No. of Recommendations: 6
'It's about that Buffett culture. I want a little bit of that Buffett DNA on the board.
Warren has said that Howard and Susie both understand the company's distinctive culture and are invested in its long-term success.
I concur, who better to protect and maintain their Dad's legacy?
Larry Cunningham says, 'Susie obviously knows Berkshire better than anyone and spends way more time with him than anyone else,
even his wife, and knows the culture and the do's and don'ts, and she is also tough. When he leaves, we know there won't be
exceptions or exemptions or waivers around core principles. She will speak up for that.''
I do respect other opinions, yet I agree with the above. If Warren feels that having two senior-aged children on the Board of 15 is best for Berkshire and to help ensure the culture will be honored and maintained, I support his decision. He has earned that trust imo. I imagine their role and any influence on capital allocation and manager compensation, etc. would be very limited.
Found this clip from the 1995 meeting on family and Board membership:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qLO0Z3r3KNIHere are some of WEB's related comments from the 1993 letter:
'When my stock is transferred to either my wife or the
foundation, Berkshire will enter the third governance mode, going forward with a vitally interested, but non-management, owner and with a management that must perform for that owner. In preparation for that time, Susie was elected to the board a few years ago, and in 1993 our son, Howard, joined the board. These family members will not be managers of the company in the future, but they will represent the controlling interest should anything happen to me.
Most of our other directors are also significant owners of Berkshire stock, and each has a strong owner-orientation. All in all, we're prepared for "the truck."
