If I Could Own Only One Stock for 10 Years, I Wouldn't Choose Berkshire Hathaway

Surviving the next decade is important. But what about actually winning it?

A recent article argues that Berkshire Hathaway ($BRK.B) is the ideal stock to own for ten years because it can survive almost anything.

I agree with the logic. But not the conclusion.

Berkshire has enormous cash reserves, diversified businesses, and a remarkable history of disciplined capital allocation.

The problem? Safety has a price. And sometimes that price is a decade of missed opportunities.

Berkshire is built to preserve and compound wealth. But I want a company that can do something more: actively participate in the transformation of the global economy.

My choice would be Microsoft ($MSFT).

Not Nvidia. Not Tesla. Not the latest AI sensation.

Here's why.

First, Microsoft already makes extraordinary amounts of money.

In fiscal 2026, Microsoft generated:

• $331.8 billion in revenue, growing 18%.
• $155.2 billion in operating income, growing 21%.
• $182.9 billion in operating cash flow.

These aren't speculative projections. They're actual results.

Second, Microsoft has multiple engines of growth.

Azure grew 41% in fiscal 2026. Microsoft Cloud revenue reached $214.4 billion, growing 27%.

But Microsoft isn't simply a cloud company.

It owns critical enterprise infrastructure through Microsoft 365, Windows, Azure, GitHub, Dynamics, and its security products.

AI offers opportunities across nearly all of them.

Even if one product disappoints, the company has other ways to grow.

Third, Microsoft's biggest advantage isn't AI. It's distribution.

Thousands of startups are building brilliant AI products.

But how many already have deep relationships with enterprises around the world?

Microsoft can distribute new AI capabilities through software businesses already use and pay for.

This doesn't guarantee success. But it dramatically changes the economics of reaching customers.

Now the uncomfortable part: valuation.

At approximately $524 per share on October 23, Microsoft trades around 26.5 times forward earnings.

That isn't cheap.

And its fiscal 2026 property and equipment spending reached nearly $116 billion. AI infrastructure requires enormous investment, and today's spending must eventually deliver sufficient returns.

Competition, technological disruption, and valuation compression are genuine risks.

But I'm willing to accept those risks for a business that combines strong profitability, recurring revenue, competitive advantages, and substantial growth opportunities.

Here's where I fundamentally disagree with the Berkshire argument.

Hendrik Bessembinder's research found that just 4% of U.S. stocks accounted for the market's entire net wealth creation since 1926.

The lesson isn't simply to avoid losers.

It's that missing the biggest winners can be extraordinarily expensive.

Berkshire may help protect against the downside. Microsoft offers a different proposition: a financially strong business with a meaningful opportunity to participate in the next generation of technological growth.

Neither guarantees a good return. And for genuine diversification, an index fund remains the more defensible one-ticker answer.

But if the rules require choosing one company, I would rather own a durable business that is still reinventing itself.

For a ten-year investment, avoiding disaster matters. But avoiding opportunity has a cost, too.

Would you choose Berkshire's resilience, Microsoft's growth potential, or take a bigger swing with Nvidia?

---

Sources: Microsoft FY2026 Annual Report, MSFT price and valuation, and Bessembinder's research. Figures as of October 23–24, 2026.