensa así, y rodearte de ellos te hace mejor inversionista. Más que cualquier libro o curso.
Me quedo con ganas de ir a otras juntas —Markel, Constellation Software, Fairfax, tal vez—. Si uno quiere aprender a pensar como dueño de largo plazo, este tipo de eventos son la mejor educación que existe.
Hasta el año que viene, Omaha. Espero que Warren todavía esté ahí.
¿Y qué pienso de BRK?
Me lo preguntan seguido, así que voy directo. Hoy BRK-A ronda los $750,000 y BRK-B unos $500. Depende de qué busques y del precio al que entres, pero mi lectura es esta: Berkshire está fairly valued y el S&P 500 está, para mí, overvalued. Por eso ahorita me gusta bastante más Berkshire que el índice.
No esperes retornos altos a mediano plazo —yo apuntaría a algo como 6% anual—. Lo veo casi tan seguro como un T-Bill, pero con mejor rendimiento: diversificación de país, balance de fortaleza y un descuento de puro sentido común. Súper conservador.
Por eso le sigo invirtiendo junto a mis padres. Para mi portafolio personal tengo una posición, pero hoy prefiero cosas menos conservadoras y con mejor expectativa de retorno. Caballos distintos para carreras distintas.
A few years ago I set myself a goal: sharpen my investment judgment and become a wiser steward of my family’s financial future. The deeper I dug, the more hooked I became. I read dozens of investing books, and every path eventually pointed to Berkshire Hathaway. It soon became clear that Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger are the gold standard for learning how to invest—and, by extension, how to run any business with discipline and common sense.
Many nights, after work, I unwind by watching the Q&A sessions from the Annual Meeting or old Buffett & Munger lectures. Their philosophy hooked me so hard I promised myself I’d attend the meeting one day.
In 2025, I finally made the pilgrimage to Berkshire Hathaway’s Annual Shareholders Meeting. Seeing 40,000 investors under one roof felt surreal, and Saturday’s marathon Q&A anchored the whole weekend.
I left Panama on Friday morning. We had a connecting flight in Houston and almost missed the meeting because of bad weather. We waited inside the plane for about two hours. The airport almost shut down. In the end, the skies cleared, and we took off.
On the plane, I reread the Annual Report. In it you can find his annual letter, where Buffett writes a very instructive essay. He discusses Berkshire’s results and his investment principles. In the Annual Report you can also find the agenda and some events in Omaha for shareholders.
We arrived at the hotel at midnight and agreed to meet in the lobby at 6 a.m. to walk to the arena. They have to hold it in an arena because there are about 40,000 attendees.
I woke up at 5:30 a.m., and off we went. The lines were shockingly long. Some people even camped throughout the night. We were lucky that part of our group arrived even earlier, and we joined them. The energy while waiting in line was intense. When the doors opened, people shouted, filmed, and pushed. It felt like an oversold concert.
Shareholders waiting outside for the Annual Meeting.
Seating is first come, first served. We managed to get good seats together. There were about ten Panamanians in our group and more scattered around. I was surprised by how many Panamanians attended. One even asked a question online. Also, there were a lot of celebrities there; I saw Tim Cook, Li Lu, and Bill Ackman a few meters away.
The event began at 8 a.m. sharp. Warren Buffett, Greg Abel—the future CEO of Berkshire—and Ajit Jain, head of insurance, were all seated at the podium.
Warren Buffett, Greg Abel and Ajit Jain.
They usually make one video each year, but this time there was no video. He had already announced a “change of plans” in the Annual Report. The event usually starts with ten minutes of Warren summarizing the financial statements. This includes operating earnings and changes in the outstanding shares.
The whole event lasts five hours, which consists mainly of questions and answers. Questions are divided between shareholders attending in person and Becky Quick from CNBC, who chooses the best questions submitted online.
The shareholder questions vary wildly in quality. But Warren has the art of answering them with something wise. He adds an anecdote and always includes a touch of humor. He is very funny. The questions span from investment to life philosophy.
You can watch and read the Q&A online. Which I highly recommend. To give you a taste, here are 5 examples:
1. On real estate
Audience Member (Zone 2): Good morning, Warren, Greg and Ajit. My name is Jackie Han. I’m from China and now work in Toronto, Canada. This is my eighth Berkshire Hathaway meeting. At this point, I’ve probably spent more time with you than most people spend on Netflix. As you might guess, coming from a Chinese family, we always had a soft spot for real estate. So the question isn’t why don’t you own a house, it’s why are you still buying stocks instead of more property? So here is my question: With today’s high interest rates and global uncertainty, do you still believe in being greedy when others are fearful, or is value investing facing new challenges in today’s environment? Thank you.
