explain

It’s the end of an era on Wall Street. In less than four months, Berkshire Hathaway‘s (BRK.A -1.26%) (BRK.B -1.40%) Warren Buffett will retire from the CEO role he’s held for six decades. During his 60 years at the helm, he’s overseen a roughly 6,140,000% cumulative gain in his company’s Class A shares (BRK.A), which compares quite favorably to the roughly 43,300% total return, including dividends, delivered by the benchmark S&P 500 (^GSPC -0.32%) over the same timeline.

The Oracle of Omaha’s outperformance has made him the most-followed money manager on Wall Street, with some investors riding his coattails to substantial long-term gains.

Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett. Image source: The Motley Fool.

But the other factor — aside from market-crushing returns — investors have come to appreciate about Buffett is his willingness to share his thoughts and the company traits he looks for when taking stakes in wonderful businesses. Whether it’s Berkshire’s annual shareholder letter or the company’s yearly meeting, Buffett is no stranger to offering up nuggets of wisdom.

While books have been written about Warren Buffett’s investment ideals, four ominous words from Berkshire’s latest shareholder letter perfectly encapsulate why he’s such a phenomenal investor, and explain why his recent investment activity sends a clear warning to Wall Street.

Warren Buffett sends a $344 billion warning to Wall Street using just four words

Investors are likely aware of some of the Oracle of Omaha’s core principles. For example, Buffett prefers to buy stakes in companies with sustainable competitive advantages, strong management teams, and hearty capital return programs. He also looks at investments as multiyear or multidecade commitments, with eight stocks in Berkshire’s portfolio currently considered “indefinite” holdings.

But possibly the best investment advice Buffett has ever offered, which perfectly encapsulates the promise and peril of the stock market, was penned in Berkshire Hathaway’s latest annual shareholder letter. While discussing where his company has money allocated, Buffett proclaimed, “Often, nothing looks compelling.”

At his core, Berkshire’s billionaire boss is an unwavering value investor. Though there are some unwritten “Buffett rules” that sometimes get broken, such as investing for the short-term via an arbitrage opportunity, Berkshire’s head honcho isn’t willing to buy a stock if its valuation doesn’t make sense.

Warren Buffett Indicator hits 215%, the most expensive stock market valuation in history 👀 pic.twitter.com/kjnbGN67be

— Barchart (@Barchart) August 29, 2025

At the moment, stock valuations are historically expensive. Keeping in mind that valuation is subjective, the affably dubbed “Buffett Indicator” recently hit an all-time high. This valuation measure adds up the cumulative market cap of all public companies in the U.S. and divides this figure by U.S. gross domestic product (GDP).

The market cap-to-GDP ratio, which has averaged closer to 85% of U.S. GDP when back-tested to 1970, surpassed 214% in late August. In other words, finding value has been exceedingly difficult for Buffett and his team.

Beginning in October 2022, the Oracle of Omaha began selling more stock than he was purchasing. This net-selling activity has been ongoing for 11 consecutive quarters (Oct. 1, 2022 – June 30, 2025), totaling $177.4 billion in net stock sales. All the while, Berkshire Hathaway’s cash pile, which includes cash, cash equivalents, and U.S. Treasuries, has ballooned to a near-record $344.1 billion.

Despite sitting on $344 billion in capital, Buffett prefers to be a net-seller of stocks, and isn’t even buying shares of his own company any longer. It’s as direct a warning as Wall Street will get from Berkshire’s billionaire chief.

Image source: Getty Images.

Patience pays off handsomely in the stock market

Though Buffett’s ominous advice – “often, nothing looks compelling” — perfectly explains why he’s been more of a seller than a buyer amid a historically pricey stock market, it also provides a backdrop of how Berkshire’s boss has been able to deliver outsized returns spanning six decades.

Fundamentally, Warren Buffett is well aware that the U.S. economy and stock market have both expanded over the long run. Even though recessions and stock market corrections are normal and inevitable aspects of respective economic and stock market cycles, optimism prevails over long periods. This means being patient and waiting for price dislocations to become apparent is a winning and time-tested strategy — in case the nearly 6,140,000% aggregate return for Berkshire’s Class A shares didn’t give it away.

In August 2011, shortly after the worst of the financial crisis, the Oracle of Omaha engineered a $5 billion stake in Bank of America (BAC -1.29%) preferred stock. While Bank of America wasn’t desperate for cash, it wasn’t going to turn down the opportunity to shore up its balance sheet amid ongoing litigation and a still-uncertain loan portfolio.

