Asia-Pacific markets experienced an upward trend on Friday, with numerous exchanges in the area closed for the Boxing Day holiday, while precious metals maintained their upward trajectory for the year.

Spot gold increased by up to 1% to achieve a historical peak of $4,530 per ounce on Friday. The metal was recently trading at $4,508 per ounce as of 3.45 p.m. Singapore time (2.45 a.m. EST).

Silver prices also continued to climb following Wednesday’s record, gaining over 3% on Friday to achieve an unprecedented high of $75.1 per ounce.

Gold has surged by over 71% this year, while silver has risen by 158% during the same timeframe. Metal values have skyrocketed this year in response to fragile investor sentiment regarding riskier assets, as concerns about an AI bubble and uncertainty over U.S. Federal Reserve rate reductions grow.

Japan’s key Nikkei 225 index increased by 0.68% to close at 50,750.39, driven by gains in technology stocks, while the Topix climbed 0.15% to 3,423.06. Tech leader SoftBank was among the leading gainers, rising 1.8% to end a three-session losing streak. Semiconductor testing equipment manufacturer Advantest rose 2.27%, and chip equipment producer Lasertec gained 2.18%.

Core consumer prices in Tokyo increased by 2.3% in December year-on-year, based on government data released on Friday. The core CPI, which excludes volatile fresh food prices, remained above the Bank of Japan’s 2% target, strengthening the argument for further interest rate increases.

The latest figure was below the 2.5% rise anticipated by economists surveyed by Reuters and the 2.8% spike in November. Tokyo’s inflation metrics are widely viewed as a precursor to national trends.

South Korea’s Kospi index rose 0.51% to close at 4,129.68, and the small-cap Kosdaq increased 0.49% to 919.67. Major player Samsung Electronics jumped by over 5%, recouping losses from the prior trading session.

China’s CSI 300 grew by 0.32% to 4,657.24.

India’s Nifty 50 declined by 0.41%, and the BSE Sensex fell 0.45%.

Markets in Australia and Hong Kong were closed for the holiday.

U.S. equity futures ticked slightly upwards at the conclusion of Asian trading hours, after the S&P 500 closed at a new record for the second consecutive day on Wednesday in the U.S.

The broad market index increased by 0.32%, finishing the session at 6,932.05. The Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 288.75 points, or 0.60%, and also achieved a record close of 48,731.16. The Nasdaq Composite increased by 0.22% and settled at 23,613.31.

— CNBC’s Sean Conlon and Pia Singh contributed to this report.

(This is the Warren Buffett Watch newsletter, featuring news and insights on everything related to Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway. You can subscribe here to receive it every Friday evening in your inbox.)

Warren Buffett is entering his final week as CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, the platform he has utilized to create extraordinary wealth for himself, as well as for the company’s devoted longtime investors, over the last sixty years.

Since assuming control in 1965, Buffett has converted a failing textile firm into a colossal conglomerate valued at over $1 trillion.

His Class A shares constitute nearly his entire estimated net worth of $151 billion, placing him in the #10 position of the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

If he had retained the hundreds of thousands of Berkshire B shares, presently valued at $208 billion, which he has been donating since 2006, with more contributions ahead, he would be No. 22 on that list with approximately $359 billion.

Given the success he has experienced with the firm, it might be startling to hear him label Berkshire as “the dumbest stock I ever purchased,” … a mishap that has cost him hundreds of billions of dollars.

From the extensive archives of CNBC’s Warren Buffett Archive, here’s an exclusive segment of Buffett from 2010 providing a detailed explanation to Becky Quick on why he should never have acquired Berkshire Hathaway and the vital lesson he derived from his expensive error.

BECKY QUICK: Thank you, Warren, for being with us today.

WARREN BUFFETT: Happy to help.

BECKY QUICK: We’re aiming to uncover what was your most regrettable trade and the lessons learned from it?

WARREN BUFFETT: The most foolish thing I’ve ever done?  (LAUGHTER)

BECKY QUICK: Yes, the most foolish thing you ever did.