Warren Buffett: Well, in respect to real estate, it’s so much harder than stocks in terms of negotiation of deals, time spent, and the involvement of multiple parties in the ownership. Usually when real estate gets in trouble, you find out you’re dealing with more than just the equity holder.
There have been times when large amounts of real estate have changed hands at bargain prices, but usually stocks were cheaper and they were a lot easier to do. Charlie did more real estate. Charlie enjoyed real estate transactions, and he actually did a fair number of them in the last 5 years of his life. But he was playing a game that was interesting to him.
I think if you’d asked him to make a choice when he was 21 – either be in stocks exclusively for the rest of his life or real estate for the rest of his life – he would have chosen stocks. There’s just so much more opportunity, at least in the United States, that presents itself in the security market than in real estate.
In real estate, you’re usually dealing with a single owner or a family that owns a large property they’ve had a long time. Maybe they’ve borrowed too much money against it. Maybe the population trends are against them. But to them, it’s an enormous decision.
When you walk down to the New York Stock Exchange, you can do billions of dollars worth of business, totally anonymous, and you can do it in 5 minutes. The trades are complete when they’re complete. In real estate, when you make a deal with a distressed lender, when you sign the deal, that’s just the beginning. Then people start negotiating more things, and it’s a whole different game with a different type of person who enjoys the game.
We did a few real estate deals that came our way in 2008 and 2009, but the amount of time they would take compared to doing something intelligent and probably better in securities – there was just no comparison. In a real estate deal, every sentence is important to the person. In stocks, if somebody needs to sell 20,000 shares of Berkshire and they call us and the price is right, it’s done in 5 seconds and it closes right away.
The completion rate for working on anything in stocks, assuming you’ve got a meeting of the minds on price, is essentially 100%. In real estate, the negotiation just begins when you agree on deals, and then they take forever. For a 94-year-old, it’s not the most interesting thing to get involved in something where the negotiations could take years.
We have seen some huge failures in real estate. If you go all the way back to Zeckendorf in the 1960s, he was going to change the world, and Century City in California is a product of his vision. If you go to Reichmann with the Canary Wharf buildings in London, he was sitting on top of the world, but people tend to get in trouble in that business.
The banks usually don’t want to recognize problems, but it takes a long time to go through the bank processes. They just got through redoing the Musk loan that he made when he was buying Twitter three years ago. Real estate transactions have parties on both sides that aren’t ready to act. We find it much better when people are ready to pick up the phone and you can do hundreds of millions of dollars worth of business in a day. I’ve been spoiled, but I like being spoiled, so we’ll keep it that way.
2. On patience
Audience Member (Zone 4): Hi, Mr. Buffett. My name is Daniel and I’m from Tenafly, New Jersey. First of all, I just want to say how grateful I am for getting the opportunity to ask you a question. When it comes to your principles of investing, you often talk about how important it is to be patient. Has there ever been a situation in your investing career where breaking that principle and acting fast has benefited you? Thank you.
Warren Buffett: That’s a good question. There are times when you have to act fast. In fact, we’ve made a great deal of money because we’re willing to act faster than anybody around.
Jessica Pune is the step-granddaughter of Ben Rosner, a manager of ours. In 1966, I got a call from a fellow named Phil Steinberg in New York. He said, “I represent Mrs. Anenberg. We have a business we’d like to sell you.” So I called Charlie up, got a few details, and it sounded very interesting.
Charlie and I went to Will Steinberg’s office in New York – he was a marvelous guy. He was handling things for Mrs. Anenberg, whose husband had been the partner of Ben Rosner, but he had died, and Ben got kind of tense about working with her.
So he offered us this business at a bargain price – $6 million. It had $2 million of cash, a $2 million piece of property on Market Street in Philadelphia, and it was making $2 million a year pre-tax.
Ben Rosner was there, and he was upset about doing business with his partner’s widow. She was extremely wealthy. He said to me and Charlie, “I’ll run this business for you until December 31st, and then I’m out of here.” Charlie and I went out in the hallway, and I said, “If this guy quits at the end of the year, you can throw away every book on psychology I’ve ever read.”
