
The Party’s Over for Buffett - ph0rque
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/30/opinion/30nocera.html?_r=3&ref=opinion
======
sbaqai
Here's a direct link to the audit committee report:
<http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/news/APR2711.pdf>

The NYT article is inflammatory, makes factual errors, and is even a bit
trollish at times. A simple analysis or opinion piece would have been fine.

"Since then, Buffett has been subject to criticism of a kind he has never
before faced."

“'It makes you question Warren’s judgment,'” - author who happens to have a
new Warren Buffet book out.

"What moved him to pre-emptively clear Sokol, who had so clearly violated
Berkshire’s code of conduct, of wrongdoing? What does that tell us of possible
flaws in Buffett’s character?"

"He often buys companies with very little due diligence;"

"His board is made up primarily of cronies"

Yeesh

~~~
fleitz
"He often buys companies with very little due diligence;" that doesn't sound
like Buffet at all. If everyone who bought stock, CDSs, and other complex
financial instruments did as much diligence as Buffet everyone in finance
would still think a TARP is something you use to protect things from the
elements.

------
corin_
The article talks as if this one act of misconduct (which we only know about
because Buffet announced it) proves that Buffet is always letting stuff like
this happen, which frankly there's no evidence of whatsoever.

The _only_ piece of the article that could be used to justify the bait-
headline is the fact that he is growing old and can't live for ever - in fact,
that was the only statement in there worth making at all.

Not exactly grounbreaking journalism to reveal that a man who is 80 years old
won't be able to keep doing his job for the rest of eternity. Frankly, I
expect better of the NY Times.

------
thematt
That's one overly dramatic title. Buffett has navigated far worse situations
in his business career. Look at what he went through with Solomon. That
situation actually had the potential to sink his entire company. Buffett may
have lost a successor in this case, but it hardly spells the end of him or
Berkshire.

~~~
sigil
> Buffett has navigated far worse situations in his business career. Look at
> what he went through with Solomon.

Absolutely. Or, to a lesser extent, the Buffalo Courier-Express antitrust case
back in the 70s. Buffet's "go honest early" policy is yet another brilliant
long term strategy that seems slightly crazy / ruinous in the short run.

For anyone interested, this book was a good read:

[http://www.amazon.com/Buffett-American-Capitalist-Roger-
Lowe...](http://www.amazon.com/Buffett-American-Capitalist-Roger-
Lowenstein/dp/0385484917)

------
dr_
How is the party over? Buffett, later than he probably should have, admitted
that Sokol's transgressions were unacceptable, and now Sokol is gone.
Ultimately this is not going to have an impact on Berkshire's bottom line or
share price. The stock was never really the "darling" of Wall Street because
Berkshire never catered to analysts.

------
pbreit
What a terrible article. The guy got fired! Isn't that sufficient? Buffett has
always railed against the ridiculous processes that cripple other companies.
Why would or should he behave differently?

~~~
thematt
He wasn't fired, he resigned.

~~~
tsotha
Semantics. When your boss asks you to resign, you've been fired.

~~~
thematt
Normally, yeah, it would be semantics. Except in this case Buffett gave the
appearance of being soft on the situation up until the audit committee at
Berkshire released the damning report against Sokol. I believe this article is
drawing the connection between the way Buffett manages and the problems that
could create for shareholders down the road.

------
jrockway
All I got out of this article is that Buffett is kind of old and will probably
die someday. I guess that means the party will be over someday, but it's not
really newsworthy because pretty much everyone dies.

------
natural219
I was at the shareholder's meeting. Several of the initial questions were
about the Sokol incident, and many were hostile toward's Buffet's response
(especially his initial press release). Buffet answered every question clearly
and confidently, tracing his line of reasoning in terms of the information he
knew at the time. I don't think the image presented today by Buffet and Munger
is consistent with the conclusion that Buffet is reeling from a "serious dent
in his pristine image."

