Latest Sectors News

The U.S. military continued to search for a missing American airman on Saturday after an F-15E fighter jet was shot down over southwestern Iran. View More

A USAF McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle lands at RAF Lakenheath on July 22, 2025, in Lakenheath, United Kingdom.Simon Galloway | Getty Images News | Getty Images The U.S. military continued to search for a missing American airman after an F-15E fighter jet was shot down over southwestern Iran on Friday. One crew member has been rescued, but the second remains unaccounted for, with both U.S. and Iranian forces searching.Iran and the U.S. confirmed Tehran downed the two-seat F-15E jet, while separately two U.S. officials said the pilot ejected from a U.S. A-10 Warthog fighter aircraft that crashed in Kuwait after being hit by Iranian fire.Two Black Hawk helicopters engaged in the search for the missing crew member in Iran were hit by Iranian fire ⁠but made it out of Iranian airspace, two U.S. officials told Reuters.The possibility that the airman could be captured has raised concerns in Washington about potential leverage for Tehran. The incident marks the first time Iranian forces have successfully downed a U.S. combat aircraft since the war began.President Donald Trump said Saturday in a Truth Social post: "Remember when I gave Iran ten days to MAKE A DEAL or OPEN UP THE HORMUZ STRAIT. Time is running out - 48 hours before all Hell will reign [sic] down on them." On March 26, Trump said he would extend a pause in attacking Iran's energy facilities by 10 days to April 6 at the request of the government of the Islamic Republic.In a televised address from the White House on Wednesday, Trump told Americans that he expects the Iran war to last another two to three weeks, but said the conflict was close to an end."We are going to finish the job, and we're going to finish it very fast," he said.Iran's foreign minister, ⁠in principle, ‌left the door open for peace talks with the U.S. amid talks about mediation from Pakistan, but he gave no sign ⁠of Tehran's willingness to bow to Trump's demands."We are deeply grateful to Pakistan for its efforts and have never refused to go to Islamabad. What we care about are the terms of a conclusive and lasting END to the illegal war that is imposed on us," Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on X.Pakistan told the Associated Press on Saturday that efforts to broker a ceasefire are "right on track." Debris strikes Oracle building in Dubai, UAE says Iran continued launching waves of missiles and drones across the region, with the United Arab Emirates saying it intercepted dozens of incoming threats in the past 24 hours.The office of U.S. tech giant Oracle in Dubai was damaged by falling debris, the city's media office said, as Iran continued to fire projectiles across the Middle East in retaliation for U.S. and Israeli strikes. Oracle's office in Dubai damaged by what is believed to be debris following an aerial interception of an Iranian projectile. April 4, 2026.CNBC "Authorities confirm that they responded to a minor incident caused by debris from an aerial interception that fell on the facade of the Oracle building in Dubai Internet City," the Dubai Media Office said in a post on X. No one was injured in the incident, the media office said.Oracle didn't immediately respond to a request for comment emailed by CNBC.A CNBC journalist in Dubai reported hearing multiple interceptions overnight. Cruise missiles reassigned to Iran conflict: Report The U.S. military reportedly is assigning the majority of its stealth Joint Air-to-Surface Missile-Extended Range, or JASSM-ER, cruise missiles to the war in Iran, according to a Bloomberg News report. The move will leave just 425 of the powerful missiles in reserve elsewhere, according to Bloomberg.The decision to reassign the $1.5 million weapons from stockpiles in the Pacific came at the end of March, Bloomberg reported, citing a person with direct knowledge of the matter. Long Range Anti-Ship Missile and a JASSM-ER Missile are displayed at the Lockheed Martin exhibition stand during the Security Equipment International (DSEI) at London Excel on September 09, 2025, in London. The DSEI hosted defense equipment manufacturers from around the world at a 4-day exhibition in London.John Keeble | Getty Images News | Getty Images U.S. revokes green cards, visas of several Iranians The Trump administration has revoked the green cards or U.S. visas of at least four Iranian nationals connected to the current or former Iranian government, including two who have been detained by immigration authorities and are to be deported.The action were taken after Secretary of State Marco Rubio determined they were no longer eligible for either lawful permanent resident status, or to enter the United States, the Associated Press reported.In a statement on Saturday, the State Department said the niece and grand-niece of former Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps chief Qassem Soleimani, who was killed in a U.S. airstrike near the Baghdad airport in 2020, had been arrested late Friday by immigration agents after Rubio revoked their green cards."Hamideh Soleimani Afshar and her daughter are now in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement," the statement said, adding that Afshar's husband has also been banned from entering the United States.Afshar and her daughter had been living a "lavish lifestyle" in Los Angeles for many years while publicly supporting the Iranian government and anti-American attacks, according to the statement.She is "an outspoken supporter of the Iranian regime who celebrated attacks on Americans and referred to our country as the "Great Satan," Rubio said in a post on X. "The Trump administration will not allow our country to become a home for foreign nationals who support anti-American terrorist regimes." Bushehr nuclear power plant hit Separately, a projectile struck near Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant overnight, killing at least one worker and damaging part of the facility, according to Iranian authorities. The International Atomic Energy Agency said there was no increase in radiation levels but warned of the risks of attacks near nuclear infrastructure.Iran's Foreign Minister Araghchi warned that repeated strikes on the site could trigger a wider regional disaster, while signaling Tehran is not prepared to quickly enter negotiations, saying any talks must result in a "conclusive and lasting" end to the war. A reactor building at the Russian-built Bushehr nuclear power plant in Bushehr, Iran.Getty Images Russia's state nuclear company Rosatom evacuated a further 198 ⁠of its staff from the Bushehr nuclear ​plant, Russian news agencies reported. Rosatom has been evacuating staff from the ⁠plant ‌since the Iran war broke ⁠out at the end of February.Still, Iran's Revolutionary Guard has threatened attacks on a swath of U.S. tech companies with operations in the Middle East, including Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft and Google.The Guard warned on Tuesday that 18 tech companies would be considered as "legitimate targets" in retaliation for U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran."From now on, for every assassination, an American company will be destroyed," they said in a Guard-affiliated Telegram channel.The list of companies also included Cisco, HP, Intel, IBM, Dell, Palantir, JPMorgan, Tesla, GE, Spire Solutions, Boeing and UAE-based artificial intelligence company G42. Read more U.S.-Iran war newsU.S.-Iran war 'tax' begins to hit American businesses and consumersIndia makes first Iranian oil purchase in seven yearsU.S. fighter jet shot down in Iran, one crew member rescued: MS NOWDefense startups eye Iran war windfall as U.S., Gulf states turn to techTrump threatens to destroy Iranian infrastructureTrump speech paints grim picture for oil — over 600M barrels at riskArmy chief of staff fired by Hegseth, sources sayIran and Oman drafting protocol to 'monitor' Hormuz Strait traffic: IRNAIran demands guaranteed ceasefire to end war permanently: ReutersAnalysis: Trump's Iran speech ignores the risks of a return to the 1970sIran's war propaganda homes in on Trump with Lego memesTrump Iran speech: War is nearly over, vows 'extremely hard' hits comingTrump says Iran wants ceasefire, U.S. wants Hormuz Strait open firstMore from CNBC Politics James Henderson, CEO of risk management firm Healix, said the rise in threats against tech companies is not a flash in the pan, but is a sustained pattern."Tech assets are now treated as part of the conflict, not peripheral to it," Henderson told CNBC."It also signals that future crises may target data centers and cloud platforms as much as traditional strategic sites," he added.Iran struck Amazon Web Services data centers in the Middle East in early March, causing outages in a number of apps and digital services in the United Arab Emirates. Petrochemical zone struck in Iran Iranian state media reported air strikes at a petrochemical zone in southwestern Iran, with five people reported injured so far. A projectile also hit an auxiliary building near the perimeter of Iran's Bushehr nuclear plant, the Tasnim news agency said, killing one person. The operations of the plant were unaffected.Russia's state nuclear company Rosatom evacuated a further 198 of its staff from the site on Saturday, Russian news agencies reported, in evacuations already planned before the latest incident.The Israeli military, meanwhile, said it had carried out "a wave of strikes" on ‌Tehran.Israel has been waging a parallel campaign against Iran-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon after the militant group fired at Israel in support of Iran. Early on Saturday, Israel's military said it was striking the militants' infrastructure sites in Beirut.— CNBC's Terri Cullen, the Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report. Choose CNBC as your preferred source on Google and never miss a moment from the most trusted name in business news.

CM Naidu reviews progress of work by contractual agencies involved in capital construction View More

A U.S.-Iran war 'tax' is beginning to hit consumers as diesel and jet fuel prices rise and stress business profitability, and there is no relief in sight. View More

