Core Arguments

The author “Time” analyzes Greg Abel’s (Berkshire’s new CEO) Q1 2026 13F filing and derives the following conclusions:

  1. Abel’s portfolio signal: Cleared Amazon → loaded Delta Air Lines and Alphabet, cut Chevron (oil/energy)
  2. Causal chain: Abel is betting on “Iran tension easing” → bullish for airlines (lower oil), bearish for oil → partial tech bet but still cautious
  3. SpaceX mid-June IPO: Will become a Nasdaq weight stock, driving index gains
  4. Crash timeline: Earliest 5+ months from now (~Oct-Nov 2026, around midterm elections), or after year-end rate hikes
  5. Strategy advice: Get in early while there’s still disagreement; don’t wait for full bullish consensus

Fact Verification

✅ Confirmed

1. Abel indeed made major Q1 portfolio changes.

  • Exited Amazon: ✅ Confirmed by CNBC, Fortune, Investopedia. Also exited Visa, Mastercard, Domino’s Pizza, United Healthcare. Portfolio cut from 42 positions to 29.
  • Tripled Alphabet stake: ✅ From 17.76M to 57.8M shares, value from $5.6B to $16.6B.
  • New Delta Air Lines position: ✅ ~40M shares worth $2.6B. This is Berkshire’s first airline position since Buffett liquidated in 2016.
  • Cut Chevron 35%: ✅ Sold ~45.78M shares worth ~$8-9.4B.

2. SpaceX IPO is real.

  • Reuters reported May 15: SpaceX targeting June 12 Nasdaq listing under ticker SPCX, valuation ~$1.75T.

3. Real-time market data validates Abel’s Delta play.

Pulled 30 daily candlesticks for DAL via moomoo. The price action tells the story cleanly:

  Bottom     04/29  $65.64 ← panic low (Iran war + oil shock)
  Rebound    05/06  $73.15 ← talks news starts circulating
  13F Filed  05/15  —      ← media breaks Abel's DAL buy
  Breakout   05/20  $67.76→$74.12 ← massive 11.95M volume
  Run to top 05/27  $83.75 ← peak
  Pullback   Today  $79.37 ← ~5% off highs

DAL closed today around $79.37, intraday low/high $78.93/$79.89.

Key takeaways:

Abel’s cost basis is far below current price. He bought in Q1 (Jan-Mar) when DAL was roughly $40-60 (the Iran-war airline crash). At $79 today, he’s sitting on 30-50%+ unrealized gains. Executed well.

The market only reacted after the 13F disclosure. 13F filed 5/15, breakout didn’t happen until 5/20 — a 3-session lag. Even institutions needed confirmation before piling in.

The 5/27 peak at $83.75 was followed by a normal pullback. From $66 to $84 in a month is a 27% move. A 5% retrace is healthy.

The window to copy Abel’s trade has already closed. You’d be buying at $79; he bought at $40-60. That’s a 20%+ gap in cost basis and completely different risk profile. This isn’t “following the Oracle” — it’s riding his coattails at a much worse price.

Why Abel bought Delta: The Iran war erupted in June 2025, sending oil prices soaring and airline demand crashing. DAL went from ~$70 to the $40s. Abel grabbed 40M shares ($2.6B) at an average cost of roughly $45-50 in Q1. The logic is simpler than “betting on Iran peace” — a panic-driven selloff in a business that hadn’t fundamentally broken. Bargain hunting.

Current situation (June 2026): US-Iran talks have been ongoing since February; oil has pulled back from its highs. Air travel demand is recovering — lower jet fuel costs are a direct tailwind. Abel’s position is almost certainly sitting on significant unrealized gains.

But Buffett was right about the airline business: “If a farsighted capitalist had been present at Kitty Hawk, he would have done his successors a huge favor by shooting Orville down.” Airlines are structurally a terrible business — high fixed costs, massive capex, brutal price competition, extreme sensitivity to oil and macro. Abel’s $2.6B Delta bet is more likely a tactical opportunity discussed with Buffett (buy the Iran-war panic), not a strategic pivot into airlines.

❌ Problematic or Questionable

1. “Abel betting on Iran easing” — too much narrative stretching.

Abel’s tripling of Alphabet is better explained as an AI investment thesis (Google’s position in the AI arms race), not a geopolitical bet. Alphabet’s AI capex is exactly what’s been driving Broadcom and other chip names recently.

The Delta buy is more likely a cyclical value play — airlines tanked during the Iran war, Abel bought the dip. Attributing it to “betting on Iran peace” is a bridge too far. Abel’s background is running Berkshire’s utilities and operating companies, not macro geopolitical trading.

Also, the claim “cut energy stocks” is overstated — Berkshire only reduced Chevron, and the 35% reduction was smaller proportionally than the completely exited positions. This looks like normal rebalancing, not a sector-level call against energy.

2. “SpaceX becoming a Nasdaq weight stock” — way too early.

Even if SpaceX lists on June 12, it won’t immediately join the Nasdaq 100. The Nasdaq 100 rebalances annually in December (special fast-track additions have very high liquidity thresholds). A newly IPO’d company would need to wait until at least December for potential inclusion.

For SpaceX to meaningfully move the Nasdaq, it needs to be in QQQ. At $1.75T valuation it’s large enough, but the process means “immediate weight stock” is unrealistic.

3. “Rate hikes earliest year-end” — ignores shifting Fed stance.

The author seems to be thinking in 2023’s high-inflation framework. Current Fed signals (Williams today said “not far from neutral rate,” “underlying inflation faces some downward pressure”) are actually leaning dovish. Market expectations are leaning towards cuts, not hikes. The macro environment has shifted significantly since 2023.

4. Nasdaq’s “stock-picking reputation” — survivorship bias.

“Nasdaq’s credit has never failed in stock selection” — this is textbook survivorship bias. The Nasdaq isn’t actively picking winners; it’s a rules-based index (market-cap weighted, liquidity-filtered). Stocks that crashed or got delisted are no longer in the index — that’s not “credit,” that’s how index mechanics work.

Overall Assessment

The article’s best feature is that it correctly reported Abel’s 13F changes — the data is accurate. The problem is that the chain of reasoning from data to conclusions is too long and too convenient.

The author needed a unified narrative to explain all of Abel’s moves, so they forced an “Iran peace” framework. More likely, Abel was running multiple independent plays:

  • GOOGL: AI thematic bet
  • DAL: Cyclical value (airlines crashed during Iran war) — live data shows Abel’s cost ~$40-60, current $79, 30-50% unrealized gain
  • CVX reduction: Profit-taking after oil spike (not a bearish call on oil)
  • AMZN/V/MA exits: Portfolio simplification (42→29), possibly reflecting Todd Combs’ departure

This is a classic over-narrativization error — forcing multiple independent decisions into a single story.

As for the crash call — “earliest 5 months out” (~Oct 2026) — the article provides no substantive argument for this timeline. Midterm elections as a crash catalyst lack historical statistical support.

Score

6.0/10

Accurate data citation (credit where due) and engaging writing style. The “follow the Oracle” emotional hook works well for retail readers. But the logical chain is too brittle — forcing Abel’s independent decisions into a unified “Iran” narrative doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

For readers tempted to copy this trade: Abel’s 13F is worth studying, but understand each position may have a completely different rationale. Don’t be seduced by a neat story.