lethean46

Parsad Thanks for your reply. This surprise resignation and interim appointment at Net Jets has sort of thrown me for a loop. I had already considered that when Warren is "gone" - that the CEO resignation/and retirement pace might accelerate at the BRK subsidiaries thereafter. But I also thought that those subsidiary CEO succession issues had already been addressed by the current CEOs ... in written form to Buffett every two years. Good enough for me. But something is amiss in this story re Net Jets and Santulli. It makes no sense on a number of levels. <<<It could very well be that it is a health issue for Santulli or a family member.>>> I have come around to thinking that that may be the case, too. I totally agree with your comments re Sokol. The BEST. But, he's already got a VERY BIG job at MAE. There's more to this story than we are privy to ... as usual. :-) Interestingly, as an investor in BRK, I'm not so concerned about Buffett's demise in and of itself. It's a given. However, I am concerned and have considered the subsidiary CEO succession issue *after* Buffett's demise. It's very important. And I thought that that issue had already been taken care of via the requirement by Buffett that the current CEOs provide written recommendation to him re their own replacement. Santulli and/or Buffett seem to have gone off script on this one. A BIG one at that. I hope it's not a precursor of things to come - particularly after Buffett's demise - re other subsidiaries. It's difficult for me to articulate thoughts in writing in a cogent concise manner. I DO appreciate and understand your comments though. So, there is no particular need for you to specifically reply to this. OK? I'll be reading along, as usual. It's a very interesting story ... on a number of levels. Regards .... Lethean

1. Why did Sokol resign effective "immediately"? that should read Santulli. Lethean

<<< David Sokol, the chairman of Berkshire's MidAmerican Energy Holdings unit and also considered a top candidate to run Berkshire, as NetJets' chairman and interim chief executive.>>> Two things sort of bother me: 1. Why did Sokol resign effective "immediately"? In effect, with no notice. Isn't that unusual? This seems like a poor time for him to do that .... notwithstanding that he is willing to act as consultant for 1 year. 2. I thought that Buffett required his CEOs to update him in writing every two years re who that CEO recommends as his replacement ... from within his own company/subsidiary. So, why isn't there a candidate under Santulli who is already qualified to take the CEO position? Buffett has stated so often ... that "we" (BRK) can't supply management. I think both pieces of the announcement are a bit odd. 1) the Santulli resignation effective "immediately" 2) and Sokol named as "interim". Thoughts? .... Lethean

Great picture. Thanks for sharing it. Lethean

Hi I rarely post here but have followed this board for a long time. I used to own WTM having first bought it around 1999 or 2000? I forget exactly. I held the stock a long time. Want to say I bought at about $100 and sold at about $500 (after a significant pullback). That is just meant to establish the time frame. Read the annual reports and listened to the conference calls. I can't write knowledgeably about WTM except to say ... that the side car fiasco finished me so far as having confidence in them. It was very unexpected and an unknown (undisclosed?) risk. I can't even explain what the side car business involved now. But it was very disappointing that WTM got involved at all. They should have been above that sort of thing. I think you might be able to find a conference call in which Jack discusses what happened re the side car business. The date will be out of the normal quarterly/annual sequence. He recruited his friends to privately invest in it and his wife might have been the biggest private investor (100s of $Ms). They all lost 100% of their money invested in it. At the time of the conference call, Jack said that his wife was unaware of the loss. He also said that the whole affair was a lousy way to end a career. Apologized, etc. I couldn't abide owning WTM any longer knowing that management had strayed so badly off course ... reaching for "extra return" basically. It wasn't necessary and was greedy. As I write, some details are coming back. Still, it would be better if someone else here explained what the side car business entailed. (WTM took on more risk than they otherwise could have - without sidecar.) Confidence in management is real important to me, particularly at an insurance company such as WTM. Doesn't matter to me that the named guy who was responsible for the idea is gone (I think). Jack and the others approved it and were very active participants. It's a black mark on WTM, IMO. I suggest that you try to research that period of time at WTM. Listen to the relevent conference call and then read the subsequent annual report. They were very forthright - after the fact. Hope that bit of history is useful. Lethean

Checking in. Thanks. Lethean