Warren Buffett, Hypocrite?

[unitasking]

Like many I have enjoyed Warren Buffet's shareholder letters over the years. Nobody can't deny his investing track record. Over the last couple of years I have scratched my head as I have watched Warren do some things that make me feel like he has done the ultimate con job in convincing the American people (like myself) that he is the Andy Griffith of investing, and we should listen to his good, fatherly advice.

He has clearly benefited from knowing people in the top political offices. His company owns shares in Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and has owned shares in Goldman, some of the too big to fail banks. Berkshire also owns Moody's that certified crap investments as AAA.

Does anybody else feel like Ol' Uncle Warren is just another insider that has charmed us with a masterful facade?
I hope I am wrong, chime in and let me know what you think.

Here are some supporting articles:
http://dailyreckoning.com/warren-buffett-world-class-hypocrite/
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-18/more-warren-buffett-hypocrisy-restructures-deal-avoid-400-million-taxes

[arebelspy]

Protip: If it's on ZeroHedge, it's probably wrong.

[Tetsuya Hondo]

I think a lot of the anti-Buffet rhetoric out there is fueled by politics as much as anything. For some, if you don't wear the same political hat, then you must be evil.

[randymarsh]

Didn't read any of the articles, but I don't think I buy that he's a hypocrite or scumbag because of his investment holdings. Berkshire owns 11.5% of Moody's and it's not like Buffett himself personally rated those investments.

Anybody with a 401k probably owns shares of Exxon and Philip Morris. Does that make me responsible for oil spills or lung cancer?

[soccerluvof4]

Until something concrete really comes up which I doubt ever would , because he is I am sure constantly being vetted and everyone wants to seemingly see the successful fail, I will continue that he is what he portrays to be. He seems to be a straight shooter in my eyes.

[luigi49]

Like many I have enjoyed Warren Buffet's shareholder letters over the years. Nobody can't deny his investing track record. Over the last couple of years I have scratched my head as I have watched Warren do some things that make me feel like he has done the ultimate con job in convincing the American people (like myself) that he is the Andy Griffith of investing, and we should listen to his good, fatherly advice.

He has clearly benefited from knowing people in the top political offices. His company owns shares in Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and has owned shares in Goldman, some of the too big to fail banks. Berkshire also owns Moody's that certified crap investments as AAA.

Does anybody else feel like Ol' Uncle Warren is just another insider that has charmed us with a masterful facade?
I hope I am wrong, chime in and let me know what you think.

Here are some supporting articles:
http://dailyreckoning.com/warren-buffett-world-class-hypocrite/
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-18/more-warren-buffett-hypocrisy-restructures-deal-avoid-400-million-taxes

Buffet is not what you think he is. He portrays this O shuck from omaha but I believe he is more sinister than that.   You know what they say when it comes to money....   He is however not as bad as madoff.   

[CorpRaider]

Like many I have enjoyed Warren Buffet's shareholder letters over the years. Nobody can't deny his investing track record. Over the last couple of years I have scratched my head as I have watched Warren do some things that make me feel like he has done the ultimate con job in convincing the American people (like myself) that he is the Andy Griffith of investing, and we should listen to his good, fatherly advice.

He has clearly benefited from knowing people in the top political offices. His company owns shares in Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and has owned shares in Goldman, some of the too big to fail banks. Berkshire also owns Moody's that certified crap investments as AAA.

Does anybody else feel like Ol' Uncle Warren is just another insider that has charmed us with a masterful facade?
I hope I am wrong, chime in and let me know what you think.

Here are some supporting articles:
http://dailyreckoning.com/warren-buffett-world-class-hypocrite/
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-18/more-warren-buffett-hypocrisy-restructures-deal-avoid-400-million-taxes

 
Absolutely not.

[Jamesqf]

So where exactly is the hypocrisy?  What's hypocritical about saying the current tax system really sucks and ought to be changed, and taking advantage of whatever options currently exist in the real world?

[matchewed]

I'm curious  to see an example of when Buffett has made any claim to a moral high ground.

Neither of those pieces deserve the label of journalism and should be filed into the "Do Not Bother Reading" file of information consumption. The Zero Hedge "article" is just a smear piece. The Daily Reckoning is hanging its entire hat on one quote he had about Wall St. using EBITDA for valuation to rail against his position with big banks. The equivalent of blaming a rainbow for your dog shitting on the rug.

