巴菲特表示已指定三名潜在的继任受托人。目前，受托人的具体身份尚未公布。

以下是巴菲特长文原文翻译：

今天的捐赠使我持有的伯克希尔哈撒韦A类股份减少至206,363股。自2006年我做出捐赠承诺以来，我的持股减少了56.6%。在2004年，我的第一任妻子苏姗（Susie）去世之前，我们两人共同持有508,998股A类股份。多年来，我们都认为她会比我活得更久，随后分配我们的大部分财富，但事实并非如此。

苏西姗去世时，她的遗产大约为30亿美元，其中约96%捐赠给了我们的基金会。此外，她还给我们的三个孩子每人留下了1000万美元，这是我们首次给予他们的大额馈赠。这些遗产反映了我们的一种信念：极其富有的父母应给孩子留下足够的财富，让他们可以有所作为，但不应该多到让他们无所事事。

苏姗和我长期以来一直鼓励孩子们参与小型慈善活动，并对他们的热情、努力和成果感到满意。然而，在苏姗去世时，我的孩子们还没有准备好管理由伯克希尔股份带来的巨额财富。不过，自从我在2006年做出生前捐赠承诺并随后扩大这一承诺以来，他们的慈善活动得到了显著增加。

如今，孩子们已经远远超出了我们的期望。在我去世后，他们将完全负责逐步分配我所有的伯克希尔股份。这些股份目前占我总财富的99.5%。

时间终究会取胜。但它是善变的——有时甚至不公平、残酷。它可能在生命伊始或不久之后结束生命，有时却会等待近一个世纪才来造访。到目前为止，我一直非常幸运，但用不了多久，它也会找到我。

不过，能够躲避它的光顾也有一个缺点。自2006年我做出承诺以来，我的孩子们的预期存活年数已明显缩短。他们现在分别是71岁、69岁和66岁。

我从未希望建立一个财富世袭制，也不愿制定超越我子女范围之外的长期计划。我非常了解并完全信任我的三个孩子。但对于未来的世代，情况就不同了。谁能预见未来的后代在面对巨额财富的分配时会有怎样的优先事项、智慧和忠诚，尤其是在可能截然不同的慈善环境下？尽管如此，我积累的大量财富可能需要比我的孩子寿命更长的时间来完全分配。而由三个健在且目标明确的头脑来做出决策，显然比由一位已故之人更为明智。

因此，我已指定了三名潜在的继任受托人。他们与我的孩子非常熟悉，并得到了我们一致认可。他们的年龄比我的孩子稍小一些。

不过，这些继任者目前还在候补名单上。我希望苏西、霍华德和彼得（编者注：巴菲特三个子女）能够亲自分配我的所有资产。

他们每个人都尊重我的意愿，即分配我持有的伯克希尔股份的方案绝不辜负伯克希尔股东曾经赋予查理·芒格和我的巨大信任。从2006年到2024年的这段时间，我有机会观察我的每个孩子在行动中的表现。他们在此期间学到了许多关于大规模慈善和人类行为的知识。他们每个人都已管理20至30人的团队多年，并对影响慈善组织的独特就业动态有了深入了解。

一些富有的朋友对我对孩子以及潜在继任者的极大信任感到好奇。他们尤其对我要求“所有基金会决策必须一致通过这一规定”感到惊讶。他们问，“这怎么可能行得通？”

对此，我解释道，我的孩子们将永远面临来自真诚朋友和其他人的恳切请求。另一个现实是，当有人请求大额慈善捐赠时，“拒绝”往往会促使潜在受助者考虑不同的策略——例如寻找另一个朋友或提出一个不同的项目。那些能够分配巨额资金的人总是被视为“机会目标”。这种不愉快的现实是这种地位的附带条件。

因此，我设置了“全体一致同意”的规定。这一限制可以让孩子们对寻求捐赠的人作出立即且最终的答复：“这不可能获得我兄弟的同意。”这样的回答会让我的孩子们的生活变得更轻松。

当然，这项“全体一致”条款并非万能之策——如果你有九个或十个子女或继子女，这显然不可行。而且，这也无法解决如何每年高效分配数十亿美元这一艰巨的问题。

我有一个建议，适用于所有父母，无论他们的财富是普通还是极为富有。当你的孩子足够成熟时，在你签署遗嘱之前，确保每个孩子都理解你的决定背后的逻辑，以及他们在你去世后将要承担的责任。如果他们有任何问题或建议，请认真倾听，并采纳那些合理的意见。你不希望在你无法回答时，孩子们对遗嘱的决定问“为什么”。

这些年来，我的三个孩子都曾向我提出过问题或意见，我也经常采纳他们的建议。为自己的想法辩护并没有什么不对。当年我的父亲也这样对我。

我每隔几年就会修改一次遗嘱，通常只是做一些小改动，并尽量保持简单。多年来，查理和我见过很多家庭因遗嘱的死后条款而分裂，因为受益人对遗嘱感到困惑，甚至愤怒。童年时期的嫉妒以及真实或想象中的不公平待遇往往会被放大，尤其是在儿子在金钱方面或重要职位上比女儿受到更多偏爱时。

