Jump to content

Buffett/Berkshire - general news


Recommended Posts

I think it was Morgan Housel, but someone said that the past 15+ year BRK outperformance could be due to BRK not having the typical hedge fund fee structure.  However, I'm assuming a lot of the sub CEO's are fairly compensated, so ...:

 

1) is that assertion true?  if BRK top dogs got typical hedge fees, would performance suffer?

2) more relevant, post Buffet, would compensation impact BRK in a meaningful way?  I guess I look at some of the supposed mini BRK, and they have been motoring a long with - I assume - more than fair compensation to management.  Just wondering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are correct in the assumption that BRK managers are fairly compensated. BRK managers have long tenures. if they aren't compensated properly then why would they stay?

 

Furthermore the initial assertion/premise is ridiculous. Why would an operating manager get compensated like a hedge fund manager? Does that happen anywhere except the proponent's weird imagination? Does Jamie Dimon get 2% of assets and 20% profit of JP Morgan? It's stupid.

 

As for number 2, no compensation will not impact BRK in a meaningful way post Buffett.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest longinvestor

Actually, compensation is decided by the manager himself/herself. Buffett asks them when they come to Berkshire and he's seldom changed a word in the agreement. He's addressed this at the meeting. Surely, they work out a properly crafted incentive based on microeconomics of the business. It's quite sound this way. No one is likely to ask for the horseshit hedge fund type deal with Buffett. Or his successor. Buffett called that compensation "merely for breathing".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the 2017 AGM proxy, we know the 2016 compensation of Berkshire SVP & CFO Marc Hamburg as USD 1,550,000 [no bonus that year] plus a bit pension. So I suppose we will see the total compensation of Mr. Jain and Mr. Abel in the 2018 AGM proxy, right?

 

That'll be cool to see!

 

---

 

http://uglymule.com/images/WEB&CharliesPay.png

 

If these figures are accurate, every CEO in America should be ashamed of themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Abel's previous compensation has been detailed in BHE's filings but I don't have them in front of me.  Certainly they did end up disclosing that he holds something like $400 million of BHE shares that can be converted into BRK stock at his option.  Much - if not all - of that was transferred from Sokol, so I'm sure there was a loan involved and it slowly vested to him over time.  There may still be a loan behind it.  And on Doo's chart, Buffett's compensation is mostly security services as he famously takes the same $100k a year as Charlie.  Charlie usually reimburses Berkshire something like $50k a year for 'personal use of postage' and other personal stuff like secretarial time.

 

edit - added graphic showing BHE comp

Screen_Shot_2018-01-31_at_7_43.15_AM.thumb.png.53fd9130a38b3989379adb92ff92f08b.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest longinvestor

And another thing about the compensation regime. Buffett once threatened to come out of the box should anything egregious becomes more prevalent at Berkshire down the road. ;D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question/point with regards to compensation is that whoever becomes the new BRK CEO won't be content with $100K.  Buffett, I believe, said something along the same line.  I don't think BRK future compensation will be so out of line but it would be significant. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest longinvestor

I have the sense that the next guy likely will not take $100K but he is more likely not to take $20 or $60 or $100 million. It is hard enough to step in those shoes, it is terrible optics to come in after Buffett and take a huge salary like that. That places a great amount of pressure, as if the pressure to deliver shareholder value is not enough in itself. Munger said it best. The real solution to excessive salaries is for the CEO's to voluntarily shun them. I believe that Abel/Jain or whoever steps into Buffett's shoes does just that. They continue the lifestyle they currently have been afforded.  ;) Maybe the guy/gal after the next CEO does something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the sense that the next guy likely will not take $100K but he is more likely not to take $20 or $60 or $100 million. It is hard enough to step in those shoes, it is terrible optics to come in after Buffett and take a huge salary like that. That places a great amount of pressure, as if the pressure to deliver shareholder value is not enough in itself. Munger said it best. The real solution to excessive salaries is for the CEO's to voluntarily shun them. I believe that Abel/Jain or whoever steps into Buffett's shoes does just that. They continue the lifestyle they currently have been afforded.  ;) Maybe the guy/gal after the next CEO does something else.

 

I thought Buffett already prepared folks for the bad optics by saying the next CEO would be granted some option based compensation.  So... it should be - relatively - massive.  But shouldn't be such that it would be impactful for shareholders.

 

I guess also, by the time the next guy/gal after the next CEO, BRK will be very, very different, that's when some of the institutional stuff will wear then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"This transaction was solely motivated by our desire to eliminate the regulatory requirements that come with ownership levels above 10 percent,” Buffett said in a statement."

 

I'm not too clear - this is not a bank stock, does Berkshire have a sub-10% requirement for refinery/oil stocks too? It sounds like in this case regulatory requirements were too onerous - but what would they be?  Also, is it correct to understand that *either* Berkshire desires to own <= 10% of this OR it can own 100% (a full buyout) but not anything in-between?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest longinvestor

"This transaction was solely motivated by our desire to eliminate the regulatory requirements that come with ownership levels above 10 percent,” Buffett said in a statement."

 

I'm not too clear - this is not a bank stock, does Berkshire have a sub-10% requirement for refinery/oil stocks too? It sounds like in this case regulatory requirements were too onerous - but what would they be?  Also, is it correct to understand that *either* Berkshire desires to own <= 10% of this OR it can own 100% (a full buyout) but not anything in-between?

 

Believe it is the SEC reporting requirement of 3 days versus 3 months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had to guess it was probably more about FERC and/or DOT regulators that Berkshire Hathaway Energy deals with.  It is possible that over 10% they start to consider PSX assets when Berkshire seeks certain approvals.

 

Another possibility is that it was PSX's idea to buy the block, Warren was OK with it, and they used it as an excuse.

 

"This transaction was solely motivated by our desire to eliminate the regulatory requirements that come with ownership levels above 10 percent,” Buffett said in a statement."

 

I'm not too clear - this is not a bank stock, does Berkshire have a sub-10% requirement for refinery/oil stocks too? It sounds like in this case regulatory requirements were too onerous - but what would they be?  Also, is it correct to understand that *either* Berkshire desires to own <= 10% of this OR it can own 100% (a full buyout) but not anything in-between?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...