So please tell me what he has clearly done with actual facts and not hand wavy pissing and moaning like the "articles" have.

[luigi49]

For one the moody where he stamp crap investment as AAA.   I know he didn't personally approve it but dont tell me he doesn't know it.

[matchewed]

For one the moody where he stamp crap investment as AAA.   I know he didn't personally approve it but dont tell me he doesn't know it.

You seriously think he knows the minutia of every company? It's just as valid to say that "he didn't personally approve of Coca Cola's Asian marketing strategy but don't tell me he doesn't know it." Which sounds equally ridiculous.

[brewer12345]

For one the moody where he stamp crap investment as AAA.   I know he didn't personally approve it but dont tell me he doesn't know it.

Huh?  I don't there is quite enough coherence there to determine exactly what mud you are attempting to sling.  That said, at one point in my career I worked for Moody's rating financial institutions (not structured securities).  I can assure you, at no time did Mr. Buffett or any other investor in the company ever exert any influence on anyone from what I saw.  There are lots of reasons why the rating agencies did things that border on criminal negligence/stupidity, but influence from investors in the company was not one of them.  As a matter of fact, Moody's downgraded Berkshire Hathaway from Aaa and has openly criticized the shoddy corporate governance at the company for a number of years.

[MissStache]

For one the moody where he stamp crap investment as AAA.   I know he didn't personally approve it but dont tell me he doesn't know it.

Berkshire owns something like 11% of Moody's!  I work for a subsidiary owned outright and he is VERY far removed from our mangement and operations.  It's pretty laughable to think he has the time or inclination to micro manage such a tiny holding given the other demands of BH.

[davisgang90]

The main thing I don't like about Buffett is that he supports keeping the estate tax because it helps fund the government.

http://www.thewriterscoin.com/warren-buffett-and-the-death-tax/

Then he turned around and set up a trust so the vast majority of his wealth will go to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.  Certainly a worthy choice, but not exactly helping out government like he stated.

http://www.mnn.com/money/personal-finance/stories/warren-buffett-donates-26-billion-to-gates-foundation-and-other

Good enough for the "little people" but not big wheels like he and Gates.

[arebelspy]

The main thing I don't like about Buffett is that he supports keeping the estate tax because it helps fund the government.

http://www.thewriterscoin.com/warren-buffett-and-the-death-tax/

Then he turned around and set up a trust so the vast majority of his wealth will go to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.  Certainly a worthy choice, but not exactly helping out government like he stated.

http://www.mnn.com/money/personal-finance/stories/warren-buffett-donates-26-billion-to-gates-foundation-and-other

Good enough for the "little people" but not big wheels like he and Gates.

And he'd vote for a law that didn't let him do that.  He's saying it shouldn't be available.  But if it is, of course one can take advantage of it.

[Poorman]

The two articles that you linked to strike me as nitpicking.  As the chairman of Berkshire his duty is to maximize shareholder wealth, and that includes minimizing the capital gains taxes they pay on transactions.  It's called fiduciary duty. 

ZeroHedge is a pro-gold website (amongst other things), and because of that, they don't like Buffet because he regards gold as having no intrinsic value.

[stuckinmn]

I personally think the mortgage tax deduction is bad policy and should be gotten rid of, but until it is you better believe I take full advantage of it every April.  I see nothing hypocritical about following the tax law as written rather than how you think it should be.

[unitasking]

You are right Buffett does dis gold, but he did purchase 4,000 metric tons of Silver in 1997
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_as_an_investment

So he does like precious metals at the right price/scarcity, like all opportunistic investors should. But a vote for precious metals is a vote against the confidence in the USD, and he is a USD cheerleader at the moment.

But he wasn't always singing that tune, here is a quote from Warren:

"Even in the U.S., where the wish for a stable currency is strong, the dollar has fallen a staggering 86% in value since 1965, when I took over management of Berkshire. It takes no less than $ 7 today to buy what $1 did at that time...

In God We Trust may be imprinted on our currency, but the hand that activates our government's printing press has been all too human. "
- Warren Buffett from 2010 Letter to Shareholders

[warfreak2]

The main thing I don't like about Buffett is that he supports keeping the estate tax because it helps fund the government.
[...]
Then he turned around and set up a trust so the vast majority of his wealth will go to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.  Certainly a worthy choice, but not exactly helping out government like he stated.