That began a wonderful relationship. We bought the company and had a great partnership. People in the East had a stereotype in their mind of what people from the Midwest were like. Ben had been married first to a woman from Iowa, and he just figured that anybody from the Midwest was okay.
The trick when you get in business with somebody who wants to sell you something for $6 million that’s got $2 million of cash, a couple million of real estate, and is making $2 million a year, is you don’t want to be patient at that moment. You want to be patient in waiting to get the occasional call. My phone will ring sometime with something that wakes me up. You just never know when it’ll happen.
That’s what makes it fun. So patience is a combination of patience and a willingness to do something that afternoon if it comes to you. You don’t want to be patient about acting on deals that make sense, and you don’t want to be very patient with people talking to you about things that will never happen.
Greg Abel: As you’re being patient, I happen to know – and I think that goes for Ajit also and all our managers – while we’re looking at opportunities and as you touched on, we want to act quickly, but never underestimate the amount of reading and work that’s being done to be prepared to act quickly. We know that when the opportunity presents itself, whether it be equities or private companies, we’re ready to act, and that’s a large part of being patient – using the time to be prepared.
Warren Buffett: And of course it doesn’t come in anything like an even flow. It’s the most uneven sort of activity you could get into. The main thing is you have to be willing to hang up after 5 seconds and you have to be willing to say yes after 5 seconds. You can’t be filled with self-doubt in this business.
One of the great pleasures – it is the great pleasure actually in this business – is having people trust you. That’s really why I work at 94 when I’ve got more money than anybody could count. It means nothing in terms of how I’m going to live or how my children are going to live or anything else.
But both Charlie and I just enjoyed the fact that people trusted us. They trusted us 60 or 70 years ago in partnerships we had. We never sought out professional investors to join our partnerships. Among all my partners, I never had a single institution – I never wanted an institution. I wanted people. I didn’t want people who were sitting around having presentations every three months and being told what they wanted to hear. That’s what we got, and that’s why we’ve got this group here today.
It’s all worked out. But you don’t want to be patient when the time comes to act – you want to get it done that day.
3. On advice for young investors
Audience Member (Zone 7): Hi, my name is Marie. I’m from Melrose, Massachusetts. Thank you for the time today. As a young person interested in investing like myself, I would love to hear your insights, Mr. Buffett. What were some pivotal lessons you learned early in your career? And what advice do you have for young investors who are looking to develop their investment philosophy? Thank you.
Warren Buffett: Those are good questions. Who you associate with is just enormously important. Don’t expect that you’ll make every decision right on that, but you are going to have your life progress in the general direction of the people that you work with, that you admire, that become your friends.
I mentioned a few fellows that have died in the last couple years. All of those people were people that, if we were working together on something one-ten-thousandth the size of Berkshire, they’d be the kind of people you’d choose. They’re people that make you want to be better than you are. You want to hang out with people that are better than you are and that you feel are better than you are because you’re going to go in the direction of the people you associate with.
That’s something you learn later in life – it’s hard to really appreciate how important some of those factors are until you get much older. But when you’ve got people around you like Tom Murphy and Sandy Gottesman and Walter Scott, you’re just going to live a better life than if you just go out and look at somebody that’s making a lot of money and decide you’re going to try and copy them.
I would try to be associated with smart people too where I could learn a lot from them, and I would try to look for something that I would do if I didn’t need the money. What you’re really looking for in life is something where you’ve got a job that you’d hold if you didn’t need the money, and I’ve had that for a very long time.
All the fellows I named had it, and they also always did more than their share and never sought more than their share of the credit. They behaved the way you’d like anybody you work with to behave. When you find them, you treasure them, and when you don’t find them, you still keep doing whatever enables you to eat. But you don’t give up on looking around, and you will find people who do wonderful things for you.
I mentioned earlier going down to GEICO and knocking on the door when the door was locked. Who knows what was behind that door? But in 10 minutes, I found that I had a man that was going to be just wonderfully helpful to me. And of course, if somebody’s going to be helpful to you, you want to try to figure out ways to be helpful to them. So you get a compounding of good intentions and good behavior. Unfortunately, you can get the reverse of that in life, too.
I was lucky in having a good environment for living that kind of life, and other people have a whole different environmental situation they have to overcome. But don’t feel guilty about your good luck if you’ve got it. If you live in the United States, with 8 billion people in the world and 330 million in the United States, you’ve already won the game to a great degree. Just keep making the most of it.