In an aerial view, Pilot Travel Center gas and diesel prices are displayed near a highway on April 02, 2026 in Lockhart, Texas. Oil Brandon Bell | Getty Images News | Getty Images Nick Friedman, co-founder of Tampa-based College Hunks Hauling Junk and Moving, says his business has been facing multiple headwinds. High mortgage rates have dampened the real estate market, while rising insurance premiums are eating into operating costs. Now there's the U.S.-Iran war and a surge in diesel fuel prices that is eating into profit margins. Yet, he doesn't feel like he can raise prices. "We are in a bit of a Catch-22," said Friedman. "Our fear would be if we start raising prices it will hurt our customers." Bigger companies, he says, can probably get away with adding fees. As rapidly rising fuel costs are cascading across the American economy, that is exactly what some are doing.United Airlines and JetBlue both raised prices on baggage this week. Amazon announced a 3.5% "fuel surcharge" on sellers.Amazon described the surcharge as "meaningfully lower" than levies applied by other major carriers in a statement to CNBC. JetBlue said as operating costs rise, it "regularly evaluates how to manage those costs while keeping base fares competitive and continuing to invest in the experience our customers value."For Friedman, that evaluation isn't easy. "If you have to fly, you have to fly," he said.But as Friedman's moving company considers whether to raise prices, "I don't know that we have that luxury," he said. Customers can choose to trade down to a moving service that is cheaper and maybe less protected, or even assemble some buddies with pickup trucks to help with a move, leaving Hunks' 2,000-truck fleet increasingly idle. But filling up the trucks with gas is also an expensive proposition. Friedman says that historically, fuel has taken 3 to 5 percent of revenue as an expense line item, but has doubled to 6 to 10 percent since the war started. "It is very difficult from a business perspective," Friedman says. Hunks runs on a franchise model with over 200 locations, putting many franchisees in precarious positions.  Stock Chart IconStock chart iconWTI oil prices year to date 2026. While Friedman's business is uniquely exposed to the war with its reliance on trucking, higher diesel and jet fuel prices are about to hit a lot more businesses. "Discretionary spending is typically where the cycle starts. Consumers pull back from items which are discretionary first," said MassMutual Wealth chief investment officer Daken Vanderburg. Vanderburg says higher energy prices act as a tax on consumers because they ripple across so many goods and services. If the war and its disruption is short, consumers will dip into savings and weather the higher costs. But a longer-duration conflict will cause consumers to cut back. "That slows growth and hits spending, and does it quite quickly," Vanderburg said. While many in the market were expecting President Donald Trump's speech to the nation earlier this week to outline an end to the war, his words left the timeline unclear and the market unsettled. Unlike past economic shocks to the system, such as the Great Recession or Covid, there will be fewer tools for the government to use to lessen the blow for businesses and consumers. "Policy is likely not riding to the rescue like it did during the Covid era," Vanderburg said. The Federal Reserve is caught in its own conundrum. The central bank has not indicated any greater likelihood it will ease rates to stimulate the economy, given the risk it could push inflation higher. In fact, the market was recently betting the Fed would be more likely to raise rates given the surge in oil prices. But Fed Chair Jerome Powell also indicated this week he saw no reason to consider a rate hike, noting short-term oil shocks are usually a factor that central banks look past when analyzing inflation and longer-term inflation expectations remain well anchored. A price shock across the boardThe U.S. economy, more so than economies in many other countries, is propped up by consumer spending, with almost two-thirds of the economy powered by consumers. Where those dollars go will dictate where the economy goes, Vanderburg said. While the economy had been slowing even before the outbreak of war, he says there is one cushioning factor for the American consumer compared to the oil crisis of the 1970s, a country that is far less dependent on imported oil. But he added that cushion can only soften the blow. "This is headed toward sustained, compounding cost pressure across every industry that touches fuel, which is effectively every industry," said Herman Nieuwoudt, president of IFS Energy & Resources. Nieuwoudt says what we're seeing right now isn't a single price shock. "It's the consequence of the largest energy supply disruption in modern history layered on top of six years of structural volatility," he said. "These disruptions cascade through manufacturing, packaging, agriculture, transportation, and retail in ways that take months to fully materialize," he added. watch nowVIDEO4:0404:04Port of LA on potential 'spillover effects' from the Middle East conflictSquawk Box Asia Costs will rise across the board, and the companies that can see disruption coming, adapt their operations in real time, and make faster decisions about where to allocate resources will weather this far better than those still running on quarterly planning cycles. But he added that companies relying purely on surcharges without addressing their own operational efficiency are on borrowed time — probably two to three quarters before customers and competitors force a reckoning. For consumers, Nieuwoudt says the pain at the pump is first, but that is only the beginning. Higher costs will gradually show up across airfares, groceries, shipping costs, and manufactured goods. Economists say the existing K-shaped economy is about to get a twin phenomenon, with the indispensable (airlines, car repairs) and the giants (JetBlue, Amazon) having more latitude to raise prices, whereas smaller businesses and discretionary services are caught in a vise between raising prices and turning off customers, or keeping prices down while sacrificing margins. Higher airfares should not be a surprise. Delta Air Lines CEO Ed Bastian told CNBC several weeks ago that given current demand, there is room to raise fares as a response to higher oil prices if needed. "Even with the war going on, our revenues, our bookings are up 25% year over year," Bastian said. In early March, United CEO Scott Kirby told CNBC higher airfares were likely on the way to cover rising fuel costs. watch nowVIDEO3:4503:45United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby: I think fares will continue to go up in line with oil pricesSquawk on the Street "American consumers are resilient and the current situation is no exception," said Federico Bandi, a professor of economics and finance at the Johns Hopkins Carey Business School. Other brands may not be as fortunate as the airlines with demand and pricing momentum. Bandi says there has been a shift away from discretionary spending towards necessities, and within necessities, there is an accelerating shift from brand names to generic products. "A prolonged equilibrium in which companies attempt to pass unusually large energy costs (or pervasive tariffs) onto consumers will not be sustainable. The persistence of the current shocks, and companies' readiness to re-adjust prices when costs return to some degree of normalcy, will be central to consumers' confidence and their future decisions," he said. Economic vulnerability from import tariffs, government shutdowns, and rising health care costs, among other policy changes, lead Fernando Lozano, a professor of economics at Pomona College, to conclude that "patience is very short" and consumers will have very little tolerance for new fees.  The shipping sector economics may be a major test, and consumers may have to choose what matters more: paying more for faster service or saving money by waiting for an order. "We are seeing the end of the 'fast and free' shipping era as a default expectation. The current disruptions are forcing a reset, and what's emerging is a model based on choice and value," said Josh Steinitz, chief strategy officer at shipping and fulfillment software company Auctane. Steinitz says the current crisis is pushing both businesses and consumers to reconsider the true cost, and worth, of getting a product to a doorstep.The United States Postal Service has asked for an 8% surcharge for package and express deliveries. The best way to think of a fuel surcharge, according to Steinitz, is as a "volatility tax" on shipping. "It's how carriers manage unpredictable oil prices, but for a small business, it feels like a new, unavoidable cost that appears on every single shipment they send," Steinitz said. As opposed to the stability it provides the carriers with, "when small business owners see the fee on their invoice it feels less like a shock absorber and more like a direct financial impact they have no control over," he said. This leaves business owners and consumers in a vise. Friedman thinks wistfully of his days starting Hunks with his friends and an old cargo van at the dawn of the Great Recession. "At that point, we were a scrappy start-up, and it forced us to become resourceful and gritty," Friedman said. He says the company will now have to rely on some of that same grit, but with 2,000 trucks to fuel up, and less room to shift margins and pricing, it feels different right now. "It's pinching everyone," he said.  Choose CNBC as your preferred source on Google and never miss a moment from the most trusted name in business news.

Revelations about Jeffrey Epstein's ties to Bill Gates have strained his friendship with Warren Buffett and the Omaha billionaire's annual multi-billion-dollar donations to the Gates Foundation. View More