WARREN BUFFETT: The — the most foolish stock I ever acquired — was — drum roll, please — Berkshire Hathaway. And — that might need some clarification.  It was early in — 1962, and I was managing a small partnership, around seven million. They’d probably label it a hedge fund now.

Here was this inexpensive stock, inexpensive by working capital metrics or so. But it was a stock in a — in a textile firm that had been declining for years. Originally, it was a massive company, and they kept shutting down one mill after the other. Each time they closed a mill, they would — take the excess funds and repurchase their stock. I assumed they were about to shut down; they only had a few mills remaining, but expected them to close another. I’d purchase the stock, tender it to them, and earn a small gain.

So I began acquiring the stock. By 1964, we held quite a bit. I revisited the management, Mr. (Seabury) Stanton. He looked at me and said, ‘Mr. Buffett. We just sold some mills. We have excess funds. We’re going to initiate a tender offer. At what price will you tender your stock?’

And I replied, ‘11.50.’ He asked, ‘Do you promise to tender at 11.50?’ I assured him, ‘Mr. Stanton, my word is good, if you proceed soon, I will sell my stock at 11.50.’ I returned to Omaha. A few weeks later, I opened the mail —

BECKY QUICK: Oh, you have this?

WARREN BUFFETT: And here’s the tender offer from Berkshire Hathaway — dated 1964. If you look closely, you’ll observe the price is —

BECKY QUICK: 11 and —

WARREN BUFFETT:  — 11 and three-eighths. He undercut me by an eighth. Had that letter arrived with 11.5, I would have tendered my stock. But that irritated me. Thus, I went ahead and started to acquire more stock, gained control of the firm, and dismissed Mr. Stanton. (LAUGHTER)

And we proceeded from there.

This may appear as a compelling little morality tale now. However, the reality is I had now committed a significant sum to a dreadful enterprise. Berkshire Hathaway subsequently formed the foundation for nearly everything I’ve done since.

In 1967, when a decent insurance firm presented itself, I acquired it for Berkshire Hathaway. I genuinely should have done so for a new entity.

Because Berkshire Hathaway was burdened with this anchor, all those textile assets. Initially, it consisted entirely of textile assets that were worthless. Over time, we added more ventures to it. Yet, we were perpetually dragging this anchor. 

For two decades, I struggled against the textile sector before conceding defeat. Had we invested that money into the insurance sector from the beginning, Berkshire would presently be valued at double its current worth.  So —

BECKY QUICK: Twice as much?

WARREN BUFFETT: Indeed. This amounts to $200 billion. You can — you can calculate how that occurs. Because this so-called genius believed he could manage a textile business. (LAUGHTER)

BECKY QUICK: Why $200 billion?

WARREN BUFFETT: Well, because if you consider taking the same capital I invested in the textile business and using it in the insurance field, starting from there, we would have created a company that — since all that money was a hindrance. We had a net worth of $20 million. Berkshire Hathaway was generating nothing, year after year after year.

And — thus concludes the narrative of — a $200 billion —

By the way, if you revisit in ten years, I might have one that’s even worse. (LAUGHTER)

BECKY QUICK: If you had to derive a moral from that tale, would it be that you shouldn’t harm yourself out of spite?

WARREN BUFFETT: I would say — I would assert that regardless of whether you inflict harm out of spite or whatever, if you find yourself in a poor business, get out of it. It was a terrible error, purely because I stumbled into it, in a manner of speaking.

And — and I’ve always expressed that to be recognized as an effective manager, one should invest in a good business. (LAUGHTER)

That’s the ideal approach. When I’m in a commendable business, people think, ‘Wow, that person is sharp.’ And when I’m engaged in a foolish business, like textiles, and am unsure of what I’m doing, or footwear subsequently, or whatever it may be, in instances where you believe you’re a managerial whiz, simply try your hand at a poor business.

BECKY QUICK: Is that the insight you gained from it?

WARREN BUFFETT: Absolutely.

BECKY QUICK: And is that something you’ve actively applied?

WARREN BUFFETT: I’ve included a statement in my annual report many, many, many decades ago, after going through this. I noted, ‘When a manager renowned for intelligence encounters a business with a reputation for poor economics, it is the business’ reputation that remains unscathed.’

