AN infuriated Warren Buffetthas renounced one of his granddaughters - telling her she is no longerhis relative "legally or emotionally" because she took part in a documentary about the lives of the very rich.
Nicole Buffett, the adopted daughter of Buffett's son Peter and biological daughter of Peter's ex-wife Mary, was featured in Jamie Johnson and Nick Kurzon's documentary, "The One Percent," which debuted at the Tribeca Film Festival this year and is a follow-up to Johnson's "Born Rich."
Enraged that Nicole not only participated in the documentary, but also plugged it on National Public Radio and "Oprah," Buffett wrote Nicole an "angry letter" two weeks ago telling her she was no longer part of his life, a source tells Page Six.
Buffett wrote, "I have not emotionally or legally adopted you as a grandchild, nor have the rest of my family adopted you as a niece or a cousin."
---------------------
I guess you would be interested to know a bit more about this movie:
The One Percent
This 80-minute documentary focuses on the growing "wealth gap" in America, as seen through the eyes of filmmaker Jamie Johnson, a 27-year-old heir to the Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical fortune. Johnson, who cut his film teeth at NYU and made the Emmy®-nominated 2003 HBO documentary Born Rich, here sets his sights on exploring the political, moral and emotional rationale that enables a tiny percentage of Americans - the one percent - to control nearly half the wealth of the entire United States.
Confessions Of The Ultra-rich
"THE One Percent," Jamie Johnson's follow-up to his documentary "Born Rich" - which captured his Upper East Side peers talking about their richness - is premiering tonight, and it promises to be even more titillating than the first film, which had bratty heir Luke Weill bragging he could "buy" people. In the new movie, produced by Johnson and Nick Kurzon, reputed arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi details his role in the Iran-Contra scandal and says, "I gave credit to the CIA for $1 million . . . it was supposed to be a 'hush-hush' operation . . . unfortunately, it backfired a little bit on everybody. As businesspeople, we have ways of manipulating the government officials, and they have ways of manipulating us." Kinko's founder Paul Orfalea, asked if he wants to acquire more wealth, replies, "I want to go to the moon and look down on the Earth and say, that's part of my portfolio.' " The movie also has a scene of Nicole Buffett reading a letter in which her grandfather, multibillionaire Warren, disinherits her for being in the documentary.
---------------------
Why was he so upset? I have no idea, but the non-granddaughter told journalists "Warren Buffett the investor is quite different from Warrent Buffett the person"; so the next question is what does she mean? I guess we all have to make our own guesses.
I did receive various glimpses of Warren Buffett as investment manager; people give him credit for first choosing the right companies to invest in, then putting the right people to run them, and leaving them alone to make decisions. There was the story about his neighbour (I think a professor at U of Nebraska), who found Buffett a nice guy and showed his confidence by investing 50K, which became 50M 10 years later. The one dramatic story was the rescue of Salomon Brothers, but the most recent offer to rescue AMBAC, the bond insurer in trouble because of the mortgage related CDOs, seem rather too sharp to me - he was willing to take over the municipal bond portion, the good part, for an increased premium, and was willing to keep the offer open for 30 days while the company explores a better alternative, provided he gets a 1.5% option fee. In fact the offer looks self-contradictory to me: you pay a fee to hold on to an offer because it is alreay very good, but if so, the chance of getting a better one would be low. Doing something like this would seem to make sense only in a fluid negotiating situation, to force another party that you know is capable of making a much better offer to a quick decision. In the absence of this factor, you either accept the offer already on the table or reject it, not pay money just to think about it.
In any case, I look forward to the definitive biography to be written on Warren Buffett.
added on 2/10/08
Buffett has just started to bargain hunt, investing $8B of his >$30B cash into Goldman Sachs and General Electric, buying 10% preferential shares convertible into common stock at advantageous strike prices - he gets better terms than others first because few others have that amount of ready cash on hand, but also because in these trouble times, having an investor with his reputation greatly increases the confidence level a company enjoys in the market
--------------
The announcements by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett that Gates will retire from Microsoft to devote himself to managing his charitable foundation, and Buffett will donate most of his money to it, certainly impressed the world, and in Asia journalists have been asking why billionaires in the region do not do the same. No doubt the western cultures have a stronger sense of noblesse oblige, reflected in civics and public conduct, charity and voluntary work, but also in a greater sense of equality between employers and employees; they have a weaker sense of the family, in that children do not usually feel obliged to support their aged parents, who in turn feel their parental obligations end once the children finish their education.
But there are also very practical reasons for not handing over businesses to children: inheritance and gift taxes are quite high in USA, and often parts of the business have to be sold in order to pay taxes due for the handing over. In contrast, by donating the assets to charitable foundations under their own managment, the owners can continue to exercise ultimate control while the routine operations are handled by hired managers, and later, hand over the foundations to their children to look after. In short, the foundations provide a better way to pass on assets to the next generation. In Asia taxes are usually lower and avoidances easier, and there is less incentive to use the foundation route.
