Buffett Business School

Why every HBS case mentions Warren Buffett — even when it shouldn’t.

There are few universal truths at Harvard Business School. Cold calls only happen when you forget your notes at home. You’ll hit your free printing quota on the second day of class. At least one person will try to sell a ticket on WhatsApp for an event that’s halfway over. And no matter what case you’re reading, Warren Buffett will be in it.

It’s funny at first. A little Easter egg in every reading, a game of “Where’s Warren?” to break up the string of discounted cash flow and industry cost curve calculations. Then, slowly, it stops feeling like a coincidence. You flip open a case on blockchain applications in sub-Saharan Africa and somehow, there’s Buffett, reminding you that “if you don’t find a way to make money while you sleep, you will work until you die.” A deep analysis of the competitive dynamics surrounding pet rock adoption agencies casually cites Buffett’s love for shooting “fish in a barrel.” By the time you reach a case on the pricing strategy of New Zealand’s premium truffle market, you’re sweating. The realization dawns on you like a slow, creeping horror: there’s no escaping Warren Buffett. But why?

After extensive research (meaning I skimmed three cases and grilled an EC in the Spangler lunch line), I’ve uncovered what can only be described as a coordinated, systematic effort to place Buffett into every case ever written. There are several theories that explain how we got to this point. Some are reasonable. Others… less so. But all must be considered.

1. Buffett is Actually the Lead Course Head

One theory suggests that Buffett, in between running Berkshire Hathaway and drinking five cans of Coke a day, has been secretly approving every case before publication. Insiders say that no case enters an Aldrich classroom until Buffett has scanned it for educational value, adjusted any incorrect financial assumptions, and inserted at least one anecdote about bridge strategy, Nebraska, or the time he bought a pinball machine for $25 and turned it into the equivalent of $53,000 today.

It’s an elegant system. The case writers do the heavy lifting, but nothing is final until it passes through the Oracle’s hands. He tightens up the analysis, ensures the protagonist’s decision-making aligns with sound investing principles, and, if necessary, removes any mention of companies Berkshire Hathaway has refused to touch. If a case dares to include a flattering mention of Tesla, it’s immediately rejected and replaced with a detailed breakdown of why Buffett doesn’t invest in businesses led by erratic billionaires who make flamethrowers for fun.

Buffett’s influence isn’t just subtle; it’s strategic. If we read about his companies enough, we’ll subconsciously start viewing them as safe bets. With each case, Dairy Queen goes from humble ice cream chain to unshakable pillar of the American economy. See’s Candies stops being a West Coast confectionery brand and starts looking like a textbook example of sustainable competitive advantage. At this rate, there will probably be a required RC case titled “Warren Buffett’s Approach to Capital Allocation: Why You Should Have Already Bought Shares of Berkshire Hathaway” by 2030.

If this is true, it also means Buffett has read more cases than most of us, and unlike some, doesn’t skim the exhibits and pretend to have read all the way through.

2. Case Writers Just… Don’t Know Any Other Business People

Another possibility: case writers are simply out of ideas.

I don’t blame them. Their job requires them to produce hundreds of cases, each dissecting a different company, sector, or corporate disaster. Even for the most dedicated crime junkies out there, writing about the fraud triangle for the fiftieth time eventually becomes tedious. Faced with a dull case, like one on how to advertise artisanal mayonnaise brands to the elderly, they resort to a time-honored solution: quoting Buffett.

The moment his name appears, the case instantly sounds more credible. A quick remark about how “we’ve got all the ingredients for a sensational future,” and suddenly, an uninspired analysis of inbound condiment marketing transforms into a profound meditation on customer value proposition.

Once this habit takes hold, it becomes impossible to break. Industries that Buffett has never touched still manage to include his wisdom. The collapse of a luxury dog accessory startup becomes a study in capital discipline, with Buffett’s “don’t swing at every pitch” line anchoring the analysis. The competitive dynamics of high-end scented candle brands suddenly revolve around Buffett’s love for companies with pricing power. A deep dive into the unit economics of haunted hayrides gets away with using Buffett’s stance against investing in businesses he doesn’t understand.

