I used to admire Buffet. But, the more I studied him, his techniques, and his personal life, which for better or worse is on display in so many books written about him, I find him a to be one vast Cherry Coke, oh sorry Pepsi drinking, cheeseburger eating contradiction. He's dangerous, he has made his money and doesn't want you to keep yours. He is a collectivist and I would like to see how much of the cost of tonight's fundraiser for Obama is shareholder money disguised. Low blow, maybe, but...
My goodness, this type of sentiment used to be reserved for guys like Chainsaw Al, Dennis Koslowski (who doesn't seem to rate a nickname), and Kenny Boy.
I think Buffett's always been pretty clear about "Kids, don't try this at home." He does things that work for him and says that, if others aren't willing or able to devote the same effort that he's hardwired for, then they should do things differently. Look at how actively he trades while recommending that most investors stick to index funds.
I think he feels that the rich should pay more taxes. He seems equally comfortable advising Arnold Scharzenegger's Republicans (Buffett's father's party) as with Democrats.
I don't know what money Berkshire Hathaway donates to political campaigns. I agree that they could hide it but it seems unlikely & unnecessary. He has enough personal money to buy an election right now anyway and his presence sells tickets faster than just about anyone else.
I think the reason Berkshire doesn't pay dividends is Buffett's opinion that he can deploy the capital better than just about anyone else in the world. His record over the last couple decades would seem to justify that opinion. The nice thing about the company is that he doesn't have to contend with fund bloat (like Bill Miller and other talented fund managers) and the Owner's Manual is extremely clear about how the business gets done. I'm not so sanguine about the expertise of other CEOs & fund managers, although I could point out that Tweedy, Browne used to not pay dividends on their funds either.
One of Buffett's biographers (Lowenstein? I don't remember) claimed that Buffett didn't give money to charity because he could do a better job with it by compounding it until he died, and then giving even MORE to charity. However I think Buffett's long-term friendship with Bill Gates, seeing what Melinda's been doing with the Gates Foundation, and Susie Buffett's death changed his mind. He didn't change his mind overnight.
BTW if you're going to write checks for billions of dollars then you're gonna get special deals too. Few of us get that type of cash discount.
One question: do you really accept that he doesn't split the "A" share selling north of $100 big ones because of the potentially deleterious effects of traders. Surely he can do better than that, or why not just admit that his ego needs the status that potentially accretes from such a high per share price?
Well, Berkshire has one of the lowest volumes of any other large-cap publicly traded stock, so yes, I do think that's why he doesn't split the shares.
The "B" shares were a direct response to fund companies that were buying Berkshire shares and repackaging them as cheaper investment shares. He objected to the companies charging fees to own the stock, and to some extent he's been successful. Many mutual funds own large positions in Berkshire but I'm not aware of any financiers repackaging "A" or "B" shares at lower fractional prices. Seems like he was responding to traders there too.
He runs Berkshire as his personal company and actually ignores the shareholders who are the real owners, treating them like mushrooms, and they like it...until the manure hits the rfan one day, and it will. It amy be after his death that you alluded to, but it will IMO.
I think he runs it as much as any other CEO would as a majority shareholder... although I can't recall any other CEOs taking just $100K/year salary and no options. I think he also entertains questions and public dissent far more than most other CEOs (let alone Nardelli & his ilk).
I think when the shareholders amass the voting power that Buffett holds then he'll give the decisions to the people with the majority vote.
Can you provide an example of the mushroom treatment?
I hope you're not currently shorting the shares. Berkshire appears to have finally broken out of its trading range a bit, up 3.7% today.