Howard Buffett

[sleepydragon]

This article is full of none sense.

Are they the New York Post of Arizona?

[StubbleJumper]

This article is full of none sense.

Are they the New York Post of Arizona?

 

 

Well, of course it's muck-raking.  Stories like these are usually more than 0% true, but less than 100% true.  But, what is the minimum percentage of truth that a muck-raker can use without getting sued back to the stone age for libel?  IMO, there's enough facts referenced in the article to protect the newspaper from getting sued, but they've supplemented those facts with more than just a little innuendo.

 

The real question is, "Do the referenced facts and the photos in the article provide you with new, additional comfort about Howie's board of director role, or do they cause you new, additional discomfort with his BoD role?

 

I know where I stand on that question.

 

 

SJ

[LC]

Even before this thing (which I'm not even sure is a "thing"), it felt odd that out of the entire corporate world, WEB found the most capable board member among his children. Not Dimon, not Gates, not Bob Hamman (kidding, but probably still better than Howard... but seriously look this guy up. He's a genius and Buffett looks up to him), but Howard Buffett. Just seems odd for someone who preaches AGAINST the ovarian lottery.

 

Exactly. You have to look at actions, not words. The reality is that HB is simply not qualified.

 

Someone should ask this question at the next Brk meeting (just kidding, it will never pass whatever question screening they have in place).

[gfp]

 

Someone should ask this question at the next Brk meeting (just kidding, it will never pass whatever question screening they have in place).

 

I literally just posted a link to Doug Kass asking this exact same question during the annual meeting, with Warren’s answer.  He’s pretty clear that Howie is there for one specific reason

 

*edit: I should add as well that there is a very good chance that Howard will also be the executor of an estate that will still hold a de facto controlling stock position for some time, unless Warren lives a whole lot longer.

[LC]

Really? I didn't see it in this thread. I will check your post history. Thanks\

 

 

Ah found it - must have scrolled by  ;D

[gfp]

4 posts above yours

[LC]

Maybe it;'s just me but that was not really a convincing answer by WB.

 

Essentially Howard's job is to collect a paycheck and make a CEO change if they pick "the wrong guy"?

 

Firstly, the job description of COB is not that simple. If the CEO of Brk and CEO of one of the major subs have a big disagreement, in most companies, the board usually steps in or provides input. Howard will have a voice and a responsibility, regardless of whether "he has interest or not".

 

Second, even in the severely limited role that WB specifies, WB doesn't answer how Howard is qualified. How does HB know who the right or wrong CEO is? Wouldn't you need some knowledge of the underlying businesses to make this decision?

 

"Protect the culture" - looking past the ambiguity of this phrase, WB still doesn't say how HB is qualified. All WB says is that, "Howard cares enormously about protecting the culture and protecting the shareholders" and he has a "enormous sense of responsibility". This is wholly unsatisfying as a job qualification, and pretty suspicious that the selected individual with this "enormous sense of responsibility" happens to be WB's son.

[DooDiligence]

A chink has finally appeared in WEB's armor.

 

I'll be using a postage stamp for the first time in forever, since there's no email link on Berkshires website (for all the good it'll do...)

[Gregmal]

Warrens son has been associated with BRK forever.

 

Warrens son supports protecting the borders.

 

Liberals are outraged.

 

Now there’s a problem at Berkshire.

 

LOL.

 

[EliG]

"Protect the culture" - looking past the ambiguity of this phrase, WB still doesn't say how HB is qualified. All WB says is that, "Howard cares enormously about protecting the culture and protecting the shareholders" and he has a "enormous sense of responsibility". This is wholly unsatisfying as a job qualification, and pretty suspicious that the selected individual with this "enormous sense of responsibility" happens to be WB's son.

 

"Protect the culture" might be a code phrase for:

 

Howard's real job -- and the only job -- is to make sure that a future CEO doesn't attempt to break up the empire.

 

As a son who cares deeply about his dad's legacy, he is uniquely qualified to do this specific job.

 

Just a guess.

[StubbleJumper]

Warrens son has been associated with BRK forever.

 

Warrens son supports protecting the borders.

 

Liberals are outraged.

 

Now there’s a problem at Berkshire.

 

LOL.

 

 

Don't be insulting.  You do not know the politics of the people in this thread.  Some of them may be conservatives, some of them might not be. 

 

This, however, is hardly an issue of one view point vs another on a particular issue.  The extremes of both ends of the political spectrum seem to attract wingnuts in spectacular numbers.  If Howie had just thrown a few bucks at this like a normal 60 year-old rich guy, this wouldn't even raise an eyebrow.  However, Howie's activist behaviour calls into question whether he might be among the extreme, which leads a pragmatic BRK shareholder to question whether he is one of the tin-foil hat whack-jobs or whether he's a normal rich guy with a really weird hobby.

