沃伦•巴菲特(Warren Buffett)寻找接班人的漫漫征程，突显出拥有传奇领袖的公司以及传奇领袖选定的接班人所面临的风险。
“我很不情愿地放弃了死后继续管理公司资产组合的念头，放弃了为‘解放思想’这一词组赋予新含义的心愿。”
在2007年致伯克希尔哈撒韦公司(Berkshire Hathaway)股东的信中，巴菲特对自己逃不开死亡的事实打趣地说道。他的这番妙语，叩响了近代企业史上最引人瞩目的接班人竞赛的发令枪。
这位80岁的投资者接着指出，一旦他去世，他希望会有一位首席执行官以及至少一位首席投资官分担他的职责，从而引发了一轮有关伯克希尔未来领袖人选的热烈猜测。
但过去三年，奥马哈圣贤(Sage of Omaha)很少透露其潜在继任者的身份，让支持他的基金经理与散户投资者颇为失望。巴菲特通过50年的睿智交易，将一家无人知晓的纺织品公司，打造成了一家规模庞大的企业集团，为他赢得了不少支持者。
上周一，接班人的神秘面纱被揭开了一角，并击败伯克希尔与美国证交会(SEC)在会计技术问题上的纷争，登上了新闻头版。“伯克希尔哈撒韦公司高兴地宣布，托德•康姆斯(Todd Combs)很快就会加入我们，成为我们的投资经理，”伯克希尔旗下信息服务公司美国商业资讯(Business Wire)发布的简短新闻稿如是说。
指定一位名不见经传的39岁对冲基金经理为一个首席投资官职位的领先候选人，尽管满足了市场的部分好奇心，但也留下了很多有待解答的问题。
对伯克希尔的投资者来说，问题在于，一旦巴菲特离开后，康姆斯强有力但不是特别突出的表现、以及有限的经验，能否确保伯克希尔1000亿美元的投资组合继续繁荣增长。除了旗下50多家公司以外，该投资组合是伯克希尔业绩的关键推动器。
对此，股东似乎存有疑虑，至少从伯克希尔的股价上看是如此——自上周一以来，其股价已下跌5%。
对美国企业界而言，伯克希尔的接班人难题，突显出大多数由个性突出的人士掌管的企业早晚都会遇到的一个问题：如何更换偶像？
这个问题对于苹果(Apple)和新闻集团(News Corporation)等公司来说尤其重要。投资者一直在猜测，谁将接替史蒂夫•乔布斯(Steve Jobs)、鲁珀特•默多克(Rupert Murdoch)和其他有魅力的首席执行官。
然而，在上周发布公告后，向奥马哈圣贤寻求接班人信息的众多董事会可能会感到失望。
巴菲特以非传统方式着手挑选康姆斯，这符合他的特点。尽管大多数上市公司会要求董事会成立提名委员会、聘请猎头、花上几个月时间面试内外部的候选人，但巴菲特却完全依靠直觉。
巴菲特和他的商业伙伴——伯克希尔董事会副主席查理•孟格(Charlie Munger)常常凭直觉行事。两位投资者做了数十亿美元的衍生品、收购和股票交易，但除了握手，他们再也没有其它流程。在挑选潜在继任者掌管他们毕生的心血上，他们的做法也毫无二致。
起初，在700余名伯克希尔投资业务主管职位的申请人中，康姆斯并不突出。但他选择了一个非常恰当的时机写了一封信给孟格（然后与孟格在洛杉矶吃了一顿长长的午餐），然后给巴菲特打了一个电话，却足以让他获得这个职位。
尽管康姆斯的记录看上去相当不错，但他仍需证明自己可以赶上巴菲特的业绩表现。在掌管2005年成立、总部位于康涅狄格州的对冲基金Castle Point Capital时，康姆斯实现了34%的累计回报率。考虑到他在2007-09年市场崩盘期间投资并做空金融类股，这一业绩可谓相当不错。
巴克莱(Barclays)分析师杰伊•盖尔布(Jay Gelb)表示：“他对风险的关注和对回报率的关注一样多，对于像巴菲特这样的人来说，这非常重要。”盖尔布还表示，巴菲特可能会先给康姆斯相对少量的资金进行投资，以便让他慢慢适应。康姆斯现在所在的基金管理着大约4亿美元的资产。
伯克希尔市值接近2000亿美元，比通用电气(GE)和谷歌(Google)都大。鉴于这一事实，人们不会指望，单凭康姆斯或是某一位资深专业投资人士，就能推动伯克希尔的增长。他们将与最终接替巴菲特出任CEO的人一起挑起这副重担。继任CEO将面临压力，把伯克希尔的现金储备用于大规模收购。（长期掌管伯克希尔一家公用事业公司的大卫•索科尔(David Sokol)目前在CEO职位角逐中处于领先位置。）
即使证明了自己能够成为公司资产的悉心管理者，康姆斯仍然需要面对与“圣贤”相提并论的巨大压力。Investment Management Associates首席投资官维塔利•格兹尼尔森(Vitaliy Katsenelson)赞同巴菲特购入价值低估资产的投资理念。他指出，伯克希尔的股价中包含“巴菲特溢价”，如果巴菲特离任，这种溢价就会消失殆尽，因为投资者会更关注一些增长较慢的业务。
