The topic of sucession planning has created a constant buzz around Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE:BRKa) (NYSE:BRKb) for years now. The question of succession at Berkshire isn't completely without merit, but it's pretty close, and it has been asked so many times that you have to wonder what makes people think the answers have changed materially or that it isn't an item regularly reviewed by the board.

Going into my first shareholder meeting a week ago, I knew that Buffett and Munger are easily among the greatest investors to walk our earth, but it wasn't clear to me just how knowledgeable they are across many other subjects -- many not even directly related to business. Buffett and Munger are not just students of investing, but students of business in general -- and numerous other subjects. Given this large appetite for knowledge and the ability to understand the interrelatedness of many different subjects, the idea of succession planning being overlooked at Berkshire Hathaway seems difficult to imagine.

But the questions don't stop. Looking over my notes, I count two questions from shareholders at the annual meeting and one from a reporter at the press conference on the topic of succession. I'm sure if I had been able to attend the meeting in previous years I would have noticed a similar dynamic. It's almost as though people think the eventual outcome will improve by continually asking the question.

Berkshire is by no means the first company to have to field questions of succession on a repeated basis. In the mid '90s, after Jack Welch's heart attack and bypass surgery, General Electric (NYSE:GE) and its CEO were barraged with questions regarding succession planning. You could also argue that succession planning is a concern at KimcoRealty (NYSE:KIM), as Milton Cooper is one year Buffett's senior and has steered Kimco to tremendous long-term returns. But the leadership change that is likely to happen at Kimco is more obvious, since other members of the company's leadership team have been taking more visible roles the last few years.

Berkshire's plan is more like General Electric's plan. After Jack Welch's surgery, he and the board of directors created a list of candidates who were ready to take over if something unfortunate should happen to Welch. That list was then regularly reviewed and updated as necessary. From all I've read about Berkshire's plans, they are similar to GE's, and as a shareholder I see no problem with the process.

The similarities in succession models between GE and Berkshire make some sense. Both companies have diverse operations that require independent management teams at each business. Almost all of those managers one level down are extremely talented in their own right, and it's perfectly reasonable that a few could fill the top spot if needed. For reasons why this process is so important and valuable to a company, you don't have to look further than McDonald's (NYSE:MCD) and its multiple changes in the CEO seat the past couple of years. The changes were forced by the heart attack of Jim Cantalupo and the ultimate resignation of his successor, Charlie Bell, to fight cancer. In both cases, McDonald's had a plan and was ready to handle the adversity of a change in leadership.

The question of succession at Berkshire is often considered a bit more unique, given Buffett and Munger's long-term investing results. But this concern largely misses the point, because while Buffett and Munger are outstanding investors, the culture and operations that they've put in place will allow the business to endure, even if they're not making individual investment decisions.

Will the new guy deliver investment results that rival Buffett and Munger? My guess is no. But it would be damn near impossible to post those kinds of results, since Berkshire is a much larger company now, and both Buffett and Munger have lamented that size is in some ways a hindrance to their own performance today. What's far more important is that the operating businesses continue to function as they have and that the overall culture at Berkshire doesn't change. I think Berkshire is set up well in this regard and Buffett's response to one of the shareholder questions on succession and management training backs it up:

There will be stories a year after I die headlined "Berkshire: One Year Later," but that will fade out and my successor will put his own particular stamp on the place. Even after I'm gone, Berkshire will have the reputation of being a one-of-a-kind place for a business owner who cares about the future of his business, but has to sell for some tax or family reason.

Foolish final thoughts
It is pretty much a guarantee that questions of succession planning at Berkshire won't cease in years to come. It's also fairly likely that when it comes time for Buffett or Munger to step aside, Berkshire's share price will fall in the short term. If it does, it will probably be an opportunity, and I think Charlie Munger clearly summed up why at the annual meeting when he said:

If Warren has kept the faith until he is 75 years old, do you really think he'll blow the faith now? What could be more important? You all have something more important to do than worry that the candle is going to go out of Berkshire just because some people die. At Berkshire, we aren't training execs, we find them. And they aren't hard to find. If a mountain stands up like Everest, you don't have to be a genius to notice that it stands out.

It's tough to put it any better than that, folks.

Looking for other consistent performers? Sign up today for a free 30-day guest pass to our Motley Fool Income Investor newsletter service.

Nathan Parmelee owns shares in Berkshire Hathaway, but has no financial stake in any of the other companies mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy .