Latest news with #Midas-like
New Statesman
21-05-2025
- Entertainment
- New Statesman
When David Tennant met Gordon Brown
Illustration by Ellie Foreman-Peck Gordon Brown has just got off a plane from a speaking engagement in the US, and arrives at Somerset House in London with his questions for David Tennant written out on a scrap of boarding pass. Tennant is soon to set off to film another season of the randy Eighties classic, Jilly Cooper's Rivals. After season one, he thought he should rebalance himself with some Shakespeare, and took on Max Webster's innovative 'binaural' Macbeth – the one with headphones – which Brown saw at the Donmar and enjoyed. Their shared Church of Scotland work ethic is just one of the things that unites the pair, who have met many times. While Brown was writing op-eds aged 11 suggesting Harold Wilson for prime minister, Tennant was deciding, aged three, that he wanted to be Doctor Who. He is about to star in ITV's drama The Hack as the investigative journalist Nick Davies, who played a key role in uncovering the News International phone-hacking scandal. It is a subject close to Brown's heart: in 2011, he spoke out in the Commons about Rupert Murdoch's 'criminal media nexus' and just last month issued a new complaint against his empire. Tennant is an ambassador of Brown's Multibank initiative and has just filmed an ad for it, giving one of his Midas-like voiceovers to a concept he finds 'really simple, and really clever'. Brown unfolds the boarding pass, and they begin. Gordon Brown: We are both sons of ministers. Your father seems to have been someone who could have been an actor as well? David Tennant: Definitely. There was a lot of theatricality in his preaching. He did say that there was a moment when he wondered if being an actor was something he'd like to do. But if there were very few precedents in my life, there were none in his. It was just not something that he felt there was any access to. He grew up in Bishopbriggs and I don't think he knew anyone who'd ever done anything like that. Initially, he went into trade, you know, and he worked on cars, and then he was called to the ministry. That was his performance. GB: Growing up, what I was aware of was that the attention was on you as the child of a minister; it was almost like a pressure. I think your father was the chaplain to the school as well? And so was my father. You're trying to become anonymous, or you're trying to be different and suddenly, everybody will say, 'Ah, that's your father!' DT: I didn't mind when my father came into the school, because he wasn't difficult to watch. He'd always come with something quite entertaining. I think he was aware of his audience! Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Kate Mossman: Is it true that you wanted to be an actor from the age of three? DT: Yes. It doesn't really make sense. And now, having recently had children who are three, I think how could I have possibly understood what that was? It was watching Doctor Who that sparked it. That's how I can date it, because it was Jon Pertwee turning into Tom Baker, which was in 1974, so I was three years old. GB: It was quite an amazing phenomenon, Doctor Who; I mean, it changed the whole nature of television, really, because it was other-worldly, it was sort of eccentric, but also just brilliantly scripted. Then did you start performing at school? DT: As much as I could. Gypsum's Journey was a big one, in Primary 6: it was my first sort of title role. The music teacher wrote the songs for it. I can still remember a couple of them – I'm not going to give you a rendition now, because it wouldn't work in cold, hard print. But I remember the lines for that better than for work I did a few weeks ago. In your line of work, you have to remember statistics and facts, and they have to be very specific – there must be times when you're addressing the UN and you get your statistics muddled up… GB: The good thing about statistics is people are bamboozled by them, and if you get them wrong, nobody quite knows for sure until a few hours later, at least. I have made mistakes. So you get to the age of five and you're already two years into your… DT: My acting career! I knew I was headed to drama school. I don't think everyone else necessarily accepted that that was inevitable. As you should, as a parent, mine said, 'Make sure you get as many exams as possible, make sure you get a wide range of qualifications', because even if you make it into drama school, it doesn't necessarily mean that you'll work at the other end of it. But I did; at 17 I went to what is now the Royal Conservatoire in Glasgow. I had to audition, and I was very green, I didn't really understand what was appropriate. You have to do a classical and a modern work – a speech from each. And I did