 

So, which is it?  Frankly, I don't give a damn about his politics or whether he's a racist; life's far too short to fuss about others' political views or to fuss about whether others are racist.  I just have concerns about whether he's a whack-job, particularly given his annointed role of protecting BRK's special culture after WEB and Charlie kick the bucket.

 

 

SJ

[sleepydragon]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-09/mercer-loses-sheriff-s-badge-after-backlash-on-colorado-prairie

 

[John Hjorth]

Somehow, I agree a bit with the last post of StubbleJumper here, there is separate topic in the Politics forum about this topic too, as mentioned by Jurgis in this topic.

 

I mentioned the annual report 2017 for the foundation earlier in this topic. LC mentioned also earlier in this topic that it's more about what Howard Buffett does, not so much what he says.

 

I started reading the annual report late last night , and I almost "fell" into it - I almost couldn't let it go again. To me, it answers a lot of questions asked in this topic, a la "What has Howard Buffett done?", "How does he think about certain issues?", also "What does he say he will do going forward?" and so on, in his capacity as non-executive director at Berkshire [with his personal activity/agenda/mission] [so to say : his personal track record, and plan for the future, on top of what has already been mentioned here about board work etc.]

 

I highly recommend the exercise, actually! [ : - ) ] [i'm not myself finished reading the annual report yet.]

[Gregmal]

Warrens son has been associated with BRK forever.

 

Warrens son supports protecting the borders.

 

Liberals are outraged.

 

Now there’s a problem at Berkshire.

 

LOL.

 

 

Don't be insulting.  You do not know the politics of the people in this thread.  Some of them may be conservatives, some of them might not be. 

 

This, however, is hardly an issue of one view point vs another on a particular issue.  The extremes of both ends of the political spectrum seem to attract wingnuts in spectacular numbers.  If Howie had just thrown a few bucks at this like a normal 60 year-old rich guy, this wouldn't even raise an eyebrow.  However, Howie's activist behaviour calls into question whether he might be among the extreme, which leads a pragmatic BRK shareholder to question whether he is one of the tin-foil hat whack-jobs or whether he's a normal rich guy with a really weird hobby.

 

So, which is it?  Frankly, I don't give a damn about his politics or whether he's a racist; life's far too short to fuss about others' political views or to fuss about whether others are racist.  I just have concerns about whether he's a whack-job, particularly given his annointed role of protecting BRK's special culture after WEB and Charlie kick the bucket.

 

 

SJ

 

Sorry but if Howies political leanings are this much of a shock to you, you failed in your due diligence. It’s much more likely that you disagree politically, but need an outlet more mainstream than pretending to be a hack like EliG.

 

Howard was never qualified, but personally I think it’s ok because Warren built the company and deserves some semblance of a legacy protector. It blows my mind that clowns who shun other investments because of dual class shares or majority board positions whine now about WB having ONE nepotistic director. LOL, shut up.

 

[StubbleJumper]

Warrens son has been associated with BRK forever.

 

Warrens son supports protecting the borders.

 

Liberals are outraged.

 

Now there’s a problem at Berkshire.

 

LOL.

 

 

Don't be insulting.  You do not know the politics of the people in this thread.  Some of them may be conservatives, some of them might not be. 

 

This, however, is hardly an issue of one view point vs another on a particular issue.  The extremes of both ends of the political spectrum seem to attract wingnuts in spectacular numbers.  If Howie had just thrown a few bucks at this like a normal 60 year-old rich guy, this wouldn't even raise an eyebrow.  However, Howie's activist behaviour calls into question whether he might be among the extreme, which leads a pragmatic BRK shareholder to question whether he is one of the tin-foil hat whack-jobs or whether he's a normal rich guy with a really weird hobby.

 

So, which is it?  Frankly, I don't give a damn about his politics or whether he's a racist; life's far too short to fuss about others' political views or to fuss about whether others are racist.  I just have concerns about whether he's a whack-job, particularly given his annointed role of protecting BRK's special culture after WEB and Charlie kick the bucket.

 

 

SJ

 

Sorry but if Howies political leanings are this much of a shock to you, you failed in your due diligence. It’s much more likely that you disagree politically, but need an outlet more mainstream than pretending to be a hack like EliG.

 

Howard was never qualified, but personally I think it’s ok because Warren built the company and deserves some semblance of a legacy protector. It blows my mind that clowns who shun other investments because of dual class shares or majority board positions whine now about WB having ONE nepotistic director. LOL, shut up.

 

 

You don't get it.  You cannot seem to see past basic political tribalism.  My side is good the other side is bad, always and everywhere, end of story.

