Berkshire Hathaway's
But which one is more integral to the success of his company? I asked some of our top analysts. Here's what they had to say.
Matt Koppenheffer, Fool contributor
I'm going to go with Steve Jobs on this one. I have a tendency to dog Apple's stock -- mainly because of the valuation and the company's determined stance against dividends -- but the transformation that Apple has made from the late '90s to today is nothing short of incredible, and Jobs has been the driver of that turnaround. And when we talk about the magic that Jobs brings to the table, we can't forget the hugely successful Pixar -- now owned by Disney
This isn't to minimize the impact that Buffett has had on Berkshire Hathaway. To a large extent, Buffett is Berkshire Hathaway. However, it seems that in recent years, Buffett has been increasingly positioning Berkshire to be able to keep on keeping on once he's no longer at the helm. The massive acquisition of Burlington Northern Santa Fe last year is a perfect example -- it's a huge, stable operating company that will eat up a lot of capital in the form of capital expenses, in exchange for, as Buffett put it, "reasonable" returns.
And with a stock portfolio loaded down with major positions in Coca-Cola
Morgan Housel, Fool contributor
Jobs, for sure.
Jobs' role at Apple is the captain of a ship that reinvents itself every three years or so. If he were to die tomorrow, Apple could be ruptured fairly soon without its visionary. He's like Jordan was to the Bulls. A pillar of its success.
Berkshire doesn't need that kind of leader, because Buffett is just the buyer, not the operator and innovator, of its assets. He bought companies when they were tiny and undervalued, and now they're huge profit machines. These subsidiaries don't rely on Buffett in the slightest, and in fact he goes out of his way to leave them alone.
When Buffett dies, no one will stop drinking Coke or buying GEICO insurance. When Jobs dies, Apple may struggle to innovate in the future. (Wow, how did I turn this into such a mortal subject?)
Tim Beyers, Fool contributor and Rule Breakers analyst
Are we seriously asking this question? We've never seen Berkshire run by anyone other than Buffett. Jobs, on the other hand, secretly went under the knife and then left Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook in charge of Apple for six months.
And not just any six months. Shortly after Jobs left for medical leave, Apple settled a dispute with IBM to allow chip guru Mark Papermaster join the company and manage the design team acquired with PA Semi. Today, the A4 processor -- which this team helped create -- is at the heart of both the iPad and the latest iPhone.
Could the capable team at Berkshire handle a similarly massive shift in focus without Buffett? Maybe, but we haven't seen the evidence the way we have with Apple.
Rick Munarriz, Fool contributor and Rule Breakers analyst
Berkshire Hathaway's shares will undoubtedly take a hit the day that Buffett moves on. No offense, Charlie Munger, but it's true. This is an investment company, and it's no different than buying into Biglari Holdings
Apple, on the other hand, can survive without Jobs. It had no problem thriving last year during his health-related absence. There may never be another charismatic chieftain donning the black turtleneck, but Apple will continue to crank out cool products to the masses that will gladly pay a premium for them.
In short, I would be more worried about a brain transplant at Berkshire than a liver transplant at Apple.
Alex Dumortier, CFA, Fool contributor
Both of these men are iconic leaders, both founded the companies they preside over, and both are somewhat overrated in terms of their importance to their organization. However, I'm going with Steve Jobs, and here's why: In Berkshire Hathaway, Warren Buffett has built a robust portfolio of businesses in stable industries that are well-run by their own managements. Beyond that, his lasting contribution has been to foster a culture at Berkshire that will survive him.
The greatest challenge post-Buffett will be to try to reproduce Buffett's prowess at capital allocation, but even that is not perhaps as daunting as it appears: With the Burlington Northern deal, Buffett signaled that Berkshire is willing to acquire companies that earn lower, utility-like returns. Furthermore, we know that he is tracking a number of candidates to succeed him as chief investment officer.
Meanwhile, Steve Jobs' progeny, Apple, operates in an industry that is subject to disruptive shifts in technology and customer behavior. Indeed, Jobs is a true technology visionary who has been responsible for a few of those shifts himself. As I wrote recently, "there is no company today that exemplifies the promise of the Holy Grail of 'digital convergence' like Apple" -- and that is largely Jobs' doing. Unfortunately, his combination of vision and drive is exceptionally rare and more vital to Apple's continued success than Buffett's uncommon investing talent is to Berkshire.
Anand Chokkavelu, CFA, Fool Editor
This is a tough one.
Warren Buffett is his company. In fact, we frequently talk about Berkshire Hathaway's moves by saying "Warren Buffett bought x company." You can't separate the two.
Meanwhile, Steve Jobs is a true visionary. As Matt pointed out earlier, he's the man behind both Pixar and Apple. Amazing. As for the argument that Jobs was out for six months and Apple did just fine, I dissent. You don't need Steve Jobs to roll out the latest version of the iPhone -- you need him to figure out what's next, and make that next truly awesome.
This matchup is pretty much a tie for me, but I'll go with Buffett on this principle: I bought shares of Berkshire Hathaway during the economic downturn because companies like Goldman Sachs and General Electric were throwing sweetheart deals at him that no one else could get. That reputation can't be replaced.
We're deadlocked 3 to 3 on Buffett vs. Jobs. Break the tie in the comments section below. Or go read our roundtable on whether Apple or Google is a better buy.