When Buffett initially made this investment, Bank of America’s common stock was trading at a 62% discount to its book value. But in the summer of 2017, Berkshire exercised its warrants to purchase 700 million shares of BofA stock at $7.14 per share. This August 2011 price dislocation instantly netted Berkshire a $12 billion (unrealized) profit, which has since grown even larger.

Berkshire’s billionaire CEO recognized a price dislocation with Apple (AAPL -0.16%), as well, in early 2016. The maker of the beloved iPhone was trading at just 10 to 15 times forward-year earnings nine years ago, which is an inexpensive valuation for a company that had been consistently growing by high single digits to low double digits annually. Apple stock has jumped approximately tenfold since Buffett first entered the position, with artificial intelligence euphoria and the company’s rapidly growing services segment doing a lot of the heavy lifting.

Although it can be frustrating waiting for Warren Buffett and his top advisors to deploy Berkshire Hathaway’s treasure chest, being patient has paid off handsomely for decades. When price dislocations do become apparent in the future, Buffett or his successor Greg Abel will be ready to pounce.

Spain is by far the most popular country among UK travellers, with close to 18 million of us visiting in 2023 — far more than the 9.2 million who took a trip to second-place France

“The message we are receiving loud and clear from locals, especially in the islands and where we usually visit in Andalucia, is that we should stay away and are not welcome.”

That is how Mirror reader Allan Wilcox feels. He, like millions of Brits, is a regular visitor to Spain. In fact, Spain is by far the most popular country among UK travellers, with close to 18 million of us visiting in 2023 — far more than the 9.2 million who took a trip to second-place France.

While it would be absurd to suggest that the country’s love affair with Spain and its incredible culture, food and drink, spectacular weather, and general good vibes is over, there is undeniably a groundswell of frustration at a shift in attitude on the Iberian Peninsula. This comes amid a warning about the quality of breaks in Benidorm.

READ MORE: Spanish beach bars demand urgent action as they reveal cost of Brits staying awayREAD MORE: Spain holidays warning for Ryanair passengers as strikes set to hit 12 major airports

A lot of Brits have taken overtourism protests to heart, heeding the words of campaigners who say that mass tourism is killing the culture of destinations including the Canaries and the Balearic Islands; the strident messages slapped on walls by graffiti artists; and the actions of protesters who squirted holidaymakers in Barcelona.

Each week many of them email in to the Mirror’s travel desk ([email protected]) to share their views on trips to Spain and whether they’re still planning holidays in the country of 48 million.

Although it would be unfair to suggest that their views are completely typical of the UK population at large, particularly given the small sample size, a clear anti-Spanish holiday sentiment has emerged.

Sarah Meager has been particularly frustrated by new laws that prohibit smoking and vaping on terraces. She was dismayed to discover that the law covered private terraces when it comes to holiday villas and hotels.

“We discovered this in Lanzarote in February. You are not even allowed on the terrace of your own room. It is a ridiculous decision. Even if only one member of a group smokes it means you just can’t relax and enjoy yourself,” she explained.

Kevin Durkin is a committed Spain holidaymaker, having visited the country many times over a 30-year period. “Over the last few years, the anti-British sentiment has just grown. Some bar owners have put up signs telling the British to keep away and some hotel owners don’t want us either,” he said.

“I do not need Spain, they can keep their latest charges and hatred of the British. I will not be back, neither will my friends or family. Adios.”

Kevin, who speaks Spanish and moved to the country several years ago, admitted that most of the ire from locals was directed towards “the loud British element, usually fuelled by alcohol”, and that respectful tourists were unlikely to be bothered.

For Linda Munro, overcrowding was a major issue. She flew into Majorca, where the airport has been struggling with long queues this summer. “Border control is very, very stressful and must be putting families off,” she recalled.

“My husband and I got through the scanners, no problem. However, the rest of the family had to queue for an hour and a half. On the way back, it was worse, as people were worried they might miss their flights home. Our family just made it on time. They all said they wouldn’t be back abroad anytime soon.”

Allan Wilcox is a committed visitor of Spain and is “happy to spend our money supporting local businesses. These include restaurants, bars, hotels and shops.” Since overtourism protests began however, he has started to feel unwelcome.

