The very definition of success is that one does not any longer HAVE TO do anything, lately or otherwise.and there it is...
Posted on 12/25/2004 7:17:26 PM PST by shrinkermd
MICHAEL EISNER OF WALT DISNEY may be the most reviled and Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway the most admired CEOs in American business this year. But whose company produces better returns on shareholder equity? Last spring, Eisner was removed as Disney's chairman of the board when more than 40% of shareholders voted against his re-election to the board. Meanwhile, shareholders re-elected Buffett to Berkshire Hathaway's board of directors as the financial press reported details of his comments to an audience convinced of his financial wizardry and panoramic vision for the future. But whose company has been producing better returns on shareholder equity?
Disney's average return on shareholder equity has been 50% higher than Berkshire's since 1997. ROE takes on special significance in this comparison when it is noted that Berkshire Hathaway has never paid a stockholder dividend. A company that doesn't pay a dividend needs to grow at a faster rate than a dividend-payer to maintain its value to investors. Since 1997, Berkshire Hathaway has produced an average return on shareholder equity 25% lower than the yield on AAA corporate bonds.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.barrons.com ...
GE has about the same capitalization but earns twice as much as Berkshire.
"Surely, he is a success, but what has he done lately?"
The very definition of success is that one does not any longer HAVE TO do anything, lately or otherwise.
Did not Buffet join up with Gates and testify before a congressional committee that it was OK for the gubmint to confiscate, through estate taxes, the $$$ that they earned ??
I was in the brokerage business for 25 years, and my contemporaries idolized Buffet. I told them they were nuts. I had his number from the get go. He is a puke.
The very definition of success is that one does not any longer HAVE TO do anything, lately or otherwise.and there it is...
Correct.
I believe you are right about that, except that the "Gates" in this case was the father of Microsoft founder Bill Gates. The LSM always referred to him as Bill Gates, Sr. or something like that; they seemed to be trying to get people to think that it was the more famous Gates, rather than his dad. It took some digging to find out the truth on that one, sometimes buried late in the article, sometimes not.
Buffet is a huge leftie that believs in Zero Population.....he should OFF himself.
He took a large position in TXU texas utilities in 2002. The stock has quadrupled since then.
Buffet has the ability to create financial euphoria in your average investor.
If they started a company that sold dog poop in a bag, and Buffet was the CEO, the stock in the company would go up just because he was CEO.
Also I think the article is right that Eisner made alot of recent gains with disney, but that was after a huge drop in its price. I bought disney stock in the late 90's and it still hasnt gone up to the price i bought it at.
And when TXU's billing mess becomes widely known, that will reverse somewhat.
What has he done lately? For one thing he (Berkshire-Hathaway) bought one of the largest plants here (NW Alabama) and closed it down. It was very productive and people who came down from the midwest plant taking over the work to learn how to do the work, said they did not understand why the work was being transferred to them. We had a very stable workforce because of lack of choice and work here; they had huge turnover and got more per hour.
Probably just stopping over in the midwest on their way overseas.
vaudine
Can you elaborate on the billing mess ?
Juicy details please bump!
You and me brother, I bought Disney at $114.00 a share then after about a year of Eisner it went into the dumper and hasn't come out yet. Never could figure how he was worth $90 mil in salary and stock.
You and me brother, I bought Disney at $114.00 a share then after about a year of Eisner it went into the dumper and hasn't come out yet. Never could figure how he was worth $90 mil in salary and stock.
"GE has about the same capitalization but earns twice as much as Berkshire."
First of all, GE has about 3 times the market capitalization of Berkshire Hathaway so what you said is blatantly untrue. Secondly, the author of this article totally ignores the fact that Berkshire Hathaway is for the most part an Insurance company, and that business always gets less ROE, its just the way the business is structured. Buffett is idolized not because he is rich, but because of his modesty, honesty, and his beleif that if you are right, and you stick to your guns, you will come out ahead in the end.
Basically they have a lot of errors that are expected to lead to large scale write-offs.
Here's the cake-taker about Buffet.
One time, he was at a lunch at which many Senators and Congresspeople were in attendance.
He starts his speech with the following:
"Ladies and Gentleman, I've won the ovary lottery. . ."
And goes on to say what an advantage he had being born a white, male, American in the 20th century.
So, the upshot was simply that he was just lucky. That's it. No hard work, no sacrifice, no risks - just a product of being the right zygote at the right time.
He's the guy on Rush's parody commercial about affluenza. He's a punk. Nothing more. The speech is supposed to be self-deprecating, but ends up peeing all over every other person's achievement by dint of:
1. He's richer than you.
2. All it took was luck the of the ovary lottery.
I have no time for Mr. Buffet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.