Warren Buffett is known as the "Oracle of Omaha" because of his unique investment acumen. In what has become an annual tradition, the investment community eagerly looks forward to Mr. Buffett's annual Letter to Shareholders, in which he shares his views on his company and the state of corporate America.
In his just released annual Letter to Shareholders, Warren Buffett offers his views on topics ranging from corporate governance to CEO ethics to financial reporting.
Among his insightful comments:
On the challenges faced by a "Boardroom" atmosphere: '"Social" difficulties argue for outside directors regularly meeting without the CEO â a reform that is being instituted and that I enthusiastically endorse. I doubt, however, that most of the other new governance rules and recommendations will provide benefits commensurate with the monetary and other costs they impose.
On CEO Ethics: "Too many [CEOs], however, have in recent years behaved badly at the office, fudging numbers and drawing obscene pay for mediocre business achievements. These otherwise decent people simply followed the career path of Mae West: 'I was Snow White but I drifted.'"
On curbing CEO compensation: "The acid test for reform will be CEO compensation. Managers will cheerfully agree to board 'diversity,' attest to SEC filings and adopt meaningless proposals relating to process. What many will fight, however, is a hard look at their own pay and perks. In recent years compensation committees too often have been tail-wagging puppy dogs meekly following recommendations by consultants, a breed not known for allegiance to the faceless shareholders who pay their fees."
On the role of institutional investors: "Getting rid of mediocre CEOs and eliminating overreaching by the able ones requires action by owners â big owners. . . Twenty, or even fewer, of the largest institutions, acting together, could effectively reform corporate governance at a given company, simply by withholding their votes for directors who were tolerating odious behavior. In my view, this kind of concerted action is the only way that corporate stewardship can be meaningfully improved."
On Audit Committees: "Audit committees can't audit. Only a company's outside auditor can determine whether the earnings that a management purports to have made are suspect. Reforms that ignore this reality and that instead focus on the structure and charter of the audit committee will accomplish little."
On the essential questions an Audit Committee must have an outside auditor answer:
- If the auditor were solely responsible for preparation of the company's financial statements, would they have in any way been prepared differently from the manner selected by management? This question should cover both material and nonmaterial differences. If the auditor would have done something differently, both management's argument and the auditor's response should be disclosed. The audit committee should then evaluate the facts.
- If the auditor were an investor, would he have received â in plain English â the information essential to his understanding the company's financial performance during the reporting period?
- Is the company following the same internal audit procedure that would be followed if the auditor himself were CEO? If not, what are the differences and why?
- Is the auditor aware of any actions â either accounting or operational â that have had the purpose and effect of moving revenues or expenses from one reporting period to another?
On the timing of financial reporting: "The questions we have enumerated should be asked at least a week before an earnings report is released to the public. That timing will allow differences between the auditors and management to be aired with the committee and resolved. If the timing is tighter â if an earnings release is imminent when the auditors and committee interact â the committee will feel pressure to rubberstamp the prepared figures. Haste is the enemy of accuracy. My thinking, in fact, is that the SEC's recent shortening of reporting deadlines will hurt the quality of information that shareholders receive. Charlie and I believe that rule is a mistake and should be rescinded."
Three pieces of advice for investors: "First, beware of companies displaying weak accounting. If a company still does not expense options, or if its pension assumptions are fanciful, watch out. Second, unintelligible footnotes usually indicate untrustworthy management. If you can't understand a footnote or other managerial explanation, it's usually because the CEO doesn't want you to. Enron's descriptions of certain transactions still baffle me. Finally, be suspicious of companies that trumpet earnings projections and growth expectations. Businesses seldom operate in a tranquil, no-surprise environment, and earnings simply don't advance smoothly."