面临这种困境的不只是康姆斯。美国企业界往往会将企业人格化，把主要经理人抬高到摇滚巨星的地位。为此，即使是像迪士尼(Disney)、花旗(Citigroup)、通用电气(GE)这样的大公司，也曾遇到过难以找到接班人的窘境。
“接替偶像人物的职位需要非常慎重地考虑，”宾夕法尼亚州利哈伊大学(Lehigh University)教授安德鲁•沃德(Andrew Ward)表示。“历史经验告诉我们，一旦偶像人物离开，企业往往会步履维艰。”
由于期待很高，而且市场对结果缺乏耐心，继任的新人需要加倍努力才能证明自己。
每当有人谈到，自2001年杰夫•伊梅尔特(Jeff Immelt)接任CEO后，通用电气(GE)股价就一改杰克•韦尔奇(Jack Welch)治下20年回报率异常高涨的局面而开始下挫时，伊梅尔特都会面露愠色。在他看来，GE股票上世纪90年代赶上了一轮牛市，此后则未能反映出GE的利润增长。
有时候，创始人去世后，公司就不再能着眼未来。“在迪士尼，华特•迪士尼(Walt Disney)去世三十年后，人们还会问‘华特会怎么做？’”沃德表示。
由于事关重大，有时创始人需要重新掌舵也并不奇怪，比如苹果的乔布斯和电脑制造企业戴尔(Dell)的迈克尔•戴尔(Michael Dell)。
公司专家认为，在任者的动机对于挑选继任者十分重要。耶鲁大学(Yale)教授杰弗里•索南费尔德(Jeffrey Sonnenfeld)表示，即将离任的CEO故意挑选较弱的候选人，这种风险是切实存在的。他指出：“他们塑造了异常高大的形象，伴随着浓厚的传奇和神话色彩，以至于他们的身份已经与工作合而为一。他们害怕，也许会出现某个人破坏这种形象。”
两年前，当花旗受到金融危机冲击时，前CEO桑迪•威尔(Sandy Weill)出人意料地承认自己犯了错误，不应该选择没有多少银行从业经验的律师查克•普林斯(Chuck Prince)。威尔对《金融时报》表示，他和董事会当时应当让集团内的高管展开更多竞争，而不是让普林斯继任。“我当时认为自己做的是对的，但事实并非如此，不是吗？”
与之相反，默多克毫不掩饰自己打算将企业交给子女。他在子女中间发起了激烈竞争，今年37岁、在六位子女中行四的詹姆斯•默多克(James Murdoch)似乎已经胜出。
当然，也有许多被誉为企业之神的人顺利完成交接的例子，比如，郭士纳(Lou Gerstner)2002年将IBM帅位移交给较为低调的彭明盛(Sam Palmisano)；在乔治•戴维(George David)任CEO长达14年后，美国联合技术公司(United Technologies)决定任命路易•谢纳沃(Louis Chênevert)继任CEO。
巴菲特本人就曾指出，零售巨头沃尔玛(Wal-Mart)最初是家族企业，但在1992年创始人山姆•沃尔顿(Sam Walton)去世后，成功地转由职业经理人经营。
保证顺利交接的责任主要在于董事会，在需要制衡地位巩固的CEO时尤为如此。高管搜寻公司光辉国际(Korn/Ferry)周一发布的对美国100家最大公司的调查报告显示，四分之三的非执行董事或独立董事也在任命委员会任职，这显示出董事对其职责十分认真。
然而，要想让接过重大重大职位的新人能够树立威信，需要的不仅仅是适当的交接过程。如果历史可以为鉴，他们必须要有韦尔奇年轻时表现出来的狡猾。1981年接任后不到一年，他就在谋划出售工业集团犹他国际(Utah International)——通用电气当时最大的收购项目，也是具有传奇色彩的前任雷金纳德•琼斯(Reginald Jones)的主要功绩。1984年售出犹他国际之后，通用电气得以自由地在增长更快的领域谋求新的并购项目。
不管由谁接替巴菲特、乔布斯和默多克——或是美国资本主义造星机制即将创造出的其他偶像人物，他们或许都想从奥马哈圣贤对自己身后事的思索中得到启发。
“可能会有那么一段时期，人们把公司出售给伯克希尔时也许会有不一样的感觉，”他在2006年对投资者说。“电话铃声会安静一段时间，但是都会过去的。”
译者/何黎
http://www.ftchinese.com/story/001035295
Warren Buffett’s slow search for a replacement highlights the perils facing companies with legendary leaders – and those picked to fill their shoes
“I’ve reluctantly discarded the notion of my continuing to manage the portfolio after my death – abandoning my hope to give new meaning to the term ‘thinking outside the box’.”
