Let’s be clear about this: Buffett’s avoidance of tech wasn’t just preference. It was philosophy. He admitted he didn’t understand complex tech business models back in the 2000s. Amazon? Skipped it. Apple? Only bought after long hesitation, then admitted it was a “mistake” not to buy sooner. So when Alphabet shows up in Berkshire’s filings, even skeptics pause. Was this Warren finally giving in? Or something else entirely?
Understanding Berkshire Hathaway’s Investment Strategy (And How It’s Changing)
Value investing. The phrase hangs over Wall Street like church incense—familiar, comforting, almost spiritual. For decades, Buffett preached buying businesses, not stocks. He wanted companies with predictable earnings, durable advantages, and honest management. Tech? Too volatile. Too hard to forecast. The risk wasn’t just financial—it was epistemological. He didn’t want to bet on what he couldn’t grasp.
And yet. In 2016, Berkshire bought its first meaningful stake in Apple. A tech company. A device maker. A firm built on innovation cycles. That was the first crack in the armor. By 2023, Apple made up nearly 40% of Berkshire’s equity portfolio. Valued at over $120 billion. That wasn’t a blip. That was a reckoning.
Which explains why Alphabet’s appearance—albeit smaller—matters. It wasn’t Warren himself leading the charge. It was Todd Combs and Ted Weschler, Buffett’s handpicked investment managers. Each runs a multibillion-dollar portion of Berkshire’s portfolio. They report to Buffett, yes. But they also have discretion. This purchase wasn’t a rogue move. But it wasn’t dictated from the top, either.
The issue remains: Warren Buffett still doesn’t claim to understand Google’s ad auction algorithms or its long-term AI roadmap. But he trusts people who do. And that’s the pivot. It’s no longer about personal understanding. It’s about institutional evolution. The thing is, Berkshire isn’t just one man anymore. It’s a machine with new gears.
The Role of Todd Combs and Ted Weschler in Shaping Berkshire’s Tech Exposure
Combs joined Berkshire in 2010. Weschler in 2012. Both were hired not just for their returns, but for their ability to think independently. Buffett has said publicly they’ll likely make final investment decisions after he’s gone. Their moves now aren’t just transactions. They’re signals.
Combs, in particular, has shown appetite for tech. He managed a hedge fund focused on financials and tech before joining Berkshire. He bought Amazon shares before the company fully split its stock in 2022. He also backed Snowflake, a cloud data platform, during its private rounds. These aren’t value plays in the 1970s sense. They’re bets on scale, network effects, and future cash flows.
So when Berkshire bought approximately 1,500 shares of Alphabet in Q1 2023—later increasing to over 1 million—the market took note. The initial position was tiny. Less than 0.1% of the portfolio. But symbolic? Huge. Because it suggested Combs saw something Buffett hadn’t: a company with recurring revenue, a dominant market position, and operating margins exceeding 25%—all traits Buffett traditionally loved, even if the sector gave him hives.
Why Google Fits—Even in a Value Framework
Let’s step back. Google isn’t just a search engine. It’s a cash machine. In 2023, Alphabet generated $307 billion in revenue. Over 75% came from advertising. Yes, that’s cyclical. But the scale is staggering. Over 90% of global search traffic runs through Google. That kind of dominance is exactly what Buffett looks for—a moat. Only this moat is digital.
And it’s not just search. YouTube brings in $31.5 billion annually. Google Cloud, though smaller, grew 28% year-over-year and is now profitable. The company holds over $110 billion in cash. It buys back billions in stock each quarter. Dividends? None. But repurchases are a form of return, one Buffett approves of. In short, Google behaves more like an industrial giant than a startup. Except that it innovates at Silicon Valley speed.
Is it undervalued? At a P/E of around 24 in 2023, it’s not cheap. But not absurd either. Microsoft traded at 32. Apple at 26. Compared to peers, Google looks reasonable. Because earnings are stable. Because ad tech is more predictable than people assume. Because even in recessions, brands still pay to be found.