This is how he spreads. Case by case, industry by industry, until his presence is no longer questioned. It’s not a conscious effort; it’s a reflex, an ingrained habit that case writers can’t seem to shake.

3. Buffett is Actually an AI Program That Auto Generates Business Wisdom

This one may seem far-fetched, but the evidence is too compelling to ignore. For over 60 years, Buffett has dispensed a steady stream of business wisdom with a level of consistency that defies human nature. While other investors evolve, make mistakes, or, at the very least, occasionally change their minds, Buffett remains eerily unwavering. His insights are never out of date, his principles never require revision, and his stance on technology stocks remains untouched no matter how much the world transforms around him. This is not the behavior of a mere mortal; it’s one of a machine optimized for maximum reliability.

The essence of Buffett’s quotes only deepens the mystery. Somehow, they apply to every conceivable circumstance. Whether a company is struggling with capital allocation, brand positioning, or growth sustainability, there’s always a Buffett remark that fits perfectly. His words function like an all-purpose corporate cheat code, able to be dropped into any scenario with the same unshakable authority. How is this possible? Real people, even the most brilliant investors, contradict themselves. They refine their opinions. They occasionally say things that don’t make sense. Buffett, however, produces nothing but endlessly relevant, algorithmically precise insights.

If Buffett is, in fact, an advanced AI model, the bigger question is who built him. The most plausible answer is HBS itself. This school has too much at stake to rely on the volatile, error-prone nature of human investors. What they needed was an idealized financial oracle, one that could provide timeless advice without the inconvenience of personal scandal, irrational decision-making, or retirement. By constructing Buffett, HBS ensured that future generations of MBAs would always have a guiding voice that could be quoted endlessly without ever requiring an update.

For legal reasons, I must clarify that I am not accusing HBS of inventing Warren Buffett. But I am suggesting that, if they did, it would explain a lot.

What Happens If a Case Doesn’t Include Buffett?

Perhaps the most chilling realization of all is that no one actually knows. There is no recorded instance of a case being published without a Buffett quote. No student has ever been assigned one. No professor has ever tried to distribute one. The consequences of such an omission remain shrouded in mystery, and those who have attempted to investigate the matter tend to disappear into consulting jobs before they can report their findings.

Theories abound. Some believe that a case submitted without a Buffett reference is simply met with silence. Not rejection, not critique; just a staunch refusal to acknowledge its existence. A professor places it in front of a class, waits a moment, then stares blankly, saying nothing, until a student, out of sheer discomfort, brings up Buffett on their own. The moment his name is spoken, the professor nods approvingly, discussion resumes, and the class moves forward as if nothing had happened.

Others claim that case writers who exclude Buffett face immediate consequences. There are whispers of an underground disciplinary committee that swiftly deals with such violations. A writer submits a Buffett-free manuscript, only to find their access to HBS archives revoked, their faculty page erased, their laptop confiscated. The case itself is never seen again. When questioned, administrators insist that the writer never worked at HBS to begin with.

Whether you buy into the lore or not, one thing is certain: no one attempts to test the system. The risk is too great. If a case without Buffett were ever to be assigned, would it even reach us? Would it simply vanish before it could be printed, intercepted by unseen forces committed to maintaining the status quo? While reading it, would we feel a strange unease, an inescapable sense that something vital is missing, before instinctively seeking out a Buffett quote to restore balance? The answer may never be known. 

Because, as Buffett himself probably once said, “if you’re going to write a case, you might as well put me in it.”

And if he didn’t say it? Well, he would have. Eventually.

Michelle Yu (MBA ‘26) is passionate about all things media, with experience in business news, documentary film, broadcast journalism, and television. She graduated from Columbia University with a degree in Film and Media Studies and worked for CNBC, NBC News, and CNN prior to HBS, along with projects for HBO, Showtime, Oxygen, and Spectrum.