You don’t want to associate with people or enterprises that ask you to do something that you shouldn’t be doing. Different professions select for different types of people. It’s interesting to me that in the investment business, so many people get out of it after they’ve made a pile of money. You really want something that you’ll stick around for whether you need the money or not.
Greg doesn’t need the money, Ajit doesn’t need the money – not remotely – but they enjoy what they do and they’re so damn good at it. I’ve had the advantage of seeing how that works over time.
The best manager I ever knew – and there’s a lot of contention for who that would be – but actually was Tom Murphy Sr., who lived to almost 98. I’ve never seen anybody who could get the potential out of other people more than Murph. If you wanted to become a better person, you’d want to work for Tom Murphy. There are all kinds of successful people that don’t bring that to the party. I’m not saying that’s the only way to succeed, but I think it’s the most pleasant way to succeed for sure.
The Berkshire experience is pretty dramatic – to operate with Sandy Gottesman from 1963 until he died a couple years ago, Walter Scott for 30 years – you really can’t miss it. You’ll learn all the time, but you’ll not only learn how to be successful at business, you’ll learn how to be successful at life.
So that’s my recommendation. And for some reason, apparently you live longer too. It’s pretty amazing – these people I’m talking about, including myself. I think a happy person lives longer than somebody that’s doing things they don’t really admire that much in life.
4. Greg Abel on capital allocation
Becky Quick: This question comes from David Rubin, a shareholder from Scottsdale, Arizona. It’s a question for Greg. We’ve heard over the decades and are familiar with Warren and Charlie’s investment thesis and their circle of competence. During the first 10 years after taking over as CEO, Greg will be tasked with allocating more capital during that time than Berkshire has had to allocate in its history. Given this, I’d like to hear from Greg about his views on capital allocation, particularly into new businesses.
Greg Abel: This bar is not too high! We start from a great place at Berkshire. We’ve got a great culture within the business. We have values that we as a management team, as defined by Warren and Charlie and everybody associated with the business – we’ve got great values that really set Berkshire up well for the future.
As we deploy capital and allocate capital, it’s critical to Berkshire going forward, and equally it’s around managing risk. When I think of our values, a couple are absolutely critical. One: we will maintain the reputation of Berkshire and that of our company. I view that in investing or how we operate things across each of our businesses. That will always be a priority and something we’ll ensure is in the forefront of our minds.
Looking at our balance sheet, as Warren commented, we will have a fortress of a balance sheet. I thought Sue Decker, our lead director, said it well yesterday. We’ve got a significant amount of cash right now, but it’s an enormous asset to have that and that will continue to be a philosophy. When we can deploy it, we’ll deploy it well. We recognize it as a strategic asset that allows us to weather difficult times and not be dependent on anybody.
We will remain Berkshire and will never be dependent on a bank or some other party for Berkshire to be successful. With allocation of capital comes management of risk and understanding risk. That falls upon all our managers, insurance and non-insurance, but we’ll bring that across Berkshire.
The other value I would touch on relates to where I’m going: ultimately we have a great set of operating companies that produce significant cash flows, be it in the insurance companies creating float or our various non-insurance companies producing significant cash flows on an annual basis. We intend to continue to ensure that’s a strength of Berkshire going forward.
With those cash flows and with the float, and with significant resources already on our balance sheet, we’ll continue to move forward with a very similar philosophy. It’s an identical philosophy to what we’ve had currently and for the past 60 years.
We’ll start by looking at opportunities within our business – are our insurance and non-insurance businesses properly capitalized and do they have the opportunity to manage their business? They’ll operate in an autonomous way, but Berkshire still manages the capital that will go into those businesses or what potentially will come out of them.
The next opportunity is to acquire businesses in their totality, 100%. There are great times when we can do that. Warren touched on the $10 billion acquisition in the last quarter. But the value relative to the risk have to be right. If it’s right, we want to own it. If it’s not the time, there’ll be another time to own assets like that.
Then there’s the opportunity to own pieces of companies through equity. But as Warren’s always highlighted, though we own a piece of a company, we own a piece of that cash flow, a piece of their balance sheet. It’s not just a share certificate. We’ll approach it with the thought that we’re going to own this company for the long term.
We need to thoroughly understand what the economic prospects of those companies will look like – as Warren said earlier – 5 years from now, 10 years from now, 20 years from now. If we don’t have a view of that, we won’t be investing, be it 100% or 2% of a company through equities. We have to thoroughly understand what those prospects look like and the underlying risks of the businesses. It’s really the investment philosophy and how Warren and the team have allocated capital for the past 60 years. It will not change, and it’s the approach we’ll take going forward.
