Annual Meeting

 It's now just over 3 weeks until Berkshire's annual meeting, at which 3 journalists will ask Buffett questions submitted by the audience. The journalists are:

> Becky Quick. Has put away the pompoms. Taking a sober, detached and traditionally journalistic stance toward Berkshire/Sokol/Buffett.

> Carol Loomis. No word from "shareholder" and Buffett friend/senior Fortune editor. Will Fortune publish the traditional "inside story" from Buffett's perspective, or will it continue its born-again trend of blogging critical comments?

> Andrew Ross Sorkin. Has written a critical, approaching scathing, column.

This year's meeting promises to be very interesting for all concerned.

Baby/Bathwater

I have been as critical as anyone over the Sokol incident, which I believe has exposed a succession plan and Board that is not as effective as Mr. Buffett has advertised. Nevertheless, the current stock quote of BRK at $120,000 is, in my view, getting very cheap. Simply using the FYE statements, the per share investment value was $94,730. The per share pre tax operating earnings were $5,926. This means that investors are valuing the operating earnings at only a multiple of 4.3x. ($5,926 x 4.3 = $25,482) plus $94,730 equals $120,212. If Mr. Buffett would institute a more formal and transparent succession plan, the stock would probably rise considerably on the news. Mr. Buffett has often said he wants his stock to trade in line with instrinsic value. My fear is that the stock will now trade at a very substantial discount until this issue has been given more clarity.

"All In On America?"

Besides Mr. Buffett's "Ancient Chinese Secret" that became Build Your Dream (BYD) Automobile Company in Shenzhen, China, has anyone followed how the Marmon Group's employee base has been affected with respect to transferring jobs overseas since his investment partnership with The Pritzker Family? Better to look towards a man's actions versus headline catch phrases and public relation statements.

See Buffettpalooza post

I've commented on this April 21 - Alice

A Bridge Too Far

The tone of the Buffett/Berkshire press release seemed guarded at the least -- or as some critics said, evasive and lawyered up.

In Buffett speak, this sort of ethical/legal issue is right in the center of Buffett's circle of competence. He has a track record of getting out of difficult positions going back 30 years, from the Blue Chip Stamp days.

I have a hard time taking anything at its face value.

Going back to your book as reference, on page 666, Warren told Howie in reference to the ADM fiasco that he had 24 hours to quit or else "he was one of them" and nothing else would matter.

If nothing else, Buffett also knows that there is nothing to gain and everything to lose by not getting the bad news out fast. On the financial side, take the big bath, throw it all in, and move on. Especially if you are not only CEO but also own the company and can afford it in every sense of the term.

There were only a few acquisitions of public companies since Sokol came aboard, and it should take an hour to check on Sokol's personal trades if he were fully cooperating.

If Buffett believed that Sokol was guilty of something 'unlawful' then I think he would have gone to the SEC/DOJ immediately. And for all I know, perhaps he has already been in contact with them.

But, its all just conjecture. I don't know anything.

But if EVERYTHING that comes out in the future supports the press release, then this goes away. Conversely, Buffett seems to have gone all in on Sokol's version of events and if it implodes, the downside is ugly.

The press release was a PR fiasco largely because Buffett tried to both disclose the facts and wrap it up neatly by declaring Sokol innocent of anything 'unlawful'.

If Buffett supporters seem eerily quiet, its because he gave them nothing to go on. It sounds naive at best for anyone outside of the inner circle to say that Sokol did nothing illegal -- so why bother commenting.

The entire 'populist/billionaire' thing no longer works. When Buffett states he is "all in on America" -- he gets accused of talking his book. His world is simply too removed from that of ordinary people to make sense. There is a backlash against the rich, and Buffett is one of them. But he is also despised for his constant hectoring of the monied class. He needs to align his public persona to something closer to reality -- and just be a rich old guy.

buffett,

You are missing the story pal, sokol isn't the story, buffetts reaction to the greedy lowlife's moves, THATS the story. If buffett respected lawyers he would have gotten legal advice and cured this problem for chump change instead he dug a much deeper hole.