In this articleBRK.BBRK.AFollow your favorite stocksCREATE FREE ACCOUNT (This is the Warren Buffett Watch newsletter, news and analysis on all things Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway. You can sign up here to receive it every Friday evening in your inbox.) Buffett may end donations to Gates Foundation over Bill's ties to Epstein Revelations in the Jeffrey Epstein files about the notorious sex offender's connections to Bill Gates have severely strained, and perhaps ended, the Microsoft co-founder's famous friendship with Warren Buffett.They could also prompt Buffett to cut off his annual multi-billion-dollar donations to the Gates Foundation.In a one-hour-plus sit-down interview (full audio and transcript appear below) that aired on Tuesday's "Squawk Box," Buffett told Becky Quick he has not talked to Gates "at all since the whole thing was unveiled."Asked if he is still "good friends" with Gates, Buffett replied they'd had "great times together," but "until it gets cleared up ... I just don't think it makes sense to do a lot of talking."Noting that his "memory is no good anymore," Buffett added, "I don't want to be under oath, in terms of trying to remember everything over 30 years, or 20 years, the foundation's done, or anything like that.""I didn't have anything to do with it, except I put money in it." watch nowVIDEO10:4510:45Warren Buffett on Epstein files: Haven't spoken to Bill Gates 'since the whole thing unveiled'Squawk Box In response to Quick's question on whether he will continue to give money to the Gates Foundation, Buffett said, "I'll wait and see what unfolds ... I don't have to make that decision today. And I haven't made it today." "I've learned things I didn't know about something for all these years."Buffett said he doesn't think "Bill had anything to do with girls or the island or anything like that," but he still wants to learn more as revelations continue.Buffett is relieved he "never came near" Epstein, calling him a "sensational conman" who preyed on others' weaknesses, although that "doesn't excuse the people on the other end." Warren Buffett, Bill and Melinda GatesLacy O'Toole | CNBC In 2006, Buffett wrote to Bill and Melinda Gates that he was "irrevocably committing" to make annual gifts of Berkshire shares to their foundation "throughout my lifetime," as long as at least one of them was actively involved, the gifts did not become subject to a tax, and the foundation actively spent the contributions on its philanthropic activities.The letter also said Buffett's will would "provide for a continuation of this commitment ... after my death."Two years ago, however, Buffett confirmed to the Wall Street Journal the Gates Foundation "has no money coming after my death."The previous November, he had announced that his three children would be jointly responsible for giving away almost all his wealth after he dies. Buffett: I sold Apple shares 'too soon' In the interview, Buffett conceded he started reducing Berkshire's massive Apple stake "too soon," but added with a laugh, "I bought it even sooner. So, it worked out."As of the end of December, the position had been cut by 75% since sales began in the fourth quarter of 2023. Zoom In IconArrows pointing outwards Over that time, Apple's stock price has increased by almost 50%. Zoom In IconArrows pointing outwards Even after the selling, however, Apple remains Berkshire's largest equity position with a market value of $58.3 billion, which is roughly 18% of the portfolio.If Berkshire had kept the 915.6 million shares it held as of Sept. 30, 2023, the stake would be worth more than $234 billion.In that hypothetical, it would be almost 48% of the portfolio.Buffett said, "I'm very happy to have it be our largest holding. I was not happy to have it be as large as almost everything else combined." watch nowVIDEO4:4704:47Warren Buffett on Apple: I sold too soonSquawk Box "It's not impossible that Apple would get to a price [where] we would buy a lot of it," he added. "But not in this market. I mean, it just isn't going to happen in this market." Buffett still has a hand in Berkshire's investing decisions Buffett said that even though he stepped down as CEO at the end of last year, he still comes into Berkshire's offices every day as chairman and is involved in some investing decisions.But, he added, "I won't make any that [new CEO] Greg [Abel] thinks are wrong." watch nowVIDEO7:2507:25Warren Buffett says he’s still making calls on investments at Berkshire, flags ‘tiny’ new buySquawk Box Buffett said he had made "one tiny purchase," but he's not finding many potential buys despite the stock market's recent declines, which he said aren't substantial and "nothing to make you excited." Fed should have a 'zero' inflation target Buffett says he "wouldn't want the responsibility" of running the Federal Reserve, but he wishes the central bank "had a zero inflation target" instead of its current goal of a 2% annual increase."Once you start saying you're going to tolerate 2%, that compounds pretty dramatically over time... I don't like that particular goal." watch nowVIDEO7:0507:05Warren Buffett: I wish the Fed had a zero inflation targetSquawk Box In the government's most recent report, the February consumer price index was up 2.4% versus the same month last year. Buffett: Iranian atomic bomb would raise risk of nuclear catastrophe For a long time, Buffett has been concerned about nuclear proliferation, calling it "the ultimate problem of mankind" in 2006.While he doesn't know how to fix the problem, he does know that "it'll be more difficult if Iran has the bomb than [if] they don't." watch nowVIDEO7:4307:43Warren Buffett: The world is more dangerous with Iranian nuclear weaponsSquawk Box Buffett, however, wouldn't say whether he thinks the U.S. should try to seize Iran's enriched uranium. Buffett revives charity auction with NBA star, may get hoops lesson Warren Buffett is teaming up with the Golden State Warriors' Stephen Curry and his wife, lifestyle entrepreneur Ayesha Curry, for a charity auction. The winning bidder for "A Seat at the Table," and up to seven guests, will share a June 24 lunch in Omaha with the trio.The eBay auction starts May 7 at 7:30 p.m. PT and ends exactly one week later.Proceeds will be split between San Francisco's Glide Foundation and the Currys' Eat. Learn. Play. Foundation that is "working to transform the school experience for a generation of Oakland students." watch nowVIDEO9:0909:09Warren Buffett teams up with NBA superstar Stephen Curry for charity lunch, reviving iconic auctionSquawk Box In his CNBC interview, Buffett revealed that he will personally make matching donations to the two groups."Steph is the hero of millions and millions of people. So, I really think it'll work."AP reports that in a video call with reporters this week as he prepared to resume playing after missing more than two dozen games due to a knee injury, Curry, 38, said Buffett, 95, wants a lesson on how to shoot a basketball."If not a permanent basketball hoop, I'm pretty sure there's going to be a mobile one out there so I can make good on my promise to teach him some form."We'll see how he can do. I haven't seen any video of a Warren Buffett jump shot, but we'll see." Stephen Curry #30 of the Golden State WarriorsBob Donnan | Reuters Buffett's lunch auctions raised more than $53 million for Glide over two decades. In 2022, what was then called the "grand finale" of the series was won by an anonymous bidder for $19 million.In this week's interview, Buffett said he had "run out of gas" but revived his participation in the auction, at least for this year, because it had "fizzled" without him and "it would have killed me to have it just die off." Berkshire shares start week with a win, ending 8-day losing streak Shares of Berkshire Hathaway ended Monday with a 1.3% gain, breaking a string of eight consecutive daily losses that began on March 18.It was their longest losing streak in more than seven years.Both the Class A and Class B shares also advanced on Tuesday and fell Wednesday.On Thursday, BRKA managed a very small gain, while BRKB dropped slightly.The U.S. stock market was closed for Good Friday. Zoom In IconArrows pointing outwards The eight-day losing streak pushed the A shares down 4.7% and the B shares fell 4.9%.They erased a bit more than a third of those losses this week.   The full Buffett interview The entire 70-minute interview with Buffett is available in video form for CNBC Pro subscribers.There is also audio of the entire conversation in this episode of "Squawk Pod."BECKY QUICK: Warren, welcome. It is wonderful to see you this morning.WARREN BUFFETT: It is fun to be on.QUICK: You are on for an interesting reason.For 22 years, you had been holding an annual luncheon — an auction for a luncheon — to benefit the Glide Foundation in San Francisco.You retired from that – from doing that — back in 2022 after you'd raised more than 50 million dollars. I think the last auction that you raised — that you did — raised – 19 million —BUFFETT: 19 million.QUICK: — one hundred dollars [$19,000,100] for the Glide Foundation.And you kind of hung it up and said that was going to be the end.You are back with a new announcement today that there is a new auction that is coming, with a twist.This time it's Warren Buffett, Stephen Curry and Ayesha Curry, and they're going to be having a new luncheon to benefit not only the Glide Foundation, but the Currys' foundation as well, which is, Eat, Learn, Play.And this auction is going to be held May 7th. It starts at 7:30pm Pacific time. It closes on May 14 at 7:30pm exactly.And all of the benefits of that is going to go to benefit these two foundations, Glide and the Eat, Learn, Play Foundation.How did this come about? Why did you unretire from this?BUFFETT: Well, let me tell you first how I got into it, because my first wife, Susie, was living in San Francisco and she said to me, this guy is real. (Laughs) And — and —QUICK: This guy being Cecil.BUFFETT: Cecil. Yeah, Cecil Williams, who came to that church in 1963. And it was a dying church in a changing part of the neighborhood in San Francisco. And they weren't glad to see him, the hundred or so parishioners that were left.But he turned it into something that became — it gave hope and life to people that the world had given up on.And I went on Sunday still expecting something less than that — (laughs) — and I watched Cecil, and I could see what he was doing, and he was for real.And so, Susie, at some point, said, why don't you do something to raise some money for him? You know, and so, I think she actually selected the idea of the lunch, and then we did the lunch.The first three lunches brought 25 thousand dollars each because they were localized. And then we got the idea of going on eBay. And then we started getting bids from around the world.And it just generally kept moving up, although it wasn't every single year, but it just — it just put us on the map.And as the final amount, 19 million, was raised — now that was kind of raised because it was the last one, I think. I was doing (inaudible) that had bought an earlier lunch, but I didn't make any calls to him or do anything. He just turned out to be — it inspires people. And Smith & Wollensky, as you know, covered it in New York sometimes.QUICK: That's often where you had the lunch with the winners of this.BUFFETT: And some of them wanted to be anonymous. And a couple came to Omaha along the line because they had some special thing they wanted to talk about.But I think everybody felt like they were glad they did it, and I was glad to do it, and —QUICK: So why'd you stop?BUFFETT: Well, I ran out of gas. (Laughs)I — you know, I got to be what, 93 at that time, or something like that. And it just — same reason I gave up teaching.I teach — I was — I taught every year from when I was 21 till 88 or 89. And there just came a period when your body said different things to you. And you should turn it over to somebody, just like I did at Berkshire.I mean, at different times, on different things, but I — and so we thought we had a continuation of it all set up, and then for one reason or another, it fizzled.And so the last two years they — well, I think the first year, some board member made up some members — but basically the auction disappeared.QUICK: So they haven't had the funds coming in.BUFFETT: No. And Cecil Williams was about my age in all this — and it got so I couldn't understand him on the phone or anything like that, but all he wanted was this to continue.And so, I don't know where the idea came from exactly, but I said I would do one more, just to get us started again and to have Steph Curry join us, I mean, in the Bay Area. I mean, it's just a natural. And —QUICK: Right. The Eat, Learn, Play Foundation that Stephen and Ayesha Curry have set up is in the Bay Area as well, so they're —BUFFETT: Exactly.QUICK: — locally focused on all of these things.For people who don't know, the Glide Foundation was also, it was highlighted in the movie "The Pursuit of Happyness" with Will Smith. So people may have a little bit of an idea of what that's about.Why Steph Curry? How did that come about?BUFFETT: Well, I mean, who can say it better?I mean, he's worked with the kids in Oakland. I mean, these are kids between five and 15, or something like that, and he plays basketball with them.And I mean, he's a terrific guy. I don't — you know, I haven't met him personally.QUICK: But you did talk to Stephen and Ayesha.BUFFETT: We had a long talk on the phone.And it's his baby, and he can carry it forth.And, incidentally, whatever is bid this year, I will make the equal contribution. I don't think — Steph doesn't know this yet — but I will make an equal contribution to both Glide and to —QUICK: The Currys' foundation.BUFFETT: Yeah, the foundation.And, you know, just go on to new heights, I mean —And Steph is the hero of millions and millions of people. So, I think it — I really think it'll work. I think it will continue to be what Cecil hoped it to be.And it would have killed me to have it just die off. And as much what Cecil poured into it himself, he believed everybody was worthwhile. And the world had given up on these people. And he may have started giving a little bit of food to them before he got through — he was doing all these things at Glide. And he never gave up on anybody.QUICK: And I know you've said that Astrid really liked him, too.BUFFETT: Oh yeah. It — Astrid is my second wife.And you couldn't help but like him. I mean, when you watched him up there with people that the world had given up on and he says to them, I'll feed you. I'll have a bed for you. We'll have a vocation for you. You know, we're not going to give up on you. And never did.QUICK: Warren, this is the first time that we're sitting down with you since you stepped down from the position of CEO of Berkshire Hathaway.BUFFETT: Yeah.QUICK: It was a long, long run — very successful run. How is your life different today?BUFFETT: Well, it's not much different, except for the — I mean, I go in every day.QUICK: To the office?BUFFETT: Yeah, I go in every day to the office. I don't accomplish hardly anything.I mean, in terms of — (Becky laughs) —  it just takes me way longer to do things.And [CEO] Greg [Abel] is so good. It was kind of embarrassing how good he is, because he has covered — you know, we've got about two hundred businesses within Berkshire, you know, that came about — and I can't name the managers' names or their wives' names, or — and I haven't seen them, you know, in a long time.It's easier just to write the letter once a year and kind of do my own thing.Greg covers more ground in a day than I would in a week, even when I was at my peak, let alone my present condition.So it's a move that, in many ways, I could have done it earlier, and Greg would have been better than I was. But you know — and I can still contribute just a tiny bit.QUICK: Well, are you still involved in making investments at all?BUFFETT: Yeah. Yeah. It —But I won't make any that Greg thinks are wrong. And he'll run — he's starting to get a few calls, and he'll call me about them. And like me, he doesn't like them, you know — (laughs) — but —QUICK:  Calls for deals, you mean?BUFFETT: He'll keep me posted. Yeah, Well, yeah.It's investment bankers calling him.QUICK: OK.BUFFETT:  And, they'll sell — you know, they will try to sell anything.But I cut them off in about 10 or 15 seconds, and he's — he spends more time with them, but I don't know where he gets his time, because he plays hockey with his — I mean, it isn't like he's as fanatic as I was, in terms of running the place. But with no more apparent effort, he just covers so many bases.QUICK: In terms of what you're doing with investing — I mean, that's a huge amount of money. How much cash does Berkshire have on hand at this point?BUFFETT: I don't know the exact number, but it's not much different than before. So you know, it's probably north of 350 billion in cash and Treasury bills.QUICK: Yeah. So —BUFFETT: We bought 17 billion this week.QUICK: Seventeen billion of T-bills?BUFFETT: Of T-bills.QUICK: Berkshire is the largest owner of T-bills?BUFFETT: I think we're probably the largest bidder. And ironically, I got involved in Solomon [Brothers] because they bid for too many bills.And I don't think they'd get mad at us now — (laughs) — if we bid for too many, but — you're not supposed to go over 35 percent or something in the auction. And of course, you bid through the primary dealers. But I don't even know the mechanics that well.But one fellow in our office handles all the mechanics of the stocks and bonds we buy.QUICK: Mark Millard.BUFFETT: Yeah, exactly. At anyplace else they'd have 25 or 30 people. And he loves what he does, and I love what he does. (Laughs)He's down the hall about 20 feet. About every hour — or hour and a half — he brings me in what we've done. And sometimes —QUICK: What Berkshire has done, just in terms of the markets that day?BUFFETT: Yeah, I call him — I call him before the market opens, because I see what's been going on, you know, pre-market, and probably change the limits only. I don't get lots of different stocks or anything like that.Every now and then, I'll let it do something, and I will change (inaudible) prices daily.QUICK: But you don't do that — you don't check with Greg before you're doing that? You check with Greg on a regular —BUFFETT: Well, Greg gets the sheet every day.QUICK: Oh, he does, too.BUFFETT: He doesn't get it quite as fast as I get it. I mean — but he — it probably gets sent over at the end of the day or something of the sort.And if Greg differed with me on anything, we wouldn't be doing it.QUICK: But you're still making new purchases?BUFFETT: Pardon me?QUICK: You're still making new purchases?BUFFETT: Got one tiny purchase, but we aren't finding things that — we weren't finding them before.QUICK: Well, let's talk about that. The market has come down substantially. You've —BUFFETT: Not substantially.QUICK: Well, you've got both the Dow and the Nasdaq in correction territory. It's the worst performance on a quarterly basis for stocks in about four years. Do things look cheaper to you?BUFFETT: No.Three times since I've taken over Berkshire, it's gone down more than 50 percent. I mean, if you look at the markets of — the worst, probably, was the 2007-8 period, although it was that one Monday, when you had 21 percent in a day. I mean, this is nothing. I mean, it —QUICK: But this is nothing to make you get excited and think there's huge valuation drops?BUFFETT: Well, if they're 5 or 6 percent cheaper, that doesn't — we aren't in it to make 5 or 6 percent, I mean — but — we're not a big seller, either.In the end, we own businesses. Sometimes there's wholly owned, sometimes they're partly owned. That's what I like to own.And two thirds of our money, or more, is in our businesses.And we bought Occidental Chemical on January 3rd. That was 9.7 billion.And as far as I'm concerned, that's got some advantages, some disadvantages, versus owning a stock, but it's got the same principles attached to it.It is a business, and it's a business we expect to own, you know, indefinitely. I mean —QUICK: Are you, I mean, it doesn't sound like you're necessarily finding businesses that you want to own flat out either, not just purchasing portions of them if you've got 350 billion dollars-plus sitting around.BUFFETT: Yeah, and we get calls all the time, and there's so many calls. But like I said, it takes me five seconds to say no. It takes — Greg's a little more polite than I am, but — (laughter)I — I mean — it — I'd just as soon get the calls just to see what people are doing. But they aren't offering anything that's at an attractive price, and what they want is a trade.QUICK: Are you waiting for the next big drop in the market to deploy that cash, and if so, when do you see that coming?BUFFETT: Yeah, if there is a big decline, we will deploy. I mean — but we won't — we will deploy it because stocks are attractive or businesses are attractive to us, and we are not planning to sell them next week or next month, so we want to be right on them.And we've had our American Express stock 30 years without having a —you know — Coca-Cola, close to 40 years — 35 years.And on the other hand, there's things I change my mind on fairly quickly.But the goal is to own the owned businesses. And when we buy Occidental Chemical, we expect to own that 50 years from now. You know, the world can change in some way, but that is — we do not, we do not buy that with a thought of resale.QUICK: You've sold a lot of stock that's done very well for you, Apple —BUFFETT: Well, I sold it too soon.QUICK: Yeah. It made billions —BUFFETT: But I bought it even sooner. So, it worked out. (Laughter)Yeah, I think we've made over a hundred billion dollars in that, pretax.QUICK: Yeah. But you're regretting it? You say you sold it too soon?BUFFETT: No. No, no. I don't have any ability to predict what stocks will do next week or next month. And I will buy them if they're cheap. I'll buy a whole lot of them if they're cheap and I think I really understand the business.And Apple is still our largest single investment.QUICK: And you like it that way?BUFFETT: Yeah, well, if I didn't like it, I could sell it. (Laughs)Yeah, no, I can —I think it's a remark — it's better than any business we own outright.Now, we own a railroad that's worth more money than our Apple position, for example. They're both looked at the same way. I mean, they're both, they're both businesses.I expect the — I think it's more predictable, in a certain sense, that the railroad will be around 50 or a hundred years from now, but it doesn't earn the rate remotely on capital than Apple does.I mean, Apple is a business that, you know —You've got one [iPhone], probably, and your kids have got them. I mean, you know, it's —QUICK: Not one, we've got like 20 of them.BUFFET: Yeah.QUICK: Devices.BUFFETT: And actually, the Bell Telephone Company was that way at one point, but they were regulated.QUICK: Well, do you worry about regulation coming for some of these big tech companies, in particular, Apple?BUFFETT: I think the consumer's in love with them too much. I don't — I don't think Washington will do anything that really destroys something that every one of their voters likes — (laughs) — and they're using themselves.So I mean, it's a remarkable product that way.Just think of something that is as useful as the Apple is. I mean, it's — Tim — Tim Cook has done better with the hand [than] Steve Jobs.He couldn't have done what Steve Jobs did, but Steve Jobs handed him a hand that — Steve would not have done as well.Steve picked him. I mean, when you get right down to it. And Tim is a fantastic manager. And he's a good guy. And somehow he gets along with everybody in the world, which is, you know, that's — that's a technique I wouldn't have, for example. (Laughter)Certainly my partner, Charlie Munger, wouldn't have had it. (Laughs)But, it — I'm very happy to have it be our largest holding.I was not happy to have it be as large as almost everything else combined.QUICK: OK, that makes sense. Um —BUFFETT: Although at a price I was — (laughs)QUICK: Right.BUFFETT:  And they couldn't —QUICK: Hold it up —BUFFETT: It's not impossible that Apple would get to a price, we would buy a lot of it, but not in this market. I mean, it just isn't going to happen in this market.QUICK: How much would stocks have to come down for you to think that this is really attractive, if it's —BUFFETT: Well, it depends on the stock. Some stocks — now, generally speaking, they move together to quite a degree, but — but I don't think I know what the market's going to do.I do think I've got a reasonable idea of what a business is worth. I have no idea what the stock market's going to do, and I don't think anybody else does, either.QUICK: You don't necessarily follow tech companies and Apple, people look at as a tech company, but you always looked at as a consumer company.BUFFET: It's a consumer —QUICK: Yeah.BUFFETT: — company. QUICK: So what do you do about all of these tech stocks and the AI trends that are there? Do you try and follow any of that? Do you get involved in any of those industries?BUFFETT: Well, I don't because I'm — A, I wouldn't be any good at it, and besides, I'm so late to the game.I am not learning new things well. I still don't know what to do with the phone, but I just recognize the fact that — that, you know, you're going to have one, and your kids are going to want one. And — and it is a terribly useful — I mean, it's incredibly useful.And you get something that's useful and offered worldwide, and where, to some extent, you're a little worried about maybe moving your photos from one system to another.