By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel generally agrees that Berkshire Hathaway's avoidance of healthcare is a deliberate strategy rather than an oversight, driven by regulatory risks, pricing pressure, and scale constraints. They caution retail investors about chasing 'defensive healthcare' stocks due to valuation risks, patent cliffs, and potential structural shifts in the sector.
Risk: Valuation risks, patent cliffs, and potential structural shifts in the sector, such as Medicare Advantage margin compression and government pricing pressure.
Opportunity: Selective pharma bets with strong pricing power and durable competitive advantages.
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
Buffett, as CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, delivered six decades of market-beating returns.
Abel took over the CEO role in January and aims to follow the path traced by the investing giant.
Investors have long looked to Warren Buffett for investing inspiration. This is because the billionaire, as chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway for 60 years, led the company to market-beating returns over that time period. He did this by investing in industries and companies he knew well, and he put a focus on players with solid competitive advantages.
Buffett retired from the job at the start of this year and handed the responsibility over to Greg Abel -- and this new CEO has promised to follow in the footsteps of the legendary investor. Buffett also remains chairman and has said he's willing to help out however and whenever needed.
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
Though Buffett and now Abel have constructed and maintained a portfolio that includes many sectors, there is one sector in particular that both of these investing giants are largely ignoring. And here's why investors shouldn't.
So, first, let's take a quick look at the Berkshire Hathaway portfolio. Its biggest holding, opened by Buffett many years ago, is Apple -- Buffett doesn't generally invest in tech players, but he has made exceptions, for example, opening a position in Alphabet last year. And Abel added to it in the first quarter of this year. At the moment, these are the fund's only tech stocks.
Meanwhile, the portfolio holds a wide range of stocks across finance, consumer goods, and communications, and a couple of energy and materials players. But the one sector that's almost completely absent is... drum roll... healthcare. The portfolio includes only kidney care giant DaVita, a stock Buffett added back in 2011.
Abel closed out a position in health insurance giant UnitedHealth Group in the first quarter of the year -- Berkshire Hathaway had that position since the second quarter of last year.
So, it's fair to say Buffett and Abel are pretty much absent from the healthcare space. Why should you take the opposite path? It's important to note that, while it's a great idea to seek investing inspiration from experts like Buffett and Abel, their investing needs, priorities, and resources may be quite different from yours. So while you may follow them into certain stocks and industries, it's probably not a good idea to follow every move.
The healthcare industry represents a clear opportunity for investors, offering a wide range of offerings to suit many investment styles. For example, an aggressive investor might choose a pharma or biotech company operating in a high-growth area such as the weight loss drug market. Leader Eli Lilly (NYSE: LLY) has seen earnings and its stock price skyrocket, and this growth story may have many chapters left. (The obesity drug market is on track to reach almost $100 billion by the end of the decade.) Growth investors may also look for potential new entrants here, such as biotech Viking Therapeutics.
And if this is your investment style, you might find plenty of exciting possibilities in the area of biotech as these companies are exploring cutting-edge therapies -- and any wins could result in explosive gains for the stocks.
For example, Intellia Therapeutics launched a rolling submission for its gene editing candidate for swelling disorder, hereditary angioedema. If all goes smoothly, I wouldn't be surprised to see Intellia meet Wall Street's forecast for a 115% increase in the stock price over the coming 12 months.
Meanwhile, cautious investors or those looking for dividend income have a plethora of choices in the area of healthcare. Since patients need their medicines and procedures regardless of the economic background, this sector generally offers investors access to steady earnings growth over time. And this steady growth means many of these companies have the financial resources to commit to dividend payments. Some, such as Johnson & Johnson and Abbott Laboratories, have even increased their dividends for more than 50 years, winning them a spot on the Dividend Kings list.
All of this means that, though it's a great idea to follow some of the moves of investing giants Warren Buffett and his Berkshire Hathaway successor Greg Abel, it's also wise to make some independent moves. And one of them should be considering the high-potential sector of healthcare.
Before you buy stock in Eli Lilly, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Eli Lilly wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $449,393! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,366,006!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 983% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 212% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
**Stock Advisor returns as of June 3, 2026. *
Adria Cimino has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Abbott Laboratories, Alphabet, Apple, Berkshire Hathaway, Eli Lilly, and Intellia Therapeutics. The Motley Fool recommends Johnson & Johnson, UnitedHealth Group, and Viking Therapeutics. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Buffett/Abel's lack of healthcare exposure isn't a mistake but a disciplined risk-adjusted allocation; the article overreads a single sector bet as a miss."
Buffett’s and Abel’s star turn isn’t a healthcare omission so much as a calibrated, long-horizon playbook. The piece treats Berkshire’s underweight as a cognitive misstep rather than a deliberate risk/return choice: chasing high-growth healthcare names—especially at frothy valuations and with patent cliffs—presents outsized downside if regulatory winds shift. Berkshire’s strength lies in capital allocation, insurance float, and durable moats, not in following thematic rotations. The article also glosses over the caveats: UnitedHealth removal, DaVita’s idiosyncrasies, and the limits of Indispensable Monopoly ideas in public markets. A healthcare tilt could work, but it’s not a Buffett-invoked free pass.
Still, a strong counter is that healthcare has persistent demand and pricing power; Lilly and peers could deliver durable returns, and Berkshire's refusal to chase can leave a sizable opportunity on the table.
"Buffett’s absence from healthcare is a strategic avoidance of binary regulatory and clinical risks rather than a failure to recognize sector potential."