sent to me by a reader to post

BRKB, BUFFETT- Sokol- lessons learned,
first a little history. In the 80s my hero was Kirk Kerkorian. i made the biggest investment of my life into MGM, gaming, not film, when Kirk brought it public in the 80s. Kirk bought the MGM footprint in Vegas and set out to build a 5000 room hotel casino in Vegas, ALL the experts said he was nuts, he would never be able to fill 5000 rooms year round he was NUTS !! AS you know MGM Hotel became a huge winner, come to find out kirk bought the land across the street where the NEW YORK NEW YORK now sits, in TRacinda his own company. The land had tripled in value but Mr K sold that land to MGM the public entity at his cost NOT current value. A few years later MGM made a 5 fight deal with iron Mike Tyson, mike got in trouble and he wasnt able to fight, mgm had like a 25 million dollar loss on the agreement to tyson and the promotors, aka, Don King, Mr K backed the agreement out of MGM, put it into Tracinda, his wholly owned entity and took the ENTIRE loss himself; it didnt cost the public shareholders a dime, a class act, a man of HONOR and integrity. Kerkorian is 90ish now and his team at MGM cost him 30 billion give or take with huge management mistakes the past 5 years but the man is a truly great American, i love the guy.

Buffett had a few weeks to think about what Sokol did and to how to respond to his LZ purchase and the timeline. Sokol is a lowlife sbag, that's a given whether or not he broke any laws,he violated the brkb code of conduct, but at this point only BUFFETT matters to me as a long time brkb partner. After all that time to consider the facts surrounding LZgate, BUFFETT came up with that PATHETIC press release defending a lowlife sbag who put brkb and brkb's entire board at risk, both reputationally and maybe financially. FOR 3 million dollars, a company with 100 BILLION dollars of net worth on its board or directors came up with THAT response? Buffett could have said look sokol, you lowlife sbag, you broke every rule of conduct at brkb, it remains to be seen whether or not you broke any laws, you are going to DISCLOSE your 10 million dollar LZ purchase, and sell your shares to brkb at 104 OR sell your shares and every dime of profit goes to a charity. I , warren buffett will give you a 3 million dollar finders fee for finding LZ for brkb, pack your f--k bags, tell the press you want to spend more time with your family, and don't ever call me or any sub of brkb again. But that's not how buffett responded under the pressure, he tried to bullsheet his way out of trouble, again. At this point buffett no longer deserves our TRUST or RESPECT. he blew it big time, over 3 million dollars, a rounding error for brkb and its board members, all this heat and damage over 3 million dollars, maybe 1.7 mil net after taxes to sokol. Shameful, at a real public company with an independent BOD Buffett would go on leave until the FACTS can be discovered. THATS the story cnbc wont tell you.

The issue at hand

Personally I think it will be a shame if the focus at the meeting is on the legality or ethicality of Sokol's frontrunning. Yes, this should be addressed but the bigger issue is one of succession and corporate governance. I think it is naive to think that the current structure and "culture of trust" will suffice in the future, especially once Warren is gone.

Sokol was the man, at least as I saw it. Now there is no obvious replacement. Are we crazy for having thought there could be a replacement as such? How can anyone follow Buffett's act? I am not sure even Buffett himself could for another twenty years, simply because Berkshire is getting too big. And I am not referring to matching past gains, rather keeping all the plates in the air.

Realistically, once someone else is CEO (which isn't that far off) and something big goes wrong (and it will), is it likely this new CEO will get the benefit of the doubt afforded hitherto only to Buffett. I don't think so!

Buffett has to stop thinking of his endgame score in the financial record book and more about how the corporation carries on. Let's all agree, this could be a lot better articulated by him. It would be great if this came out in the shareholder meeting.

Genuinely, perhaps I and others are being naive and not recognizing that he doesn't really care about what happens after he is gone. Maybe he just wants to maintain maximum flexibility while he is still in the game.

Has the wool been pulled over our eyes? I feel sheepish at how willingly I have looked past these questions in the past.

The thinking man craves a hero just as anyone else.

Post new comment

If you wish to make a comment, please enter your valid email address. A verification message will be sent to your address to ensure it is real. Comments from people with unverified email addresses will not be published. Thanks for your cooperation.
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em><i> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><img><p><h1><h2><h3><h4><form><textarea><input>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Links to specified hosts will have a rel="nofollow" added to them.

  • You may use <swf file="song.mp3"> to display Flash files inline

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.