It is difficult for an ongoing business (or an investor) to go bankrupt without debt.
- Manlobbi
Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A)
No. of Recommendations: 1
Todd is 53 and Ted is 62. Both are well off - especially Ted.
Would be interested in the thoughts of others here.
No. of Recommendations: 1
It would be very odd if they didn't stay considering they were hired specifically for the purpose of taking over post buffet.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Todd, Ted, Ajit, and no doubt a couple dozen (hundred?) major contributors can do anything they want, at any moment.
Certainly they all have a sense of loyalty to Warren, to their co-workers, and to the culture, no early rush to the exit.
But put yourself in their position after “the bus”; will it still be a joy to go in to work every day? We are all counting on Greg to make the transition work, a daunting task.
No. of Recommendations: 6
It would be very odd if they didn't stay considering they were hired specifically for the purpose of taking over post buffet.
Why they were hired and why they took the jobs might be two different things. For youngish money managers, the opportunity to work with the GOAT was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, like playing ball with Willie Mays, something you tell your grandkids about. Recall the dozens who bid millions just to have lunch with him.
Being in charge of an enormous investment portfolio within a giant conglomerate after the GOAT is gone is rather something else. Not nearly as interesting as managing smaller sums, for example, as Mr. Buffett has pointed out many times. Expected returns are lower than leading managers might otherwise expect, the number of firms eligible for investment of billions or tens of billions is a small subset of the investible universe, and lesser-known companies with the potential to provide outsized returns -- the holy grail of money managers -- can't move the needle.
Being Mr. Buffett's subordinate is an honor. Being anyone else's, for money managers who previously worked for themselves, might be a different prospect.
In the case of Mr. Combs, there is the additional complication of his appointment as CEO of GEICO. Was this a temporary assignment (going on five years now) or a career change?
If you're into reading tea leaves, there was virtually no mention of these guys at an annual meeting focused on the handoff of operational control to Mr. Abel.
One reasonable speculation might be that the seven straight quarters of net selling and the resulting growth in the cash mountain are setting up Mr. Abel for the optionality of making significant acquisitions to grow his home base at BHE.
This is all guesswork, but it would not shock me if Mr. Combs stayed at GEICO and Mr. Weschler hung around for a respectful interval and then found something more interesting to do.
No. of Recommendations: 4
This is all guesswork, but it would not shock me if Mr. Combs stayed at GEICO and Mr. Weschler hung around for a respectful interval and then found something more interesting to do.
That sounds pretty plausible. But I would take a "respectful interval" to include figures anywhere up to 10+ years.
There is a big flip side to your views: it is arguably the biggest and most visible challenge in portfolio management that you could ask for.
The big question to me is this: Mr Abel is very able, but the most important job of a CEO is arguably capital allocation. In the case of Berkshire's CEO, that includes allocation among dozens of types of assets and operations. Will he choose to allocate more capital to equities managed by T&T? Since the answer is likely largely dependent on future opportunities, nobody knows.
Jim
No. of Recommendations: 29
This is all guesswork, but it would not shock me if Mr. Combs stayed at GEICO and Mr. Weschler hung around for a respectful interval and then found something more interesting to do.
This has long been my view.
Todd enjoys spending lots of time reading (like Buffett), has moved to Omaha, and is also being groomed for business management roles - e.g. via Geico, board memberships. I judge him a Berkshire lifer with options.
Ted flys every Sunday to Omaha, spends two 18 hour days (his words) working on investments and assignments by Buffett, and then returns to Virginia. He himself pays for his commuting via NetJets, spending more than his annual fixed salary without even taking apartment costs into consideration. He has a wider range of interests than Todd. I believe he will stick around long enough to help see Berkshire through the transition period, and maybe longer if he enjoys keeping his hand in the investment game. Working for Berkshire frees him from the "non-fun" chores of raising capital and hold nervous investors hands during market turmoil. But I ultimately think he will spend most, and ultimately all, of his time as a Virginia gentleman with his family. He maintains his Virginia roots.
I don't see this as clear-cut as I did the choice between Abel and Ajit for CEO. Abel was already centered in the Mid-West, and an operations guy used to managing many people/activities. Ajit preferred living in NYC, was an insurance expert, and had never managed a large number of people or a wide range of businesses. I'm sure Ajit would have made a capable CEO if he was needed to fill Buffett's shoes. But with Abel available, the choice seemed obvious. And it was.
I do think Abel would be wise to include Ted and Todd on the stage along with himself and Ajit in future annual meetings. Todd has excellent insights into business. And Ted has the personality, if anyone does, to somewhat replace Buffett. So while they won't comment on specific investments, they have a world of information to share.
Just my thoughts.
No. of Recommendations: 6
Todd at least has a measurable track record at GEICO- don’t even know how to evaluate it. I think he was dealt a hand that was weak on technology as compared to Progressive. He still hasn’t caught up, and not growing policies.
Bloomstran and RW have written about how since Greg was put in charge of the non-insurance ops that the ratios have improved. Honestly I am lukewarm on Abel. His answers are very corporate when he speaks, unlike Ajit who is blunt and tells it straight. Greg was asked by Becky, will you be buying more Berkshire…he says “I will always be an investor in Berkshire”.
Do we really know what Ted/Todd have contributed to Berkshire? Was Ted really the reason Warren bought Apple? We don’t really know what they have contributed behind the scenes. It’s all conjecture.
To be fair, I don’t even know enough to say if I want them to stay or not.
No. of Recommendations: 0
" Do we really know what Ted/Todd have contributed to Berkshire? Was Ted really the reason Warren bought Apple? We don’t really know what they have contributed behind the scenes. It’s all conjecture."
Ted was a seller of apple when Buffett became an aggressive buyer. Early on Buffett disclosed how T and T were doing managing our money. Once they started to lag the index, Buffett decided to no longer disclose the info. Selective disclosure is never a great idea. All we knew with certainty is that T and T have lagged the index, Buffett will not disclose by how much. I think failure to disclose is always a mistake, just my opinion.
No. of Recommendations: 3
When the company was smaller, Buffett was credited with all successes and failures, now it seems, maybe by design, that we are being steered to look at the numbers, what the financial statements are telling us, who is responsible for what is not disclosed, which maybe is a good thing.
One thing I think I got from Ted’s podcast is he doesn’t like managing people, he wants to sit in a room and be an analyst- this is a job for the introverted, not someone who wants the limelight.