That doesn't seem even slightly contradictory to me. He can think charities are more worthy of funding than the government, even if he thinks the government is worth funding. Either way, when someone dies, part of their estate goes to benefitting society; it's not exactly a loophole that lets families keep more of their inheritance.

[matchewed]

You are right Buffett does dis gold, but he did purchase 4,000 metric tons of Silver in 1997
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_as_an_investment

So he does like precious metals at the right price/scarcity, like all opportunistic investors should. But a vote for precious metals is a vote against the confidence in the USD, and he is a USD cheerleader at the moment.

But he wasn't always singing that tune, here is a quote from Warren:

"Even in the U.S., where the wish for a stable currency is strong, the dollar has fallen a staggering 86% in value since 1965, when I took over management of Berkshire. It takes no less than $ 7 today to buy what $1 did at that time...

In God We Trust may be imprinted on our currency, but the hand that activates our government's printing press has been all too human. "
- Warren Buffett from 2010 Letter to Shareholders

In what way is that "voting" for or against a currency? He made an investment, it might have paid off it might have not.

*Edit for another question*

You claim he's a USD cheerleader, where do you get that impression? In your comments you've cited two reasons for him to be against the USD then accuse him of being for it.

[matchewed]

Like many I have enjoyed Warren Buffet's shareholder letters over the years. Nobody can't deny his investing track record. Over the last couple of years I have scratched my head as I have watched Warren do some things that make me feel like he has done the ultimate con job in convincing the American people (like myself) that he is the Andy Griffith of investing, and we should listen to his good, fatherly advice.

He has clearly benefited from knowing people in the top political offices. His company owns shares in Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and has owned shares in Goldman, some of the too big to fail banks. Berkshire also owns Moody's that certified crap investments as AAA.

Does anybody else feel like Ol' Uncle Warren is just another insider that has charmed us with a masterful facade?
I hope I am wrong, chime in and let me know what you think.

Here are some supporting articles:
http://dailyreckoning.com/warren-buffett-world-class-hypocrite/
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-18/more-warren-buffett-hypocrisy-restructures-deal-avoid-400-million-taxes

The FT Alphaville article I posted earlier (http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2014/03/14/1799862/buffett-gets-the-better-of-everyone-version-4762/) talks about how he used corporate actions to cleverly evade capital gains taxes.  He invested a lot of time, effort and money to find a loophole to avoid funding the government projects he is so boldly in favor of.

Whether this is hypocrisy or not can be debated, but at a minimum it shows he is not the saint everyone makes him out to be.  A stark contrast in Mustachian terms is MMM paying more for wind-generated power even though the default coal-generated source would save him money.  The reader has no doubt that MMM's view of the way things should be is consistent with his actions even if it costs him on the margin (and in reality detracts or hampers the journey to FIRE for the avg reader, which is perhaps the main point of this entire blog) because, quite frankly, being true to his principles is the most important thing to him.

Hence one could deduce that making as much money as possible and preserving his 'Oracle of Omaha' image via his track record (the book value or market return of Berkshire Hathaway) is the most important thing to Buffett, and really improving society by acting consistently with his stated principles (which he advocates everyone else follow) comes a far behind in priority (perhaps even behind maintaining his image as being a folksy, man-of-the-people loveable guy).  That makes him exceptional in investing prowess and acumen, but no different than the average philanthropic billionaire who wants to do good things for the world.

Greatest investor ever? - maybe.  Hypocrite? - perhaps.  Saint? - not even close.

But where in that article did he do wrong? Instead of selling shares he got in exchange assets held by that company, BRK shares, a radio station, and some cash. So what if the deal was structured to be tax efficient? Doesn't everyone have that right to try to be tax efficient and minimize their taxes? And making a plea to authority makes for crappy discussions. MMM's choice on how to spend his money doesn't mean diddly squat to this discussion.

[unitasking]

Warfreak2, you mentioned, "part of their estate goes to benefitting society." Please understand the scope of govt waste we have here.

With Medicare alone there are tens of billions of known fraud and waste as documented by 60 Minutes which is generally viewed as a reputable news source.  This is just one example of waste:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/medicare-fraud-a-60-billion-crime-23-10-2009/

[matchewed]

Warfreak2, you mentioned, "part of their estate goes to benefitting society." Please understand the scope of govt waste we have here.

