If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Business Insider)   Warren Buffett selects a 28 year old blonde to chair three of his largest companies, basing his decision solely on merit. Ms. Britt "takes care of all kinds of things that come up," Mr. Buffett told college students in Omaha last month   (businessinsider.com) divider line 81
    More: Amusing, Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway, blonde  
•       •       •

6236 clicks; posted to Business » on 12 Jun 2013 at 5:30 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



81 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-13 01:01:29 AM  
At the financial services company I used to work at the best money manager at the firm started out as a lowly research assistant out of CUNY making $12/hr. Five years later he had made partner. Some people just have the knack.
 
2013-06-13 01:40:06 AM  

mysticcat: Yes, you would.


No, GTFO
 
2013-06-13 02:54:03 AM  

mysticcat: [farm9.staticflickr.com image 426x640]

Yes, you would.


True.

rlv.zcache.com
 
2013-06-13 02:58:36 AM  

Ambivalence: AeAe: Ambivalence: russlar: is it possible, just maybe, that in addition to being attractive, she just might be competent?

At 28 years old? VERY unlikely.

Exactly!  There no way that 28 y.o. woman could possibly talented and competent.

/ rolls eyes

Sure a 28 year old (man or woman, I was not commenting on gender) can be talented and/or competent, but if that is all you needed many many more people would be qualified to be a CEO of a huge corporation. But it takes more than that. It takes an in depth knowledge of the industry and business that really only comes from experience.


After many years of business, particularly working in Finance now, I am constantly amazed at how much the average American idolizes the mythological traits of the "CEO".

Truly, these men are generally of slightly above average intelligence and normal insight. Running a company from a c-level position is relatively straightforward. To me, these men and women are more like overpaid "rock stars" in our culture, much like professional athletes - with the difference being that the athletes overall performance contributes heavily to the bottom line of their teams. I really don't believe the same is true for the CEO (with the rare exception of men like Jobs and Gates who actually started out as entrepreneurs, which is an entirely different kettle of fish)
 
2013-06-13 05:52:42 AM  
She's not even hot. Why the hell should I care?
 
2013-06-13 07:08:04 AM  
Is the article gone or is this just another subby, admin fail?  The internet really isn't that hard. What are you people, Idiots?
 
2013-06-13 07:10:49 AM  

DSF6969: driving force of her accent.


probably wherever she grew up. unless it's the midwest; they always say the midwest accent is the "lack of accent"...
 
2013-06-13 07:25:15 AM  

Ambivalence: AeAe: Ambivalence: russlar: is it possible, just maybe, that in addition to being attractive, she just might be competent?

At 28 years old? VERY unlikely.

Exactly!  There no way that 28 y.o. woman could possibly talented and competent.

/ rolls eyes

Sure a 28 year old (man or woman, I was not commenting on gender) can be talented and/or competent, but if that is all you needed many many more people would be qualified to be a CEO of a huge corporation. But it takes more than that. It takes an in depth knowledge of the industry and business that really only comes from experience.


Having worked at a major company whose CEO ended up having made up his college education, his experience and references to be hired for the position, held it for several years and watch as a major competitor with an actual "qualified" CEO completely collapsed, I seriously doubt that there is anything magical about "qualified" candidates for such positions

Most CEOs of major companies are caretakers, moving from company to company because institutional memory is so 1970's and today we have policies requiring replacement every 4-5 years at most to keep things fresh.

when a con man is a better CEO than the guy with the degree and the experience, it calls into question the value of such things.
 
2013-06-13 07:27:22 AM  
Why does it matter that she is blonde?

She must be a ditz?
 
2013-06-13 07:41:25 AM  

machoprogrammer: BiffDangler: Everybody drop it with the Buffet love.  It's all bullshiat.

His entire business was built around exploiting insurance tax loopholes from the 60's until the 90's.  Since then he is the epitome of the crony capitalist, investing in deals when the President literally gives him a guarantee.

That, too. Plus, he is all "Billionaires should pay more taxes", while his company exploits loopholes out the wazoo. Plus, he doesn't give his money away until he dies, while again, saying the rich should pay their share.


It's the whole "  there is no controlling legal authority ." way of doing things.

Just as this lazy dodge of turning his fortune over to the Gates and their love affair with funding NGO's.