BECKY QUICK: (LAUGHTER) So that’s a lesson you’ve retained? Yet, it’s one that you are reminded of every single day. It’s Berkshire Hathaway.

WARREN BUFFETT: Indeed. And occasionally, I find myself tempted. I began with Ben Graham around 1950 or so. His core philosophy was acquiring undervalued assets.

One should not pursue undervalued items. It’s far wiser to buy something of quality at a reasonable price than something that is cheap at a discounted rate.

Initially, I didn’t start off that way. I was taught a different methodology. 

But — if I didn’t absorb lessons from Berkshire Hathaway, I’ll never truly learn. (LAUGHTER)

BECKY QUICK: How long did it take you to grasp this lesson? You stated it was —

WARREN BUFFETT: It took me two decades to give up on the textile business. I had a wonderful guy running it after — following Seabury Stanton — a fellow named Ken Chase. He was fantastic. Honest, capable, and diligent. Yet he couldn’t turn it around.

We continued to press on, making attempts — we acquired another textile company named Waumbec Mills in Manchester, New Hampshire. Another blunder.

If you’re going to excel with a poor business, why not shine with a good enterprise?

BECKY QUICK: But honestly, it took 20 years for you to finally surrender. When did you realize, oh, this isn’t working? Was it really 20 years? Or did you kind of recognize —

WARREN BUFFETT: Well, it was — no. I came to terms with it relatively early on. However, I kept thinking I wouldn’t abandon this. We had an excellent workforce. I mean, we were not undermined by anything except competitive pressures. And we’d invest in new machinery, or we would expand — we would add this mill in Manchester, proclaiming, ‘Look at all those synergies,’ and so forth. Nothing proved effective.

I used to have a desk in my drawer. They kept sending me these notes that if we purchased this equipment, we would save 14 jobs. If we bought this machinery, we would save 12 jobs. I kept filing them away. With all those machines, we would save more employees than we initially had. Supposedly, we were operating with zero personnel. But that’s not how it functions.

BECKY QUICK: Were there any ventures you avoided because you thought, wait a minute, I’ve experienced this situation before? Where you felt tempted and then opted against it?

WARREN BUFFETT: I receive inquiries about them quite frequently. You know, I mean, I receive inquiries — not daily. I mean, that’s an exaggeration. But I get approached regularly about businesses that are exceedingly challenging. And — and individuals ask, you know, why not take a chance? You know, you have all these resources now and capable managers.

The intriguing aspect of business is that it is not akin to the Olympics. In the Olympics, if you execute a dive from the — from a high platform and perform several twists — (LAUGHTER) on the descent, and if you enter the water awkwardly, there is a degree of difficulty factor. Therefore, you’ll receive more points than someone who merely executes a straightforward headfirst dive perfectly.

Degree of difficulty matters in the Olympics. It does not apply to business. You receive no extra rewards for undertaking something that is very challenging. Therefore, you may as well leap over one-foot hurdles rather than attempting to vault over seven-foot hurdles.

BECKY QUICK: People may argue, hold on. You’re involved in some enterprises that others have declared dead: the newspaper industry. How does that differ?

WARREN BUFFETT: You are correct. (LAUGHTER) However, we purchased that [The Buffalo Evening News] in 1977.  And — and we’ve prospered over the years. Initially, results weren’t strong. Nonetheless, later on, we succeeded remarkably well.

Nevertheless, the newspaper industry of 2010 is not the same as the newspaper industry of 1977. They are fundamentally different. [Berkshire sold the newspaper in 2020.]

It’s accurate, and we indicated in the annual report, that we run Berkshire in a manner not taught in business schools. In business schools, they advise you to divest your mediocre businesses and continually pursue new ventures. I term that gin rummy management.

If I had 50 offspring, you know, and one of them isn’t performing comparably to the others, I wouldn’t consider placing them up for adoption. Unless they pose a permanent financial loss or encounter major labor issues, we retain the businesses that are not as effective as the others.

Thus, if I adhere to that philosophy, I must be exceedingly cautious about my acquisitions, correct?

