3 ms·

I think you missed the first part, where it says that he is going to join as nonexecutive chairman. He's basically going to succeed WB only in terms of maintain

by tansey 15y ago

I think you missed the first part, where it says that he is going to join as nonexecutive chairman. He's basically going to succeed WB only in terms of maintaining and guiding BRK's ethical standards, not its investment decisions. Also, this is clearly a puff piece that was arranged by BRK's publicist. Having read Warren Buffet's biography a few years back, I do no believe "successful farmer" is how I remembered his son's career being described. The article does a decent job of painting a rosy picture, but looking at it from a more objective light: he grew up rich in a really weird family dynamic where his father and mother rarely had communication and the father's mistress lived with them; he never really was able to find much ambition in himself since he never wanted for anything, and his ability to believe he can succeed was explicitly shot down by his parents; he tried to go to college three times, failing each time until he finally had a mental break and decided to run away to a simpler life, like a cliched Happy Loman (Death of a Salesman). Given that this appointment is only about making sure the company maintains its ethics, that's not such a bad guy to put in that role. At least he's not obsessed with ROI at all costs.

potatolicious 15y ago
In some ways this might be the ideal corporate setup. There are enough sharks in BRK to make sure the company continues to rake it in. Maybe this is what we need in corporations today - a team of ruthless businessmen being reigned in by someone who has the moral perspective to make sure the business is a positive impact, but disconnected enough not to get drawn into the fray. Or maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part, hoping someday that our banks would led by people with the moral fiber to reign in the abuse and concentrate on providing value.
- mrich 15y ago
  This won't help, the ruthless businessmen can easily collaborate and lie to the outsider, he has no chance keeping them in check really.
  - loganfrederick 15y ago
    True to some extent, but if the non-executive Chairman still has a board of directors vote, and (without looking at the other directors) assuming the rest of the board isn't strictly Berkshire execs, the setup could work.

by tansey 15y ago

potatolicious 15y ago

In some ways this might be the ideal corporate setup. There are enough sharks in BRK to make sure the company continues to rake it in. Maybe this is what we need in corporations today - a team of ruthless businessmen being reigned in by someone who has the moral perspective to make sure the business is a positive impact, but disconnected enough not to get drawn into the fray. Or maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part, hoping someday that our banks would led by people with the moral fiber to reign in the abuse and concentrate on providing value.

mrich 15y ago
This won't help, the ruthless businessmen can easily collaborate and lie to the outsider, he has no chance keeping them in check really.
- loganfrederick 15y ago
  True to some extent, but if the non-executive Chairman still has a board of directors vote, and (without looking at the other directors) assuming the rest of the board isn't strictly Berkshire execs, the setup could work.