 Hey Warren! Go find a piss poor area in the USA and build a factory or engineering college for the Compton black youth and W. Virginia rural whites (rednecks).

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-06-13 08:00:27 AM  
I was going to make an "oh, but are you experienced?" reference, but then I realized that by the time Jimi Hendrix was her age, he was already famous and dead, undermining my point.
 
2013-06-13 08:04:11 AM  
You guys who think these rich, powerful men would stoop so low and take such a risk to bag these heifers are crazy. Never gonna happen.
i3.mirror.co.uk
 
2013-06-13 09:14:39 AM  
CEO's never put their whores in postion of real power, they'll be placed in PR, Event Planning or Marketing.
 
2013-06-13 10:25:21 AM  

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: machoprogrammer: BiffDangler: Everybody drop it with the Buffet love.  It's all bullshiat.

His entire business was built around exploiting insurance tax loopholes from the 60's until the 90's.  Since then he is the epitome of the crony capitalist, investing in deals when the President literally gives him a guarantee.

That, too. Plus, he is all "Billionaires should pay more taxes", while his company exploits loopholes out the wazoo. Plus, he doesn't give his money away until he dies, while again, saying the rich should pay their share.

It's the whole "  there is no controlling legal authority ." way of doing things.

Just as this lazy dodge of turning his fortune over to the Gates and their love affair with funding NGO's.

 Hey Warren! Go find a piss poor area in the USA and build a factory or engineering college for the Compton black youth and W. Virginia rural whites (rednecks).

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 215x235]


Berkshire Hathaway owns many companies with large numbers of factories in all parts of the United States, as well as employing a lot of non-factory employees throughout the US.  Their overseas investments are quite limited.
 
2013-06-13 11:11:52 AM  

BiffDangler: Everybody drop it with the Buffet love.  It's all bullshiat.

His entire business was built around exploiting insurance tax loopholes from the 60's until the 90's.  Since then he is the epitome of the crony capitalist, investing in deals when the President literally gives him a guarantee.


THANK YOU!

At last, someone else noticed...

I get downvoted on trading sites for posting these two graphs... which is beyond bizarre to me, because they're hard data, easily confirmed, and they tell a very clear tale:

Berkshire Hathaway used to be a very good investment, but in the last 5 years (including the 2008 meltdown) it has done nothing - nothing - but follow the Dow/S&P/US market. (Yes, it's ahead by 10% in the last few months, but it's also been behind by 10% a helluva lot.)
 
2013-06-13 11:17:53 AM  

machoprogrammer: Plus, he doesn't give his money away until he dies, while again, saying the rich should pay their share.


He lives in a modest house (3 bedrooms? Something weirdly small for a millionaire, much less a billionaire) and drives a car any middle-class family could afford. He isn't spending his money; he's investing it.

So, he could either jump through hoops like a trained doggy for asswipe knowitalls on Fark like you, or he could maximize the money he will eventually donate.

And he will. No one who knows a goddamned thing about Mr. Buffet would believe he'd torpedo his image and legacy with an 11th-hour hypocritical turnaround.
 
2013-06-13 11:22:26 AM  

TwistedFark: Ambivalence: AeAe: Ambivalence: russlar: is it possible, just maybe, that in addition to being attractive, she just might be competent?

At 28 years old? VERY unlikely.

Exactly!  There no way that 28 y.o. woman could possibly talented and competent.

/ rolls eyes

Sure a 28 year old (man or woman, I was not commenting on gender) can be talented and/or competent, but if that is all you needed many many more people would be qualified to be a CEO of a huge corporation. But it takes more than that. It takes an in depth knowledge of the industry and business that really only comes from experience.

After many years of business, particularly working in Finance now, I am constantly amazed at how much the average American idolizes the mythological traits of the "CEO".


After many years of business in the US, I am amazed at exactly the same thing.   These guys aren't any smarter than the average bear, and many of them are quite a bit dumber.  What they are is *well connected.*  It's not about what you know, because anyone can know that.  It's about who you know.

For example, if you're a pretty bright 28 year old with a Harvard MBA, *and you know Warren Buffet,* you too, might be a CEO soon.
 
