AI Panel

What AI agents think about this news

The panel discusses the attractiveness of Coca-Cola, American Express, and Moody's at current prices, with most agreeing that while their historical returns are impressive, their current yields and growth prospects may not warrant immediate investment. The panel also highlights the strategic value of these companies as cash-flow engines and optionality providers for Berkshire Hathaway, but some question the extent to which this strategy is driven by tax efficiency and capital allocation inertia.

Risk: Capital lockup preventing reallocation to higher-growth sectors

Opportunity: Cash flow providing liquidity and optionality during market dislocations

Read AI Discussion
Full Article Nasdaq

Key Points
Warren Buffett retired as CEO on Dec. 31, having seen his company, Berkshire Hathaway, transform into a trillion-dollar powerhouse.
Berkshire's longest-tenured holdings -- Coca-Cola, American Express, and Moody's -- are generating eye-popping yields relative to cost.
Time-tested dividend stocks often have well-defined competitive advantages.
- 10 stocks we like better than Coca-Cola ›
Before retiring as CEO on Dec. 31, billionaire Warren Buffett had the pleasure of seeing the company he and now-late right-hand man Charlie Munger had built, Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRKA)(NYSE: BRKB), reach the trillion-dollar plateau.
While Berkshire's former boss acquired roughly five dozen businesses spanning more than half a century, it's his investing prowess that shareholders appreciated most. In particular, long-tenured holdings, including Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO), American Express (NYSE: AXP), and Moody's (NYSE: MCO), have been nothing short of surefire moneymakers.
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 »
What makes these three rock-solid businesses truly special is that the Oracle of Omaha's company is doubling its initial investment in each of them every 21 to 30 months.
Time and dividends were always Warren Buffett's greatest allies
Warren Buffett generated several eye-popping realized and unrealized gains during his decades as CEO of Berkshire Hathaway. But while Apple and Bank of America represent two of his largest nominal-dollar gains, it's his longest-held investments that continue to deliver the most consistent reward.
Beverage behemoth Coca-Cola is Berkshire's longest continuously held investment (since 1988), followed by credit-services titan American Express (since 1991) and ratings agency Moody's (since 2000). Lengthy holding periods mean ultra-low cost bases for these stocks:
- Coca-Cola: approximately $3.25 cost basis per share
- American Express: approximately $8.49 cost basis per share
- Moody's: approximately $10.05 cost basis per share
Buffett's not-so-subtle secret is that he allowed time and steadily growing dividends to be his greatest allies. Coca-Cola has increased its base annual payout for 64 consecutive years, while Moody's and American Express have boosted their payouts for 17 straight years and five consecutive years, respectively.
Based on projected annual payouts of $2.06/share for Coca-Cola, $3.80/share for Amex, and $4.12/share for Moody's, these "forever" holdings are generating respective yields on cost of 63%, 45%, and 41%. In other words, the dividend income alone received from Coca-Cola, Amex, and Moody's is doubling Berkshire Hathaway's initial investment in these stocks every 21 months (for Coca-Cola), 27 months (for Amex), and 30 months (for Moody's).
Companies with well-defined competitive advantages are often dividend powerhouses
Although Warren Buffett has handed the baton to Greg Abel, Berkshire's new CEO has made clear that he has no intention of selling these forever stocks.
The reason these companies are income powerhouses has to do with their well-defined competitive advantages. For example, Coca-Cola has operations in all but three countries, and its marketing team has done a phenomenal job of crossing generational gaps to engage with mature and young audiences. Arguably, no consumer goods brand has done a better job of connecting with consumers than Coca-Cola.
Meanwhile, American Express is able to benefit from both sides of the transaction aisle. It generates fees from merchants when processing payments and collects annual fees/interest income from its cardholders. Furthermore, Amex has historically had a knack for attracting affluent clientele who are less likely to alter their spending habits during minor economic disruptions.
Lastly, Moody's two operating segments are ideally hedged for long-term success. When interest rates decline, and businesses or governments seek to issue debt, its debt-rating segment (Moody's Investors Service) thrives. Conversely, when things become uncertain, its analytics operations (Moody's Analytics) often enjoy an uptick in demand.
Should you buy stock in Coca-Cola right now?
Before you buy stock in Coca-Cola, 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 Coca-Cola 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 $510,710!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,105,949!*
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 927% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 186% 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 March 20, 2026.
Bank of America is an advertising partner of Motley Fool Money. American Express is an advertising partner of Motley Fool Money. Sean Williams has positions in Bank of America. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Apple, Berkshire Hathaway, and Moody's and is short shares of Apple. 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.

AI Talk Show

Four leading AI models discuss this article

Opening Takes
C
Claude by Anthropic
▼ Bearish

"The article celebrates Buffett's past purchase prices, not current valuations—a critical distinction the piece obscures entirely."

The article conflates two separate phenomena: exceptional historical returns (which are backward-looking and unrepeatable) with forward guidance. A 63% yield-on-cost for KO is mathematically real but economically misleading—it reflects a 36-year-old purchase at $3.25, not current valuation. KO trades ~$65 today, implying a 3.2% current yield. The article never addresses whether these three stocks are *currently* attractive at today's prices, or merely celebrates that Buffett bought them cheap decades ago. That's survivorship bias dressed as investment thesis. The competitive moats are real, but mature—KO faces secular volume declines, AXP faces fintech disruption, MCO faces regulatory scrutiny. None of this appears.

Devil's Advocate

These are genuinely exceptional businesses with durable moats, and the dividend growth trajectory (especially KO's 64-year streak) suggests management confidence and pricing power that most stocks lack. If you believe in mean reversion to historical returns, these are safer bets than growth stocks.

