From Apple to Almarai, and from American Express to Saudi banks, Berkshire Hathaway’s investments reveal a different way of looking at stocks. The question is not which Saudi companies resemble Buffett’s investments, but which ones have the economic characteristics he looks for—and whether they can be bought at a reasonable price.

Imagine Warren Buffett, one of the world’s best-known investors, sitting in front of a screen displaying companies listed on the Saudi Exchange, or Tadawul.

He would not find a Saudi company that makes iPhones or one whose business exactly matches Coca-Cola’s, but he would find companies in telecommunications, food, banking, energy, and technology.

Could any of these companies catch his attention in the same way American companies have over the decades?

To answer that, we first need to understand why Berkshire Hathaway invested in those companies, and what its philosophy can teach us about the Saudi market.

Why does Buffett buy companies?

In the documentary about Buffett’s career, one of the most important turning points in his life comes when he enrolled at Columbia Business School to study under investor and professor Benjamin Graham.

The idea he learned was simple: buying a share in a company means owning part of a business—not merely acquiring a security whose numbers fluctuate on a trading screen.

An investor should not simply watch the price rise and fall, but should try to understand the company’s underlying economic value.

From there, Buffett’s philosophy developed around understanding the business, looking for companies capable of generating sustainable profits, and paying attention to the price paid to own them.

One important concept in this philosophy is a “durable competitive advantage”: a company’s ability to protect its profits from competitors over the long term, thanks to its brand, lower costs, or services that are difficult to replace.

How can this idea be applied to Saudi companies?

Apple and stc: What keeps customers coming back?

Apple accounts for a significant share of Berkshire’s stock portfolio.

But Apple’s economic value goes beyond selling devices. The company has built an interconnected ecosystem of products, services, and apps that makes switching to a competing ecosystem costly and demanding for some customers.

This ongoing relationship with customers is one of the advantages worth examining.

In the Saudi market, stc Group can be considered from this perspective, while keeping in mind that its business differs from Apple’s.

Saudi Telecom Company does not make iPhones, but it provides connectivity services, digital infrastructure, and technology services, and has expanded into digital and financial activities, including STC Bank.

The economic question, then, is whether the company can retain its customers and generate recurring revenue from them, or whether price competition will put pressure on its profits.

A company that can build long-term customer relationships may have an important advantage, but the strength of that relationship needs to be measured. It cannot simply be assumed based on brand recognition.

Coca-Cola and Almarai: The power of a brand people choose every day

When consumers buy a Coca-Cola drink, they are not buying only water, sugar, and other ingredients; they are buying a product they know and trust for its taste and quality.

Strong brands and broad reach allow consumer-goods companies to build steady demand for their products.

In Saudi Arabia, Almarai offers a useful example for examining this idea.

The company operates in products consumers buy regularly, such as milk, dairy products, juices, and food. It has a broad production and distribution network spanning multiple markets.

According to its 2025 annual report, Almarai’s distribution network reaches around 220,000 points of sale.

This network gives the company extensive capacity to get its products to consumers, but it requires significant operating investment.

Here, a fundamental difference from Coca-Cola becomes clear: Almarai bears costs related to production, refrigeration, transportation, and supply chains—costs that can be affected by energy, feed, and raw material prices.

So it is not enough to say that Almarai is like Coca-Cola.

The more important questions are: How much profit can Almarai retain after covering these costs? Does the strength of its brand allow it to withstand rising expenses without losing customers?

American Express: A Saudi connection that goes beyond resemblance

American Express represents a different kind of business.

The company does not rely solely on issuing payment cards. It benefits from a network connecting cardholders with merchants, as well as financial services, rewards programs, and long-standing customer relationships.

There is a direct connection between this American brand and the Saudi market.

The Saudi Investment Bank owned a 50% stake in Saudi American Express, which provides card and payment services in the Kingdom.

In September 2026, the bank announced an agreement to sell its entire stake for SAR 1.43 billion, plus deferred consideration, subject to regulatory requirements being met to complete the transaction.

The deal highlights another aspect of investing: a company’s value may extend beyond its direct banking operations to include investments it holds in other companies.

But having an ownership relationship with a global brand does not make Saudi Investment Bank a local version of American Express.

Each has different revenue sources, risks, and financial structures.

The question that matters to investors is: How should a company’s stake in another business be valued, and what changes in its earnings and cash flows when it decides to sell that stake?

Google and Elm: Can technology translate into sustainable profits?

Berkshire holds investments in Alphabet, Google’s parent company.

Alphabet derives a significant part of its economic strength from digital platforms, advertising, and technology services that benefit from a broad base of users and advertisers.

In the Saudi market, Elm can be examined for its ability to build digital platforms and services used by government entities, businesses, and individuals.