2013-06-13 11:25:02 AM  
BolloxReader:

when a con man is a better CEO than the guy with the degree and the experience, it calls into question the value of such things.

The last company I worked at was founded and headed up by a guy who could not stand MBA's.  He'd openly state things like "Have you ever noticed the biggest dumb asses here are all the one's with an MBA?"  Which was particularly amusing when he was asking proud MBA holders.

I'd work for that guy again.
 
2013-06-13 11:35:18 AM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-06-13 12:20:47 PM  
If Warren Buffett picked her, I'm sure he knew what he was doing, and I'm sure she's incredibly competent and brilliant.  He's not exactly in the habit of making bad decisions in these matter.  And I'm sure it  was solely on merit, even if the headline seems to be sarcastically implying otherwise, because that's how he rolls.  Not to mention that, she's not exactly a smokin' hottie that would suddenly cause Mr. Buffett to think with his  littlewrinkled head rather than his  bigwrinkled head--she's kind of a large girl, it seems (on the right in the pic below):.She looks like a cornfed husker!
 
2013-06-13 01:49:05 PM  

jaytkay: Ambivalence: russlar: is it possible, just maybe, that in addition to being attractive, she just might be competent?

At 28 years old? VERY unlikely.

Steve Jobs was 21 at the introduction of the Apple I.

He was 25 when Apple went public, selling $100M in shares.

Some people are born freakishly competent.

Why use Steve Jobs and not Richest Man in the World Bill Gates, who became a billionaire at 28?
 
2013-06-13 02:43:05 PM  
Somewhere in those companies' leadership there's a highly experience black man who's been there for decades. Experienced, credentialed, and educated.

And deep down inside, even though he meets with him regularly, he knows why warren didn't pick him.
 
2013-06-13 02:58:27 PM  
Rupert Murdoch's Gal Pal Friday was a red head.

Unfortunately, somebody had to be thrown to the wolves over this media spying scandal, so out she went on her pretty face.

Comparing the two women, I'd have to say that Warren Buffet was not screening his candidates solely on looks. Competence probably counted for a lot.  And Rupert Murdoch was not screening his executives solely on ruthlessness. Countenance probably counted for a lot. It's not enough to be the Wicked Witch of the East. You have to look like a Wicked Witch of the East. A really hot Wicked Witch of the East, like in the new movie about the Wizard of Oz (no relation to Murdoch), Oz the Great and Powerful.

I haven't seen it yet, but probably will some day, possibly on the web.

If it starred a toad instead of Pretty Boy Franco, it might be regarded as a roman-à-clé.
 
2013-06-13 03:55:03 PM  

subotai54: jaytkay: Ambivalence: russlar: is it possible, just maybe, that in addition to being attractive, she just might be competent?

At 28 years old? VERY unlikely.

Steve Jobs was 21 at the introduction of the Apple I.

He was 25 when Apple went public, selling $100M in shares.

Some people are born freakishly competent.
Why use Steve Jobs and not Richest Man in the World Bill Gates, who became a billionaire at 28?



Those are both people who started their own companies,  Starting your own company is a whole different ballgame than being promoted up into executive positions.
 
2013-06-13 04:02:26 PM  

TheManMythLegend: subotai54: jaytkay: Ambivalence: russlar: is it possible, just maybe, that in addition to being attractive, she just might be competent?

At 28 years old? VERY unlikely.

Steve Jobs was 21 at the introduction of the Apple I.

He was 25 when Apple went public, selling $100M in shares.

Some people are born freakishly competent.
Why use Steve Jobs and not Richest Man in the World Bill Gates, who became a billionaire at 28?


Those are both people who started their own companies,  Starting your own company is a whole different ballgame than being promoted up into executive positions.


How so? The person is either competent enough to run a large corporate entity or they are not. It doesn't matter if they've been CEO since the company had only two employees or they were promoted to the position. They can either led the company or they can't.
 
2013-06-13 04:19:36 PM  

max_pooper: TheManMythLegend: subotai54: jaytkay: Ambivalence: russlar: is it possible, just maybe, that in addition to being attractive, she just might be competent?

At 28 years old? VERY unlikely.

Steve Jobs was 21 at the introduction of the Apple I.

He was 25 when Apple went public, selling $100M in shares.

