Ted Weschler se suma al equipo de Berkshire

Nueva York, 12 sep (EFE).- Berkshire Hathaway, la firma que preside el multimillonario Warren Buffett, anunció hoy que nombró al hasta ahora gerente del fondo Peninsula Capital Advisors, Ted Weschler, para dirigir parte de su cartera de inversiones junto a Todd Combs, que entró en la compañía en 2010.

"Estos dos directivos tendrán cada uno la responsabilidad de uno de los segmentos del capital de Berkshire. Warren Buffett, el presidente de Berkshire, continuará, sin embargo, dirigiendo la mayor parte de los fondos hasta su jubilación", explicó hoy en un comunicado la firma del tercer hombre más rico del mundo según la revista Forbes, quien acaba de cumplir 81 años.

Con esos dos directivos a los mandos de Berkshire Hathaway, la compañía está "bien posicionada para la sucesión del equipo directivo de la cartera de inversiones cuando el señor Buffett ya no trabaje como consejero delegado de la compañía".

La revista Forbes detallaba hoy en su página web que Weschler tuvo la oportunidad de conocer a Warren Buffett porque pagó más de cinco millones de dólares para cenar en dos ocasiones con el llamado "Oráculo de Omaha", quien convoca cada año una puja por poder cenar con él y cuyos beneficios se destinan a la organización benéfica Glide.

El hasta ahora directivo del fondo de alto riesgo Peninsula Capital Advisors se incorporará a Berkshire a principios de 2012, con lo que se convierte en el segundo de tres nuevos fichajes que el conglomerado empresarial quiere incorporar a su equipo.

"Después de que Buffett deje de trabajar como consejero delegado de la compañía, Todd (Combs) y Ted (Weschler), probablemente apoyados por un tercer directivo -todavía no determinado-, tendrán la responsabilidad de toda la cartera de valores y deuda de Berkshire", bajo la supervisión del presidente de la firma.

Minutos después del inicio de la sesión en la Bolsa de Nueva York (NYSE), las acciones de clase A de Berkshire Hathaway cedían el 0,27 %, al tiempo que desde que comenzó el año han acumulado un descenso del 15,32 %.

Cena con Warren Buffett

La puja por cenar y pasar unas horas en Nueva York con el tercer hombre más rico del mundo según Forbes, el multimillonario inversor Warren Buffett, alcanzó hoy los dos millones de dólares en la página de subastas por internet eBay tan solo un día después de haber comenzado.

La subasta, que comenzó el domingo por la tarde y terminará este viernes, es organizada cada año por el presidente y consejero delegado de Berkshire Hathaway para recaudar fondos en favor de la organización benéfica Glide, con sede en San Francisco (California), y que destina el dinero logrado en favor de alimentación y ayuda a personas indigentes.

El año pasado esta puja terminó con un precio de martillo de 2,6 millones de dólares, y si normalmente en los primeros días de la subasta las ofertas rondan los 200.000 dólares, este año esa cifra se ha elevado en menos de 48 horas -y con tan solo 6 ofertas por el momento- hasta 2.000.111 dólares.

La desorbitada cifra demuestra la euforia que despierta entre muchos la posibilidad de pasar unas horas junto al tercer hombre más rico del mundo, que según Forbes tiene una fortuna de unos 50.000 millones de dólares, y que es además conocido como el "Oráculo de Omaha" por sus certeras previsiones y su habilidad para detectar las más rentables inversiones.

El mayor postor de esta puja tendrá la oportunidad de cenar en un exclusivo restaurante de carnes de Manhattan junto a Buffett, previsiblemente la semana que viene, en la que podrán charlar de cualquier tema con la excepción de las inversiones que tiene en mente realizar el presidente de Berkshire Hathaway.

El millonario inversor de 80 años comenzó a organizar esta cena en 2000, cuando su mujer le presentó al reverendo Cecil Williams, fundador de Glide, y con ella reafirma su labor filantrópica, que le ha llevado a afirmar que más del 99 % de su patrimonio irá a parar a causas filantrópicas a lo largo de su vida o cuando muera.

© EFE 2011. Está expresamente prohibida la redistribución y la redifusión de todo o parte de los contenidos de los servicios de Efe, sin previo y expreso consentimiento de la Agencia EFE S.A.

Buffett’s Secret Deal Recipe

Dealpolitik: Exposing Warren Buffett’s Secret Deal Recipe

By Ronald Barusch

If KKR or TPG had called Lubrizol with a “Let’s Make a Deal” phone call, the board would have immediately formed an independent committee and hired independent financial advisors before pursuing it. If one of Lubrizol’s competitors had made the same call, it would likely have received a very strong message that the company is not for sale and they should go away. We used to characterize that kind of a message as “[expletive deleted] you; stronger message to follow.”