(Laughs)All I had to do was go out to Nebraska Furniture Mart and talk to customers — is what, that's what I did 60 years ago at American Express when they looked at — like they were, you know, done for, on the salad oil scandal.And I went down to the Omaha National Bank, and I said, are you getting a premium for American Express tickets? They can sell their travelers check for more than Citigroup, Bank of America, you know, Barclays, everybody had — and they were getting a premium at the same time. Everybody else was worried about them getting in — getting out of business.And the same thing, when they actually started their card, they were going up against Diners Club and Carte Blanche, who had come first. And they came — they came on later. And instead of coming in at a cut price, they came in at a price above the competition.That — that says a lot about — (laughs) — about how consumers felt about American Express.QUICK: Yeah.Warren, let me ask you about the economy, because the Fed is in a bit of a quandary right now, just trying to figure out which one of its mandates it's more worried about.Is it worried about inflation potentially rising more? Is it worried about the jobs market and, you know, potential decline in economic output?What — what of those two issues would worry you most if you were at the Fed right now?BUFFETT: Well, if I were at the Fed, the thing I'd worry about, always, is, you know, you're the reserve currency of the world.I mean, so you've got very smart people, very sophisticated people. The American dollar looks, you know, like nothing can happen to it. And I don't see how anything could happen to it.But, if it does happen to it — (laughs) — I would — I would — I wouldn't want the responsibility of running the Fed.QUICK: But what would you —BUFFETT: I mean, the world will be dependent on it doing it. And last time, in 2007 and '08, you had Congress that essentially felt they knew more about it than, you know, secretary of Treasury.And so they really gummed things up when they —  when they turned on TARP the first time. And I mean, it was — I think now people better understand what — the Fed can print money.QUICK: The Fed can print money, and we have a president, President Trump, who would like to see the Fed cut rates. Would you cut rates if you were there right now?BUFFETT: I don't know what — what I'd do there. I mean, I think that Jay Powell in — when — when the epidemic broke out — I think he acted in March of whatever — 2020.And I think if he'd waited two or three weeks, it would have been a disaster. Once the dominoes start toppling, they just start toppling and — and that line is shorter than anybody thinks, and it topples faster.And I think he did exactly the right thing, and he — he did it even stronger than [Paul] Volcker did. You know, I mean, he — he and Volcker are my heroes at the Fed.QUICK: Did they keep rates low for too long? I mean, I think that's — as they didn't worry about inflation, as they said it was going to be transitory? Because I think even Powell himself said that he might wish he'd turned it sooner.BUFFETT: Well, I wish they had a zero inflation target.QUICK: Right.BUFFETT: But, I mean, once you start saying you're going to tolerate two percent, that compounds pretty dramatically over time.And you're saying to people, if you're getting less than two percent on your money, you're going backwards.And, actually, if you pay tax, you may pay tax on the two percent. You know, I mean —I don't like — I don't like that particular goal. But —QUICK: So, inflation is maybe what you'd be more concerned about? I mean, that's what Greenspan — Alan Greenspan always said.BUFFETT: Yeah. I would be — I would care about inflation. I would compare — what I really would care about is the stability of the banks.QUICK: Yes.BUFFETT: I mean, the banking system is, in some sense, is very strong. In the other sense, it is very fragile.I mean, JPMorgan, in the last couple annual reports reported doing 10 trillion of business per day.Now, that's an unsecured policy. Now, they know what they're doing. Believe me. (Laughs)I mean, there's nobody smarter than JP — but I don't want  — I didn't want, during the 2008 period — I didn't want anything unsecured, you know, out there for a day. I mean, who knew?Nobody was any good. You know, I mean, it — the world is very interconnected and everybody panics. (Laughs)I mean, it — you know, they may say they don't, but you can call the biggest investment banking firms and they don't — and they say — well, they don't answer the phone, even, if things get bad enough.And if they do answer the phone, they — you know, they say 10 bid, 20 offered, subject. (Laughs)QUICK: Yeah. I mean, Joe will talk about that day that you mentioned in — where the Dow was down 21 percent. I think he was, at that point, he said it himself. He was hiding under his desk for the calls that were coming in.BUFFETT: Yeah. And —QUICK:  Because when liquidity disappears, it disappears —BUFFETT: Twenty-one percent, and that was some day, and it just kept coming.And most of the specialist firms, which then counted for more, in terms of the stability of the markets. They were broke. I mean, as I remember, they went around to their banks and said, just don't pull the loans, you know.But they — they — people — they were supposed to keep making markets, but people just kept hitting the bid.And you can widen the spread out. You got circuit breakers now, all kinds of things.But when people are scared, they're scared. And people — if you yell fire in a crowded theater, everybody runs.Still, it still pays to beat people to the door, you know —(laughter) — and I can get trampled, you know, so, I will stand back there and say everybody to stay calm, you know? But that's because I can't run fast.On the other hand, when people come back into the theater, they come in one at a time. They know they don't have to get into it. But when people panic, they panic.QUICK: But is it the banking system we should be concerned about right now, or is it the shadow banking system, the private credit, at this point?BUFFETT: Well, it's all parts of the banking system because they all affect each other and the troubles from one can spread over to another. And, well, you saw what happened, I mean, in 2008.QUICK: But at risk of potentially — I don't want people to say that you are commenting on what's happening in the private credit situation right now.What do you think of the private credit situation right now? Are there enough concerning issues there that you worry that it could cause a contagion —BUFFETT: I don't think I know.QUICK: OK.BUFFETT: I don't — I do not think I know what — but, therefore, I want to be prepared for anything. And, therefore, we will always have — we'll always have cash around and we'll have Treasury bills.We won't have money market funds. We didn't have them in 2008. We won't have commercial paper —  in 2008.There's just one thing that's legal tender. And, you know, if you own Treasury bills — and we happen to own — we don't own Treasury bonds way out, I mean —But every Monday, the Treasury has to sell bills. And as long as they got to sell, you know, X billions worth of bills, I mean, they can't — they can print some money to do it, and they'll do it.QUICK:  But just to put a fine point on it, you don't think you know what's happening out there? You've had this huge cash hoard of 350 billion dollars.It's just there waiting for any time. It's not that you necessarily think that there's something on the horizon. It's just the longer time goes —BUFFETT: Oh, sure. No, I always want to have —QUICK: Yeah.BUFFETT: — cash.And I never want to buy anything just because people think the market is going up. (Laughs)I mean, the idea that people think they know what the market's going to do is just crazy.I mean, the idea that they would shout out to the world, you know, that something they really knew — (laughs) — I mean, that's like saying if they had gold — found gold in their backyard, they'd come on television and say, here's where the gold is in my backyard, you know, I mean? (Laughs)I mean, they're selling something.QUICK: They want other people to follow, you mean?BUFFETT:  Well, they know that there's a certain — I mean, there's people in the United States and other parts of the world, but you've seen how much they like to gamble.And, basically, you have this incredible cathedral called the American economic system. Nobody's seen anything like it. I mean, it's the cathedral of all cathedrals.But attached to it is a casino and people can walk back and forth between the two.And believe me, people like to gamble. I mean, they gamble with the odds against them in the market.They can actually gamble if they — well, they really aren't gambling if they do it — but, I mean, if they just buy a stock and sit for 50 years — (laughs) —  if they got a group of them, they're going to do fine.I mean, the American capitalism system works. And betting against the house does not work. (Laughs)I mean, it's just — it's so simple. But, people do like to gamble. I mean —QUICK: When you say gamble —BUFFETT: On my honeymoon —QUICK: — are you talking —BUFFETT: I had my honeymoon in 1952.QUICK: Yes.BUFFETT: We went through Las – Susie and I — we just got in my Aunt Alice's car, and we drove and we went through Las Vegas at the time.And I watched all these people, who were dressed well, and they'd flown on jets. They'd flown, you know, for many hours, spent much money and everything else, to go and pull handles, you know, or do something that was mathematically dumb.And I thought, this is the land of opportunity. (Laughs)I told her we were going to get rich.I mean, how can you have people who have perfectly decent IQs rushing to do dumb things, which they do, and industries build on it. Now, it's become legalized. And the more they open it up, the more people like to do it.They like to do it in the stock market. And actually in the stock market, at least they got a favorable expectancy if they just sit tight.QUICK: Right.BUFFETT: But they don't sit tight, of course, if they, if they're gamblers.QUICK:  So, you're not a fan of prediction markets, of legalized sports gambling, even of day trading. Is that basically what you're saying? BUFFETT: Well, I don't think — I don't think you can stop it once you open it up. And once the states found out that they could pay about 60 cents on the dollar, or something like that, whatever they may have different systems for different states. There was one state it was legal in when I was a kid, and we've been around for hundreds of years.But then once people saw that was working — (laughs) — other places took it up. And of course, rich people love it because they don't have to pay. I mean, you know, to the extent that the states raise money from people who that — where the dollar really means something to them, actually relieves the taxes on me or other rich people.I mean, it's not direct. I mean it — but it's — it's the net effect.So I don't like things that make a sucker out of people. I don't like them. I particularly don't like them when the government sponsors them.I don't think the government should play its — I don't think the function of the government is to play its people for suckers.QUICK: My dad has always said the lottery is a tax on the stupid. Gambling, same thing?BUFFETT: It's a tax — it's a tax on stupidity.But it's — but I'm not mad at the people that are stupid. (Laughter)No, I really am not. I mean, you can't help it, you know, to some extent. If you're human beings, you're geared that way when somehow, you know, it's developed within the humans.I don't like it when the government that they elect decides they're going to profit off that sort of activity.And I particularly, —I think it's kind of cynical. I don't think — I don't think you should have a cynical government. I mean it's —QUICK: Warren, let me let me shift gears and ask a little bit about what you think that is happening — that's happening — about what's happening in the Middle East right now.BUFFETT: What's happening with what?QUICK: What's happening in the Middle East.BUFFETT: Oh.QUICK: There's a lot of ways we could go with this, but why don't we start with just what it means for crude oil and energy in particular?Berkshire owns a utility company. What do these higher prices mean?BUFFETT: Well, it — it means the two oil positions we have, Chevron and Occidental —QUICK: Yeah.BUFFETT: — go up a lot.But that doesn't mean I can go around predicting what will happen next. I don't know what's going to happen tomorrow over there.QUICK: Yeah.You, for a long time, were involved with the nuclear initiative. I think still are funding that. And I know your very first priority in philanthropy was the nuclear problem.BUFFETT: I think it's the problem.  I think, it — well, I'll put it this way. When I was — when I went to school — grammar school — they told me the sun was going to burn out in four and a half billion years.QUICK:  Yeah.BUFFETT: I took that pretty philosophically. I mean — (laughs) — I could handle that.And now, you've got nine countries, including, you know, a guy in North Korea. I mean — and there will be — something [will] happen.And we worried enormously about it when there were two. And we had perfectly — we had really pretty sane leaders in Kennedy and Khrushchev. You know, I mean, you were not dealing with unstable people or anything like that. And, you know —[During the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1963] The ships turned around, but people were hiding under their desks with two.I mean, just think how you feel with North Korea having it and Iran wanting to get it. I mean, it — it is — and I don't have an answer for that.I mean, we did the right thing in 1938, given — or 1939. You can go look at it. It's all over the internet. The most important letter ever written.And Leo Szilard could not get the message to — he was a famous nuclear physicist, a terrific one — very funny, too — and he couldn't get the message to [President Franklin] Roosevelt, but he knew if [physicist Albert] Einstein signed the letter, that it would get there. And he finally got Einstein to sign the letter [warning that Germany might develop an atomic bomb and suggesting the U.S. start its own nuclear program].And that letter was a month before the Germans started rolling into Poland.And I don't think Roosevelt understood U-235 any better than I do. (Laughs)I mean, you know, but he knew if Einstein signed it, he better do something.And the funny thing is, of course, he was doing it because he was worried about the Germans getting it. And it was actually used on the Japanese.But it — we — we haven't learned to live with it.Now, we've been — we've gone 80 years since then. We've had a lot of close calls. I mean, we've had training tapes put in there that — that almost got the president to do something. They've had them — I mean — there is no way that the planet has an expectancy of 500 years now when it was four and a half billion when I was a kid, and —We had to do it. I'm not faulting anybody. My dad was in Congress. He would have voted for it. I mean, everybody rejoiced on VJ day. You know, I mean, it — it — but there was no way we could undo it.QUICK:  Well, I think the question becomes today — [former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations] Nikki Haley was just on "Squawk Box" right before you. And she was saying she thinks the president should go in and find the enriched uranium in Iran right now. And that's a controversial position. It —BUFFETT:  It's a controversial — but I would be — I would be, for one way or another, if I were the president of the United States — I don't want to be president of the United States — (laughs) —  I don't want that —I one time asked one president, I said, you know, if — if the Soviets had launched — so they already were in the air, and our policy was mutually assured destruction, would you have told Strategic Air Command, unleash ours, knowing that it wasn't going to — I mean, it was going to just kill millions and millions and millions more people and add to a supe- polluted atmosphere, that who knows what is going to happen? I mean, it — and now we have —QUICK: What was the answer?BUFFETT: The answer. Well — the an —  this president said — he said, I've thought about that every day.Because some major shows up at midnight —QUICK: Yeah.BUFFETT: — and says, we have incontrovertible — this is not — this is not geese above the North Pole. This is not a training tape that got put in by mistake.We know they're in the air and you've got 10 minutes to make a decision. Mr. President, what do I tell SAC to do? Do we unleash ours?And I used to be on the SAC advisory board, but  — (laughs) — believe it or not — the — but that was for political purposes as they put people on that, truly, because they were always looking for more money, and they just figured if — and I don't blame them.QUICK:  But what did the president say? What was his answer?BUFFETT: He said, I thought about it every day during the time I was in office. He was an ex-president.QUICK: But did not give an answer on what he actually —BUFFETT: No, he said — I think the answer is yes. I would tell him to do it. That is the policy of the United States of America.QUICK: Yeah.So if you were the president today, or if you were advising the president today, what would you say about going after the enriched uranium in Iran?BUFFETT: I would say that one way or another, in the next hundred years — maybe it's two hundred years, who knows — but one way or another, something will happen that causes it to be used. And we can't take what's out there now.And if you thought it was dangerous with the Soviets and us — but Khrushchev, who was [a] perfectly rational guy, probably — Kennedy — just wait till we — wait till we're dealing with, you know, the guy in North Korea that criticizes haircut or something, I mean —Or — or, I would say the most dangerous thing is actually somebody that's got their hand on the switch who is dying themselves, or is facing enormous embarrassment, he figures if I go, everybody goes.QUICK: If you're cornered, yeah, if you're cornered.BUFFETT: Yeah.QUICK: So that's still rises to the level of one of the most important and —BUFFETT: It is.QUICK: Yeah.BUFFETT: It's just that I don't know the answer for it. But I do know that the — it'll be more difficult if Iran has the bomb than if they don't.QUICK: Yeah.Warren, I'm going to shift topics again.You have given away almost 60 billion dollars since 2006, when you first started giving money away. The bulk of that has gone to the Bill Gates Foundation.What have you thought about all the emails in the Epstein files related to Bill Gates?BUFFETT: Well, I won't say what I thought about them, particularly related to Bill Gates.But I would say, it astounds me how human people are. (Laughs)It — here you had a guy that was a convicted guy, a sensational con man, and the percentage of people that he knocked off, I mean, whether it was — he found their weakness.It might have been sex. It might be power. It might be — whatever it might be. And I don't see how anybody could have pulled that off. And then — and of course, all these figures think that it's going — when he dies, that "ha" — you know, they've — they've — they basically lied about it before. But I mean, you know, it —QUICK: They lied about their associations with Epstein, you