This is why I cut Mr Fox slack.

Alternatively, this may be one of those cases where Buffett’s folksy comments simplify or distort a more complex reality. Berkshire Hathaway can broadly indemnify its directors against any claims arising out of their service as directors without purchasing D&O insurance. In that case, directors are simply relying on Berkshire’s financial strength rather than the solvency of a third-party insurer. I suppose that’s an incentive to make sure that Berkshire doesn’t go bankrupt, though that’s a pretty low bar to clear.

Regarding James Johnson, I concur that on the merits he is a poor choice to serve on a board. As an investor, however, I would rather that large public companies have engaged board members paid $500k per year than ones paid $50k who lack the time, experience, or inclination to oversee management. For example, take the example of a company CEO who also serves on 4 or 5 other company boards – how much time can this person reasonably devote to each of them? I’ve often thought that large institutional investors would be wise to recruit people to serve as professional board members – i.e., their job is serving on something like 3 to 5 corporate boards, and institutional investors actively push these people onto boards suited to their skills or background or just to break up overly clubby boards. Retired executives come to mind as the most likely candidates for this role, though perhaps also people with other backgrounds.

Says who?

S/Hs want GS to make every nickel it can – by any method it can – and give them their cut, after the Street boys take theirs. Do you really believe any shareholder thinks the board members know how to run that kind of ruthless “rip their eyes out” operation more productively than the Wise Guys?

Wall Street has crossed the line into RICO territory, and already pleaded to more charges than it takes to put a mafia Don in a cell. The shareholders are just part of the “crew”.