But when Berkshire called, according to the background section of Lubrizol’s preliminary proxy statement, everyone seemed to slobber all over himself to play the game the Berkshire way. No independent committee was created. The board even hired as a financial advisor the banker who brought Lubrizol to Berkshire’s attention. And a strange courtship began. How come? We will come back to that question in a moment.

First, let’s look at how strange this dance seems to be. If a rich guy called you saying he wanted to buy your house, what would be the first thing you would ask? I would ask “how much?” Well, apparently that kind of common sense doesn’t apply when Berkshire comes knocking at your door. Between December 17, when Lubrizol’s CEO first learned of Berkshire’s interest, and February 8, when the CEO met with Warren Buffett himself, no one asked Berkshire the simple question “how much?”

During that period, there were four formal and informal board meetings. During at least two of those meetings the board “engaged in an extensive and thorough discussion about Berkshire Hathaway’s possible interest.” No one seems to have wanted to ask Berkshire the big question. The board even asked management and its financial advisors to assess “the value that might be achieved through negotiations with Berkshire Hathaway.” But Berkshire was not asked the “how much?” question until the CEO met with Buffett on February 8.

There is little question that Berkshire received more favored treatment that another bidder would have. To some extent, that is understandable. Berkshire has an impressive balance sheet. But the favoritism toward Berkshire seems much deeper rooted than that. In the preliminary proxy statement it is signaled in code words that describe a meeting in mid-January between the CEO and David Sokol of Berkshire. The two of them “generally discussed the corporate cultures and philosophies” of both companies.

And in a meeting 10 days later when Sokol provided reassurance by saying Berkshire “would want Mr. Hambrick to continue to run the business.” The preliminary proxy repeatedly assures us that no employment terms were discussed. But of course they did not need to be. The Berkshire “culture” of retaining and rewarding existing management is well known and was obviously affirmed.

And, of course management does not have to completely rely on history and the soothing words of Berkshire executives. They have generous golden parachutes that will compensate executives with an aggregate of $100 million if they leave Lubrizol for “good reason” within three years of the Berkshire deal. That’s on top of the equity-based cash outs they will receive at the closing. More importantly, they know that, because of the “culture,” the bulk of those golden-parachute payments likely will be rolled into new employment agreements to compensate them nicely them for staying.

But of course no one wants to admit that Berkshire received favored status because of the “culture” issue. That is because it leads to this question: how does a deal with Berkshire differ from a leveraged buyout sponsored by a private equity fund?

Leveraged buyouts, which are frequently criticized because of the inherent self-interest of management, require much more procedural protections than the Lubrizol board decided would be appropriate for a Berkshire transaction. They typically involve independent committees, independent advisers, executive sessions and negotiations largely conducted by the committee. It is true that leverage is not a part of the Berkshire transaction and that distinguishes it from an LBO. But that is not why the procedural protections are invoked. The board needs those procedures because management may have a conflicting interest. And that is true whether management has a formal agreement with the private equity firm or not.

In that regard, as a practical matter, the possible conflicts for management are no different in a transaction with Berkshire than they would be in one with KKR. Berkshire and Buffett have just done a better job in perfecting a “brand.”

The Lubrizol board and its advisers seemed to have missed this issue entirely. In what may be a new world record, the proxy statement indicates that the lawyers advised the board at six separate board meetings of its fiduciary duties.

It is amazing that the potential conflict of management was either not identified or ignored. It may well be that the price is adequate and Berkshire may be composed of good people. Nevertheless, the independent directors should have done more to take control of the process.

(Note: the author owns shares of Berkshire Hathaway.)

Is Facebook worth $50 billion?

Is Facebook worth $50 billion?

By Jennifer Valentino-DeVries

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/01/03/facebooks-valuation-by-the-numbers/

The social-networking giant raised $500 million from Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Russian firm Digital Sky Technologies, putting its valuation at $50 billion, the Journal’s Anupreeta Das confirmed. The New York Times had earlier reported the investment.
Does that number make sense? First, let’s compare Facebook’s valuation to the market capitalization of other Internet companies — Yahoo, EBay, Amazon and Google. Yahoo comes in at $21 billion, and Google is at about $190 billion. (Sure, it’s not apples to apples. Among other things, the other companies are more mature. And Amazon and EBay, as e-commerce companies, aren’t competing for Web surfers’ eyeballs the way Google and Yahoo are. But still. Worth a look.)

When you take a look at revenue, Facebook is bringing up the rear, as far as estimates for fiscal 2010 go.

But when it comes to reach, Facebook is a real competitor, J.P.Morgan analyst Imran Khan points out today in his 2011 Internet investment guide. As a percentage of U.S. Internet users, Facebook is behind both Yahoo and Google, but people spend more time on Facebook — and Facebook usage is growing.

