Buffetteer

Thanks dcollon. Anyone have the video?

I haven't cancelled my subscription because I really do like their content, it's great...when they publish it. Problem is they rarely do. He did mention that in the last issue (Aug. 2010), but made it seem that was the reason for the long delay in getting that issue out (prior to that, latest issue was Mar 2009) and that they are now back on track. That was a year ago.

I've been a subscriber for over 2 years and have received maybe 3 issues! I mean what's the point, the last issue was over a year ago. Anyone else a subscriber or have any insight into the company, I'm considering cancelling my subscription. If you have nothing to write about in these economic times than there's something wrong, IMHO.

As Cosmo Kramer would say: "In my mind...I'm already there!"

I've seen this before, forgot how valuable it is. Thanks BG.

I agree with you, I think what David Sokol did was wrong as well, and have said so in other posts on this board. And I also agree that the amount of shares you own has no bearing on how you should be treated as a shareholder/partner. What I meant was that this has been in the news for about a month now and there have been no lawsuits, none. Would suggest that 99.9% of shareholders/partners do not share Mr. Kirby's views. At the very least he should wait for the results of the SEC investigation. He nor anyone else has enough information for a lawsuit, at this time. It's baseless.

A shareholder (1) sues Sokol & Buffett. First, why Buffett?...and second, anyone can file a lawsuit no matter how frivolous or baseless. If the SEC does it I consider it news, if Mason Kirby from Delaware does it I consider it a joke, IMHO.

This is a joke, can't believe it even made the news.

The Feb. 7 press release is still on their website and the Apr. 12 release confirms the cancellation of the AGM but does not mention the Afternoon With Charlie. I'm still keeping my fingers crossed.

That's too bad. Why would they put out a press release on Feb. 7th suggesting an Afternoon with Charlie to take place on May 4th and then change it? I'm sure they know most people fly from Omaha to Pasadena for the two meetings and would have booked their trips once the Feb. 7 announcement was made. That's what I did. Oh well, it's not like California is a bad place to visit...meeting or no meeting.

From the Financial Times. Don't know how successful they'll be, but it's about time: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a31e787c-63a9-11e0-bd7f-00144feab49a.html#axzz1JDkT0T5D

You're right, there is a significant difference, but Buffett did say he was surprised at Sokol's resignation. Would suggest that Buffett didn't think Sokol's trades were an issue, otherwise why be surprised. Again, I am drawing my own conclusions, not quoting Mr. Buffett. But I do see your point.

Wow, great article, thanks for the link lethean. Sokol obviously violated the policies of the "Insider Trading" memo. I am just very surprised to hear Mr. Buffet say that the LZ trades had nothing to do with Sokol's resignation. If they didn't, they certainly should have.

This guy's a clown...a bitter old clown.

I agree with you Myth, I thought it was a great article and I have to credit Sorking for showing some independence and asking the tough questions. "Victimless crime" if you don't count the LZ shareholders who sold their shares to Sokol for $104 before having all the facts presented to them.

Interesting article in the NYT this morning: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/business/05sokol.html?hp

We all have our opinions on this subject, and there are valid points on both sides. I'll not drag this on any longer either, but I keep asking myself this question: "If, before buying the shares, Sokol made it public that he was talking to LZ about potentionally being acquired by BH, would he still have been able to buy them for $104/share?" Yes, I would agree with that. If my company is in talks with Bombardier to buy 100 planes, I probably shouldn't buy Bombardier shares until the news is made public.

Actually I never implied that Sokol was negotiating the deal, just that he was talking to LZ about a potential takeover. More info can be found here: (Lubrizol's letter to shareholders regarding the deal. Scroll down to "background on the merger"). http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/60751/000119312511078281/dprem14a.htm#toc166121_52 Mr. Sokol indicated that, as is typical in other Berkshire Hathaway acquisitions, if Berkshire Hathaway were to acquire Lubrizol, it would want Mr. Hambrick to continue to run the business. This is from a Jan. 25th meeting Sokol had with CEO of LZ, obviously discussing a potential acquisition. The letter does a great job of explaining the series of events. Weather Sokol has the authority to make a deal is irrelevant, the point is he was trading on info that was not yet available to the public. Don't you think it would have been wrong for the board of LZ to start accumulating shares in their company after being approached by BH for a possible acquisition. We may disagree on this, but I think it would have...I feel they would have been taking advantage of the shareholders they were purchasing the shares from as the shareholders did not have all the facts. You don't know the half of it. They're going to tear down that house and build four new ones in it's place...It really is a shame. :)

I'm sorry I fail to see the connection, but I will say this: If I found a house that I felt was very undervalued and approached the seller, I would have to disclose that I am a Realtor and would have to disclose all material facts I have on the house and why I feel it is undervalued. Failure to do so could cost me my license. I think a more appropriate analogy would be this: I am employed by a builder who tells me they are interested in buying some property to develop. I approach a homeowner and tell him I want to buy his house, but don't tell him that a developer is interested in buying the property and that I could then sell it for much more. I am not sure that the developer is going to be interested in the property, but after I buy it I will approach the builder and recommend that he buys it. The builder says he is not interested, but I am persistent and a month later I bring it up again and he agrees. I have just made millions by withholding information from the homeowner. Is that fair? Actually I think there is 100% evidence that he was. It wasn't until after LZ's board agreed to be purchased by BH that Warren took over the negotiations. Until that point it was all David.

Bronko, as a real estate agent, if I violate my fiduciary duty to a client I could lose my license. And I don't think anyone is saying BH employees can't buy shares in public companies. If Sokol had bought shares in Wells Fargo while discussing a possible buyout of LZ then of course there wouldn't be a problem. The issue is the timing of the purchases of a company he was in takeover talks with. A big portion of my portfolio is in BRK so believe me I will always give them the benefit of the doubt, but in this case I think Sokol screwed up. I don't think this affects Warren Buffet's reputation at all, but unfortunately it raises some questions about Sokol. We just found out about this 2 days ago.

Oops, I guess not. I thought as the Original Poster I could edit it, but it didn't work. We'll just have to suffer through it.

Taken care of rogermunibond, I didn't even notice that.

If I buy half a company for $1,000,000, and as a result the remaining half of shares double, that would mean that I would have to pay an additional $2,000,000 to purchase the rest of the company...for a total cost of $3,000,000. Whereas if I had bought the whole company right away it would only have cost me $2,000,000. I lose from the runup in price, not gain. I do see your point on the legality issue though, I don't agree with it, but I understand your argument. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. :)

But BRK would not profit from the runup in price in this case because they would eventually have to pay more to buy the company, as a result of the runup. But Sokol did stand to profit because his shares in LZ would be bought by Buffett at a higher price. This is why it seems very close to insider trading to me: 1. Sokol asks Citi to give him a list of potential takeover companies for BRK. 2. He gets the list and tells Citi that he likes LZ and would like to meet with the CEO. 3. The next day he buys LZ shares. 4. Then he pitches the company to Mr. Buffett. I don`t see how he is not trading on insider information. The general public was not aware of these discussions. As I said earlier, if it was a Citi employee that had made those trades after learning that LZ was a potential BRK takeover target, it would be cut & dry...a case of insider trading. How is this any different?

I'm not sure if this is insider trading or not, but based on the information we have so far, I'd have to lean toward 'yes'. For those who disagree (and they may very well turn out to be right, as a matter of fact I hope they are) just out of curiosity, why is this not insider trading?