According to its 2025 annual report, Elm expanded its digital products and technology solutions, drawing on its experience operating large-scale platforms and services.

But comparing Elm with Google does not mean their revenue sources are alike.

Global digital search advertising differs from providing technology solutions and services to organizations and institutions.

Even so, the comparison raises two important economic questions: Can the company expand without its costs rising at the same rate? Can its expertise and customer relationships become an advantage that competitors find difficult to replicate?

Bank of America and Al Rajhi Bank: Why do deposits matter?

Berkshire’s portfolio includes a substantial investment in Bank of America.

The bank operates across a wide range of activities, including deposits, lending, money management, and financial services.

In Saudi Arabia, Al Rajhi Bank offers a useful case for examining some of the characteristics of this model.

Banks take deposits and use their financial resources, subject to regulatory requirements, to provide financing and banking services.

Low-cost deposits help improve a bank’s competitiveness because they can reduce the average cost of the funds it relies on for its business.

Al Rajhi Bank’s 2025 annual report describes growth in its customer base, digital services, and deposits, alongside continued competition to attract funds in Saudi Arabia’s banking sector.

But a bank’s size does not necessarily make it a suitable investment at every price.

Investors need to assess the quality of its lending, its costs, its ability to generate sustained profits, and how exposed it is to economic changes.

Chevron and Aramco: Not all oil companies are alike

Berkshire also invests in energy companies, notably Chevron and Occidental.

In Saudi Arabia, Aramco is the clearest example for comparison within the sector.

Aramco produces oil and gas, in addition to refining, chemicals, and other activities connected to the energy value chain.

In its 2025 annual report, the company notes that the strength of its business depends, among other factors, on the scale of its hydrocarbon resources, production costs, and operational capabilities.

But an oil producer with low costs may achieve very different results from another company, even if both sell the same product.

The difference depends on operating costs, required investment, debt, taxes, financial policies, and global prices.

That is why comparing Aramco with Chevron or Occidental requires examining each company’s economics, rather than simply noting that they all operate in the energy sector.

What about Saudi insurance companies?

There is an important aspect of Berkshire’s experience that is not fully reflected in the information commonly circulated about its stock portfolio.

Berkshire is not just a company that invests in Apple and Coca-Cola stocks. It is a group that owns operating businesses in insurance, railroads, energy, manufacturing, and services.

Insurance is one of the important components of its business model.

Insurance companies collect premiums from customers before paying many of the claims associated with those policies.

In the interim, they can invest some of those funds, subject to their obligations, liquidity needs, and regulatory requirements.

This temporarily available money is known as “insurance float.”

But this money is neither pure profit nor guaranteed free financing: the company remains obligated to pay future claims.

In the Saudi market, listed insurers such as Tawuniya offer an opportunity to examine the relationship between underwriting results and investment returns.

According to its annual report, Tawuniya recorded net investment income of around SAR 764 million in 2025.

This illustrates why investors in insurance companies look at the quality of both risk management and investment management.

Would Buffett actually buy these companies?

Even if an investor following Buffett’s philosophy finds a company with a strong brand, stable profits, and good management, they may still decide not to buy its stock.

The reason is price.

There is a difference between a successful company and a successful investment.

A company may generate high profits for many years, but buying its shares at an excessive price can limit future returns.

This is where the concept of “intrinsic value” comes in: an estimate of a company’s economic value based on the money it can generate for its owners in the future.

Because future cash flows are uncertain, estimating intrinsic value depends on assumptions that may differ from one investor to another.

That is why some investors also use the concept of a “margin of safety”: trying to buy a stock at a price sufficiently below its estimated value to allow for errors in forecasts.

Almarai may have a strong brand, Elm may have important digital platforms, and Al Rajhi may have a broad customer base—but none of that alone determines whether their stock prices are attractive.

And perhaps he would buy nothing

In the documentary, a key moment in Buffett’s life comes when he closed his investment partnership in 1969 after finding it difficult to identify opportunities priced in line with his criteria.

Stock prices were rising, but a rising market was not reason enough to keep buying.

This behavior illustrates the difference between following the market and sticking to an investment strategy.

An investor does not always need to buy a stock just because they have cash available, and a successful company is not necessarily an opportunity at its current price.

So perhaps the most important question we can ask about the Saudi market through Buffett’s experience is: Should I buy a company because its business is excellent, or because its price gives me the chance to own that business at an attractive return?

The Saudi names mentioned here are not a hypothetical shopping list for Buffett; they are examples that help us understand companies’ economic characteristics.

Ultimately, the simplest lesson we can learn from his experience may also be the hardest to put into practice:

Know what you are buying, why you are buying it, and how much it is worth paying for.