Agree entirely with the thesis that Greg Abel is the right man at the right time for Berkshire. But I would add a clause at the end "...for the next several years".

One analogy is considering 'strategic' versus 'tactical'.

If strategic is what you want, and tactical is how you get there, then Buffett was the master strategist. But getting the (figurative and I guess in this case partially literal) trains to run on time has been executed suboptimally, resulting in several of the largest subsidiaries now 'hallmarks of mediocrity' as noted above. Abel, the tactician, now comes across as addressing these operational deficiencies with authority, dedication and experience. A gifted strategist backed by a talented tactician is the best possible combination.

So I am leaving my substantial-to-me Berkshire allocation alone...for the next several years.

What we haven't seen to date is Abel as strategist. I think his talents there will become clear in the next decade, and possibly the next 3-5 years, depending on what happens macroeconomically both worldwide and in the US.

I'm reminded a bit of the senior George Bush, George HW, who was Reagan's VP and who was elected in his own right after Reagan's second term. Bush had the ideal CV for POTUS: combat veteran, successful private sector, CIA director, Ambassador to China, and eight years as VP. Operationally, he did well in the office. But he was handicapped by what he called "the vision thing" (1), or more specifically the lack thereof.

He lasted one term.

TL;DR: I'm happy...for now. And I sincerely hope my optimism continues to grow.

--sutton
(1) politicaldictionary.com - Vision thing
content.time.com: Where Is the Real George Bush?