With Medicare alone there are tens of billions of known fraud and waste as documented by 60 Minutes which is generally viewed as a reputable news source.  This is just one example of waste:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/medicare-fraud-a-60-billion-crime-23-10-2009/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

[Eric]

It is hard not to see the inconsistency of working so hard (what is the strategic benefit of the transaction other than simply to avoid paying tax?) to keep from doing what he advocates everyone else should do - pay higher taxes to fund big government (very inefficiently, I might add, as almost every economist agrees income taxes are one of the worst possible ways for a sovereign to generate revenue).

Would you be more receptive to the idea if it were higher taxes to fund small government?

I'm not seeing the inconsistency at all.  Wanting laws changed while still working within them is pretty common in just about every facet of society. 

[unitasking]

matchewed, I agree the gov waste subject is better topic for a different thread. Just passionate about the subject and all the related questions it brings up.

[matchewed]

So I'm still waiting for the hypocritical part...

So far we've got his actions as a person running a business and a business transaction that is meant to maximize the profits of his business (the financial times article), two smear pieces, and

[Eric]

It is hard not to see the inconsistency of working so hard (what is the strategic benefit of the transaction other than simply to avoid paying tax?) to keep from doing what he advocates everyone else should do - pay higher taxes to fund big government (very inefficiently, I might add, as almost every economist agrees income taxes are one of the worst possible ways for a sovereign to generate revenue).

Would you be more receptive to the idea if it were higher taxes to fund small government?

I'm not seeing the inconsistency at all.  Wanting laws changed while still working within them is pretty common in just about every facet of society.

I would agree that Warren Buffett is no less greedy or different than any other citizen - not extraordinary at all.

I already said it was debatable whether he is a hypocrite.

And I'm saying there's no debate at all.  So how 'bout that!  It's not like he's illegally funneling money to the Caymans to avoid taxes.  That would be hypocritical.  Following current laws at the same time as advocating their change is not the least bit hypocritical. 

[warfreak2]

Warfreak2, you mentioned, "part of their estate goes to benefitting society." Please understand the scope of govt waste we have here.

Whether or not you can persuade me that the US government doesn't use tax money to benefit society (you aren't going to, so don't bother), the debate was about Warren Buffett. So long as Warren Buffett believes that funding the government is beneficial to society - and it's pretty clear he does think that - then his position on estate tax is consistent with him being sincere. You might think he is wrong, but it doesn't show he's a hypocrite.

[Eric]

Yup - just as greedy and self-serving as other law abiding politicians and financiers

Yes, his self-serving stance that his own taxes should be raised is really showing his hypocritical nature.  /sarcasm

[matchewed]

It is hard not to see the inconsistency of working so hard (what is the strategic benefit of the transaction other than simply to avoid paying tax?) to keep from doing what he advocates everyone else should do - pay higher taxes to fund big government (very inefficiently, I might add, as almost every economist agrees income taxes are one of the worst possible ways for a sovereign to generate revenue).

Would you be more receptive to the idea if it were higher taxes to fund small government?

I'm not seeing the inconsistency at all.  Wanting laws changed while still working within them is pretty common in just about every facet of society.

I would agree that Warren Buffett is no less greedy or different than any other citizen - not extraordinary at all.

I already said it was debatable whether he is a hypocrite.

And I'm saying there's no debate at all.  So how 'bout that!  It's not like he's illegally funneling money to the Caymans to avoid taxes.  That would be hypocritical.  Following current laws at the same time as advocating their change is not the least bit hypocritical.

Yup - just as greedy and self-serving as other law abiding politicians and financiers

Ah so it's guilt by association rather than anything tangible. Gotcha.

[Eric]

Yup - just as greedy and self-serving as other law abiding politicians and financiers

Yes, his self-serving stance that his own taxes should be raised is really showing his hypocritical nature.  /sarcasm

The amount his taxes would go up is de minimis compared to his net worth

Not so for the average American he would like to burden to further his political agenda

The average American?  Hahahahahha.  You think Warren Buffett's "political agenda" would be a burden on the average American?  Hahahahahahahaaahaha

[unitasking]

If you are living in NY, I think between state, fed, and property taxes I would imagine you are paying high taxes.
This is unrelated, I know.