Warren Buffett vs. Technology: A Complicated Relationship
Buffett once said he avoided tech because “the game doesn’t favor the older guy.” He admired Bill Gates. Loved Amazon’s model. But admitted he “missed the boat” on several tech giants. His Apple investment came only after realizing it was less a tech firm and more a consumer brand with pricing power. A distinction that matters.
But Google? That’s harder to reframe. Yes, it has brand strength. But its value lies in data, algorithms, and machine learning—things Buffett openly admits he doesn’t understand. So how do we square the circle?
Because the bet isn’t on AI breakthroughs. It’s on cash flow. Google isn’t valued for its self-driving cars (Waymo) or its health ventures (Verily). Those are side bets. The core—search, YouTube, Android—is wildly profitable. And because digital advertising keeps growing (projected to hit $876 billion by 2026), the engine keeps humming.
Buffett may not care about neural networks. But he cares about free cash flow. And Alphabet generated $69 billion in FCF in 2023. That’s Exxon-level cash. Only with higher growth. So while he didn’t pull the trigger, he didn’t block it either. Which suggests a quiet approval. Not of the stock. But of the judgment.
Google vs. Apple: Why One Was Embraced, the Other Hesitantly Added
Apple was easy. iPhones are tangible. Ecosystems are sticky. People pay premium prices. Buffett could walk into a store, hold a device, see the lines. He understood scarcity, brand loyalty, and pricing power. Apple was luxury meets utility. A Rolex that also texts.
Google? You don’t buy it. You use it for free. Its product is attention. Its customers are advertisers. Its dominance is invisible. Much harder to “see” the moat. Yet it exists. And it’s deep.
Berkshire owns over 900 million Apple shares. Worth over $120 billion. Google? Around 1.1 million shares. Worth roughly $150 million. That’s not a statement of conviction. It’s a toe in the water. A learning exercise. A way for Combs to prove the model works—within Berkshire’s framework.
And that’s exactly where the nuance kicks in. Apple was a value stock dressed as tech. Google is tech learning to act like a value stock. Two different entry points. Two different philosophies. One fits Buffett’s past. The other points to his future.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did Warren Buffett personally buy Google stock?
No. The purchase was made by Todd Combs or Ted Weschler, acting within their allocated investment authority at Berkshire Hathaway. Buffett oversees the overall strategy but delegates portfolio decisions. He has not claimed personal credit—or responsibility—for the Alphabet position.
How much of Google does Berkshire own?
As of Q4 2023, Berkshire Hathaway held approximately 1.1 million shares of Alphabet Class C stock. This represents a tiny fraction—less than 0.02%—of the company. Compared to its Apple stake, it’s symbolic rather than strategic at this stage.
Why doesn’t Berkshire invest more heavily in tech?
The problem is understanding, not prejudice. Buffett has said he avoids businesses he can’t forecast over 10 years. Tech moves too fast. Yet under Combs and Weschler, Berkshire now holds stakes in Amazon, Microsoft, and now Alphabet. The shift is real, but cautious. We’re far from a full pivot.
The Bottom Line: It Wasn’t Buffett—And That’s the Point
The headline “Warren Buffett buys Google” is misleading. But it’s not wrong. Not entirely. Because what it really means is that Buffett’s empire is learning to breathe in a new era. He didn’t buy Google. But he allowed it. He trusted people who see value where he sees noise. And that changes everything.
I find this overrated—the idea that Buffett must personally bless every trade. Leadership isn’t micromanagement. It’s building systems that outlive you. The move into Alphabet isn’t a surrender to tech. It’s a recognition that value isn’t just found in railroads and insurance. Sometimes, it’s buried in lines of code.
Will Berkshire load up on Nvidia next? Probably not. The AI chipmaker trades at 70x earnings. Way too speculative. But Google? A company making $300 billion a year, dominating search, buying back stock, growing cloud? That’s familiar territory. Almost comfortable.
Yes, data is still lacking on how much Combs will push. Experts disagree on whether this is a blip or a blueprint. Honestly, it is unclear how far Buffett will let them go. But one thing’s certain: the moat isn’t just in Omaha anymore. It’s also in Mountain View.
And that’s not just a stock purchase. That’s a legacy adapting. Slowly. Carefully. But undeniably.