Actually he has made a big deal out of how they aren't going to inherit anything anyway, so what is she losing? A guy worth billions can't help his own kin, what kind of guy is he one wonders. From my perspective, the reason we exist is to see to it our offspring have it better than we did, I guess he wants to make it easier for his kids to do that. Whatever...
He's been telling the rest of us that no matter how screwed up his kids get, they'll be a public charge and not on his mealticket.
The reason he has so dramatically disinherited his offsprings is very simple, given his personality defects:
They have one less reason to want to kill him.
He paid for her education, so it's hardly true that he never helped her out. People on this forum love to rail againt the "spoiled trust-fund" kids, and now your criticizing him because he never gave his family more?
On the other hand, it's understandable that she would participate in a documentary like that, but this response seems extreme.
the super-wealthy often are very tight with their money and sometimes it's a good thing for the offspring. I remember hearing the Rockefeller's, as college students, would have to hitch rides to get home, they weren't given cars and limitless money to spend (as are so many of today's yuppies' kids).
Then, again, Jack Kent Cooke virtually assured that his own son would not be in a position to buy/own the Redskins. (I always resented JKC for doing that to his son, but don't know the circumstances or anything about their relationship)
So, old man Buffett can join Bill and Melinda Gates in wiping out AIDS ... still better than Soros. Methinks his ex-granddaughter will do just fine without the old ba$tard's money.