 

I wish you the best of luck on making a few bucks.

 

cheers

 

SJ

[Gregmal]

Warrens son has been associated with BRK forever.

 

Warrens son supports protecting the borders.

 

Liberals are outraged.

 

Now there’s a problem at Berkshire.

 

LOL.

 

 

Don't be insulting.  You do not know the politics of the people in this thread.  Some of them may be conservatives, some of them might not be. 

 

This, however, is hardly an issue of one view point vs another on a particular issue.  The extremes of both ends of the political spectrum seem to attract wingnuts in spectacular numbers.  If Howie had just thrown a few bucks at this like a normal 60 year-old rich guy, this wouldn't even raise an eyebrow.  However, Howie's activist behaviour calls into question whether he might be among the extreme, which leads a pragmatic BRK shareholder to question whether he is one of the tin-foil hat whack-jobs or whether he's a normal rich guy with a really weird hobby.

 

So, which is it?  Frankly, I don't give a damn about his politics or whether he's a racist; life's far too short to fuss about others' political views or to fuss about whether others are racist.  I just have concerns about whether he's a whack-job, particularly given his annointed role of protecting BRK's special culture after WEB and Charlie kick the bucket.

 

 

SJ

 

Sorry but if Howies political leanings are this much of a shock to you, you failed in your due diligence. It’s much more likely that you disagree politically, but need an outlet more mainstream than pretending to be a hack like EliG.

 

Howard was never qualified, but personally I think it’s ok because Warren built the company and deserves some semblance of a legacy protector. It blows my mind that clowns who shun other investments because of dual class shares or majority board positions whine now about WB having ONE nepotistic director. LOL, shut up.

 

 

You don't get it.  You cannot seem to see past basic political tribalism.  My side is good the other side is bad, always and everywhere, end of story.

 

I wish you the best of luck on making a few bucks.

 

cheers

 

SJ

 

Uhm, yea, I don't get it....

 

You guys forever have been smitten by Warren and the BRK "culture". Howie has never been deserving of his board seat; ANYWHERE. Regardless of where he leans politically.

 

Now, it comes out he has some far right leaning hobbies and its "Oh, I need to evaluate. Oh, we need answers!!!!"

 

And to me, it's like. "Oh the COBF crowd missed the forest for the trees again. Go figure..."

[StubbleJumper]

Warrens son has been associated with BRK forever.

 

Warrens son supports protecting the borders.

 

Liberals are outraged.

 

Now there’s a problem at Berkshire.

 

LOL.

 

 

Don't be insulting.  You do not know the politics of the people in this thread.  Some of them may be conservatives, some of them might not be. 

 

This, however, is hardly an issue of one view point vs another on a particular issue.  The extremes of both ends of the political spectrum seem to attract wingnuts in spectacular numbers.  If Howie had just thrown a few bucks at this like a normal 60 year-old rich guy, this wouldn't even raise an eyebrow.  However, Howie's activist behaviour calls into question whether he might be among the extreme, which leads a pragmatic BRK shareholder to question whether he is one of the tin-foil hat whack-jobs or whether he's a normal rich guy with a really weird hobby.

 

So, which is it?  Frankly, I don't give a damn about his politics or whether he's a racist; life's far too short to fuss about others' political views or to fuss about whether others are racist.  I just have concerns about whether he's a whack-job, particularly given his annointed role of protecting BRK's special culture after WEB and Charlie kick the bucket.

 

 

SJ

 

Sorry but if Howies political leanings are this much of a shock to you, you failed in your due diligence. It’s much more likely that you disagree politically, but need an outlet more mainstream than pretending to be a hack like EliG.

 

Howard was never qualified, but personally I think it’s ok because Warren built the company and deserves some semblance of a legacy protector. It blows my mind that clowns who shun other investments because of dual class shares or majority board positions whine now about WB having ONE nepotistic director. LOL, shut up.

 

 

You don't get it.  You cannot seem to see past basic political tribalism.  My side is good the other side is bad, always and everywhere, end of story.

 

I wish you the best of luck on making a few bucks.

 

cheers

 

SJ

 

Uhm, yea, I don't get it....

 

You guys forever have been smitten by Warren and the BRK "culture". Howie has never been deserving of his board seat; ANYWHERE. Regardless of where he leans politically.

 

Now, it comes out he has some far right leaning hobbies and its "Oh, I need to evaluate. Oh, we need answers!!!!"

 

And to me, it's like. "Oh the COBF crowd missed the forest for the trees again. Go figure..."

 

 

You are saying the obvious, but you still don't seem to get the nuance.

