It is difficult for an ongoing business (or an investor) to go bankrupt without debt.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / Shrewdsmith
No. of Recommendations: 6
She said something along the lines of Abel not just being CEO in waiting but ‘in practice’- meaning he is acting like the CEO in particular to some ‘capital allocation decisions of the last year’.
I wish someone would ask her about her low share ownership.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Her share ownership is pathetic
No. of Recommendations: 8
Her share ownership is pathetic
In absolute terms, or as a fraction of her portfolio?
Not everybody is a billionaire.
Jim
No. of Recommendations: 3
As the lead director I think it is soft to say the least.
We don’t k ow what else she holds so can’t comment
No. of Recommendations: 3
Decker's holdings were embarrassingly low for years. Almost token. On a board comprised of all heavy owners of stock...except her.
And token is the operative word. Or was. Then.
She's grown into the job...but....
No. of Recommendations: 0
She has been on the board since 2007- ample opportunities to add to her holdings at opportune times.
She has 3125 B shares
She has 12,000 shares of COST, on the board there as well
She also sits on the board of MTN, 8,100 shares owned.
Don't know her net worth obviously, she is the 'Lead' director, have no idea what that means.
The proxy states: a deep genuine interest in Berkshire and have had a significant investment in Berkshire shares relative to their resources for at least three years
No. of Recommendations: 14
<i.She has 3125 B shares
At the moment that's a little under $1.7 million worth.
Some people would call that a lot of money. Especially bearing in mind that Berkshire's directors basically aren't paid, so the shareholding couldn't be built up that way.
Jim
No. of Recommendations: 6
At the moment that's a little under $1.7 million worth.
Some people would call that a lot of money. Especially bearing in mind that Berkshire's directors basically aren't paid, so the shareholding couldn't be built up that way.
Based on her bio, I suspect Ms. Decker's net worth is well north of $50 million so her BRK holding is puny anyway one looks at it. Given the ethos of Berkshire & given her position as the lead independent director, I am confused as to why she doesn't own way more stock in BRK after so many years on the company board. She probably got the Costco & MTN shares w/o paying for them as compensation for her board service at those companies.
No. of Recommendations: 6
<<She has 3125 B shares>>
She hasn’t added one single B share in 10 years. And she was a net large seller of shares before that.
The amount of actual money Decker has put into Berkshire is miniscule. Relative to the other directors Berkshire it’s less than that.
No. of Recommendations: 9
Impossible to dispute that Decker hasn't put any significant money into Berkshire. I've refused to vote for her for many years.
OTOH, why would someone want to be a BRK director except for the opportunity to interact with, and be associated with, Warren and Munger? No pay of consequence. No liability insurance - and BRK could have "f**ked up" with liability exposure that could have exceeded its net worth after the Gen Re acquisition and 911. Very tiny probability - yes. Very high consequences - yes.
It's not a job I would accept. Maybe I don't have enough ego to have the recognition be worthwhile. Buffett has been very free in his teachings. What is he concealing that I might otherwise learn?
Is the interaction with Buffett worth it? Maybe so - people pay millions for a short lunch.
So if Buffett is happy with Decker, I say let him be. And her too.
No. of Recommendations: 0
"No liability insurance"
Truly?
What on earth could be the rationale for the absence of D&O insurance? I won't even serve on a nonprofit board without it.
What am I missing?
--sutton
trust is earned
h. sapiens as a species hasn't passed that bar
No. of Recommendations: 1
"No liability insurance"
My assumption is that the articles of incorporation or the corporate bylaws indemnify the directors to the extent of the value of the assets of the company. If that assumption is correct, the directors have no material liability exposure barring gross fiduciary failures.
No. of Recommendations: 1
She should NOT be on Board. Period.