查理和我也见过一些富裕的父母在去世前与家人充分讨论遗嘱安排的例子，这反而让家庭关系更为亲密。还有什么比这更令人满意的呢？

当我写下这些文字时，我依然感受到自己的幸运，这种幸运始于1930年我以白人男性的身份出生在美国。我的两个姐妹，当然，早在1920年通过的《第十九修正案》中就被明确承诺将与男性享有平等的权利。毕竟，这也是我们十三个殖民地在1776年所传递的信息。

然而，1930年时，我出生的这个国家还未真正实现这些早期的愿景。在比莉·简·金、桑德拉·戴·奥康纳、鲁斯·巴德·金斯伯格以及无数其他人的努力下，情况在20世纪70年代开始发生改变。

作为男性身份的受益者，我很早就确信自己会变得富有。但无论是我，还是其他任何人，都无法预见美国过去几十年中所能达到的财富规模。这种变化令人震惊——甚至超出了福特、卡内基、摩根，甚至洛克菲勒的想象。数十亿美元成为了新的“百万美元”。

我出生时正值大萧条的开始，情况看起来并不乐观。然而，复利的真正威力往往体现在生命的最后二十年。因为没有“踩到香蕉皮”，我现在以94岁高龄依然活跃，拥有巨额的储蓄——可以将这些“延迟消费的单位”传递给那些出生时抽到了“短签”的人。

我也很幸运，我的慈善理念得到了两任妻子的全心支持并被进一步拓展。无论是我的第一任妻子苏姗，还是第二任的阿斯特丽德，都不相信世袭财富的理念。

相反，我们一致认为，平等的机会应该从出生时开始，而极度炫耀式的生活方式虽然合法，但并不可取。作为一个家庭，我们拥有了我们需要或喜欢的一切，但我们从未试图通过拥有别人渴望的东西来获取乐趣。

让我特别欣慰的是，许多伯克希尔的早期股东也独立形成了类似的理念。他们储蓄、生活得很好、照顾好自己的家庭，并通过复利的力量，将他们的储蓄转化为大额甚至巨额财富，回馈社会。他们的“财富支票”被广泛地分配给那些不太幸运的人。

秉持着这样的理念，我从二十多岁后期开始以自己想要的方式生活。现在，我看着我的孩子们成长为优秀且富有成效的公民。他们在许多问题上的观点与我和彼此不同，但他们共享的核心价值观始终坚定不移。

苏西、霍华德和彼得在直接帮助他人方面花费了比我更多的时间。他们享受经济上的舒适，但并未被财富所困扰。他们从母亲那里学到了这些价值观，而她一定会为他们感到骄傲。

我也是。

（翻译借助了AI，可能会有误差）

附英文全文：

Today, Warren E. Buffett will convert 1,600 A shares into 2,400,000 B shares in order to give these B shares to four family foundations: 1,500,000 shares to The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation and 300,000 shares to each of The Sherwood Foundation, The Howard G. Buffett Foundation and NoVo Foundation.

Mr. Buffett’s comments to his fellow shareholders follow: 

The gifts I am making today reduce my holdings of Berkshire Hathaway Class A shares to 206,363, a 56.6% decrease since my 2006 pledge. In 2004, before Susie, my first wife, died, the two of us owned 508,998 Class A shares. For decades, we had both thought that she would outlive me and subsequently distribute the vast majority of our large fortune. That was not to be.

When Susie died, her estate was roughly $3 billion, with about 96% of this sum going to our foundation. Additionally, she left $10 million to each of our three children, the first large gift we had given to any of them. These bequests reflected our belief that hugely wealthy parents should leave their children enough so they can do anything but not enough that they can do nothing.

Susie and I had long encouraged our children in small philanthropic activities and had been pleased with their enthusiasm, diligence and results. At her death, however, they were not ready to handle the staggering wealth that Berkshire shares had generated. Nevertheless, their philanthropic activities were dramatically increased by the 2006 lifetime pledge that I subsequently made and later expanded.

The children have now more than justified our hopes and, upon my death, will have full responsibility for gradually distributing all of my Berkshire holdings. These now account for 991⁄2% of my wealth.

Father time always wins. But he can be fickle – indeed unfair and even cruel – sometimesending life at birth or soon thereafter while, at other times, waiting a century or so before paying a visit. To date, I’ve been very lucky, but, before long, he will get around to me.

There is, however, a downside to my good fortune in avoiding his notice. The expected life span of my children has materially diminished since the 2006 pledge. They are now 71, 69 and 66.

I’ve never wished to create a dynasty or pursue any plan that extended beyond the children. I know the three well and trust them completely. Future generations are another matter. Who can foresee the priorities, intelligence and fidelity of successive generations to deal with the distribution of extraordinary wealth amid what may be a far different philanthropic landscape? Still, the massive wealth I’ve collected may take longer to deploy than my children live. And tomorrow’s decisions are likely to be better made by three live and well-directed brains than by a dead hand.

As such, three potential successor trustees have been designated. Each is well known to my children and makes sense to all of us. They are also somewhat younger than my children.

But these successors are on the wait list. I hope Susie, Howie and Peter themselves disburse all of my assets.

