在这样的沟通困难下，于是便有让外部董事在CEO不在场的情况下，进行例行聚会的呼声，这项改革目前正在立法当中，个人对于这样的建议，给予相当正面的肯定，不过我也怀疑，增加任何的治理规定以及建议，其所必须付出的金钱与其它成本，可能与因此所得到的利益相当。
The current cry is for “independent” directors. It is certainly true that it is desirable to have directors who think and speak independently – but they must also be business-savvy, interested and shareholder oriented. In my 1993 commentary, those are the three qualities I described as essential.
对于目前外界大声疾呼的"独立董事"制度，理论上，公司绝对必须要有思想与言论上独立的董事存在，但他们同时也必须具有丰富的商业经历、积极的态度，并以股东利益为导向，我在1993年就曾提到，这是我个人认为绝对必要的三项特质。
Over a span of 40 years, I have been on 19 public-company boards (excluding Berkshire’s) and have interacted with perhaps 250 directors. Most of them were “independent” as defined by today’s rules. But the great majority of these directors lacked at least one of the three qualities I value. As a result, their contribution to shareholder well-being was minimal at best and, too often, negative. These people, decent and intelligent though they were, simply did not know enough about business and/or care enough about shareholders to question foolish acquisitions or egregious compensation. My own behavior, I must ruefully add, frequently fell short as well: Too often I was silent when management made proposals that I judged to be counter to the interests of shareholders. In those cases, collegiality trumped independence.
