Subject: Re: FT Series BRK after Buffett
I am a FT home delivery subscriber, and the article didn't make it to the May 1 print edition, so I had to read it online too.

Unlike others, I didn't think it was a hit job trying to get eyeballs. FT is a very high quality financial newspaper, and I thing the article was fair and factual.

I don't see anything wrong in scrutinizing T&T's underperformance over a substantially long period of time. Many BRK investors have wanted such a disclosure, which Buffett has been unwilling to provide. The report cards of many BRK division's like railroad, utilities, insurance etc are disclosed, so why not the investment managers', who are going to be very big contributors to BRK's intrinsic value in the near future. Are they up to the challenge based on their track record - it's a fair question to ask. Maybe Buffett will be prodded into providing it on his own in future.

Here are some snippets from the FT article.

Overall, according to the analysis, which used Morningstar data, the pair have generated an average total annual return of about 7.8 per cent over the past decade. That falls short of the 12 per cent return of the S&P 500 and Buffett’s own 10.2 per cent gain. They have trailed the index in seven out of 10 years.

Their portfolios, worth about $27bn out of a total $354bn, excluding billions of dollars of pension investments for Berkshire’s employees, are up about 113 per cent over the past 10 years.

That trails a 165 per cent gain by Buffett over the same period and a 211 per cent total return by the S&P.

Berkshire declined to put Combs and Weschler up for interview or confirm which trades they made.

“I’ve never felt that it’s in the interest of Berkshire shareholders to talk about anything that we do that is successful and that we want to continue to do,” Buffett told the FT.

He added: “Both Todd and Ted have been invaluable to Berkshire, and our shareholders have profited significantly from their activities.”