A scathing take on Warren Buffett

David Weidner, writing for Marketwatch, gives a scathing take on Warren Buffett. And I do mean scathing. He does make some good points, though...



NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Here's hoping that Warren Buffett isn't with us as chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. for much longer, or at least that he has a change of heart. The world will be better off.

Nearly a year after Buffett pledged to give $37 billion of his personal wealth to charity, the 76-year-old and his shareholder flock at Berkshire shot down a series of do-gooder proposals that would have required the company to spare some profits in the name of social responsibility, and maybe saving a few lives.
Buffett and his followers believe it doesn't matter how you make your money, as long as you give it away when you're dead. Embrace businesses such as PetroChina Co. Ltd - which arguably is aiding the genocide in Darfur by investing in the Sudanese government's oil explorations -- or risk that extra penny a share in profit.
St. Warren is like a poker player who has won all of the chips, but hands you one or two to keep playing just so he can take them from you again.

PetroChina connection
Last year, I criticized the attention paid to Buffett for his pledge that his estate would hand over most of his wealth when he died. The billionaire gave a generous gift, but giving and sacrifice are different qualities often confused by observers in the media (this columnist included). See full story.
Today, little seems to have changed. At the urging of management, shareholders last weekend voted down resolutions to require more disclosure of the company's political contributions and also to reverse the actions of a Berkshire subsidiary, PacifiCorp, believed to be endangering salmon populations and lowering water quality in the Northwest.
But it was a resolution calling for Berkshire to sell a $3.3 billion stake in Beijing-based PetroChina that caused the biggest uproar. The PetroChina subsidiary in Sudan pays the government for the right to produce oil there. Those payments, human-rights advocates say, support the Sudanese government and its military efforts.
Shareholder Judith Porter stood before 27,000 investors at the company's annual meeting in Omaha, Neb., and told Buffett that dumping the Berkshire stake "will send a signal to China and to the Sudan that there are costs for continuing this destruction," according to reports.
Buffett defended the investment by arguing that it's the Chinese government that's condoning the actions in Darfur. Furthermore, he said, even if Berkshire divested or Buffett complained, it wouldn't matter.
"PetroChina in no way tells the Chinese government what to do," Buffett was quoted as saying. "We have no disagreement with what PetroChina is doing." He could see "no effect whatsoever in Berkshire Hathaway trying to tell the Chinese government how to conduct their business."

Hey, if you could make a few bucks dealing with someone you know is helping hide a serial killer, why say anything? It probably wouldn't help, right?
Before all you Buffett fans write me to complain, know this: When it comes to investing, it's one thing to follow an unrivaled businessman and investor. When it comes to moral decisions, Warren Buffett should not be your choice. This isn't to say that he does not have a better track record than his peers in American business, but to say that Buffett is in business for himself and his shareholders.
Everyone else can wait until he's dead.