With this quip about his own mortality in the 2007 letter to shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway, Warren Buffett fired the starting gun for the most watched succession race in recent corporate history.
The 80-year-old investor went on to state his desire to divide his role between a chief executive and at least one chief investment officer once he is gone, triggering a whirlwind of speculation over Berkshire’s future leaders.
For the past three years, though, the Sage of Omaha has offered few clues to the identity of his potential successors, frustrating the fund managers and retail investors who backed him as he transformed an obscure textile company into a giant conglomerate through 50 years of savvy deal-making.
The veil of secrecy was partially lifted on Monday, knocking news of a back-and-forth between Mr Buffett’s group and the US Securities and Exchange Commission over technical accounting matters off the front pages. “Berkshire Hathaway is pleased to announce that Todd Combs will soon be joining Berkshire as an investment manager,” read a terse press release on Business Wire, a Berkshire-owned information service.
While the anointing of a little-known 39-year-old hedge fund manager as a lead candidate for one of the chief investment officer posts satisfied some of the market’s curiosity, it left a number of questions unanswered.
For Berkshire investors, the issue is whether Mr Combs’ strong but not stellar performance and limited experience will ensure that the group’s $100bn investment portfolio – a crucial driver of performance alongside its 50-plus companies – continues to thrive once its steward is no more.
On this shareholders seemed to have their doubts, at least judging from the 5 per cent slide in Berkshire’s share price since Monday.
For corporate America, the succession dilemma highlights a problem that at some point confronts most businesses run by a dominant personality: how to replace an icon?
The issue is of particular importance for companies such as Apple and News Corporation that are keeping investors guessing over who will succeed Steve Jobs, Rupert Murdoch and other charismatic chief executives.
Boards seeking succession tips from the Sage of Omaha in the wake of this week’s announcement, however, are likely to feel disappointed.
Typically, he set about choosing Mr Combs in an unorthodox way. Whereas most listed companies would ask the board to create a nomination committee, hire a headhunter and spend months interviewing internal and external candidates, he went with his instincts.
Gut feelings often guide Mr Buffett and his business partner, vice-chairman of the board Charlie Munger. The pair have bet billions on derivatives, takeovers and shares with little more than a handshake. In picking a potential successor to handle their lives’ work, their process was no different.
At first, Mr Combs did not stand out from the crowd of more than 700 applicants for the position of head of Berkshire’s investments. But a well-timed letter to Mr Munger, followed by a long lunch in Los Angeles, and a phone call to Mr Buffett was enough to secure the job.
Mr Combs has yet to prove he can match Mr Buffett’s performance, though his record looks respectable enough. At Castle Point Capital, the Connecticut-based hedge fund he runs, he has achieved cumulative returns of 34 per cent since its launch in 2005 – a decent result considering that he invested in, and shorted, financial stocks during the 2007-09 markets meltdown.
“He paid as much attention to risk as he did to returns and that is important to someone like Mr Buffet,” says Jay Gelb, a Barclays analyst. Mr Combs, whose fund manages about $400m, is likely to be given a relatively small amount of money to invest to ease him in, Mr Gelb adds.