“The message we are receiving loud and clear from locals, especially in the islands and where we usually visit in Andalucia, is that we should stay away and are not welcome. Since the local feelings appear so strong and tourists have to run the gauntlet of being shouted or spat at or have to endure intimidating protests, we are no longer happy to visit the country under these conditions,” Allan said.

“Consequently, we have decided to holiday elsewhere and have not visited Spain for the past couple of years.”

How do you feel about taking a holiday to Spain? We’d love to hear your thoughts. Please email [email protected]

Angela Rayner has given China two weeks to explain why parts of its plans for a new mega-embassy in London are redacted.

The deputy prime minister’s Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government sent a letter asking for further information and requested a response by 20 August, the BBC understands.

Beijing’s plans for the new embassy have sparked fears its location – very near London’s financial district – could pose an espionage risk. Residents nearby also fear it would pose a security risk to them and attract large protests.

The BBC has contacted the Chinese embassy in London for comment.

A final planning decision on the controversial plans will be made by 9 September, the BBC understands.

In a letter seen by the PA news agency, Rayner, who as housing secretary is responsible for overseeing planning matters, asks planning consultants representing the Chinese embassy to explain why drawings of the planned site are blacked out.

The Home Office and the Foreign Office also received copies of the letter.

It notes that the Home Office requested a new “hard perimeter” be placed around the embassy site, to prevent “unregulated public access”, and says this could require a further planning application.

There are concerns, held by some opponents, that the Royal Mint Court site could allow China to infiltrate the UK’s financial system by tapping into fibre optic cables carrying sensitive data for firms in the City of London.

Pro-democracy campaigners from Hong Kong also fear Beijing could use the huge embassy to harass political opponents and even detain them. Last month, the UK condemned cash offers from Hong Kong authorities for people who help in the arrest of pro-democracy activists living in Britain.

Alicia Kearns, the shadow national security minister, said: “No surprises here – Labour’s rush to appease Xi Jinping’s demands for a new embassy demonstrated a complacency when it came to keeping our people safe. Having deluded themselves for so long, they’ve recognised we were right to be vigilant.”

Responding to security concerns earlier this week, the Chinese embassy told the BBC it was “committed to promoting understanding and the friendship between the Chinese and British peoples and the development of mutually beneficial cooperation between the two countries. Building the new embassy would help us better perform such responsibilities”.

China bought the old Royal Mint Court for £255m in 2018. At 20,000 square metres, the complex will be the biggest embassy in Europe if it goes ahead.

The plan involves a cultural centre and housing for 200 staff, but in the basement, behind security doors, there are also rooms with no identified use on the plans.

Beijing’s application for the embassy had previously been rejected by Tower Hamlets Council in 2022 over safety and security concerns.

It resubmitted an identical application in August 2024, one month after Labour came to power.

On 23 August, Sir Keir Starmer phoned Chinese President Xi Jinping for their first talks. Sir Keir confirmed afterwards that Xi had raised the embassy issue.

Rayner has since exercised her power to take the matter out of the council’s hands amid attempts by the government to engage with China after a cooling of relations during the final years of Conservative Party rule.

Senior ministers have signalled they are in favour if minor adjustments are made to the plan.

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach) is calling on Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to explain why the Trump administration has repeatedly ordered cuts to HIV/AIDS programs both at home and abroad.

In a letter to Kennedy dated Thursday, Garcia asserted that the cabinet secretary has a history of peddling misinformation about the virus and disease, and that the planned cuts — which he called “alarming and unprecedented” — would cost lives.

“We are concerned that your motivations for disrupting HIV funding and delaying preventative services and research are grounded not in sound science, but in misinformation and disinformation you have spread previously about HIV and AIDS, including your repeated claim that HIV does not cause AIDS,” wrote Garcia, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee.

A Health and Human Services spokesperson said Kennedy remains committed to science-based public health, that critical HIV/AIDS programs will continue under his leadership, and that ongoing investments in such work demonstrate that commitment.

Both President Trump and Kennedy have previously defended the sweeping cuts to Health and Human Services programs and staff under Kennedy’s leadership. Agency spokespeople have said they would allow for a greater focus on Kennedy’s priorities of “ending America’s epidemic of chronic illness by focusing on safe, wholesome food, clean water, and the elimination of environmental toxins.”

Kennedy has said the department under his watch “will do more — a lot more — at a lower cost to the taxpayer.”

