The Party’s Over for Buffett

Here's a direct link to the audit committee report: http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/news/APR2711.pdf

The NYT article is inflammatory, makes factual errors, and is even a bit trollish at times. A simple analysis or opinion piece would have been fine.

"Since then, Buffett has been subject to criticism of a kind he has never before faced."

“'It makes you question Warren’s judgment,'” - author who happens to have a new Warren Buffet book out.

"What moved him to pre-emptively clear Sokol, who had so clearly violated Berkshire’s code of conduct, of wrongdoing? What does that tell us of possible flaws in Buffett’s character?"

"He often buys companies with very little due diligence;"

"His board is made up primarily of cronies"

Yeesh

The article talks as if this one act of misconduct (which we only know about because Buffet announced it) proves that Buffet is always letting stuff like this happen, which frankly there's no evidence of whatsoever.

The only piece of the article that could be used to justify the bait-headline is the fact that he is growing old and can't live for ever - in fact, that was the only statement in there worth making at all.

Not exactly grounbreaking journalism to reveal that a man who is 80 years old won't be able to keep doing his job for the rest of eternity. Frankly, I expect better of the NY Times.

That's one overly dramatic title. Buffett has navigated far worse situations in his business career. Look at what he went through with Solomon. That situation actually had the potential to sink his entire company. Buffett may have lost a successor in this case, but it hardly spells the end of him or Berkshire.

How is the party over? Buffett, later than he probably should have, admitted that Sokol's transgressions were unacceptable, and now Sokol is gone. Ultimately this is not going to have an impact on Berkshire's bottom line or share price. The stock was never really the "darling" of Wall Street because Berkshire never catered to analysts.

What a terrible article. The guy got fired! Isn't that sufficient? Buffett has always railed against the ridiculous processes that cripple other companies. Why would or should he behave differently?

All I got out of this article is that Buffett is kind of old and will probably die someday. I guess that means the party will be over someday, but it's not really newsworthy because pretty much everyone dies.

I was at the shareholder's meeting. Several of the initial questions were about the Sokol incident, and many were hostile toward's Buffet's response (especially his initial press release). Buffet answered every question clearly and confidently, tracing his line of reasoning in terms of the information he knew at the time. I don't think the image presented today by Buffet and Munger is consistent with the conclusion that Buffet is reeling from a "serious dent in his pristine image."