As for the second question, the answer is “of course.”  Countries would generate more trade opportunities (imports and exports) if they did not punish their own people with the imposition of tariffs.  This certainly does not lead to a conclusion that the way to counter those countries who punish their own citizens with tariffs is to then punish our own citizens with tariffs, but to the heart of your question, I freely admit to being a purist here – I would love no tariffs at all.

But where we describe tariffs as “unequal” (and as is pointed out below, we have a higher total tariff rate on imported goods than Canada, Mexico, European Union, and Japan, so in this case “unequal” would mean them looking to tariff us more to make things more fair to them), I believe we next have to ask what we do when prices, barriers, and costs are “unequal” in any other aspect of a market economy.  Do we believe those in a transaction should decide what to pay and not pay, or a third party actor who has power?  If the latter – if a centralized, governmental force should adjudicate – doesn’t that have profound meaning for all aspects of the economy?  And isn’t that concession what the 20th-century economic debate was about versus governmental control of the economy versus a free and open one?
~ David L. Bahnsen, March 31, 2025

Wealth management is a client-centered business. Yes, capital markets play a huge role, but the relational skills are centered around an authentic and genuine care for helping people are at the center. What I see from folks in investment banking, M&A Tax, real estate, or other financial services fields that fail to succeed is a failure to understand what wealth management is about: people. Capital markets, financial analysis, financial modeling and planning, taxation, estate, insurance and all those fields have a certain sexy allure (at least to me), but ultimately, it’s the application of them to solving clients’ goals, concerns, and objectives at its core. It’s a career in financial services that caters to supporting and solving problems that exist from the human condition. Money is the second most important thing to people outside of health/family so if you’re going into this field thinking it’s all about the markets and not the strong emotional human need for folks wanting a better life for their kids and their own financial independence and stability in their retirement years, then I think you would be disappointed. Also, the awesome responsibility to steward what is so important to people comes with a level of accountability that not everyone wants. To those fascinated and drawn to financial markets but operate with a love for serving others – it's simply the best career in the world.
~ Brian T. Szytel, March 27, 2025

It’s a more defensive posture for the company historically, but no, I do not think you need to be concerned about this in and of itself.  Remember, Berkshire is now running a $1.1T balance sheet, $700B worth of which is retained earnings and invested in a concentrated equity/debt portfolio.  Two-thirds of the equity portfolio is in the top 6 holdings alone.   The remainder is in non-liquid balance sheet items like property, receivables and intangibles.  Having 30% in cash and short-term treasuries earning 4.5% for diversification, liquidity and dry powder, should markets decline, is honestly about the same positioning I would probably have, roles reversed. Come to think of it, a high-conviction value-oriented equity portfolio combined with some alternatives and an allocation to cash/fixed income IS how I manage many client portfolios and resembles the make up TBG as a whole! =)
~ Brian T. Szytel 

I guess I am lucky that I came to the realization early in my adult life that my convictions and beliefs were reinforced and enhanced when I challenged them and when I read material outside the comfort zone and echo chamber of constant agreement. I do make an effort to know the perspective that people are coming from when I read them, whether it be research-intensive, macroeconomic, or broadly philosophical – but I seek to understand what someone is saying from their perspective the best I can, even when I disagree with it. That exercise forces me to know the right arguments in defense of my position, something I cannot do if I have not made an effort to understand the arguments that exist against my own position. I do not believe people have to feign neutrality when they read material they disagree with, but investment analysis and macroeconomic commentary require humility, objectivity, and teachability.
~ David L. Bahnsen, March 25, 2025