Garcia’s letter — which he co-wrote with Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), the ranking Democrat on the Health Care and Financial Services subcommittee — requested that the health department produce a list of all HIV/AIDS-related funding it has cut and an explanation for how those funds were identified for elimination, as well as other documentation and communications around several of the largest cuts.

The letter is the latest attempt by Democrats, in coordination with health experts and LGBTQ+ organizations, to challenge what they see as an inexplicable yet coordinated effort by the Trump administration to dismantle public health initiatives aimed at controlling and ultimately ending one of the most devastating and deadly epidemics in human history.

It comes the same day that Senate Republicans agreed to a Trump administration request to claw back billions of dollars in funding for public media and foreign aid, but declined an earlier White House request to include in those cuts about $400 million in HIV/AIDS funding for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, which is credited with saving millions of lives in some of the poorest nations around the world.

The House had previously voted for an earlier version of the measure that did cut the funding for PEPFAR, which was started by President George W. Bush in 2003. However, senators pushed for the restoration of the funding before agreeing to sign the broader rescission package.

The House must now approve the Senate version of the measure by Friday for it to take effect.

In an interview with The Times, Garcia said he has long viewed Kennedy as a dangerous “conspiracy theorist” who has “peddled in all sorts of lies” about HIV, vaccines and other medical science. Now that Kennedy is Health secretary, he said, the American people deserve to know whether national and international health decisions are being driven by his baseless personal beliefs.

“Folks need to understand what he’s trying to do, and I think that he has to be responsible and be held accountable for his actions,” Garcia said.

In their letter, Garcia and Krishnamoorthi noted that recent scientific advancements — including the creation of new preventative drugs — are making the eradication of HIV more attainable than ever. And yet Kennedy and the Trump administration are pushing the nation and the world in the opposite direction, they said.

“Since taking office, the Trump Administration has systematically attacked HIV-related funding and blocked critical HIV-related services and care for those who need it most,” Garcia and Krishnamoorthi wrote. “These disruptions would threaten Americans most at risk of contracting HIV, and many people living with HIV will get sicker or infect others without programs they rely on for treatment.”

The letter outlines a number of examples of such cuts, including:

• The elimination of the HIV prevention division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and termination or delay of billions of dollars in HIV prevention grants from that office.
• The termination of a $258-million program within the National Institutes of Health to find a vaccine to prevent new HIV infections.
• The termination of dozens of NIH grants for HIV research, particularly around preventing new infections among Black and Latino gay men who are disproportionately at risk of contracting the virus.
• The targeting of HIV prevention initiatives abroad, including PEPFAR.
• The U.S. drawing back from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

Many in the medical and foreign aid community expressed grave concerns about Kennedy being appointed as Health secretary, in part because of his past remarks about HIV/AIDS. Kennedy told a reporter for New York Magazine as recently as June 2023 that there “are much better candidates than H.I.V. for what causes AIDS.”

In their letter, Garcia and Krishnamoorthi called out a specific theory shared by Kennedy that the recreational drug known as “poppers” may cause AIDS, rather than the HIV virus, writing, “We are deeply concerned that the Trump Administration’s HIV-related funding cuts are indiscriminate, rooted in a political agenda, and not at all in the interest of public health.”

Kennedy’s skepticism about the link between HIV and AIDS conflicts with well established science that has long been accepted by the medical establishment, and by the federal government. Studies around the world have proved the link, and found that HIV is the only common factor in AIDS cases.

In August 2023, about a week before Kennedy threw his support behind Trump, his presidential campaign addressed the controversy surrounding his “poppers” comment, stating that Kennedy did not believe poppers were “the sole cause” of AIDS, but contended they were “a significant factor in the disease progression” of early patients in the 1980s.

Garcia and Krishnamoorthi also noted a successful effort by local officials and advocates in Los Angeles County to get about $20 million in HIV/AIDS funding restored last month, after it and similar funding nationwide was frozen by the Trump administration.

The restoration of those funds followed another letter sent to Kennedy by Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Glendale) and other House members, who cited estimates from the Foundation for AIDS Research, known as amfAR, that the nationwide cuts could lead to 127,000 additional deaths from AIDS-related causes within five years.

Garcia and Krishnamoorthi cited the same statistics in their letter.

In his interview with The Times, Garcia, who is gay, also said the LGBTQ+ community “is rightly outraged” at Kennedy’s actions to date and deserves to know if Kennedy “is using his own conspiracy theories and his own warped view of what the facts are” to dismantle public health infrastructure around HIV and AIDS that they fought for decades to build.