mean?BUFFETT: Well, I mean, you know, they've rationalized it one way or another.But — and now it's all getting opened up and, of course, I'm just — I'm so happy the guy didn't — that he didn't stop in Omaha ever — I mean — or that I didn't live in New York.If I had lived in New York, at some party — I would have been at some damn thing — and where people always are asking to take a picture, and I usually do — I'm so used to doing it with students — I always do these gag pictures where I'm picking some guy's pocket or proposing to some woman or some damn thing — (laughs) —And — I — thank heavens, I — I never — and I never came near the guy.And I had read the article in "Vanity Fair" in 2003 that —QUICK: The one that lay — that laid out who — what a mysterious and strange —BUFFETT: And it didn't quite —QUICK: —  figure he was.BUFFETT: It went as far as somebody who that's worried about libel suits goes.QUICK: Well, it made him sound like a fraud, for sure. Yeah, I've read that article recently —BUFFETT: Well, the guy was a con man.QUICK: — at your suggestion.BUFFETT: — and the interesting thing is, you know, he got his start at Bear Stearns —QUICK: Yeah.BUFFETT: And they knew him. They knew he lied to them on all kinds of things. And —And Ace Greenberg was a good friend of mine. Well, Jimmy Cayne may have been actually running the firm by then, I'm not sure.But Ace Greenberg always was looking for — he had a guy that the son of a friend of mine, that he hired just to be his ferret.His — and his job was to look for anything that was old or large that traders might have stuck in their desk or  — I mean, he was worried about — about people.But somehow — Ace's daughter, I guess, was dated by — dating Epstein or something.And that guy must have been the con man of all time (inaudible).QUICK: But it's one thing to be a con man. It's another thing to be trafficking minors.BUFFETT: Absolutely.QUICK: It's sexual prostitution.BUFFETT: Well, and be prosecuted.And even though he managed to jiggle his way through that thing with, you know, whoever the attorney general was then — it — one way or another, he — he did not really spend much time in his cell, you know, and —But he had a way of conning everybody. I mean, he probably — who knows what he offered the guys, you know, to do that. He could con anybody.QUICK: Have you been concerned —BUFFETT: He found their — he found their weakness.QUICK: Have you been concerned —First of all, have you learned things from the Epstein files?BUFFETT: Sure. I can't read them myself because my eyesight is so bad, but I've got a friend — (laughs) — that reads them avidly for me.And it is astounding to me that anybody could be that successful as a con person.But you know, PT Barnum said it many years ago, too — (laughs) — there's one born every minute.And, you know, men are going to like sex. And some — some of them are going to like not paying taxes.And whatever it was, he figured out what their weakness was, and then he was — had this ability to prey on them.But that doesn't excuse the people on the other end. I mean —QUICK: Right. What — what are the consequences for what —BUFFETT: The consequences should — are very likely to be, in my view, the same thing that happened back in 1969 when the Johnson administration left and the Ford Foundation hired a whole bunch of people that were let go from government.And it'll take — it takes something where Congress feels that, net, they're better — they're better off going after the foundations than not.And foundations have got plenty of — I mean, money, and foundations have plenty of more power in Washington.I mean, it's kind of — it's kind of irritating. We can talk about that later, maybe.But in '69, I think Wilbur Mills was — (inaudible) as head of the Ways and Means Committee. I don't remember exactly how it came about, but that was the last —  that was a big revision of what foundations could do.QUICK: OK.BUFFETT: I think this is the same — is going to have the same effect.QUICK: Is there anything that you've read, or been read, from the Epstein files that concerns you about the money that you donate to the Gates Foundation — money you've given in the past or money that you may have –BUFFETT: There was a lot — there was a lot I didn't know.QUICK: Like what?BUFFETT: What is very clear — well, I didn't know a lot of things.I mean, there were three trustees of the foundation —QUICK: You, Bill and Melinda.BUFFETT: — and I was one of the three.Now, we only met once a year. I did not ask probing questions.I mean, you know, if I had — if I thought I had to ask probing questions, I would — wouldn't have put the money in, in the first place.But  — (laughs)But — and incidentally, the guy, the CEO of the foundation, wasn't necessarily present during all these things, but he's not the real CEO. I mean, in the end, Bill ran the foundation.And it was — and — but I learned — learned, I guess — I guess — when the divorce action happened, because I resigned a month later — less than a month later, I think.QUICK: What did you learn then that —BUFFETT: I learned that I didn't know what was going on — (laughs) — and — which didn't mean something terrible was going on, necessarily, but I certainly didn't know what was going on.We didn't — and I didn't ask the questions, either, though.I mean, in terms of being on the foundation board — or it — it was — I made a decision on it in 2006 and — and I didn't think butting into so many marital problems — (laughs) — or anything like that was particularly appropriate at foundation meetings.But they went through and they talked about all these little things that didn't mean anything and — and then they've hired a few people that — that are really bad news, you know. And I never met any of those people, you know. That — that guy —QUICK: You're talking about Boris Nikolic?BUFFETT: Yeah. And I — I don't even know what —QUICK: He was mentioned pretty prominently in the Epstein files.BUFFETT: I never heard of him.And I, you know, I was around the — that — that guy, so far in the proceedings, I mean, he looks like a terrible guy to employ. Now, I've employed terrible people, but we've gotten rid of them.QUICK: Boris Nikolic eventually was gotten rid of at the foundation as well.Have you talked to Bill Gates about any of this?BUFFETT: I haven't. No. I haven't talked to him at all since the whole thing was unveiled.I don't want to be in a position where I know things — (laughs) — at the moment.I could get called as a witness.QUICK: Are you going to continue to give money to the Gates Foundation? You have every June since 2006.BUFFETT: Well, yeah, actually, I agreed to do it every year, but I've done it around June 30 most of the time, and I'll wait and see what unfolds.The stock isn't going anyplace. It isn't like I'm giving it all away to something else, or won't have it.But I'll wait and see what —I'm learning — I've learned things I didn't know about something — for all these years. And —I didn't know how the marital thing would play out. I mean, I just didn't know about it.You can guess sometimes that people aren't getting along, you know, at a given time. But that's true in every marriage. (Laughs)There are times when they get irritated with their spouse, or something like that. So —In any event, I'll just wait and see. And there's three and a half million, or whatever it is, pages. I mean, it is astounding.QUICK: In the Epstein files.BUFFETT: In the Epstein files.And there's a lot of redacted stuff. And obviously, anybody that was involved in Epstein, I mean, they've been miserable, probably from the moment they learned that things are going to get released. And that — and they can't bury it now. I mean, it's gone too far.QUICK: Are there situations — I guess you're caught in a position where if you don't —BUFFETT: The money's all going to get given it away. That's for sure.QUICK: Right. If you don't give the money to the Gates Foundation, are you in violation of the pledge that you made? Or if you do give the money, are you condoning the behavior that has taken place?That you may or may not — that you may not have — we haven't learned everything, potentially, yet, about.BUFFETT: That's why I want to learn.QUICK: Yeah.BUFFETT: I don't have to make that decision today. And I haven't made it today.But I do keep reading things. I mean, I (inaudible) — somebody reads them for me, actually.And I — I was always astounded somewhat by the Epstein thing when it was taking place.But what this reveals about humans and the degree, whether — whether it's money or whether it's sex or whatever. I mean, this guy found people's weaknesses, but they did do things. (Laughs)QUICK: Yeah.BUFFETT: I don't think — if you ask me my personal opinion, I don't think Bill had anything to do with girls or the island or anything like that.But I am learning things about all kinds of stuff when I read this, and it is ruining one person after another.I mean — it — it's just astounding to me how bad —People always do things. I mean, there's consensual sex and all kinds of things.But — but this guy — how many hours are there in the day? I mean, three and a half million, or whatever — (laughs) — of his communications, and all the thinking that goes into —And — and he found people's weaknesses. And boy, did he know how to use it.And he used — he obviously used this guy, Boris somebody. And he used the woman at Goldman Sachs, I mean, just every place you looked.QUICK: Yeah. Yeah.BUFFETT: I've never seen anything — (laughs) —And I'm sure that once you get rid of the redacting of a few things, you know, you're going to learn more.QUICK: So you're waiting to hear what else comes from the files —BUFFETT: Sure.QUICK: — potentially what comes from congressional hearings?BUFFETT: Yeah.I think they may change the law on foundations, too.QUICK: You may think — I'm sorry, you think —BUFFETT: I think — I think there's a good chance. But Congress doesn't act that fast — they — they — so  the —But — I — I just think that — that Congress reacts to whatever the public's mad about, and they'll be mad about the Epstein thing.QUICK: But you said that you think they could change the law on foundations as a result?BUFFETT: Oh yeah. I think there could be major foundation hearings.QUICK: And the changes that would go after the foundations, that would do what, strip their tax status?BUFFETT: Congress will want to look like they're doing something about it. And foundations have done a lot more lobbying in the past.I mean, there's been — hasn't been any anti-foundation lobbying to speak of. And there's been —the foundations are there, and everybody goes to Washington.QUICK: Do you —BUFFETT: It's astounding to me how — how — no — Washington is — it's really become important. That's where the money is doled out. That's where the rules are doled out.QUICK: Do you think the foundation — foundations in general — have done good work? Do you think the Gates Foundation has done good work?BUFFETT: Oh, I'm sure they've done some good work.I don't think they'd be around if they hadn't done some good work.The question is whether the rules get changed in terms of what they can do, or their taxation gets —I mean, look at — look at the Harvard, I mean — you know, that — it — it —Once public opinion changes, Congress changes. You know, it's — it's just the way it works.QUICK: Are you sorry you've given the money to the Gates Foundation?BUFFETT: No. No. I'm —QUICK: So you're happy that it's gone —BUFFETT: Yeah, well I mean, I — it's —But I wish that certain things hadn't happened, obviously.But I don't — but it isn't like they're stealing money for themselves or anything like that.I mean, Bill pours his efforts into it. Melinda poured her efforts into it. The present guy that runs it does — he's — he's a guy who I'd hire myself, you know, I mean it — it —QUICK: Mark Suzman.BUFFETT: Yeah.QUICK: Yeah.BUFFETT: And — and  I think he's actually the best CEO they've had, you know, and I don't envy his job. But I also — I also think that — that I'll wait and see. (Laughs)They've got 96 billion dollars that they're sitting on now.QUICK: At the foundation.BUFFETT: At the foundation.Nobody's got anything like that.QUICK: Although Bill has also said that he plans to spend that money down —BUFFETT: Well —QUICK: — pretty rapidly over the next 20 years.BUFFETT: He's got plenty of his own money. Add to it. (Laughs)I don't — I don't know what will happen.QUICK: There's been — you and Bill and Melinda also created the Giving Pledge —BUFFETT: Yeah.QUICK: — where you got billionaires around the world to sign up and agree that they would give away at least half of their wealth, either while they were living or upon their death. And you got hundreds of people to sign up to that. There's —BUFFETT: Two hundred and some —QUICK: Yeah, 250-some —BUFFETT: Yeah.QUICK: — people to sign up to that.BUFFETT: It — it's astounded me that we've gotten that many, and we —Look, what — what Bill has done, and which I give him credit for, is he's taken it abroad. And you're changing — you're changing the behavior of societies to some small degree.The United States is — now they've got it partly by laws that favor it, too, and everything else. But —The United States is an experiment, not only in a lot of other ways, but also, actually, in terms of private philanthropy.And Bill has made small, little cracks in that around the world, which I think always defies centuries and centuries of behavior.So — his — the energy he brings to anything he's involved in is incredible. I mean, you know —I'm too lazy. (Laughs).I'm not going to go around the world. I just, you know — I feel we launched something good, and I feel that there is no one that's a member of the Giving Pledge that is giving less than they would have given otherwise.Now we never told them what to give it to. We never told them when they should give it. We didn't make it a legal pledge, I mean —But, we really got response on that.QUICK: There has been — there've been some articles written recently about the backlash in certain sectors, technology billionaires, in particular — Peter Thiel, Marc Andreessen — who have said that they don't like the Giving Pledge, and they think it's woke.BUFFETT: If — if they don't like it, they don't have to belong to the – (laughs)They can retire from it.They didn't make a legal pledge, anyway.QUICK: Right.BUFFETT: There may be any one of a lot of reasons why rich people don't like other rich people — or who knows what happens — (laughs) —But — but I would say this, that  — well, I just would bet a lot of money that nobody is giving less because of it than they would have otherwise given.And a fair number of people — not — not huge numbers — but not insignificant numbers either — are giving it earlier or giving more.The biggest objection that people would raise with me, and it usually was by the mother, was that they just didn't want to become targets of articles about how rich they were. And you can't blame them for that.I mean, they're worried about — they can be worried about anything, but —A lot of people joined.One guy even joined, because he — he said, all I want is to have lunch with Becky Quick. (Laughter)I said, I think — I think — and he didn't — he didn't follow through, apparently, but — but —QUICK: No, I never heard from him.BUFFETT: But — but I mean that —If you get a lot of billionaires, you get a lot of peculiar people, but they — (laughter) — they —Not that that's peculiar. I know I shouldn't present you with that.But it was amazing, to me, the reception we got. And we just started dialing.QUICK: Yeah.BUFFETT: And we hit the obvious — I mean, obviously, it's fallen off — the rate of additions.And obviously, you know, we made — we genuinely said we're not judging the people.We're not going to judge whether if they made their money in liquor. We weren't, you know —What counts is what — what they're doing with it, you know. I mean, that's all we're talking about, is, for God's sakes, you know, give away half of it.And that's so different from a — for a family that's got a family farm for a hundred years, and they planned on giving it to their kids and all kinds of things — than it is for some guy like me that just made it in stocks, you know, I mean.It would be a big, emotional decision if I were like a bunch of — well, you've got certain very rich farmers, you know, that own lots of acreage, and they've been building it their whole life for their — turn over to their kids, and they buy the farm next to them and everything. So, it — it —I think I — I feel good about the Giving Pledge.QUICK: You said you haven't talked to Bill about any of the issues that have come out from the Epstein files. Are — are you still good friends with him?BUFFETT: We've had great times together. But — and he's treated me better than I think he's probably treated anybody else. I mean, he's arranged trips that — that — arrange for the kinds of foods I like, to the Wall Street Journal being in China, or what — I mean, he's been terribly thoughtful with me throughout this.But I think until it gets cleared up, I don't — I just don't think it makes sense to do a lot of talking.For one thing, I don't want to be under — my memory is no good anymore.I don't want to be under oath, in terms of trying to remember everything over 30 years, or 20 years, the foundation's done, or anything like that.I didn't have anything to do with it, except I put — put the money in. But —And you may say, you can — you can say, well, you're derelict in not — in not doing it.But I'm giving money to my children's foundations and I've never looked at what they give, either, you know. I mean, I just — I — I trust people.And I think I've trusted very good people. But I think —I can see where if somebody gets a guy like Epstein involved in their life, they don't want to talk about it.QUICK: Yeah. Yeah.BUFFETT: You know, I wouldn't — I mean, it's been very useful to me that Bill never said, come on along, I want you to meet — (laughs) — Epstein.So he — he could have — he could have done things that that would have been — screwed up my life.I'd have gone along with him. If — if he'd said to me, after the annual meeting or sometime, and he said, you know, I'm going to New York, why don't you fly along, and there's this interesting guy, or something, I probably would have gone, you know.And so, I've got him to thank for not doing that.But you can't get away from what happened, either. And — and you can't get away from the fact that foundations are a peculiar — they're something that our country has really endorsed, I mean, charitable deductions, and donor advised funds and all of that sort of thing.And that's worth looking at, probably more often than every 30 or 40 years.Foundations just — what they do is they lobby, just basically leave us alone. (Laughs)QUICK: We — we have 87 seconds left in the show.Any other thought that you'd like to throw in, because I don't think we've covered enough ground.BUFFETT: Well, I think the interesting thing is, you've got America, which is the wonder of the world.And at the same time, you've got a great number of people that — and they're just as much human beings as you or I — (laughs) — and you know, they may not — they may not have the same IQ or anything like that, but I think the differentials are too great, but I also think it's worked.So how do you actually solve all that through an entity which is basically broken down into two sides that sort of automatically vote against each other no matter what the issue is. I mean —QUICK: You mean Democrats and Republicans?BUFFETT: Yeah, Democrats and Republicans. I mean —QUICK: We have 20 seconds.BUFFETT: It — (laughter) — it's become more partisan than — than ever. And — and we're more prosperous than ever than anybody ever dreamt.So you have to say, capitalism's worked. But it still needs, you know — it —I guess we're finished.QUICK: We're finished, three seconds.You — you start —Are you a Democrat or a Republican?BUFFETT: I've been both. And I — I was — I was actually on the ballot as a Republican in 1960, but — and my dad was very Republican.I went to the Democratic side. And now I'm an independent. (Laughs)QUICK: OK. We're going to leave it on that, and that's enough of a tease till the next time we talk with you. But Warren, thank you very much for your time.BUFFETT: It's a lot of fun. BUFFETT & BERKSHIRE AROUND THE INTERNET Some links may require a subscription:Bloomberg (subscription): Berkshire Hires Banks for Yen Bond Offering in Volatile MarketBarron's on MSN: What Warren Buffett gets wrong about the Fed's inflation targetInvestopedia: Warren Buffett Shows Why Favoring 'Approximately Right' Beats Precise Mistakes for InvestorsBarron's on MSN: Berkshire, Travelers join US plan to insure shippers in the Hormuz StraitBarron's on MSN: Buffett isn't getting carried away by this Iran Trump bump. Neither should markets. BERKSHIRE STOCK WATCH Four weeks Zoom In IconArrows pointing outwards Twelve months Zoom In IconArrows pointing outwards BRK.A stock price: $716,300.00BRK.B stock price: $477.35BRK.B P/E (TTM): 15.38Berkshire market capitalization: $1,029,723,025,349Berkshire Cash as of December 31: $373.3 billion (Down 2.2% from Sept. 30)Excluding Rail Cash and Subtracting T-Bills Payable: $369.0 billion (Up 4.1% from September 30)Berkshire resumed stock repurchases on March 4, 2026, but has not said whether it made any additional buys after that date.(All figures are as of the date of publication, unless otherwise indicated) BERKSHIRE'S TOP EQUITY HOLDINGS - Apr. 2, 2026 Zoom In IconArrows pointing outwards Berkshire's top holdings of disclosed publicly traded stocks in the U.S. and Japan, by market value, based on the latest closing prices.Holdings are as of December 31, 2025, as reported in Berkshire Hathaway's 13F filing on February 17, 2026, except for:Mitsubishi, which is as of August 28, 2025Mitsui, which is as of September 30, 2025The full list of holdings and current market values is available from CNBC.com's Berkshire Hathaway Portfolio Tracker. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS Please send any questions or comments about the newsletter to me at alex.crippen@nbcuni.com. (Sorry, but we don't forward questions or comments to Buffett himself.)If you aren't already subscribed to this newsletter, you can sign up here.Also, Buffett's annual letters to shareholders are highly recommended reading. There are collected here on Berkshire's website.-- Alex Crippen, Editor, Warren Buffett Watch Choose CNBC as your preferred source on Google and never miss a moment from the most trusted name in business news.

