过去40多年来，我曾经担任过19家公开上市公司的董事(Berkshire不算在内)，同时至少跟250位以上的董事进行过互动，他们其中多数都符合目前"独立董事"的标准，但这些董事大多至少缺乏我所提到的三项特质之一，这样的结果导致他们对于股东利益的贡献微乎其微，甚至常常有害股东的利益，这些人虽然彬彬有礼且学识渊博，但对于产业的了解却极其有限，同时也不会站在股东的立场去质疑不当的购并决策或不合理的薪资报酬，至于我个人的表现，我必须郁卒地承认，往往做的也不够好：当公司管理阶层在做出有违股东利益的提案时，通常我只能选择沉默以对，在这种状况下，和谐感战胜了独立性。
So that we may further see the failings of “independence,” let’s look at a 62-year case study covering thousands of companies. Since 1940, federal law has mandated that a large proportion of the directors of investment companies (most of these mutual funds) be independent. The requirement was originally 40% and now it is 50%. In any case, the typical fund has long operated with a majority of directors who qualify as independent.
现在让我们更进一步来探讨丧失独立性的现象，看看过去62年以来涵盖数千家公司的个案研究就可看出端倪，自从1940年以来，联邦法令规定投资公司(其中绝大部份为共同基金)一定比例的董事必须维持独立，原本的要求是40%，目前则提高为50%，但不论如何，共同基金的董事会组织运作一般都符合独立性的条件。
These directors and the entire board have many perfunctory duties, but in actuality have only two important responsibilities: obtaining the best possible investment manager and negotiating with that manager for the lowest possible fee. When you are seeking investment help yourself, those two goals are the only ones that count, and directors acting for other investors should have exactly the same priorities. Yet when it comes to independent directors pursuing either goal, their record has been absolutely pathetic.