[brewer12345]

Yup - just as greedy and self-serving as other law abiding politicians and financiers

Yes, his self-serving stance that his own taxes should be raised is really showing his hypocritical nature.  /sarcasm

The amount his taxes would go up is de minimis compared to his net worth

Not so for the average American he would like to burden to further his political agenda

The average American?  Hahahahahha.  You think Warren Buffett's "political agenda" would be a burden on the average American?  Hahahahahahahaaahaha

Average American who would be burdened from a tax change - sorry I had to spell it out for you

I would actually be ok with a straight wealth tax annually on assets and net worth even though it would cost me more than my income taxes.  I'm guessing Warren doesn't feel the same given his income is disproportionately low compared to his net worth.

Does that make me even more generous and less self-serving than him?

The man worked hard all his life and made billions of dollars.  He has used his stature to prod legislators more interested in fighting like cats in the sack than doing the business of the people to do the right thing.  He even single-handedly helped shore up the global financial system by dropping Berkshire capital into systemically important (i.e. if they die, we all die) financial institutions.  Then he has donated the vast majority of his life savings to charitable endeavors.  What more do you want?  He should donate a testicle to a worthy cause?

[Nords]

He has clearly benefited from knowing people in the top political offices. His company owns shares in Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and has owned shares in Goldman, some of the too big to fail banks. Berkshire also owns Moody's that certified crap investments as AAA.

"It's not personal, it's just business."

There's another perspective to your statements.  People in top political offices might be trying to benefit from knowing Buffett, but it's hard to see how they've profited.  Meanwhile in 2008-09 his phone was ringing off the hook from execs trying to figure out how he could put his $20B of liquidity to work for their shaky corporations.  Buffett was under heavy pressure from the Treasury to "save" Lehman Brothers, and as a Berkshire shareholder I'm glad Buffett wasn't interested.

Before Goldman he invested in Salomon Brothers, and I'm sure the Goldman execs remembered what happened when Buffett took over at SB.  He invested in BofA because they were begging for capital, and they're certainly paying for it.  He invested in WF on the open market, the same as anyone else who was willing to accept the incredible sector risk. 

Buffett also owns half as much of Moody's as he used to... maybe less than that.  He's been divesting their shares for years.

Before you make more blanket statements from websites with agendas to grind, I'd suggest reading a library copy of Alice Schroeder's "The Snowball" biography.  It shows what kind of "person" Buffett really is, and what terrible life choices he's made to get to where he is today.  He gave her full access to his memories and to interview his family/friends, and she wrote up all the ugly facts.  In return he cut off all contact with her-- he just can't face up to her analysis of his personality.

Buffett really can't help being the analytical investor that he is, and he plays by the rules as hard as he knows how.  He's insanely competitive in a way that borders on the Asperger's-Syndrome accusations that made Gates so competitive at Microsoft.  The difference is that Buffett also campaigns to have the rules changed so that everyone can have a better game, not just him.  Until the rules are changed to make a more equitable playing field, he'll continue to exploit every loophole for the benefit of his shareholders-- and also to call attention to how ridiculous the loopholes may be.

If we're going to judge Buffett's scorecard by the billions that he's accumulated, then perhaps it's also fair to adjust his score by the billions that he's given (and continues to give) to charity.

[Tetsuya Hondo]

If you've been in the business for over 50 years and have managed to rise to the helm of a corporation as large as Berkshire Hathaway, then it's not going to be that hard for someone to cherry pick a few instances that make you look bad. Consider how many deals the man has made in the past five decades. Think about all the actions taken by companies that he owns substantial stakes in.

Even in my own humble career, I'm sure people can pick out a number of instances where I was the bad guy from their perspective. I think that's something that anyone who has run anything larger than a popcorn stand could probably empathize with.

As others have pointed out, Zerohedge and the goldbug crowd have an axe to grind with Buffet because he doesn't like gold. He trash talks gold, which their business depends on. It's in their best interest to try and discredit him as he's a threat to their business model. They don't want you to listen to him. 