Given the fact that Berkshire’s market value is nearly $200bn – larger than that of either General Electric or Google – neither Mr Combs nor any senior investment professional will be expected to drive the company’s growth alone. They will share the burden with Mr Buffett’s eventual replacement as CEO (David Sokol, a long-time head of a Berkshire utility company, is a front-runner), who will be under pressure to invest its cash pile in large acquisitions.
But even if he proves himself a diligent caretaker of the company’s kitty, Mr Combs will be hard-pressed to avoid unflattering comparisons with the Sage. Vitaliy Katsenelson, the CIO of Investment Management Associates, who espouses Mr Buffett’s investment credo of buying undervalued assets, points out that the group’s stock includes a “Buffett premium” that could evaporate after he leaves as investors look more closely at some of the slower-growth businesses.
Mr Combs’ plight is not unique. Corporate America’s tendency to personalise business and elevate leading managers to rock-star status has meant that even large companies such as Disney, Citigroup and General Electric have at times struggled to fill their shoes.
“Succeeding an icon is a job you want to be very careful about accepting,” says Professor Andrew Ward, of Pennsylvania’s Lehigh University. “History shows that companies often flounder once the icon departs.”
With expectations running so high – and markets impatient for results – newcomers face an uphill struggle to prove themselves.
Jeff Immelt, GE’s chief, often bristles at the mention of the slump in the company’s share price since he took over in 2001, following the spectacular returns of Jack Welch’s 20-year reign. Mr Immelt’s view is that in the 1990s the shares were caught up in a stock-market boom and have since failed to keep up with GE’s profit growth.
In some cases, the demise of a founder leaves companies unable to look forward. “At Disney, people were still asking ‘What would Walt do?’ 30 years after his death,” says Prof Ward.
Given the high stakes, it is no surprise that founders occasionally have to step back in, as did Mr Jobs at Apple and Michael Dell at the eponymous computer-maker.
Corporate experts believe the incumbents’ motivation is crucial when picking a successor. Prof Jeffrey Sonnenfeld of Yale says there is a real risk of departing CEOs deliberately choosing weak candidates. “They develop such a heroic persona and there is so much legend and myth-making that their identity becomes one with the job: they feel threatened that somebody could come along to erode that persona,” he argues.
Two years ago, as Citi was rocked by the financial crisis, Sandy Weill, its former chief, offered a surprise mea culpa over the choice of Chuck Prince, a lawyer with limited banking experience. Mr Weill told the Financial Times that, rather than handing over the job to Mr Prince, he and the board should have engendered more competition among the group’s senior executives. “At the time I thought I was doing the right thing but it did not turn out to be, did it?”
By contrast Mr Murdoch – who has made no secret of his intent to hand over to one of his offspring – engineered a fierce inter-sibling contest that 37-year-old James, the fourth of his six children, appears to have won.
There are, of course, many instances in which transitions from those elevated to the status of business deity have worked out. They include Lou Gerstner’s handover to the lower-key Sam Palmisano at IBM in 2002; and the decision by America’s United Technologies to appoint Louis Chênevert CEO after George David’s 14 years in the post.
Mr Buffett himself has pointed to retail giant Wal-Mart as a family business that successfully opted for professional managers after the death of Sam Walton, its founder, in 1992.
Much of the responsibility for proper succession lies with the board, particularly when it has to act as a counterbalance to an entrenched CEO A study of the 100 largest US companies to be released by the executive search company Korn/Ferry on Monday found that three-quarters of non-executive directors or independent chairs are on nominating committees – a sign that directors are taking that job seriously.
But it will take more than a proper succession process to enable newcomers stepping into outsize management shoes to assert themselves. If the past is any guide, they will have to display some of the guile shown by the young Mr Welch. Within a year of taking over in 1981, he was plotting to sell the industrial group Utah International, at the time GE’s biggest acquisition and the crowning achievement of his legendary predecessor Reginald Jones. By 1984, Utah had gone, leaving the group free to pursue other acquisitions in higher-growth areas.
Whoever succeeds Messrs Buffett, Jobs and Murdoch – and any other icon yet to be created by the star system of American capitalism – might want to take their cue from the Sage’s own reflections about what follows him.
“There will likely be a hiatus of sorts where people might not have the same feelings about selling their business to Berkshire,” he told investors in 2006. “The phone might not ring for a while. But that will pass.”
没有评论:
发表评论