

Howard Buffet will succeed Warren Buffet as chairman of Berkshire Hathaway - curiouskat
http://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2011/12/11/who-is-howard-buffett-60-minutes-gives-glimpse/

======
loganfrederick
Before this gets more views, let's establish that the headline is misleading
and it's spelled "Buffett".

Howard Buffett is a NON-EXECUTIVE chairman. He will have little-to-no
involvement in investment decisions at Berkshire. My guess based on the actual
content of the article is that he is installed to have a vote at board
meetings that will help maintain ethical and moral voting policies throughout
the firm.

------
budley
In some ways this is a break from Warren's publicly espoused values, but it
seems to be a figurehead kind of thing and you can't really complain about a
chairman who doesn't get paid.

------
DiabloD3
I hope Howard is even a fraction of the investor Warren is. I mean, don't get
me wrong, Howard is probably great, but when your dad is considered one of the
best investors ever, its hard to live up to that legacy.

And yes, I've read the article, thats a pretty long list of what Howard has
achieved in his life thus far, its nothing to sneeze at.

~~~
tansey
I think you missed the first part, where it says that he is going to join as
nonexecutive chairman. He's basically going to succeed WB only in terms of
maintaining and guiding BRK's ethical standards, not its investment decisions.

Also, this is clearly a puff piece that was arranged by BRK's publicist.
Having read Warren Buffet's biography a few years back, I do no believe
"successful farmer" is how I remembered his son's career being described. The
article does a decent job of painting a rosy picture, but looking at it from a
more objective light: he grew up rich in a really weird family dynamic where
his father and mother rarely had communication and the father's mistress lived
with them; he never really was able to find much ambition in himself since he
never wanted for anything, and his ability to believe he can succeed was
explicitly shot down by his parents; he tried to go to college three times,
failing each time until he finally had a mental break and decided to run away
to a simpler life, like a cliched Happy Loman (Death of a Salesman). Given
that this appointment is only about making sure the company maintains its
ethics, that's not such a bad guy to put in that role. At least he's not
obsessed with ROI at all costs.

~~~
potatolicious
In some ways this might be the ideal corporate setup. There are enough sharks
in BRK to make sure the company continues to rake it in.

Maybe _this_ is what we need in corporations today - a team of ruthless
businessmen being reigned in by someone who has the moral perspective to make
sure the business is a positive impact, but disconnected enough not to get
drawn into the fray.

Or maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part, hoping someday that our
banks would led by people with the moral fiber to reign in the abuse and
concentrate on providing value.

~~~
mrich
This won't help, the ruthless businessmen can easily collaborate and lie to
the outsider, he has no chance keeping them in check really.

~~~
loganfrederick
True to some extent, but if the non-executive Chairman still has a board of
directors vote, and (without looking at the other directors) assuming the rest
of the board isn't strictly Berkshire execs, the setup could work.