[brewer12345]

Yup - just as greedy and self-serving as other law abiding politicians and financiers

Yes, his self-serving stance that his own taxes should be raised is really showing his hypocritical nature.  /sarcasm

The amount his taxes would go up is de minimis compared to his net worth

Not so for the average American he would like to burden to further his political agenda

The average American?  Hahahahahha.  You think Warren Buffett's "political agenda" would be a burden on the average American?  Hahahahahahahaaahaha

Average American who would be burdened from a tax change - sorry I had to spell it out for you

I would actually be ok with a straight wealth tax annually on assets and net worth even though it would cost me more than my income taxes.  I'm guessing Warren doesn't feel the same given his income is disproportionately low compared to his net worth.

Does that make me even more generous and less self-serving than him?

The man worked hard all his life and made billions of dollars.  He has used his stature to prod legislators more interested in fighting like cats in the sack than doing the business of the people to do the right thing.  He even single-handedly helped shore up the global financial system by dropping Berkshire capital into systemically important (i.e. if they die, we all die) financial institutions.  Then he has donated the vast majority of his life savings to charitable endeavors.  What more do you want?  He should donate a testicle to a worthy cause?

All of the things you point to benefit him in some way.

What has he done that is purely selfless?

If the causes he has donated to are worthy, and I would argue saving lives is about as worthy as they come, why not give the money today instead of when he dies?

And wrt another comment re what politicians have gotten from him: writing op eds in major newspapers about raising INCOME taxes on the wealthy (which coincidentally was at the same time the POTUS was making his case to do the same) sounds like a nice favor that could be called in later.  Perhaps that is one reason, along with the US sovereign downgrade from AAA to AA, that the DOJ decided to sue S&P (coincidentally the #1 competitor for Buffett-owned Moodys) for fraud?  Or that a wealth or asset tax (which would affect Buffett disproportionately being the second richest man in the world) has never been given serious consideration?

So now he is one of the Elders of Zion?  I better go buy stock in Alcoa tomorrow morning.

[oldtoyota]

I think it's a mistake to idolize anyone. Take what you like about Buffet, what you can learn from him, and leave the rest.

JFK had faults, yet he did some good things.
MLK had faults, yet he did some good things.

This is true about all humans.

Humans are complicated creatures, and not all are 100% good all of the time. You just have to decide if what you think WB did "wrong" is wrong enough for you to dislike him.

We probably will know more dirt about his life after he passes away. It often works that way.

[warfreak2]

Then he has donated the vast majority of his life savings to charitable endeavors.

What has he done that is purely selfless?

If that doesn't pass your test for pure selflessness, what does?

why not give the money today instead of when he dies?

Compounding returns? He'll be able to give a lot more if he continues to invest that money. Doesn't sound selfish to me.

[arebelspy]

Then he has donated the vast majority of his life savings to charitable endeavors.

What has he done that is purely selfless?

If that doesn't pass your test for pure selflessness, what does?

Nothing is truely selfless, because it makes you happy when doing it*.

/sarcasm
//eyeroll

*unless you donate to pbs when you hate them

[matchewed]

So now that we've moved the goalposts of hypocrisy to sainthood we'll just have to wait until after his death to have two miracles performed in order show his actions aren't hypocritical but totally in line with his values and his priorities.

[MissStache]

Then he has donated the vast majority of his life savings to charitable endeavors.

What has he done that is purely selfless?

If that doesn't pass your test for pure selflessness, what does?

Nothing is truely selfless, because it makes you happy when doing it*.

/sarcasm
//eyeroll

*unless you donate to pbs when you hate them

But I really want to buy that fancy hamster...

[arebelspy]

But I really want to buy that fancy hamster...

You make me happy.  :)

[oldtoyota]

So now that we've moved the goalposts of hypocrisy to sainthood we'll just have to wait until after his death to have two miracles performed in order show his actions aren't hypocritical but totally in line with his values and his priorities.

Thank you for summing that up. ;-)

[arebelspy]

Giving it away now, without conditions, would be the purely selfless act.  It also would help the most people (unless you consider compounding at 15% a ear until he dies to be more worthwhile than saving a life today).

I do consider that, yes.

He is one of the best investors in the history of the world.  Giving away that money now would be almost immoral versus using it to earn as much as possible while he is alive, in order to have the maximum amount to give away upon his passing.

[arebelspy]

So the only way to not be a hypocrite is to give away everything right away and live in abject poverty?  Everyone else is basically selfish scum?