BECKY QUICK: Absolutely. What about your partner, Charlie Munger? What would he say your most significant blunder is?

WARREN BUFFETT: Well, he would most likely reiterate this. I would assert that I’ve gained much knowledge about what I just discussed — I’ve learned considerably from Charlie.

Charlie conveyed this to me from the moment I met him in 1959. He indicated — he stated precisely — I could have spared myself a lot of difficulties had I simply heeded him. Yet, who knew what Charlie was talking about? (LAUGHTER)

BECKY QUICK: All right.  Warren, thank you truly.  We sincerely value your time.

WARREN BUFFETT: Thank you.  Appreciate the opportunity.

Some links may require a subscription:

• NPR’s The Indicator from Planet Money podcast: The worst year of Warren Buffett’s career

• CNN Business: How to implement some of Warren Buffett’s top money and life advice

• Business Insider: Warren Buffett’s company delisted Kraft Heinz weeks prior to board exit and $5 billion write-down

• Investopedia: What Warren Buffett’s Snowball Metaphor Teaches Us About Life and Long-Term Success

Last month

Past year

Berkshire’s leading holdings of publicly traded stocks in the U.S. and Japan, by market value, based on the most recent closing prices.

Holdings are as of Sept. 30, as reported in Berkshire Hathaway’s 13F filing on November 14, 2025, except for:

• Itochu, as of March 17, 2025, and Mitsubishi, recorded on August 28, 2025. Prices on the Tokyo Stock Exchange are converted to U.S. dollars from Japanese yen.

The complete list of holdings and present market valuations can be found on CNBC.com’s Berkshire Hathaway Portfolio Tracker.

Please direct any questions or feedback regarding the newsletter to me at [email protected]. (Apologies, but we do not forward queries or comments to Buffett personally.)

If you are not yet subscribed to this newsletter, you can register here.

Additionally, Buffett’s annual letters to shareholders are highly suggested reading. They are compiled here on Berkshire’s site.

— Alex Crippen, Editor, Warren Buffett Watch

The AI sector is expected to divide in 2026.

The final quarter of 2025 witnessed a tumult of tech sell-offs and recoveries, as circular transactions, debt offerings, and inflated valuations raised alarms about an AI bubble.

This kind of instability may indicate early signs of the evolution of AI investment as investors become more discerning about who is spending and who is profiting, as stated by Stephen Yiu, chief investment officer at Blue Whale Growth Fund.

So far, retail investors, particularly those exposed to AI via ETFs, have generally not distinguished between companies that have products but lack business models, those incurring losses to support AI infrastructure, and those benefiting from AI expenditures, Yiu told CNBC.

Currently, “every company seems to be succeeding,” yet AI is just beginning, he noted. “It’s crucial to differentiate” among various types of companies, which is “what the market might begin to do,” Yiu added.

He identifies three distinct groups: private companies or startups, publicly listed AI spenders, and AI infrastructure firms.

The first category, which encompasses OpenAI and Anthropic, attracted $176.5 billion in venture capital during the first three quarters of 2025, according to PitchBook data. In the meantime, major tech players like Amazon, Microsoft and Meta are the ones financing AI infrastructure providers like Nvidia and Broadcom.

Blue Whale Growth Fund assesses a company’s free cash flow yield, which is the cash a business generates after capital expenditures, relative to its stock price, to determine whether valuations are reasonable.

Many companies within the Magnificent 7 are “trading at a considerable premium” since beginning substantial investments in AI, Yiu remarked.

“When I evaluate valuations in AI, I prefer not to invest — even if I believe in the transformative potential of AI — in the AI spenders,” he elaborated, indicating that his firm prefers to be “on the receiving side” as AI allocations are likely to further affect company bottom lines.

The AI “fervor” is “concentrated within specific sectors rather than being widespread throughout the market,” Julien Lafargue, chief market strategist at Barclays Private Bank and Wealth Management, stated in a CNBC interview.

The greater risk resides with firms obtaining funding from the AI surge that have yet to turn a profit—”for instance, certain quantum computing-focused companies,” Lafargue noted.

