RE:Voting Against BH was the wrong thing to do but typical I don't understand this argument.
If Berkshire had no seat on the board, how were they supposed to help in the future? What is Berkshire going to do differently now that they "only" have a 20% stake?
codyess wrote: Its the basic we dont need you anymore case, and in my opinion the wrong move in the long haul. We bit the hand that fed us rather that saved us... Even HCG themselves were hoping we'd vote in favour.
The short term dilution meant nothing in the long run, with the added support from BH, sharewise speaking, he'd have a much more invested interest, rather than just being a lender to a company that decided they no longer needed his help... typical typical thing to do IMO : )