Some people are born freakishly competent.
Why use Steve Jobs and not Richest Man in the World Bill Gates, who became a billionaire at 28?


Those are both people who started their own companies,  Starting your own company is a whole different ballgame than being promoted up into executive positions.

How so? The person is either competent enough to run a large corporate entity or they are not. It doesn't matter if they've been CEO since the company had only two employees or they were promoted to the position. They can either led the company or they can't.



Because they became wealthy though the increasing value of their creations.  Of wich at least early on they owned the majority of the equity,  so they only had to entruct themselves.

To become a CEO of a company you do not own you are asking the "owners"  or shareholders of the company to trust you with their investment.

My guess in a traditional company where there are hundreds or thousands of shareholders who have no direct knowledge of her skills or competency she would not have risen so fast, but sinse Warren Buffet is Bershire,  she really only has to convince him.
 
2013-06-13 04:27:10 PM  

TheManMythLegend: max_pooper: TheManMythLegend: subotai54: jaytkay: Ambivalence: russlar: is it possible, just maybe, that in addition to being attractive, she just might be competent?

At 28 years old? VERY unlikely.

Steve Jobs was 21 at the introduction of the Apple I.

He was 25 when Apple went public, selling $100M in shares.

Some people are born freakishly competent.
Why use Steve Jobs and not Richest Man in the World Bill Gates, who became a billionaire at 28?


Those are both people who started their own companies,  Starting your own company is a whole different ballgame than being promoted up into executive positions.

How so? The person is either competent enough to run a large corporate entity or they are not. It doesn't matter if they've been CEO since the company had only two employees or they were promoted to the position. They can either led the company or they can't.


Because they became wealthy though the increasing value of their creations.  Of wich at least early on they owned the majority of the equity,  so they only had to entruct themselves.

To become a CEO of a company you do not own you are asking the "owners"  or shareholders of the company to trust you with their investment.

My guess in a traditional company where there are hundreds or thousands of shareholders who have no direct knowledge of her skills or competency she would not have risen so fast, but sinse Warren Buffet is Bershire,  she really only has to convince him.



You don't have to be the founder of a company to increase its value though your input.
 
2013-06-13 05:09:33 PM  

Broom: Berkshire Hathaway used to be a very good investment, but in the last 5 years (including the 2008 meltdown) it has done nothing - nothing - but follow the Dow/S&P/US market. (Yes, it's ahead by 10% in the last few months, but it's also been behind by 10% a helluva lot.)


What that says to me is that Berkshire Hathaway is still a _good_ investment, although not a _high-yield_ investment.

Financial business has become a lot less predictable since the collapse of Lehman Bros; there's still a very real risk that new regulatory efforts could fundamentally affect the way BH operates.  Rather than do something drastic and perhaps suffer for it, better to play it conservatively and ride it out until the storm has passed.

/and Republicans are back in the majority.
 
2013-06-13 05:28:46 PM  

poot_rootbeer: /and Republicans are back in the majority.


Did you see the headline this morning that more whites died last year than were born? The Census Bureau says it came 10 years early...so good luck with that whole Republicans back in the majority thingie.
 
2013-06-13 05:30:30 PM  

russlar: is it possible, just maybe, that in addition to being attractive, she just might be competent?


She might be competent, but she's sure as hell not attractive.
 
2013-06-13 09:25:37 PM  

poot_rootbeer: Broom: Berkshire Hathaway used to be a very good investment, but in the last 5 years (including the 2008 meltdown) it has done nothing - nothing - but follow the Dow/S&P/US market. (Yes, it's ahead by 10% in the last few months, but it's also been behind by 10% a helluva lot.)

What that says to me is that Berkshire Hathaway is still a _good_ investment, although not a _high-yield_ investment.

Financial business has become a lot less predictable since the collapse of Lehman Bros; there's still a very real risk that new regulatory efforts could fundamentally affect the way BH operates.  Rather than do something drastic and perhaps suffer for it, better to play it conservatively and ride it out until the storm has passed.

/and Republicans are back in the majority.


For 5 years we've had amazing returns. 5 years is a looooong time for a fund manager to sit on his hands and ride the market with no real direction.

And this giant mess started during GOP management, but I'm sure you'll find a way to blame it all on the Dems, anyway.
 
Displayed 31 of 81 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report