And it’s not just about traffic, Mr. Khan says. He makes the case that Facebook has an edge on portals like Yahoo because it doesn’t have to rely on advertising space. Instead, he says, Facebook’s value is as a “platform” — like a credit-card company, it can enable other businesses and charge them a small fee when users buy from them. And he’s not just talking about social games like FarmVille; he means e-commerce, online payments and even fees for content.

That’s the bullish case. The bears, of course, point out that social networking is still in its infancy, especially as a moneymaking “platform.” Facebook is moving to cement its ubiquity, with log-ins across the Web, but the space could still face a shake-up. And the company still has a ways to go to before it makes as much money from each user as Yahoo and Google do; the J.P. Morgan analysts estimate Facebook generates $4 per user, while Yahoo gets $8 and Google gets $24.

For Goldman, though, this long-term speculation might not matter, Felix Salmon at Reuters points out. The investment means Goldman will be sitting pretty when it’s time for Facebook to pick a bank to lead its IPO, and that alone could generate massive fees. “Facebook doesn’t need to stay worth $50 billion forever — Goldman just needs to engineer an IPO valuation somewhere north of that, then exit quietly in the public markets,” he writes.

Readers, what do you think? Was this a good move by Goldman? And does Facebook merit this valuation?

Why top talent earns so much money: Malcolm Gladwell

"There was a time, not very long ago, when people at the very top of their profession—the “talent”—did not make a lot of money. In the postwar years, corporate lawyers, Wall Street investment bankers, Fortune 500 executives, all-star professional athletes, and the like made a fraction of what they earn today. That era was an upside-down version of our own: when society gazed upon captains of industry and commerce, it marvelled at how ordinary their lives were. The truly rich in the nineteen-fifties and sixties were people who had inherited money. And then, suddenly, the world changed..."

Representing one of my favorite writers, Malcolm Galdwell presents an interesting take on the evolution of salaries and our increased interest for "talent", money and recognition.

Is money the only way to acknowledge talent? I believe it is not. Recognition is much more than how much we get paid. Even though money is important and it provides us with certain "social status", we should re-consider our set of social values and principles. For me, an individual's contributions to society and to the well-being of those around him should provide the base upon which society and corporations acknowledge talented individuals.

"Invest in people...a management that is full of integrity and talent" Warren Buffett

Read more about "Talent Grab" article at http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/11/101011fa_fact_gladwell#ixzz17MNAqeDX

Read the complete article at http://www.scribd.com/doc/40469336/Talent-Grab

Warren Buffett hires new investment manager: Todd Combs

El día de hoy se hizo pública la noticia de que Warren Buffett y su conglomerado, Berkshire Hathaway, han decidido nombrar a Todd Combs como su nuevo Chief Investment Officer (CIO). Combs, de 39 años, pasó los últimos 5 años de su vida al frente del hedge fund "Castle Point Capital Management" con base en Greenwich, Conn.

A pesar de que es poca la información disponible, y de las dudas sobre si ocupará o no el puesto de Buffet una vez que éste último decida retirarse, los analistas y medios especializados han comensado a especular sobre las funciones que el recien llegado CIO desempeñara y el papel que Buffett jugará en las decisiones de inversión en Berkshire.

Si bien Combs no es un gestor de fondos popular y aclamado, con su nombramiento Buffett apuesta por dar continuidad a su proyecto y asegurar la rentabilidad de Berkshire, con ó sin él al frente del negocio. En numerosas ocasiones Warren ha dejado en claro que los planes para su sucesión ya están sobre la mesa y que su Comité Ejecutivo ya cuenta con un plan de acción definido para seguir sin él.

Se conoce, por diversas fuentes como Wall Street Journal y The New York Times, que Todd Combs ha llevado una exitosa pero discreta carrera como gestor de fondos. Al frente de Castle Point, cuyos activos suman alrededor de US$400 MM, fue responsable de realizar inversiones especializadas en servicios financieros: seguros, reaseguros, crédito al consumo e hipotecas; algo que viene muy bien con la estrategia y diversificación de las inversiones de Berkshire. Quienes lo conocen afirman que se trata de un hombre "que se construyó a sí mismo".

Personalmente, no considero que este nombramiento signifique que el nuevo CIO será el sucesor de Buffett. Hasta ahora, los argumentos son pocos y en el equipo de Berkshire hay hombres y nombres muy fuertes como el de David Sokol, Lu Li ó Charlie Munger . Me parece, que más allá de toda sucesión, el nuevo CIO jugará un papel fundamental en preservar y procurar las estrategias de inversión de Buffett, al mismo tiempo que la compañía se prepara para entrar a una nueva etapa en la que habrá de probar su capacidad para subsistir y trascender al legado de su fundador.

"If I die today, the board has already set a plan to continue without me..."
W. Buffett