Each respects my wish that the disposition program for my holdings of Berkshire shares in no way betrays the exceptional trust Berkshire shareholders bestowed upon Charlie Munger and me. The 2006-2024 period gave me the chance to observe each of my children in action and they have learned much about large-scale philanthropy and human behavior. Each has overseen teams of 20-30 for many years and has observed the unique employment dynamics affecting philanthropic organizations.

************

Wealthy friends have been curious about the extraordinary confidence I have in my childrenand their possible alternates. They express particular surprise at my requirement that all foundation actions will require a unanimous vote. How can this be workable?

I’ve explained that my children will forever be besieged with earnest requests from very sincere friends and others. A second reality: When large philanthropic gifts are requested, a “no” frequently prompts would-be grantees to ponder a different approach – another friend, a different project, whatever. Those who can distribute huge sums are forever regarded as “targets of opportunity.” This unpleasant reality comes with the territory.

Hence, the “unanimous decision” provision. That restriction enables an immediate and final reply to grant-seekers: “It’s not something that would ever receive my brother’s consent.” And that answer will improve the lives of my children.

My unanimity clause, of course, is not a panacea – it clearly isn’t workable if you have nine or ten children or stepchildren. And it doesn’t solve the daunting problem of intelligently distributing many billions annually.

************

I have one further suggestion for all parents, whether they are of modest or staggering

wealth. When your children are mature, have them read your will before you sign it.

Be sure each child understands both the logic for your decisions and the responsibilities they will encounter upon your death. If any have questions or suggestions, listen carefully and adopt those found sensible. You don’t want your children asking “Why?” in respect to testamentary decisions when you are no longer able to respond.

Over the years, I have had questions or commentary from all three of my children and have often adopted their suggestions. There is nothing wrong with my having to defend my thoughts. My dad did the same with me.

I change my will every couple of years – often only in very minor ways – and keep things simple. Over the years, Charlie and I saw many families driven apart after the posthumous dictates of the will left beneficiaries confused and sometimes angry. Jealousies, along with actual or imagined slights during childhood, became magnified, particularly when sons were favored over daughters, either in monetary ways or by positions of importance.

Charlie and I also witnessed a few cases where a wealthy parent’s will that was fully discussed before death helped the family become closer. What could be more satisfying?

************

As I write this, I continue my lucky streak that began in 1930 with my birth in the United

States as a white male. My two sisters had, of course, been explicitly promised by the 19th Amendment’s enactment in 1920 that they would be treated equally with males. This, after all, had been the message of our thirteen colonies in 1776.

In 1930, however, I emerged in a country that hadn’t yet gotten around to fulfilling its earlier aspirations. Aided by Billie Jean King, Sandra Day O’Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and countless others, things began changing in the 1970s.

So favored by my male status, very early on I had confidence that I would become rich. But in no way did I, or anyone else, dream of the fortunes that have become attainable in America during the last few decades. It has been mind-blowing – beyond the imaginations of Ford, Carnegie, Morgan or even Rockefeller. Billions became the new millions.

Things didn’t look great when I arrived at the beginning of The Great Depression. But the real action from compounding takes place in the final twenty years of a lifetime. By not stepping on any banana peels, I now remain in circulation at 94 with huge sums in savings – call these units of deferred consumption – that can be passed along to others who were given a very short straw at birth.

I am also lucky that my philanthropic philosophy has been enthusiastically embraced – and widened – by both of my wives. Neither I, Susie Sr. nor Astrid, who succeeded her, believed in dynastic wealth.

Instead, we shared a view that equal opportunity should begin at birth and extreme “look-at- me” styles of living should be legal but not admirable. As a family, we have had everything we needed or simply liked, but we have not sought enjoyment from the fact that others craved what we had.

It also has been a particular pleasure to me that so many early Berkshire shareholders have independently arrived at a similar view. They have saved – lived well – taken good care of their families – and by extended compounding of their savings passed along large, sometimes huge, sums back into society. Their “claim checks” are being widely distributed to others less lucky.

************

With this philosophy, I have lived the way I wanted to live since my late 20s, and I have nowwatched my children grow into good and productive citizens. They have different views in many cases from both me and their siblings but have common values that are unwavering.

Susie Jr., Howie and Peter have each spent far more time direcrly helping others than I have.They enjoy being comfortable financially, but they are not preoccupied with wealth. Their mother,from whom they learned these values, would be very proud of them.

As am l.

About Berkshire

Berkshire Hathaway and its subsidiaries engage in diverse business activities including insurance andreinsurance, utilities and energy, freight rail transportation, manufacturing, services and retailingCommon stock of the company is listed on the New York Stock Exchange, trading symbols BRK.Aand BRK.B.

-END_

免责声明：本文章是基于上市公司的公众公司属性、以上市公司根据其法定义务公开披露的信息（包括但不限于临时公告、定期报告和官方互动平台等）为核心依据的独立第三方研究和分析；大道财经力求内容及观点客观公正，但不保证其准确性、完整性、及时性等；本文章中的信息或所表述的意见不构成任何投资建议，大道财经不对因使用本文所采取的任何行动承担任何责任。