Further the children may not be capable of running the businesses built up by their parents, and could end up messing things up and endangering the livelihood of thousands of people. Children who grew up in a privilegde environment surrounded by syncophants are in fact more difficult to teach, while ideas and experiences passed on from the previous generation are not always valuable in dealing with current problems. Now this issue also exists in Asia, but because of the generally poorer corporate governance and shareholder responsibility, owners would rather risk it than to pass control to non-family managers.
Unlike private owners, charitable foundations have to spend a minimum portion of their income on the intended charity work rather than reinvest income in strengthening their shareholdings; they cannot engage in the same asset enhancement practices that the owners can deploy. Hence, over an extended period the foundations tend to see their shareholdings in the original businesses diluted and their control weakened. This however takes many generations, and by the time the foundations are no longer in control of the original businesses, the descendents probably long lost interest.
Turning to Singapore, I have always thought that when Mr Lee Kuan Yew was about to step down as Prime Minister, he should have established a Senate (please see
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-XIIfDzQobqO5oCYM9UTvZzgKHH4Org--?cq=1&p=133
and moved there instead of remaining in the cabinet; further he should have set up a big charity foundation, which could easily get a couple of billion dollars in donations from Temasek, Singtel, DBS, Capitaland, UOB, Hong Leong, etc, and regular income from MediaCorp charity shows (instead of letting NKF have it), with which to support all kinds of causes including charity, arts, research, etc. This would have established a new image for him, and given him new topics to talk about when he gets invited to various overseas forums. It would also avoid any suspicion of his still running the government and his successors not being fully in charge. In short, it would have been win-win for everyone.
盖兹和巴菲特宣布把自己大多数财产用来做善事,一方面显示了两人的公益心责任感,值得大家赞赏,一方面也反映了西方社会的某些文化经济因素,这里简单讲讲。
大家都知道美国的税很重,高收入人士不但薪金,存款利息和公司股息要交可观的收入税,在房屋,股票,甚至艺术品买进卖出时增了值要交本金增值税 (capital gains tax),就算把财产赠送给亲族,遗留给子女,受益人也要交赠予税(gift tax)遗产税(estate duty)等等,常有受遗产先要卖掉一部分赋税的情况。
如果盖兹巴菲特一类的富翁把全部财产留给子女,要缴交的税会是个非常大的数目。所以他们都会在很早以前做好一套处理的方案,把财产捐赠给由自己或亲族管理的慈善基金,是一种避免缴税的财产转让方法。以后子女可以通过慈善基金继续控制公司,或至少保留些发言权。
但话又说回来:西方的文化的确包含了一种“想想自己欠了社会多少”的责任感,而今天中国社会有钱有势的人群中这种精神的确不足。这种责任感是否像西方人士说,同宗教思想有关,即是一种“凡人出生都有原罪,必须做好事赎罪”的思想,倒不容易说。至于怎样把适用的经济文化系统在中国建立起来,让中国的富人也多学学盖兹和巴菲特这种榜样,就更不容易说了。