“In such instances, it appears investor sentiment is driven more by hope than by substantial results,” he added, insisting that “differentiation is crucial.”

The requirement for differentiation also signals a shift in the business models of Big Tech. Once asset-light enterprises are becoming more asset-intensive as they acquire the technology, resources, and real estate necessary to support their ambitious AI initiatives.

Corporations like Meta and Google have transitioned into hyperscalers that invest significantly in GPUs, data centers, and AI-based products, altering their risk profiles and business approaches.

Dorian Carrell, head of multi-asset income at Schroders, remarked that valuing these entities as software and capital-expenditure-light models may no longer be viable — particularly as firms continue to figure out funding for their AI strategies.

“We’re not asserting that it won’t succeed, we’re not claiming that it won’t manifest in the coming years, but we are suggesting that paying such a high multiple with lofty growth expectations integrated may be questionable,” Carrell told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Europe” on December 1.

This year, tech firms turned to the debt markets to finance AI infrastructure, but investors were wary of overreliance on debt. Although Meta and Amazon have raised funds this way, “they’re still in a net cash position,” Quilter Cheviot’s global head of technology research and investment strategist Ben Barringer informed CNBC’s “Europe Early Edition” on November 20 — a critical distinction from companies that may have tighter balance sheets.

The private debt markets “will be extremely intriguing next year,” Carrell added.

If expanding AI revenues do not exceed those costs, profit margins will tighten and investors will question their return on investment, Yiu stated.

Moreover, the performance differences between companies could widen as hardware and infrastructure depreciate. AI spenders will need to consider this in their investments, Yiu noted. “It’s not reflected in the P&L yet. Starting next year, gradually, it will complicate the figures.” 

“Hence, there will be increasing differentiation.” 

Amazon CEO Andy Jassy could observe how profoundly artificial intelligence was transforming e-commerce.

In June, he informed employees that AI assistants would soon begin to permeate everyday life, “from shopping to travel to daily chores and tasks.”

Four months afterwards, Jassy mentioned during an earnings call that Amazon aims to collaborate with third-party agents and has been in discussions with several providers, although he did not disclose names.

Currently, Amazon is seeking to recruit a head of corporate development to assist in establishing strategic alliances in domains such as “agentic commerce,” as indicated in a recent job listing.

Amazon’s swift shift in its perspective on AI-driven commerce highlights how rapidly online retail is evolving, and the dangers the company faces if it doesn’t take decisive steps to retain oversight of its future.

The firm has observed how OpenAI, Google, Perplexity and Microsoft have introduced a surge of e-commerce assistants recently aimed at changing the shopping experience. Instead of going to Amazon, Walmart or Nike directly, shoppers could depend on AI agents to perform the tedious task of searching the web for the best price or ideal product, then purchase the item without leaving a chatbot interface.

The initial shopping agents from AI innovators appeared about a year ago. Consulting firm McKinsey estimated that agentic commerce could yield $1 trillion in U.S. retail revenue by 2030.

This trend presents a challenge to Amazon’s profit margins and customer relations. When a customer employs ChatGPT to initiate a transaction, for instance, OpenAI charges “a small fee” for each sale.

“With an agent on ChatGPT, retailers risk losing transactions on their platform to pay a toll on someone else’s highway for the same transaction,” Sucharita Kodali, a retail analyst at Forrester, remarked in a conversation.

Some firms are seeking to find a balance between collaborating with agent providers and competing against them. Walmart, Shopify and others have embraced a ‘frenemy’ strategy, announcing collaborations with AI firms while simultaneously enhancing their own tools and establishing boundaries on how agents may access their platforms.

Shopify CEO Tobi Lutke stated in a post on X on Tuesday that his company is “constructing all the layers of infrastructure to facilitate a new cambrian explosion of creativity in shopping.”

“I am truly thrilled about Agentic Commerce,” Lutke expressed. “There’s so much remarkable innovation happening. Everything I try feels delightful and right.”

Amazon has predominantly been in a defensive posture.

The company recently updated the underlying code of its website to prevent external AI agents from crawling it, as part of an initiative to protect its valuable training data from competitors. As of Tuesday, Amazon had barred 47 bots, including those from all the major AI firms, according to its website.

