I find the arguments advanced for the Buffett kids being needed to the "keep the culture" or the "Buffett DNA" quite unspecific, wishy-washy and generic.

The point remains that their biographies do not show any evidence of impressive independent business skills to date.
The Berkshire culture if anything is one of extremely rational and objective capital allocation. Just as Buffett didn't need Ben Graham's progeny beside him to build a successful record based on his principles, rational operation of Berkshire does not need his descendants to operate successfully.

There is no evidence that either of the two kids have any skills in capital allocation or corporate governance. Their entire career recrods are almost completely due to Buffett's capital backing them in projects which they would have struggled to kick-start independently. Good luck to them, but that does not entitle them to a board seat.

A plausible scenario that the board may need to be actively involved in when a future CEO embarks on a vanity acquisition of substantial size as this tends to be a tendency that is somewhat common. Nothing in the kids' records or experience suggests they have any skills, gravitas or credibility in shooting down a follhardy escapade like that should it happen in the future.

Cunningham's argument about Susie "understanding Berkshire culture" is a shockingly low bar for a board seat of a major company in my opinion.

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.