 

I have always maintained that Howie was not qualified for a board of directors position.  So, in my mind he was unqualified, but probably mostly harmless.  But now I ask whether he's a whack-job because being a whack-job and unqualified chairman could represent a bit of an impending issue.

 

So, do normal and sane 60 year-olds run around the desert at night playing cops and robbers?  Whack-jobs certainly do.  Just as whack-jobs engage in sit-ins in North Dakota protesting the construction of pipelines and spike trees in Oregon protesting the cutting of forest where there might happen to be a spotted owl (or not).  And, if you set your dogmatic politics aside, that's the problem with direct action...it's one thing to hold a viewpoint on an issue, to vote for a party, to donate to a party or a third sector group, to speak publicly about an issue but it's quite another to take the law into your own hands (either by trying to thwart the law in the case of a protest, or to replicate the law in the case if vigilantism).  You might excuse the young and foolish for doing this, but once you reach a certain age the explanation of youthful naivite dissipates and you are left with crazy or foolish as the principal explanations.

 

So, is he harmless or crazy?

 

 

SJ

[Gregmal]

Are normal 60 year olds worth billions, directly or indirectly?

 

Even if so, does someone representing a hair over 7%(1/14) of potential votes really impact things that much? Like I said, you guys either wrote off something you should've cared about because of your own biases, or, are now giving it more weight than it deserves because of your own biases...

 

Carry one now.

[bizaro86]

In a post-WEB world, Howard will carry more than a 1/14th weight on the board.  He will be chair, and have the posthumous backing of his legendary father to "protect the culture." That will give him broad leeway to make decisions if that is what he wants.

 

I agree that while I always felt he was unqualified, I thought he'd be essentially harmless. (Sort of like adding a university professor to a board - probably a waste of time but it's doubtful anyone listens to them so maybe no harm/no foul).

 

If it turns out he's actively crazy that changes things. I think more information is likely necessary to determine that.

[Cardboard]

So, how many of you have sold their Berkshire shares this morning?

 

Maybe this is a wake-up call for some but, reality is the following: no matter who is in charge after Buffett the magic is over.

 

This will become a regular conglomerate or holding company and will be valued by the market based on value of holdings and earning power.

 

There is a strong possibility that a non-negligeable discount will be applied permanently by the market since this confidence question as to how effectively future cash flows will deployed will linger.

 

Cardboard

 

 

[John Hjorth]

Ref. what I have already linked to : What's odd about a photo of a sheriff in the night with a gun?

[rkbabang]

no matter who is in charge after Buffett the magic is over. This will become a regular conglomerate or holding company and will be valued by the market based on value of holdings and earning power.

 

This is undoubtedly true.  The reason I only hold 5% in BRK now is that I have asked myself: Is BRK worth more, less, or the same without WEB?  The only answer I can come up with every time is: LESS.  The only questions now are: How much less? And is that already priced in?

 

[RadMan24]

I and my family have large chunk of our net worth in BRK - I am fully comfortable with Howard Graham Buffett on the BRK board. I don't know about this article - looks like a click bait type of thing. This is the problem with even mainstream press...

 

Here is his profile in Wikipedia - I believe he is eminently qualified to be non executive chairman of Berkshire.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Graham_Buffett

 

Note that he has been awarded "The Order of the Aztec Eagle" award by the Mexican government.

 

The Order of the Aztec Eagle (Spanish: Orden Mexicana del Águila Azteca) forms part of the Mexican Honours System and is the highest Mexican order awarded to foreigners in the country.

 

I think people failed to read this. They're off on a tangent.

[gfp]

I have to say I did find this part of the wikipedia entry pretty funny:

 

"In January 2019, the Phoenix New Times ran a 27 page investigative report detailing Howard Buffet's use of his father's money to buy himself a position in the Cochise Country, Arizona Sheriffs Department in order to conduct vigilante operations against migrants in the borderlands. These operations include the stockpiling of weapons and a questionable defoliation campaign.[14] Part two of this incredible story is due out later this week!"

 

Awfully hard to tell who added that bit to his bio

 

I and my family have large chunk of our net worth in BRK - I am fully comfortable with Howard Graham Buffett on the BRK board. I don't know about this article - looks like a click bait type of thing. This is the problem with even mainstream press...

 

Here is his profile in Wikipedia - I believe he is eminently qualified to be non executive chairman of Berkshire.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Graham_Buffett

 

Note that he has been awarded "The Order of the Aztec Eagle" award by the Mexican government.

 

The Order of the Aztec Eagle (Spanish: Orden Mexicana del Águila Azteca) forms part of the Mexican Honours System and is the highest Mexican order awarded to foreigners in the country.

 

I think people failed to read this. They're off on a tangent.

[Guest]

I hope this goes mainstream and Berkshire drops 10%+