另一因素是子女不一定适合事业决策,甚至因为娇生惯养不好学,连守成都做不好引起几千几万人饭碗危机,倒不如交给专业的管理人员负责日常事务。亚洲的国家税率低逃税容易,所以不那么需要通过慈善基金交棒的方法,而且商业监察制度不完整,也不大放心把企业委托外人。
here is an article saying something I suspected all along
被誤解的巴菲特 / Mr.X選
2010-03-09 08:34 |
迴響:0|點閱:28
The Pragmatic Capitalist 發表評論文章表示,巴菲特在公眾眼中是一個價值投資者,僅僅依靠成功選股便成了世界首富,但真實的巴菲特要複雜得多。
巴菲特(Warren Buffett)是有史以來名氣最大、最受尊敬的投資者,而且也是名副其實的。畢竟,他基本上是通過選股而成了世界首富。但巴菲特也被公眾極大地誤解,我個人認為,關於巴菲特的迷信是有史以來散戶投資者受到的最嚴重的愚弄。
對於普通投資者而言,巴菲特是一個和藹而簡樸的老頭,只不過在選股方面造詣很高。你知道,他只是選擇那些“價值股”然後坐等它們升值,對吧?然而這與事 實有十萬八千里之遙,我們看到整整一代投資者都被這樣的觀念所愚弄:價值投資或買入持有策略是積累財富的唯一最佳途徑。但過去十年來股市的糟糕表現讓投資 者終於開始挑戰這一觀念。
在很大程度上,對巴菲特的迷信和誤解助長了投資熱潮,讓一代美國人希望能夠通過股票投資而致富。誰最適合兜售這一理念?自然是華爾街自己。不管怎樣,快速投資於比爾·米勒(Bill Miller)的Value Trust或者是彼得·林奇(Peter Lynch)的Fidelity Magellan(現在基本上已經壽終正寢了),你幾乎可以複製巴菲特的投資手法,對吧?也不儘然。
我首先聲明,我對 巴菲特 先生是無比敬仰的。當我還是一個年輕投資者的時候,我會把巴菲特所有的年度信件列印出來,一頁一頁拜讀。到現在為止,這仍是我接受過的最棒的教育。對於任 何還沒有做過這件事的人,我強烈推薦他去做。但是在深入瞭解之後,我發現巴菲特並不僅僅是一個大家今天所描繪的價值股選股專家。真實的巴菲特遠比這要複 雜。
事實上,巴菲特曾經成立了一家原始的對沖基金(巴菲特合夥公司), 並用賺來的錢收購了伯克希爾哈薩韋。我們今天所看到的作為價值投資者的巴菲特是長期以來形成的。別搞錯了,巴菲特是一位對沖基金經理人。是的,他出生于為 人詬病和指摘的惡劣的對沖基金部落。今天,巴菲特隱藏在公司的幕後,但從很多方面來講,與那個巴菲特合夥公司時代的他相比,他並未有絲毫的改變。
巴菲特合夥公司的歷史之所以特別令人感興趣,還因為巴菲特最近大肆批評對沖基金的表現和費率。然而具有諷刺意味的是,巴菲特合夥公司曾經在基金利潤超過6%的情況下,收取利潤的25%作為傭金。這正是巴菲特財富如此迅速增長的原因。他當年運作的這家對沖基金與今日的對沖基金並無分別。它不僅僅是一隻價值型基金。巴菲特經常使用杠杆,很多時候他會把整個基金投資於幾隻股票上。巴菲特一筆著名的投資就是收購Dempster Mill,對這家公司,巴菲特採取了一項最早的激進型對沖基金的做法——替換了公司的管理層。如此說來,巴菲特是一個激進型對沖基金經理人?對,而且屬於最早的那一批。不要被他謙和的風度所欺騙。他大膽買進伯克希爾哈薩韋的做法也非常類似。
巴菲特希望留給大家這樣的印象:他只是向證監會備個案、打一個電話、敲定交易,然後購買一隻股票,簡直是信手拈來,不費吹灰之力,而華爾街也希望你能夠 獲得這樣的印象。但事實上巴菲特遠比他故意展現的形象更為足智多謀。伯克希爾哈薩韋的複雜性就是一個例證。伯克希爾並不是一家普通的保險公司。巴菲特將伯 克希爾變成了一家全球最大的期權出售中心,從中獲得的權利金和現金流被投資於其他業務。同時巴菲特並非僅僅購買可口可樂和Geico,他在衍生品市場、期權市場和債券市場都有一些短期的和長期的複雜投資。這正是為什麼我們說把巴菲特當成一個純粹的價值投資者是一種誤讀。
伯克希爾已經成長為全世界金融業務最複雜的公司之一。巴菲特賴以成名的投資組合僅占伯克希爾市值的25%左右。他最有名的持股(可口可樂、美國運通和華盛頓郵報)大約占總市值的10%。有意思的是,巴菲特最有名的兩筆投資根本不是傳統的價值投資,而是抄底投資。他最初投資美國運通和Geico的時候兩家公司都處在破產的邊緣。這些交易更像是今天很多抄底的對沖基金經理人的所作所為,而不是比爾·米勒和其他“價值”投資者的作風。
別搞錯了,這位和藹可親的老者可是一位冷面殺手般的生意人。從他2008年與高盛和通用電氣達成的交易就能窺見一斑。他幾乎是站在他們的咽喉之上,要求獲得高收益率的優先股。當然,巴菲特自己把它描述為長期的價值投資。然而,如果同樣的交易是由一位元對沖基金經理人達成的,媒體一定會將這位經理人描述成趁火打劫的強盜。
巴菲特的成功決策到底是出自于天才,還是純粹的好運,這一點我們留給專業的統計分析師去判斷。然而我們不能否認存在這樣的迷信:任何一個小散戶都能夠通過運用格雷厄姆的投資技術成為下一個沃倫·巴菲特。要真是這麼簡單就好了!
也許最有意思的是大家對巴菲特參與銀行救援的誤讀。很顯然,巴菲特在金融危機中下了相當大的賭注。儘管他一再譴責衍生品,但他自己在衍生品市場的確有相當大的利益。除了Gen Re業務和他出售的指數看跌期權,巴菲特自己的投資組合和保險業務當時也處於危機的心臟地帶。也許我們不能說2008年秋季伯克希爾的清償能力受到了威脅,但如果高盛真的破產了,情況會發生什麼變化呢?巴菲特的投資組合和伯克希爾背後的多米諾骨牌將會迅速倒塌。更讓我懷疑的是,如果沒有政府援助,巴菲特能否靠個人的智慧渡過難關?
巴菲特是一個偉大的美國人和偉大的投資者,但是在你投資於股票市場、夢想有朝一日坐上“世界首富”的寶座之前,你應該先做一些功課。投資並不是那麼簡單的事情,儘管華爾街想方設法要讓你相信這一點。
文章來源:http://www.wretch.cc/blog/phigroup/16210724
引用:http://blog.chinatimes.com/phigroup/archive/2010/03/09/476950.html