In dominating consumer devices, Apple sold users on the promise of privacy. To compete in AI, it may have to pivot. View More

In this articleAMZNMSFTFollow your favorite stocksCREATE FREE ACCOUNT watch nowVIDEO15:4415:44Why Apple’s AI strategy matters more than everTechCheck CUPERTINO, Calif. — Nasdaq brought its market open festivities to Apple's sprawling Silicon Valley headquarters on Tuesday, the eve of the company's 50th birthday. From a desk inside Apple Park, the ring-shaped campus that Steve Jobs spent his last years helping design, Tim Cook rang the opening bell and, in the process, ushered in the iPhone maker's second half-century.It was a celebratory occasion, but one arriving at a pivotal point for an iconic American company that faces major challenges today and in the years ahead as the technology industry gets swept up by artificial intelligence. Prior to the AI boom, which started with the launch of OpenAI's ChatGPT in late 2022, Apple was able to win by dominating the consumer device market and adding its Siri voice assistant across its product portfolio. The pitch has always been simple: Pay a premium for a device, and trust that what happens on it stays yours, whether it's messages, photos or notes. Personal data isn't fuel for an advertising engine. Two of Apple's megacap tech peers took the opposite approach. Google and Meta are the giants of digital advertising, giving away their key services for free and making tens of billions of dollars a year in profit by targeting users with promotions. Apple's principle came from Jobs, its co-founder and longtime CEO. Cook, his successor, has been preaching it since becoming CEO in 2011, shortly before Jobs' death. For much of Apple's 50-year history, it's been gospel in Cupertino. That's why Apple's latest move feels so out of character. watch nowVIDEO2:1802:18Apple at 50 is trying to prove it can win the AI eraClosing Bell: Overtime In January, Apple struck a multiyear deal to use Google's Gemini AI as part of a rebooted Siri. Google has already been paying in the range of $20 billion a year to be the default search engine on the iPhone. In AI, that relationship flips: Apple becomes the one paying for the underlying intelligence by licensing Google's technology.Money isn't the main issue — Apple recorded net cash of $54 billion in the latest quarter and returned $32 billion to shareholders, mostly through buybacks. Rather, the concern, according to Asymco analyst Horace Dediu, is what the arrangement with Google means for user data and whether the search company uses it to bolster its algorithms. "That's where the wall has to be," Dediu said. "That they don't give that information to Google, and Google doesn't get smarter and improve its core business because Apple is sharing information with them." He added that, "To the extent that the intelligence improves, that should stay within Apple."Apple declined to make anyone available for this story, but CNBC spoke with former employees and people who spent decades studying the business. The general sentiment is that Apple is at a crossroads, caught between the ethos that shaped the company and a technological shift that's forcing it to compete on unfamiliar ground.Apple is in this quandary in part because, compared to its tech peers, the company has been slow to AI. The long-awaited AI update to Siri has faced delays, though Apple says it's still coming by year-end. In 2024, the company launched Apple Intelligence, which includes image generators, text rewriters, the ability to summarize push notifications and an integration with ChatGPT. Consumer response has been mixed. Where Apple has really bucked the trend is in keeping capital expenditures in check, rather than following the path of Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet and Meta, which are collectively committing hundreds of billions of dollars a year to new AI infrastructure so they can support cutting-edge models and workloads. As rivals were building giant model businesses, involving training through scraping of information and data, Apple steered clear, a decision that many in the industry say left the company at a disadvantage in generative AI. Apple CEO Tim Cook holds an iPhone 17 pro and an iPhone air, as Apple holds an event at the Steve Jobs Theater on its campus in Cupertino, California, U.S. Sept. 9, 2025. Manuel Orbegozo | Reuters 'Fork in the road' Cook has called privacy a "fundamental human right" for years. In an appearance on ABC's "Good Morning America" in mid-March, he reiterated that Apple does as much processing as possible on the device. When necessary, Apple uses what it calls Private Cloud Compute, which is essentially a secure extension of the device in the cloud. Gene Munster of Deepwater Asset Management says Apple's leadership misread the market. "It comes down to a failure to recognize where the world was going and the speed things were happening," he said, leaving the company now at a "fork in the road" when it comes to the long-term relevance of its products. The challenge, Munster said, is in "powering an AI digital assistant." If Apple doesn't solve that, he warned, somebody else will, a development that could eat away at Apple's control over the future. Siri should have given Apple a head start. It launched in October 2011, a day after Jobs' death. It would be years before Amazon Alexa or Google Assistant hit the market. But the product stagnated. Apple "basically blew a five-year lead" said Walt Mossberg, a former Wall Street Journal columnist who long chronicled Apple.Dag Kittlaus, Siri's co-founder, left Apple after Jobs died, telling CNBC recently, "I didn't want to work without him."Kittlaus said that Siri kept improving on the technical side, particularly in speech recognition. But without Jobs' instincts and product vision, the company never really expanded Siri's capabilities, he said. "There are no further technical barriers to any part of the Siri vision that we had from the old days," Kittlaus said. "We would kill to have the technology back then that exists now." Adam Cheyer, co-founder of Siri and Viv LabsPhoto courtesy of Adam Cheyer Adam Cheyer, who created Siri alongside Kittlaus, said the original vision was far more ambitious than what shipped. The idea was to create a system that could both answer questions and take action, eventually supporting a broader ecosystem that could be used by outside businesses, similar to the App Store. He said the challenge was combining "knowing and doing" in a single system. The first company that can do that with "the right experience" will be "the dominant technology company for this next AI age," Cheyer said. "And I think Apple can still play there."Today, AI is a cloud business. The models behind ChatGPT, Gemini and Anthropic's Claude are too big to run on a phone. But models are shrinking. Within a few years, hefty workloads will run on a chip inside the phone. That's Apple's bet, and the company has been integrating AI-capable silicon into its devices since 2017. When AI moves onto the device, the thinking goes, Apple's privacy problem starts to solve itself. User queries all get processed locally, never touching a cloud server. Dediu says it follows a historical pattern of computing moving from the center to the edge, from mainframes to PCs to phones.Tony Fadell, who built the iPod and the first three iPhones before co-founding Nest and selling it to Google, said early signs of the computing shift are already visible. As more people experiment with personal AI agents, some are running the infrastructure themselves, often on devices like a Mac Mini at home.The Google partnership could be the bridge for Apple, Kittlaus said. "People get motivated when they see a path to victory," he said. "I think that is the moment." watch nowVIDEO3:0203:02Apple at 50 faces its biggest AI test yetTechCheck The OpenAI challenge As AI moves to the edge, the question for Apple is whether the device it's spent the past two decades perfecting remains the center of computing. Last year, OpenAI bought Jony Ive's design firm, io, for $6.4 billion and charged the former Apple design chief with building something as consequential for the AI era as the iPhone was for the move to mobile. "That's an amazingly big ask and amazingly big vision," said John Sculley, who was Apple's CEO from 1983 to 1993, in an interview. "You can't underestimate someone as brilliant as Jony Ive."Ive, who designed the iPod, iPhone, iPad and Apple Watch, among other gadgets, is reportedly developing a family of screenless devices for Sam Altman's company. Dediu said that's the scenario Apple should worry about — not a better device, but a simpler one that doesn't need a screen. If the AI interface turns out to be something people wear rather than hold, Apple's advantage in visual design stops mattering.It's not an approach that's worked yet. Ken Kocienda, who spent 15 years at Apple and invented keyboard autocorrect for the original iPhone, left in 2017 and joined AI hardware startup Humane a few years later. Humane attempted a screenless, AI-native device, but the effort failed. Kocienda said the idea may still prove to be right, just too early. Fadell is less concerned. "These pins, pens, all these pendants — I think they're all accessories to the phone," he said. "You're going to see a federation of devices ... and they'll all be AI-enabled, as opposed to removing devices from your life."If the future of AI hardware revolves around the phone, Apple may be poised to lead again, with a next chapter shaped by the same strengths that built the company.That was the backdrop at Apple Park before dawn on Tuesday. As employees and Cook gathered on the lawn, the grass still held the night's rain. The sky cleared just as Nasdaq's opening anthem rolled across the yard, and Cook stepped forward to ring the bell. The whole scene felt almost impossibly controlled, as if even the weather had deferred to Apple's choreography.Everything came together just in time to show Wall Street, and the company is betting its Siri refresh will do the same.The anniversary celebration was capped by a performance from Paul McCartney, another flourish in a production designed to project confidence in the path forward as Wall Street waits expectantly for Apple's AI comeback.WATCH: Warren Buffett on Apple: I sold too soon watch nowVIDEO4:4704:47Warren Buffett on Apple: I sold too soonSquawk Box Choose CNBC as your preferred source on Google and never miss a moment from the most trusted name in business news.