5. On investor vs. operator
Audience Member (Zone 5): Hi Warren Greg. My name is Pig Huang Chen. I’m from Taiwan. This is my seventh time here. First of all, I want to thank you Warren for your generosity of sharing your wisdom and lesson. You changed my life and you are my role model and my hero. And my question is, Warren, you mentioned that Greg will be in charge of capital allocation in the future and I’d like to know your perspective on is it easier for business operator to be an investor or for investor to be a business operator. Thank you.
Warren Buffett: No, that’s a good question. I see we call him Greg even. Thank you. And I’ll – you’ll take it and it’s a lot tougher to be an operator. I mean it is. It’s easier to sit in a room like I do and play around with money. It’s just an easier life. That doesn’t mean it’s a more admirable life. It doesn’t, but it’s actually been a pleasant life for me. So, I don’t complain in the least.
And I’ve been able to choose my friends, which has made an enormous difference in my life. I’ve never had to work for anybody that I really didn’t admire. I mean, that’s a luxury in life. I had five different people I worked for and they were fantastic, whether it was the manager of the local Penneys which used to be located a couple miles from here, and newspaper managers, everything. I have never been really disappointed by any teacher I’ve had.
But I have to admit that I’ve been able to choose what I do with my day to an extraordinary degree compared to being a business operator. And in many cases, I wouldn’t like to compete to be a top-notch business operator in terms of some of the behavior that might be forced upon me.
I am the master. I mean, I’ve found myself in this position where I can run the kind of company I want to run and that’s an extraordinary luxury.
Buffett’s last words as CEO
Warren Buffett: I have a five-minute warning, so I would like to turn to a subject that I want to discuss with you for a few minutes.
Tomorrow we’re having a board meeting of Berkshire and we have 11 directors. Two of the directors who are my children, Howie and Susie, know of what I’m going to talk about. The rest of them – this will come as news to them.
I think the time has arrived where Greg should become the chief executive officer of the company at year-end. I want to spring that on the directors effectively and then give that as my recommendation. Let them have the time to think about what questions or what structures or anything that they want, and then the meeting following that, which will come in a few months, we’ll take action on whatever the view is of the 11 directors. I think they’ll be unanimously in favor of it.
That would mean that at year-end Greg would be the chief executive officer of Berkshire. I would still hang around and could conceivably be useful in a few cases. But the final word would be what Greg said, in operations, in capital deployment, whatever it might be.
I could be helpful, I believe, in certain respects if we ran into periods of great opportunity or anything. I think that Berkshire has a special reputation that when there are times of trouble for the government, we are an asset and not a liability, which is very hard to have because usually the public and government get very negative on business if there’s a time like that.
But Greg would have the tickets. Whether it’s acquisitions – I think the board would be more welcome to giving him more authority on large acquisitions probably if they knew I was around. But Greg would be the chief executive, period.
The plan is – and Greg doesn’t know anything about this until what he’s hearing right now – that the board will be able to ask me questions tomorrow about more of the specifics of what they should be thinking about. They’ll digest it, and then at the next board meeting after that, if they act, then obviously we have something to announce to the world as a material change and we’ll go forward with that operation.
I will play with the ouija board or whatever comes out in terms of doing things. But I have no intention, zero, of selling one share of Berkshire Hathaway – it will get given away.
I would add this – the decision to keep every share is an economic decision because I think the prospects of Berkshire will be better under Greg’s management than mine. There may come a time when we get a chance to invest a lot of money, and if that time comes, I think it may be helpful with the Board that they know I’ve got all my money in the company and I think it’s smart. And I’ve seen what Greg has done. So that’s the news hook for the day. And thanks for coming.
(standing ovation)
The enthusiasm shown by the audience’s response can be interpreted in two ways. But I’ll take it as positive. Thank you.
There was a standing ovation for Buffett, and people clapped for a long time. The quick witted Buffett finished the Annual Meeting with a joke, saying that applause could mean two things: that he had done well, or that it was time for him to go. He still has it.
I just witnessed history. What a legend.
After the event, in the same arena, there’s a huge hall. Many of Berkshire’s subsidiaries display and sell their products to shareholders there. This happens on Friday and Saturday. It was packed—you could barely move. There were See’s chocolates, prefab houses, boats, RVs, stuffed animals, sneakers, pilot simulators, and much more.
