这样的问题让我有机会谈谈近年来相当热门的话题-公司治理，首先我相信最近许多公司的董事们已开始试着把他们的腰杆打直，而现在的投资人比起以前来说，也慢慢地被公司当作真正的拥有人来对待，但是评论专家并没有仔细地去区别目前公开上市公司三种截然不同的经营权与所有权形态，虽然在法律上，董事们应该承担的责任是责无旁贷的，但他们能发挥影响力进行改变的程度却有很大的不同，大家通常都把注意力摆在第一类的案例之上，因为这是目前一般企业的常态，但由于Berkshire本身是属于第二类，甚至有一天会变成第三类，所以在这里我们有必要讨论一下三者的不同。
The first, and by far most common, board situation is one in which a corporation has no controlling shareholder. In that case, I believe directors should behave as if there is a single absentee owner, whose long-term interest they should try to further in all proper ways. Unfortunately, "long-term" gives directors a lot of wiggle room. If they lack either integrity or the ability to think independently, directors can do great violence to shareholders while still claiming to be acting in their long-term interest. But assume the board is functioning well and must deal with a management that is mediocre or worse. Directors then have the responsibility for changing that management, just as an intelligent owner would do if he were present. And if able but greedy managers over-reach and try to dip too deeply into the shareholders' pockets, directors must slap their hands.