Shifting government content controls and postpandemic Hollywood trends have made China less of a player in the global box office landscape. View More

Posters of films are on display at a cinema in Shanghai, Aug. 31, 2025.Vcg | Visual China Group | Getty Images Hollywood has lost one of its most lucrative theatrical markets. It's unclear if it will ever win it back. The Chinese box office was once a coveted space for American-made movies, so much so that studios produced films that would appeal directly to this international audience. But in the postpandemic cinema landscape, Hollywood hasn't generated the strong ticket sales it once saw for its biggest blockbusters — and a waning relationship with Chinese cinemas is at least partly to blame. The U.S.-China Film Agreement, struck in 2012 between the two governments, guaranteed 34 U.S. films would be released in China each year. That pact ended in 2017 and was never renewed or renegotiated. At the same time, China began expanding its local film production and instituting blackout dates to promote viewership of its homegrown titles. Add in strict censorship policies from the China Film Administration and recent political strains between the U.S. and China, and Hollywood films have faced several hurdles just to get distribution in the country post-Covid."I think that the kind of euphoria about the world's largest market and thinking about China as a place that always creates a larger market for U.S. [intellectual property] is not accurate," said Aynne Kokas, a professor at the University of Virginia and the author of "Hollywood Made in China." "[There are] constraints on the market in a couple of ways, first related to content control and not just content control in terms of censorship, but also in terms of control of distribution channels by the party," Kokas said. She said the film bureau will "turn on and off the levers of distribution based on the needs of the market." If local Chinese films are doing well, the country will limit distribution access for foreign films. If there are gaps in film releases or releases aren't selling as many tickets, it will open up the market.In 2019, nine U.S. titles each generated more than $100 million at the Chinese box office, with Disney and Marvel Studio's "Avengers: Endgame" collecting more than $600 million in the region, according to data from Comscore. In the past five years combined, however, only 10 American films have generated more than $100 million in China, with only two topping $200 million. window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}}); The outlier is Disney's "Zootopia 2," which tallied a record-breaking $650 million in the country following its 2025 release. Box office analysts tell CNBC that this feat is likely an anomaly and studios and Wall Street shouldn't expect a sudden resurgence of ticket sales for American-made fare in the region even as major franchises launch ahead of the key summer movie season. Market nuances What performs well in the U.S. isn't guaranteed to succeed in China, despite the massive audience potential. "There's not necessarily a one-to-one correlation between popular IP in the U.S. and popular IP in China," Kokas said.In some cases, it's a lack of nostalgia on the part of Chinese audiences. Kokas noted that when Star Wars was introduced in the region with the sequel trilogy in 2015, it fell flat because the previous films from the original and prequel trilogies were never released in China, so the later installments didn't have the boost of a built-in fanbase. Distribution experts told CNBC that the Chinese film bureau and audience tend to gravitate toward features that are visual spectacles and apolitical. Films that have performed well in the region since the pandemic include entries from the Fast & Furious saga, Jurassic World flicks and installments from the Godzilla and King Kong franchises.Even with the recent lull in ticket sales from Chinese releases, studios aren't deterred from launching titles in the region. One distribution expert told CNBC that China remains a major theatrical opportunity for American-made films."China remains an essential component in any international strategy by U.S.-based studios because there are many hundreds of millions of dollars potentially to be earned there due to an undeniable appetite in the region for the big Hollywood movies," said Paul Dergarabedian, head of marketplace trends at Comscore.Universal's "The Super Mario Galaxy Movie" is the next U.S. entrant into the country, due in theaters this weekend.The franchise's first film, "The Super Mario Bros. Movie," tallied more than $1.3 billion globally in 2023, but only $25 million of that total came from China. One distribution expert told CNBC that console games, like Nintendo's Super Mario franchise, are not as prevalent in the region, meaning the nostalgia that drove $575 million in domestic ticket sales was not a major factor over in China. Meanwhile, in Japan, where Super Mario is a cultural icon, the film generated $102 million.Still, the Chinese market helps bolster the overall haul of a film and has the potential to cement a breakout hit. So studios are still willing to give titles a theatrical release in the region. Also on the docket for distribution in China this year is Universal's "Michael," Warner Bros.' "Mortal Kombat II" and Disney's "The Devil Wears Prada 2."Because of China's strict censorship policies, films must be completed and screened by the film bureau before they are considered for distribution. Therefore, the Hollywood slate in China is not set in stone in the same way the domestic movie slate is.But box office analysts expect titles like Disney and Pixar's "Toy Story 5" and Warner Bros.' "Dune: Part Three," as well as Disney and Marvel's "Avengers: Doomsday" to also land in Chinese theaters this year. Choose CNBC as your preferred source on Google and never miss a moment from the most trusted name in business news.