The article's premise that Berkshire Hathaway 'ignores' healthcare is fundamentally flawed. Buffett avoids the sector not because he misses the opportunity, but because healthcare is plagued by 'regulatory moats' and binary clinical trial risks that defy his 'circle of competence' framework. When Berkshire invests, it demands predictable, long-term cash flows and durable competitive advantages. Pharma and biotech are inherently volatile, with patent cliffs and political pricing pressure creating a high-beta environment that clashes with Berkshire’s capital allocation model. Investors should view healthcare not as a missing piece of the Buffett puzzle, but as a sector that requires a fundamentally different risk-management philosophy than value-oriented conglomerate investing.
One could argue that by avoiding the sector entirely, Berkshire is missing out on the massive, non-cyclical demographic tailwinds of an aging global population that will spend on healthcare regardless of GDP growth.
"The article mistakes Buffett's capital-allocation constraints and risk preferences for a market inefficiency, when his healthcare exit and avoidance more likely signal valuation and regulatory risk that retail investors are underpricing."
The article's core argument—that Buffett's healthcare absence creates opportunity—conflates two separate questions: why Berkshire avoids it, and whether retail investors should buy it. Buffett's avoidance likely reflects scale constraints (Berkshire is $900B+; healthcare deals don't move the needle) and regulatory/pricing risk, not mispricing. The article then pivots to cherry-picked winners (LLY up 300%+ YTD, Intellia with 115% Wall Street target) without addressing valuation. LLY trades ~60x forward earnings on obesity drug hype; J&J and Abbott's 50-year dividend streaks don't guarantee future returns in a higher-rate environment. The article also buried Abel's UnitedHealth exit—a data point suggesting healthcare headwinds, not tailwinds.
Healthcare's defensive moat (inelastic demand, pricing power) and demographic tailwinds (aging populations) are real, and Buffett's absence may simply reflect his personal risk aversion rather than fundamental unattractiveness—meaning retail investors with longer time horizons and smaller position sizes could outperform by taking the opposite bet.
"Berkshire's deliberate healthcare absence likely reflects policy and complexity risks that the article understates relative to headline growth narratives."
Berkshire's near-total exit from healthcare—retaining only DaVita while closing UnitedHealth—signals deliberate avoidance rather than neglect. The article correctly notes growth in obesity drugs and dividend durability but downplays sector-specific risks: heavy regulatory exposure, clinical failure rates in biotech, and elevated multiples on leaders like Eli Lilly. Investors copying Abel's path into tech while skipping healthcare may be following Buffett's actual pattern of high-conviction, understandable moats over thematic bets.
Demographics and pipeline breakthroughs could still deliver durable earnings growth that swamps regulatory or valuation concerns, as healthcare has repeatedly done in prior cycles.
"Valuation risk in defensive healthcare is underappreciated; high forward multiples depend on stable policy and multi-decade growth that may not hold in a higher-rate world."
Claude points out moat and demographics, but the leap from 'defensive' to 'buyable' ignores rate-driven valuation risk. If LLY truly earns 8-10% organic growth for a decade, a 60x forward multiple might be justified; but even minor regulatory shifts or payer reforms can cut long-dated cash flows, compressing multiples fast in a high-rate regime. Retail investors chasing 'defensive healthcare' could underperform if sentiment shifts or patent cliffs accelerate.
"The defensive moat of healthcare is crumbling due to structural margin compression in the payer-provider ecosystem, not just high valuations."
Claude and ChatGPT focus on valuation, but both ignore the 'payer' problem. Healthcare isn't just about patent cliffs; it's about the erosion of the private insurance model. As Medicare Advantage margins compress—a trend visible in the recent UnitedHealth volatility—the entire sector's 'defensive' moat is leaking. Berkshire isn't just avoiding biotech volatility; they are likely avoiding a structural shift where the government, not the consumer, dictates the terminal value of these massive, aging-population-dependent cash flows.
"Healthcare's payer crisis is real, but it's an insurer problem, not a pharma problem—and Berkshire's exit from UnitedHealth doesn't indict LLY."
Gemini's 'payer erosion' thesis is underexplored and cuts deeper than valuation. Medicare Advantage margin compression is real—UnitedHealth's Q3 guidance miss wasn't noise. But Gemini conflates government pricing pressure with sector unattractiveness. Pharma (LLY, JNJ) has pricing power independent of MA; insurers face it directly. Berkshire likely avoids insurers for this reason, not pharma. The article's silence on this structural split—between drug makers and payers—is the real omission.
"Berkshire's selective exits expose sector-wide reimbursement risks that affect pharma too."
Claude's pharma-versus-payers split overlooks Berkshire's broader pattern: exiting UnitedHealth while clinging only to DaVita signals aversion to the whole sector's intertwined regulatory and reimbursement risks, not just insurers. This makes selective pharma bets riskier than claimed, as government pricing pressure can still cascade through drug makers via Medicare negotiations and payer leverage.
The panel generally agrees that Berkshire Hathaway's avoidance of healthcare is a deliberate strategy rather than an oversight, driven by regulatory risks, pricing pressure, and scale constraints. They caution retail investors about chasing 'defensive healthcare' stocks due to valuation risks, patent cliffs, and potential structural shifts in the sector.
Selective pharma bets with strong pricing power and durable competitive advantages.
Valuation risks, patent cliffs, and potential structural shifts in the sector, such as Medicare Advantage margin compression and government pricing pressure.