I put in a bit about Buffett Partnership above. Much more favorable pricing scheme (forexample in 2 and 20 or 2 and 15 the hedge folks don't ameliorate losses), and it was a family and friends partnership
He was indeed an activist investor. But he was an activist investor for dirt cheap, doing the dirt cheap things. Same for the use of insurance float (the cheapest money around) for alternative investments (the cheapest ones he could get).
(you could definitely argue that 50 over the higher threshhold is very different tho)
I don't understand this thread. He's not some saint. He's a member of the 1%. He's in the same circles as all of those investment bankers who benefited from the 2008 financial crisis while everyone else lost their homes.
So he happens to be rich, so what? That doesn't make him a bad person, or anything else. If there was evidence that he was part of any of the dirty dealing that went on in the lead-up to the subprime crisis and all of the follow-on stuff, then that would be one thing. But up to this point, I haven't heard anything to suggest that. Are you aware of something like that, or is this strictly a sentiment rooted in "guilt by association"?
I'm not enamoured of the man but pretending that he's some cocaine-sniffing master of the universe is not congruent to the truth. He's a successfully enormously cheap investor.
[0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/daniel-loeb-criticizes-warren-b...