The tremor, recorded at a depth of 190 km, was felt across Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Islamabad, Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and parts of Punjab View More

OpenAI President Greg Brockman will oversee product in Simo's absence. View More

In this articleCARTMETAFollow your favorite stocksCREATE FREE ACCOUNT Fidji Simo, chief executive officer of Instacart Inc., speaks during a Bloomberg Studio 1.0 interview in San Francisco, California, U.S., on Thursday, March 3, 2022.David Paul Morris | Bloomberg | Getty Images Fidji Simo, OpenAI's product and business chief, announced several leadership changes on Friday and revealed she is taking a significant medical leave because of a worsening neuroimmune condition.OpenAI hired Simo in May, and her condition, Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome, or POTS, relapsed a few weeks before she started in the role. She told staffers in a memo on Friday that the past month has been "particularly rough health-wise," and she decided she needs to take several weeks off to recover."For my entire time here, I've postponed medical tests and new therapies to stay completely focused on the job and not miss a single day of work," Simo wrote in the memo, which was viewed by CNBC. "I took time off for the first time two weeks before the break for some medical tests, and it's now clear that I've pushed a little too far and I really need to try new interventions to stabilize my health."In an interview with CNBC in March, Simo said she was diagnosed with POTS in 2019, and she saw more than 40 specialists as she tried to understand her condition. Patients with POTS have difficulty keeping their blood pressure steady, which can cause symptoms like dizziness, fatigue and chest pains, according to the Cleveland Clinic. The condition can be challenging for health-care providers to diagnose.Simo joined OpenAI after serving as CEO of Instacart, and she previously spent more than a decade in a number of leadership roles at Meta.OpenAI President Greg Brockman will oversee product in Simo's absence, she said. Simo also announced that Brad Lightcap, OpenAI's chief operating officer, will transition to a new role focused on "special projects." He will report directly to OpenAI CEO Sam Altman.Denise Dresser, the company's chief revenue officer, will take over most of Lightcap's responsibilities and report directly to Simo. Dresser will not oversee Lightcap's government or OpenAI for Countries work, which is now being folded under the company's strategy organization.Additionally, Simo announced that Kate Rouch, OpenAI's marketing chief, has decided to step down to focus on her cancer recovery. Rouch was diagnosed with late-stage breast cancer roughly a year and a half ago, right after she stepped into her role at OpenAI."I love this job. I love this team. Which is exactly why I didn't step away and did both — lead at OpenAI while going through intense cancer treatment," Rouch wrote in a post on LinkedIn. "It's the hardest thing I've ever done. At a certain point, you have to be honest about your limits. I've reached mine."Simo said Rouch will return to a more narrowly-scoped role when her health allows, and OpenAI will lead a search for her replacement."We have a strong leadership team focused on our biggest priorities: advancing frontier research, growing our global user base of nearly 1 billion users, and powering enterprise use cases," an OpenAI spokesperson said in a statement. "We're well-positioned to keep executing with continuity and momentum."WATCH: AI and Rare Disease with OpenAI CEO of Applications Fidji Simo watch nowVIDEO15:1915:19AI and Rare Disease with OpenAI CEO of Applications Fidji SimoCNBC Cures Events Choose CNBC as your preferred source on Google and never miss a moment from the most trusted name in business news.

Over 10 months after shelling out an eye-popping $6.4 billion for Jony Ive's nascent devices startup, OpenAI announced it's buying media company TBPN. View More

Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, is pictured on Sept. 25, 2025, in Berlin.Florian Gaertner | Photothek | Getty Images Over 10 months after shelling out an eye-popping $6.4 billion for Jony Ive's nascent devices startup, OpenAI announced another surprising deal on Thursday, snapping up a media business that streams a three-hour daily tech talk show. For a company that's facing intensifying investor scrutiny as it racks up billions of dollars in losses tied to its infrastructure buildout, OpenAI's M&A strategy is tough to pin down. After the startup, now valued at over $850 billion, announced its purchase of Technology Business Programming Network, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said in a Thursday post on X that, "TBPN is my favorite tech show.""I don't expect them to go any easier on us, am sure I'll do my part to help enable that with occasional stupid decisions," Altman wrote. Read more CNBC tech newsSpaceX confidentially files for IPO, setting stage for record offeringFive key questions Apple faces entering its second half-centuryBaidu robotaxis reportedly halted mid-traffic causing crashes in Wuhan, ChinaIran threatens Nvidia, Apple and other tech giants with attacks It's a pivotal moment for OpenAI, which is prepping for an IPO as soon as this year. The company's core products — its popular artificial intelligence models and ChatGPT chatbot — face intensifying competition from Google, Anthropic and Elon Musk's xAI, which is likely to hit the public market first through the anticipated offering of SpaceX. OpenAI has been reeling in its spending expectations and last month shuttered its Sora video app that quickly went viral after its launch six months earlier. It's not readily clear how TBPN fits into OpenAI's strategy, but the AI market is moving so quickly that the most logical moves today may make little sense tomorrow. "When you have more and more disruptive competitors showing up, they need to build things that give people a unique reason to pick ChatGPT over other AI platforms," Daniel Newman, CEO of Futurum Group, said in an interview. "They are kind of chasing vibes a little bit."While not all of OpenAI's acquisitions will pay off, Newman said the company, fresh off a $122 billion funding close, can afford to experiment. He called TBPN "a fairly small bet for a lot of attention."OpenAI didn't disclose deal terms. The company didn't respond to a request for comment. OpenAI's biggest deal to date by far was the purchase of Ive's io, which pushed the company into the complex world of hardware development for the first time. Ive is legendary in the space for designing the iPod, iPhone, iPad and many other gadgets in his years at Apple, and is angling to get OpenAI's first devices to market as soon as next year. watch nowVIDEO3:5103:51Apple's former design chief Jony Ive and OpenAI to work on AI devicesTechCheck In December, OpenAI hired Google's Albert Lee to lead corporate development, a sign that the company was on the hunt for more targets. It's purchased several startups across a range of industries since then, including software startup Astral, cybersecurity startup Promptfoo, and health-tech startup Torch. OpenAI's last big splashy acquisition came in the form of a developer rather than a company. In February, the company hired Peter Steinberger, the Austrian software developer behind the viral AI assistant OpenClaw. Much like the surprise TBPN announcement, news of the Steinberger hire lit up social media. Newman said Altman is likely trying to figure out the company's next focus area, and whether there's "an M&A path to relevance.""He hasn't succeeded with a lot of other big, ambitious ideas yet," Newman said. Founded in 2024 by hosts John Coogan and Jordi Hays, TBPN quickly rose to prominence within Silicon Valley, cultivating a loyal audience of investors, founders and tech workers. The company has less than 60,000 subscribers on YouTube, but high-profile guests like Altman, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg regularly appear on the show. In a memo to employees on Thursday, Fidji Simo, OpenAI's CEO of Applications, said the company believes it has a "responsibility to help create a space for a real, constructive conversation about the changes AI creates." OpenAI will leverage TBPN's "amazing comms and marketing instincts," Simo said, though she added that TBPN will make its "own editorial decisions." Andrew Frank, an analyst at Gartner, said TBPN wasn't on his "bingo card" as an acquisition candidate. But he said it could make sense if seen as a way for OpenAI to counter the narrative that AI is a danger. "If you're a company like OpenAI, where everyone is kind of leaning forward for news, I think that you just need an established outlet through which you can communicate with the broader world," Frank said in an interview. Paul Nary, an M&A professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, doesn't quite get it. "OpenAI acquiring @tbpn makes zero sense to me," he wrote on X. In an interview with CNBC, Nary elaborated on his thinking, and said OpenAI's explanation didn't help much. "We'll give you editorial control, but you'll still be involved in our company," Nary said. "So is there a conflict of interest there, and what does it mean for the business going forward?"Nary said media and entertainment transactions are some of the most likely to fail, but he suggested that TBPN's size doesn't present a lot of financial liability to OpenAI. He does expect the show to change a lot over time. "What this looks like a year from now, in terms of the show or what the founders are doing, I think that there will be something different going on from what it is today," Nary said.WATCH: OpenAI sees more opportunity in enterprise, coding AI than consumer side watch nowVIDEO4:1804:18OpenAI sees more opportunity in enterprise, coding AI than consumer side: Big Technology's KantrowitzThe Exchange Choose CNBC as your preferred source on Google and never miss a moment from the most trusted name in business news.

Amaravati is now unstoppable with Parliament passing the Bill granting legal status to the capital, Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu said, describing it as a victory for the five crore people of Andhra Pradesh and for the people’s capital View More