Again,

[matchewed]

You keep saying it's debatable but then adding nothin to the conversation beyond a FT article about a transaction he made while he had his "Running BRK" hat on. What about it is debatable? How is he a hypocrite?

And who's saying he's below average as a  philanthropist?

[RootofGood]

I admire the guy.  I read Alice Schroeder's "Snowball", and even after 900 pages I was craving to learn more about this incredible guy.  I love him so much, I almost broke my "index funds only" investment strategy to buy some BRK (maybe an A share or two).

If we had Plato's system of "philosopher kings", I'd feel pretty comfortable with ole Warren piloting the ship.  I imagine he has enough distaste for politics that he would politely decline my nomination (his dad was a US Congressman). 

I think Warren's hobby is creating wealth and building businesses. He seriously thought about retiring very early (maybe in his 20's?) after he had a hundred thousand dollars (in nominal terms back in the 1960's).  But I remember from the book, he found building businesses and creating wealth an exciting challenge. 

I don't see how he could reasonably be called a hypocrite.  He's pretty transparent about what he does and why he does it.  He's mentioned it isn't fair how his marginal tax rate is lower than his secretary's rate (even though he has a few billion bucks more than she does).  He buys companies he thinks will make money for his shareholders over the long term.  I don't think his interests in the too big to fail banks and wall st firms was anything improper.  I was buying some of the same things (through a broad bank-based ETF) at the same time.  He admits the Goldman deal was probably profitable because of his reputation (Goldman Sachs, like every big investment bank, had serious issues with perceived risk as a counterparty until Warren stepped in with $5 billion of BRK money to back GS and show that a smart man had opened the books of GS, and decided they were a good enough company).

If there have been improprieties and Warren is guilty of insider trading or unduly influencing politicians, regulators, or credit rating agencies, where are all the whistleblowers?  Wouldn't there be at least one middling admin assistant, mid-level regulatory official, or rating agency employee who would have knowledge of this illicit behavior and be able to make out like a bandit ("The man that brought Warren's vast empire to it's knees"). Think of the book deals!

If our politicians and corporate executives ran their fiefdoms the way Warren runs his, I bet we would all be much richer over the long term. 

[Wile E. Coyote]

Then he has donated the vast majority of his life savings to charitable endeavors.

What has he done that is purely selfless?

If that doesn't pass your test for pure selflessness, what does?

He can't take the money with him when he dies, so as was mentioned in another thread you either give it to heirs, charity, or the government.  He is already giving large sums (billions - but small as a % of his net worth) to his heirs, and he chooses not to give to the government.  So the default option is charity - he just has chosen which one to give to ahead of time.

Giving it away now, without conditions, would be the purely selfless act.  It also would help the most people (unless you consider compounding at 15% a ear until he dies to be more worthwhile than saving a life today).  Enjoying the benefits of one's wealth until you die is what everyone else is doing - he is just choosing who the ultimate beneficiary will be (and getting lots of credit for it) - lots of people do exactly what he is doing but will never get an ounce of recognition.

I don't know too many people that donate billions of dollars every year.  I also don't know too many charities that could handle tens of billions of dollars in an efficient and effective manner.  Perhaps there are plenty, but I suspect not.  I am also not certain how the market price of BRK would react to Buffett divesting all of his BRK stock at once, but I suspect that the value might drop a bit, so the charities would get stock with a lower value.  I suspect that he also wants to have some ability to decide which causes he supports, which he would lose if he gave it all over at once.  I am not saying he is a saint, but I think he does deserve some recognition for pledging the majority of his wealth to charity and encouraging others to do the same.

[Tetsuya Hondo]

I'm simply responding to people who challenge my view that he's just slightly above average as a philanthropist

If he's just a slightly above average philanthropist, then I'm a freaking complete asshole. But then, so is nearly everyone else.

[TomTX]

If the causes he has donated to are worthy, and I would argue saving lives is about as worthy as they come, why not give the money today instead of when he dies?

Because the Gates Foundation has enough cash on hand for the next decade or two, and Warren figures he can grow the money faster than the foundation? Just dumping excess cash on charities may not benefit them directly - they have to be ready to spend it appropriately. Gates Foundation is still ramping up, and still has a shit-pot of money on hand. It seems to be one of the best charities. But if they don't have a good way to make use of it immediately, may as well keep growing the money.

That's a pretty simple and plausible explanation.