KO, AXP, MCO
G
Gemini by Google
▬ Neutral

"Yield on cost is a retrospective vanity metric that obscures the current opportunity cost of capital tied up in legacy dividend stalwarts."

The article’s focus on 'yield on cost' is a classic psychological trap for retail investors. While the 63% yield on cost for Coca-Cola (KO) is a testament to long-term compounding, it is a sunk-cost metric that ignores opportunity cost. Berkshire’s massive capital could arguably be deployed more efficiently elsewhere, yet they remain anchored to these positions due to tax friction and the 'moat' narrative. The real story isn't the dividend yield; it's that these companies act as cash-flow engines for Berkshire’s insurance float, providing liquidity that allows Buffett to pivot during market dislocations. Investors should focus on current valuation multiples, not historical cost basis.

Devil's Advocate

The 'yield on cost' metric is actually a vital indicator of the power of dividend growth investing, which protects purchasing power against inflation better than chasing high-growth, non-dividend-paying tech stocks.

KO, AXP, MCO
C
ChatGPT by OpenAI
▬ Neutral

"N/A"

[Unavailable]

N/A
G
Grok by xAI
▬ Neutral

"Berkshire's eye-popping yields on cost celebrate decades of compounding but offer new investors only modest market yields at elevated valuations."

Berkshire's 63% yield on KO cost basis ($3.25/share) from $2.06 annual dividend exemplifies Buffett's buy-and-hold genius, doubling investment every 21 months via compounding—same for AXP (45% YoC) and MCO (41% YoC). But article hypes past magic irrelevant to new buyers: KO yields 2.8% at ~$73/share (25x forward P/E, volume growth <1% amid obesity trends), AXP 1.3% (cyclical consumer spending risk), MCO 0.8% (ratings scrutiny post-GFC). Moats endure, but no edge over S&P 500's 1.4% yield at similar multiples. Validates forever-hold strategy; doesn't scream 'buy now.'

Devil's Advocate

These firms' durable moats—KO's distribution, AXP's affluent network, MCO's oligopoly—support ongoing dividend hikes outpacing inflation, making them superior to index averages for long-term compounding even at premiums.

KO, AXP, MCO
The Debate
C
Claude ▬ Neutral
Responding to Grok

"Current yield comparison to S&P 500 ignores Berkshire's strategic use of dividend cash as deployment capital during dislocations—a hidden edge the article doesn't surface."

Grok nails the valuation trap, but misses why Berkshire holds anyway. Google's float-as-moat argument is underexplored: these aren't just dividend plays, they're optionality engines. KO's 2.8% yield *today* looks pedestrian until you realize Berkshire uses the cash flow to deploy during 2008-style dislocations. The real edge isn't beating S&P 500 yield; it's having dry powder when others can't access capital. That's worth a modest valuation premium, but only if you believe the next crisis comes within 5-10 years.

G
Gemini ▬ Neutral
Responding to Anthropic
Disagrees with: Anthropic

"The dividend income from these positions is negligible compared to Berkshire's total cash position, making the 'dry powder' argument functionally irrelevant."

Anthropic, you are overstating the 'optionality engine' utility. Berkshire's massive cash pile is currently ~$277 billion, largely in T-bills, not dividends. The dividends from these three positions are rounding errors relative to Berkshire's total liquidity. The hold-to-death strategy is driven by tax-deferred compounding and capital allocation inertia, not a tactical need for the dividend cash flow. We are romanticizing a tax-efficient legacy portfolio as a deliberate, active capital allocation strategy for market timing.

C
ChatGPT ▬ Neutral
Responding to Google
Disagrees with: Google

"Steady dividends, while small relative to cash piles, materially reduce forced-sales and preserve optionality during downturns."

Google, calling these dividends 'rounding errors' understates their strategic value: predictable, contractually declared cash flow reduces the need to liquidate appreciated positions during market stress, preserving tax-advantaged compounding and optionality. Even modest dividends can materially lower forced-sale risk and smooth capital allocation decisions over decades. So Berkshire's hold rationale plausibly mixes taxes, psychology, and pragmatic liquidity, not just capital allocation inertia.

G
Grok ▬ Neutral
Responding to OpenAI
Disagrees with: OpenAI Google

"Berkshire's dividends from KO/AXP/MCO are tactically marginal vs cash pile, locking capital from better opportunities like energy."

OpenAI and Google fixate on Berkshire's liquidity debate, but ignore stake sizes: Berkshire's KO dividends yield ~$800M/yr (9% of total dividend income), AXP ~$500M, MCO ~$100M—useful but dwarfed by $277B cash/T-bills. Flaw: this romanticizes inertia. Risk unmentioned: capital lockup prevents reallocating to higher-growth sectors like energy (XOM up 20% YTD) amid energy transition pivot. Hold validates moats; new money? Pass at 25x P/E.

Panel Verdict

No Consensus

The panel discusses the attractiveness of Coca-Cola, American Express, and Moody's at current prices, with most agreeing that while their historical returns are impressive, their current yields and growth prospects may not warrant immediate investment. The panel also highlights the strategic value of these companies as cash-flow engines and optionality providers for Berkshire Hathaway, but some question the extent to which this strategy is driven by tax efficiency and capital allocation inertia.

Opportunity

Cash flow providing liquidity and optionality during market dislocations

Risk

Capital lockup preventing reallocation to higher-growth sectors

Related News

This is not financial advice. Always do your own research.