I bought several boxes of See’s Candies. I also purchased a pair of Brooks sneakers that say “Berkshire Hathaway.” Additionally, I got the book on Berkshire’s 60-year history. After that, we walked around downtown Omaha, had lunch, and dropped our things at the hotel.
Buying See’s chocolate at the hall with Berkshires subsidiaries.
That night, a big group of Panamanians went to dinner at Gorat’s Steakhouse, famous because it was Warren’s most-visited restaurant. There I ate Buffett’s favorite meal: a T-bone with hash browns.
At Gorat with my friend Fernando Lewis and Mr. Buffett.
Panamanian group at Gorat.
The next day, Sunday morning, we got up early for a 5 K run. The event was organized by Brooks. I ran almost the whole race and finished in 34 minutes. That isn’t bad given that I never run and the whiskey/wine/steak combo of the night before.
Finishing Brooks 5k race.
After the race, I changed at the hotel and walked to the Omaha Brunch hosted by Markel Group. Markel is considered a “mini-Berkshire.” It runs an event like its annual shareholder meeting. They discuss strategy, numbers, operations and they finish with a Q&A.
The event is led by CEO Tom Gayner. It’s clear they model everything on Berkshire and mention Buffett and Munger a lot. One thing that stuck with me was how often they said things like: “We are open to feedback, we are learning, I want to teach you how we think about allocating capital.” About 2,000 people attended.
What I learned about the Markel meeting was how much they worked on their communications. It is odd for me to see a company focus and repeat so much on the word «compounding». It is strictly about making the most money possible.
The show was mainly about the business model, their best companies and capital allocation. I say «show» because they mentioned everything was rehearsed. The animated video was professionally produced. Everybody dressed the same way. Everything was written down. I think even the jokes were scripted. It was very well produced.
Tom Gayner at Markel’s event.
After the Markel meeting I walked around Omaha. The town of Omaha is charming, small, and fairly wealthy. I assume some of Berkshire’s tax money has been invested in the city. To give you a sense of scale, during the annual meeting, Berkshire’s market cap exceeds one trillion dollars. It holds $345 billion in cash and cash equivalents—which represents 5% of all U.S. Treasury bills.
Street art of Charlie Munger in Omaha.
Monday morning at 4 a.m. I departed to Panama.
Reflections of the Annual Meeting
The Berkshire meeting felt like a rock show—Warren Buffett was treated as a rockstar in front of 40,000 fans. Markel’s brunch, though smaller in scale, followed a similar script, with Tom Gayner in the spotlight and plenty of applause. Both stood in stark contrast to Panamanian annual meetings, where the crowd is minimal, the atmosphere strictly business, and questions rarely come up.
I went in expecting deep dives into financial statements—slide decks filled with operating metrics, acquisition details, and footnotes that only made sense in person. Instead, the Berkshire session boiled down to five hours of Q&A. The “numbers” segment appeared in just three plain black-and-white slides that Buffett nearly forget until Greg Abel reminded him just before the end of Part 1.
Everyone was speaking the same value-investing language, trading book recommendations, and comparing notes on companies. I loved chatting with people from all over—and especially bonding with the unexpectedly large group of Panamanians.
With Buffett set to step back, I asked veterans if they’ll return next year. Many hesitated but ultimately agreed it’s still worth returning. Even if Buffett isn’t on center stage, he’ll attend if he’s healthy, and Greg Abel will surely put on a good show. Plus, the surrounding ecosystem—side events like Markel’s brunch, hedge-fund dinners, and best-practice roundtables—offers networking you can’t replicate anywhere else. I’m in the camp that says: see you in Omaha 2026.
In a conversation I had, we talked about how it was amazing to witness such a historic moment. Warren Buffett is a prodigy who lived an exceptional life. We also concluded that value investing has two fathers: Benjamin Graham and Warren Buffett.
Benjamin Graham, Warren Buffett’s mentor and author of The Intelligent Investor, organized the core ideas of value investing. Buffett personalized these ideas and achieved one of history’s largest fortunes. Both investors made quantum leaps in professional investing, with Buffett notably grabbing Graham’s baton and advancing it further.
People call the Berkshire meeting “Woodstock for Capitalists” because, just as Woodstock 1969 was the biggest music festival of its era, thousands fly to Omaha each May, pack an arena, and listen to Buffett talk for hours. It’s not just a shareholder assembly—it’s a gathering of people who believe that Buffett’s way of thinking can change how you view money and life.
