(Cute Fuzzy Bunny) said:
Bearing in mind that I used to own an "A" share of the stock and love the idea, I cant buy it now. All I see is the 20-30% drop the day Buffett bites the dust, and him scarfing down more DQ burgers. Along with his second in command in his 80's.
You dirty market timer, are you avoiding or embracing volatility? You'll feel better after a Coke, a steak dinner at Gorat's, & a DQ ice cream... with maybe a Borsheim's diamond pinky ring?
I could be wrong, but here's my opinon. I think Buffett's PR staff (both of them) are massaging his demise into the public psyche to make his passing less traumatic on the stock price than the unexpected death of any other 50-something executive.
Alice Schroeder's forthcoming biography will probably devote a few pages to the question as well. Or maybe she's hoping to overdose him on cherry Cokes and boost her book sales in memoriam.
Susan's death didn't cause much of a ripple although her foundation is steadily selling shares and his foundation will eventually be doing the same.
The day Buffett wakes up dead, the arb sharks will start circling with rumors about Berkshire's breakup value and the need to fill the power vacuum with executives who'll "unlock the potential" or "turn the cash hoard into dividends". Gates' addition to the board is intended to facilitate that process by lending it a little credibility.
But I'd only add to our Berkshire holdings on big dips.
(Cute Fuzzy Bunny) said:
Otherwise, why wouldnt anyone who has rubbed elbows with these guys for long enough gone off and run their own funds to great success? Books have been written by people close to them, yet anyone else running a fund or doing it on their own and following "the formula" dont have the same success.
Good question. Maybe people stay with Buffett because they're lazy? I'm not sure there's any reason to compete against him when you can do at least as well working with him.
The CEOs who he buys out have all their estate-tax issues resolved at one swoop, and as an unexpected bonus they get to keep running their companies without someone nitpicking their judgment. They can even tap Berkshire for cheap expansion capital. With most of these guys it's the game, not the fortunes, so they probably don't have a compelling reason to leave... unlike Michael Capellas being bought by Carly Fiorina.
When Bill Miller buys a company's stock, management doesn't have to give a @#$% what he thinks. When Buffett (or Kerkorian or Icahn) start buying a company's stock, the execs have to start worrying about board seats, breakup value, and other "value enhancers". There's a difference between being "just" a deep value investor as opposed to someone who will help you fix your business whether you like it or not.
I think Buffett's record with his CEOs makes him one of the world's best bosses, and anyone who can't get along with Buffett would probably also be challenged at running a better business. Maybe all the other executives & VCs wonder how bad you have to be to quit Buffett and won't answer your calls?
(Cute Fuzzy Bunny) said:
I think whatever it is, its not learned. Its inherent.
I think Buffett's talent is a genetic quirk, but I think it's been honed by years of practice. Charlie Munger helps keep him focused too. I don't think most people can learn how to do what Buffett does without first having that genetic advantage.
Hey, I could just be whistling past the graveyard while it's 30% of our retirement portfolio. But we won't need to touch the Berkshire holdings for a couple decades (arguably Buffett won't be running the company in 2026), we can handle the volatility because of the stock's intrinsic value, and we trust that the guy has prepared the company & his investors for his death.
I worry less about Buffett than about Tweedy, Browne selling out to AMG back in '97, or about the executives at any of the individual stocks we own. Maybe passive index dividend funds are really the best way to go.
? aka if memory serves 1 in 6 (ie better than the S&P). 