Amazon has even taken legal action. In November, Amazon sued Perplexity over an assistant in the startup’s Comet browser that permits it to make purchases on a user’s behalf. The company contended that Perplexity attempted to “conceal” its agents to continue scraping Amazon’s website without authorization.

Perplexity labeled the lawsuit a “bully tactic.”

Meanwhile, Amazon is investing substantially in its own AI technologies. The company introduced a shopping chatbot named Rufus last February, and has been evaluating an assistant called Buy For Me, capable of purchasing goods from other sites directly within Amazon’s e-commerce application.

Morgan Stanley anticipates that by 2030, nearly half of American shoppers will utilize AI agents, and this technology could contribute up to $115 billion in U.S. e-commerce spending.

“We believe agentic commerce — essentially the capability to have a personal interactive digital shopper — is poised to be the next significant GenAI-enabled breakthrough,” Morgan Stanley analysts indicated in a November report.

They observed that a modest single-digit percentage of consumers currently initiate their “purchase journey” through AI, yet this could rise over time as around 40% to 50% of Americans presently use AI for product research.

Traffic directed from AI chatbots to U.S. retail websites has surged in recent months, particularly during the holiday season, but studies indicate that Google searches still outperform in terms of conversion rates and revenue per session.

AI-driven shopping remains an emerging market.

OpenAI’s Instant Checkout feature, introduced in ChatGPT in September, is only available for select products sold by Walmart, Shopify, Target and Etsy. Customers can only buy one item at a time, and they can’t link loyalty memberships like Walmart+.

Agents are also susceptible to errors.

Scot Wingo, founder of e-commerce software firm ReFiBuy, recently tried Perplexity’s Instant Buy feature that enables users to shop directly within its search engine.

Wingo attempted to buy a cable-knit sweater from Abercrombie & Fitch, but Perplexity’s agent continuously displayed error messages, even though both items were available on the retailer’s site. He ultimately abandoned the effort.

Earlier this month, Wingo was searching for a coffee maker on ChatGPT when it suggested a Breville espresso machine. Upon clicking the product, he was taken aback to see an image of a garden rake.

“These crawlers obtain this data, and you never know precisely what they will retrieve,” Wingo mentioned.

As Amazon considers its forthcoming strategy regarding shopping agents, it is discreetly permitting them to access certain of its properties.

Subsidiaries such as shoe retailer Zappos, fashion website Shopbop and deals site Woot do not seem to have any provisions restricting agents in their robots.txt files, which specify how crawlers can explore particular web pages.

“Often, they will utilize the subsidiaries for experimentation,” Wingo noted. “Zappos possesses its own experience and database, so it’s not as if they’re completely unleashing everything.”

The company could ultimately adopt strategies employed by its competitors if it decides to allow agents access to its main e-commerce platform. Shopify and Walmart have established parameters around what external shopping agents are permitted to do on their platforms.

Amazon may be open to allowing agents access to its catalog, but it likely aims to safeguard more critical data from its rivals, Wingo stated, including its extensive collection of customer reviews and sales rankings, both of which indicate a product’s quality and can enhance an AI chatbot’s responses.

“Those are probably the two most proprietary data points that, if I’m Amazon, I want to secure,” Wingo remarked.

Amazon isn’t abandoning its in-house tools.

Rufus’ functionality has improved since Amazon initially launched it last year, and the company has been promoting the chatbot across more segments of its site to boost user adoption.

Amazon recently introduced a feature that enables Rufus to automatically purchase items on behalf of a Prime user once they reach a certain price. The chatbot now also recommends products from various websites, not solely from Amazon.

In recent weeks, Amazon has begun experimenting with a feature that allows Rufus to develop custom shopping guides, akin to OpenAI’s “shopping research” tool launched last month.

“Instead of the innovator’s dilemma, I would classify Amazon as facing what I term the leader’s dilemma,” stated Jordan Berke, founder and CEO of retail consulting firm Tomorrow. “Their market presence is so substantial that they stand to lose the most.”

WATCH: How Amazon came to dominate the U.S. apparel market