The renowned investor Warren Buffett, often dubbed the "Oracle of Omaha," has built an impressive net worth nearing $158 billion through his impeccable timing and foresight in predicting lucrative investments. Despite announcing his retirement plans for the end of 2025 at age 95, his influence on investment strategies remains unparalleled. While many seek to emulate his financial acumen, it is equally intriguing to explore the sectors he deliberately avoids. This article delves into those industries that have not garnered Buffett's financial backing, offering insights into his rationale.
Buffett is notably cautious about investing in emerging technologies. He famously described Bitcoin as a mere illusion, cautioning potential investors against its allure. Although Berkshire Hathaway ventured into Brazilian digital banking with Nu Holdings, which indirectly links to cryptocurrencies, Buffett maintains skepticism regarding direct involvement in this volatile market. His preference lies in companies where future earnings can be more reliably predicted, minimizing risks by relying on personal conviction rather than external opinions.
Precious metals also fail to captivate Buffett's interest. In his view, gold lacks the tangible value necessary for sound investment, earning him a reputation as one of its staunchest critics. Despite a brief dalliance with gold mining in 2020, Berkshire Hathaway swiftly disengaged, aligning with Buffett's belief that investing in productive assets yields better dividends over time compared to merely storing value in gold.
Airlines represent another sector Buffett avoids, stemming from lessons learned in 1989 when an intended investment in US Airways proved less profitable than anticipated due to competition from cost-efficient newcomers like Southwest Airlines. Consequently, despite earlier acquisitions in major airlines, all stakes were divested by 2020 amid pandemic-induced challenges.
In the energy sector, Buffett encountered setbacks with ConocoPhillips, attributing the failure not to poor stock selection but rather untimely investment during a period of inflated oil prices. This experience reinforces his advice to approach investments pragmatically, viewing pessimism as an ally and euphoria as a potential pitfall.
Beyond these exclusions, Buffett demonstrates openness to innovation, albeit prioritizing certainty over novelty. His discerning choices underscore a steadfast commitment to secure, predictable returns, steering clear of speculative ventures. Thus, understanding what Buffett refrains from funding provides valuable lessons for aspiring investors navigating complex markets.
A once-promising tech startup, Builder.ai, has fallen into financial ruin, as recent bankruptcy filings in the US reveal a tangled web of debts owed to prominent firms. Backed by Microsoft, this London-based group encountered insolvency due to potentially fraudulent sales practices. The company’s downfall highlights its reliance on high-profile legal and intelligence services amid ongoing investigations involving its leadership.
The Fall of Builder.ai: A Closer Look
In the heart of Delaware, Builder.ai's primary US holding company sought Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection last month. This move followed an internal probe that unearthed dubious sales figures, leading to a restatement of revenues to merely one-quarter of earlier projections. Among those owed significant sums are Shibumi Strategy, a Tel Aviv private intelligence firm; Quinn Emanuel, a top US litigation law firm known for representing powerful entities; and Sitrick Group, renowned for crisis communications.
These firms were engaged following reports last year indicating that Builder.ai co-founders, notably Sachin Dev Duggal, were under criminal investigation in India. Duggal, often referred to as the “chief wizard,” has consistently denied any wrongdoing. Despite these denials, Builder.ai's financial instability became undeniable, prompting it to focus on an orderly shutdown while safeguarding employee interests.
Further complicating matters, Builder.ai faced scrutiny over its customer relations, with Quinn Emanuel addressing potential breaches of confidentiality in its dealings with the Financial Times. Meanwhile, Mike Sitrick raised concerns about reporting processes involving the company. Additionally, Shibumi's involvement in past controversies, such as a spying scandal linked to financier Lars Windhorst, casts a shadow over its operations.
Builder.ai listed liabilities exceeding $100 million against assets valued at less than $10 million, showcasing the depth of its financial troubles. Other creditors include T&M USA, which specializes in corporate intelligence services.
Despite these challenges, a former senior employee defended the practice of engaging international advisors, emphasizing its necessity for global tech companies navigating complex jurisdictions.
Efforts to seek comments from key figures, including Ori Gur-Ari of Shibumi, Duggal, and representatives from Quinn Emanuel and Sitrick Group, largely went unanswered, reflecting the guarded nature of those involved.
From a journalistic perspective, the collapse of Builder.ai underscores the importance of transparency and ethical conduct in business operations. It serves as a cautionary tale about the perils of inflated sales figures and the critical role of reputable legal and intelligence support during crises. For readers, it highlights the need for vigilance in evaluating the credibility of emerging tech ventures amidst rapid market changes.
A clause hidden within Donald Trump's expansive "One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act" proposes a 3.5% levy on remittances sent abroad by foreign workers. This includes green card holders and temporary visa holders such as those with H-1B visas. For countries like India, which tops the global list of remittance recipients, this tax could significantly impact their economy. In 2023, Indians overseas transferred $119 billion back home, largely sourced from the U.S. The potential effects extend to other major beneficiaries like Mexico, China, the Philippines, France, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Experts warn that imposing such a tax could lead to a rise in informal money transfers and weaken one of India's most reliable sources of external funding.
The proposed tax has sparked concerns about its broader implications. According to Ajay Srivastava from the Delhi-based think tank Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI), a 10-15% reduction in remittances could cost India between $12 and $18 billion annually. This would tighten dollar availability and pressure the rupee. Households in states such as Kerala, Uttar Pradesh, and Bihar, where remittances fund essentials like education, healthcare, and housing, might face significant challenges. A decrease in inflows could shrink domestic savings and reduce investments in both financial and physical assets, prioritizing basic needs over long-term planning.
India's position as a leading remittance recipient is well-established, accounting for 14% of global remittances in 2024. Its migrant population grew from 6.6 million in 1990 to 18.5 million in 2024. While the Gulf remains a key destination, skilled migration to advanced economies, particularly the U.S., has surged due to India's IT sector influence. The U.S. leads worldwide remittance sources, contributing nearly 28% of global remittances in 2023-24. A study by the Center for Global Development suggests that the proposed tax could sharply reduce formal transfers, impacting nations like Mexico, India, China, Vietnam, and several Latin American countries.
There is still uncertainty surrounding the tax, pending Senate approval and the President’s signature. Dilip Ratha, World Bank lead economist for migration and remittances, notes that the tax applies to all non-citizens, including embassy staff and UN/World Bank personnel. However, those paying taxes can claim credits, meaning the tax primarily affects unauthorized migrants. Dr. Ratha speculates that migrants may resort to informal methods to avoid costs, such as carrying cash personally or using alternative networks like hawala or cryptocurrencies. Despite the tax, the economic motivation for migration—assisting family members—remains strong, suggesting limited deterrence.
If enacted, the remittance tax could reshape global financial flows, affecting not only India but also numerous other countries reliant on these funds. It may prompt a shift toward informal channels, undermining official records and complicating efforts to track and manage international financial transactions. As discussions continue, the potential ripple effects underscore the importance of considering all stakeholders involved in this complex issue.