Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: hueyone who wrote (173399)	3/9/2003 9:48:21 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

RE:"Imo, Buffet is one of the most talented managers in America, and with a compensation package apparently totalling $356,000 a year with no stock options, shareholders are certainly getting their money's worth by hiring him to run the company." Otellini making a ton more than Buffett. What's wrong with this picture?

To: hueyone who wrote (173399)	3/10/2003 12:05:58 AM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Imo, Buffet is one of the most talented managers in America, and with a compensation package apparently totalling only $356,000 a year with no stock options, shareholders are certainly getting their money's worth by hiring him to run the company. It is hard not to view getting a manager of his caliber for that kind of money as a complete steal. But the thing that really makes Buffet a steal, is that he truly tries to manage for shareholders interests and value, rather than for the purpose of lining his own pockets at shareholders' expense. Execs like Buffet, that view shareholders as important partners in the business, and whom consider themselves stewards of shareholders interests for the long run, are hard to find imo. Any investor who you hire to run a company is going to be a complete steal, hueyone. After all, Buffett owns 32% of BRK.a worth 34,833,121,280. If he brings a company into the BRK.a fold, and starts "managing" that company, he most likely is looking at a % ownership higher than most outside CEOs that get hired in tech, just by virtue of his BRK.a position. Even founders of most tech companies have nowhere near the equity position Buffett has in BRK.a, due to its initial focus-vs. your average tech company which requires VC backing to launch. Comparing Buffett and his equity stake to your average tech founder is silly, and comparing Buffett to your average outside CEO that a mature company hires is borderline ridiculous. (I'm thinking of the Apple situation when Jobs came back). Besides that, Buffett is not an entrepreneurial star, sorry. He cleans up messed up companies, mostly by way of the balance sheet- he's good at that, true but can Buffett do what Steve Jobs did with Pixar or Apple, create something that wasn't there before? Is he a Michael Dell with the level of vision that requires? I think not- I havent read the latest Buffett book but I read the last one (the Warren Buffett way) and they spent forever talking about Sees candies. Personally I think all this adolation granted to Buffett recently is somewhat misplaced. He isn't buying any stock now, nothing cheap enough apparently, how convenient- unfortunatly executives that are running tech companies right now don't have that luxury and are expected to "come up with something" to turn this boat around. As someone who has been both an investor and an entrepreneur, albeit an insignificant one, I still think it fairly clear that the demands made on an entrepreneur are much more significant than anything an investor faces. I don't think Buffett is someone who should be advising on executive compensation.

To: hueyone who wrote (173399)	3/10/2003 4:05:42 AM
From: tcmay	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

"Buffet is one of the most talented managers in America, and with a compensation package apparently totalling only $356,000 a year with no stock options, shareholders are certainly getting their money's worth by hiring him to run the company. It is hard not to view getting a manager of his caliber for that kind of money as a complete steal. But the thing that really makes Buffet a steal, is that he truly tries to manage for shareholders interests and value, rather than for the purpose of lining his own pockets at shareholders' expense. Execs like Buffet, that view shareholders as important partners in the business, and whom consider themselves stewards of shareholders interests for the long run, are hard to find imo. " This is breathtakingly naive. Buffett's "compensation" comes from his ownership position in Berkshire Hathaway and his other holdings. Referring to his "355,000" salary package as what he was "hired" for is naive and misleading. This was my point about Gordon Moore, Larry Ellison, Bill Gates, etc. Buffet was not "hired" by shareholders, and he is not some grunt CEO working on salary. He is as much a founder of his company as Moore, Ellison, Gates, Jobs, etc. The real debate is about how to compensate lesser managers, especially those not sharing in the original distribution of stock. This is what compensation committees do. Is Barrett "worth" having accumulated a few hundred million dollars? Considering the size of the company he runs, and his role in the 80s and 90s, his compensation is fair, in my view. (Especially considering how a guy I knew joined a start up company, not as one of the core founders, and when it went public he was worth, on paper, $749 million. He was younger than me, and much less talented that Barrett is. Right place at the right time. However, the bubble on his company burst and then he was killed in a helicopter crash in Alaska.) Anyway, yammering about Buffett is being paid only several hundred thousand dollars is, as I said, naive. Look at his holdings. Look at his position on the Forbes list. --Tim May