Ackman raises valid concerns about employment litigation—and it’s very sad to hear he’s dealing with an incredibly difficult family situation.

But let me see if I’ve got this right.

Bill Ackman says he largely ignored a family office for years while headcount, turnover, and costs ballooned—despite managing mostly passive investments.

One employee was paid over $1M annually for an administrative role: Shows up to office 3 days a week

Now there’s a severance dispute involving that person, and the takeaway is a broader indictment of “the system.”

But isn’t the more relevant point:

If you tolerate weak oversight, rising costs, and unclear accountability, you increase the odds of exactly this kind of outcome.

Which makes the current moment especially ironic.

Because, as you know, Ackman is promoting a Berkshire-like investment vehicle—with layers of fees Berkshire investors have never had to bear—he’s also describing an operation where cost discipline appears to have been an afterthought.

You don’t find $1M, three-day-a-week roles in Omaha.

Berkshire without cost discipline isn’t Berkshire. It’s just… expensive.