My advice for anyone who wants to go is to book a hotel at least six months in advance. It might be better to plan from Thursday to Sunday. I don’t think I’ll fly in on a Friday again because there’s not enough cushion for a delayed flight.
To go, you have to be a shareholder. The Annual Meeting is for owners of Class A and B shares. A single Class A share costs above $700,000. A Class B share is around $500. So, the lowest buy-in to attend is $500, which is a bargain. With proof of stock you will gain the badge for admission we have around our necks:
The team with the Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting Badge.
In this spirit, I wish to enlighten you with a quote by Charlie Munger:
I think you learn economics better if you make Adam Smith your friend. That sounds funny, making friends among the “eminent dead,” but if you go through life making friends with the eminent dead who had the right ideas, I think it will work better for you in life and work better in education. It’s way better than just giving the basic concepts.
Wishing you the best of luck on your treasure hunt for great companies at fair prices.
Me gusta leer sobre finanzas, y estudio con especial interés a Warren Buffett. Uno de sus principios más importantes es el de «compounding», que es la reinversión constante de capital para obtener retornos exponenciales.
Cuando hablo de esto en español, no encuentro una palabra que capture completamente el concepto. Así que para transmitirlo hablo spanglish y uso “compounding”. Me gustaría no tener que cambiar de idioma.
Para transmitir el concepto a veces se usa el verbo «crecer». Por ejemplo, «ejecutas esta inversión y dejas que el dinero crezca.» Sin embargo, si quisieras transmitir el concepto preciso en inglés, usarías «compounding» y no «growing». Esto se debe a que «growing» puede referirse a cualquier tipo de crecimiento, incluso decreciente, mientras que «compounding» implica un crecimiento exponencial.
Otra opción podría ser «compuesto», pero esta palabra no es un verbo; es un adjetivo o sustantivo. Generalmente, se utiliza en el contexto de «interés compuesto».
Interés compuesto es cuando tus ganancias se reinvierten y generan más ganancias de forma exponencial. Con $100,000 al 10% de interés compuesto en 30 años, tendrías aproximadamente $1,744,940.
Interés simple significa que solo ganas interés sobre el capital inicial. Aquí no reinviertes los dividendos. Con los mismos $100,000 al 10% de interés simple en 30 años, tendrías $400,000.
Aparte del contexto financiero, «compuesto» también se usa para describir algo formado por múltiples elementos, como en «el agua (H2O) es un compuesto formado por hidrógeno y oxígeno.» En estos casos, «compuesto» tiene un significado estático, mientras que en el ámbito financiero se busca un significado dinámico.
No encuentro mejores palabras para transmitir el verbo “compounding”. Pienso que hay un vacío en el lenguaje español para transmitir este concepto. Para rellenar ese vacío propongo crear un nuevo verbo: compuestar. Definición:
Compuestar (verbo)
(Finanzas) Proceso mediante el cual una inversión o capital crece de forma exponencial al reinvertirse las ganancias obtenidas en periodos anteriores, maximizando así el retorno económico a largo plazo.
Ejemplos:
Presente: «Warren Buffett siempre dice que la clave para enriquecerse en el mercado de valores es permitir que tus inversiones compuesten a lo largo de muchos años.»
Pretérito Imperfecto: «Cuando Buffett empezó a invertir, buscaba acciones que compuestaban de manera constante, independientemente de las fluctuaciones del mercado.»
Futuro Simple: «Buffett dice que si eliges compañías con fundamentos sólidos y potencial de crecimiento, tus inversiones compuestarán y te brindarán una jubilación cómoda.»
Conjugaciones típicas:
Presente: Yo compuesto, tú compuestas, él/ella/usted compuesta, nosotros/nosotras compuestamos, ustedes/ellos/ellas compuestan.
Pretérito Imperfecto: Yo compuestaba, tú compuestabas, él/ella/usted compuestaba, etc.
Pretérito Perfecto Simple: Yo compuesté, tú compuestaste, él/ella/usted compuestó, etc.
Futuro Simple: Yo compuestaré, tú compuestarás, él/ella/usted compuestará, etc.
Los invito a agregar el verbo «compuestar» a su vocabulario financiero para elevar nuestro entendimiento colectivo. Aprendamos a compuestar para crecer nuestro patrimonio.