Hamlet, because we were studying it in school. I did 'Now might I do it pat', when he's about to kill Claudius, and I brought a kitchen knife and had it in my hand, because I thought I needed props. GB: A danger walking the streets! DT: I know, I could have been arrested. And then I did a bit of Willy Loman from Death of a Salesman, which I'd also done at school, who was a sort of 65-year-old man: a brilliant, brilliant play – utterly inappropriate for a 17-year-old from Paisley! KM: Gordon, you're a big Shakespeare reader – which of his characters are you most invested in? GB: You know in the original pre-Shakespeare story of Macbeth, Banquo is complicit with Macbeth. They changed it for the Shakespeare version because the censor would never have allowed it through: Banquo was now seen to be an ancestor of James I, and therefore he had to be rehabilitated as a good person. It's interesting how much censorship there was. Shakespeare couldn't really go head-on; he could send messages, but he couldn't go head-on. Shakespeare wrote Macbeth, as I understand it, to warn people about the break-up of the kingdom if someone like Macbeth takes over from the good Duncan, so it's really to say James VI is OK. But Julius Caesar was written when Queen Elizabeth I was still around, and its message is: 'Don't play around with the possibility of tyranny, because you think you don't like the person who's ruling you – you replace them and it's anarchy.' It shows how killing Caesar led to all sorts of other consequences – not that he was a good guy, but that what happened afterwards was brutal. KM: There seems to be a bit of a golden age of political theatre at the moment – what have you learned about Westminster from our modern political plays? Can Shakespeare tell us just as much? GB: I've been to some, but I don't say, 'This is what I want to watch.' I've never watched, for example, the Murdoch series – Succession – because I feel I lived through it! I don't watch any of these films or plays about contemporary events. DT: I'm not sure if it's a golden age. Politics and playwrighting have always gone together. Shakespeare's history plays are all pretty political, John Osborne shook the cage in the Fifties, the agitprop theatre of the Seventies and Eighties was making – often quite unsubtle – political points. These days we've got James Graham and Jack Thorne and a slew of writers who are continuing the tradition of writing about the world and society in a way that's political and personal. Drama is always political because it's about human beings and how we interact with the world around us. Maybe it just seems more political when the personal feels so close to the politics of the day. We're right in it at the moment… KM: David, you're due to star in The Hack, the ITV series about the phone-hacking scandal, in which Gordon is played by Dougray Scott. GB: Dougray came to Kirkcaldy to see me, and I didn't quite know why. We talked for an hour, and he clearly was trying to get all my hand movements. Do you do the same when you're preparing for a part? DT: Well, I play the journalist Nick Davies in The Hack. I met him a few times, and there's also quite a lot of footage of him, so you can study that. But it's not really about an impersonation as such, and also most members of the public aren't going to be aware of exactly what Nick Davies is like. But it's still a useful starting point, if you're able to meet someone. Gordon, what's the experience of watching yourself being portrayed, because that's happened a few times? GB: The thing you think – well, you must be the same – is: 'The Scottish accent, how is that being done?' Though in Fife, people say my accent is not that Scottish… DT: Well, that's the danger of being an ex-pat, isn't it? [Tennant's wife] Georgia accuses me, whenever we're in Scotland or around Scottish people, of my accent becoming very broad. Do you get that? GB: Oh, yeah. Same, same. I'm sure I do that! DT: Yes, I deny doing it, but it is probably true, and probably inevitable. KM: Gordon, you're proposing so many reforms to the way that charity works: could you talk a little bit about the importance of philanthropy? Have you both had more of an involvement with charity work because of your upbringing? GB: My father stands before me like a mountain. And I think it must be something a bit similar for you, David. He wasn't oppressive, I was never asked not to do something or told not to do something, but there was a sort of moral core about him. But David – Cancer Research, Baby Lifeline, LGBT, Circle, kids' Scope, mental health, Children in Need, Big Night In, Comic Relief. I mean, that is only a small sample of the number of charities that you've been helping. DT: I don't know that I ever feel like I do very much, though. I don't know that I necessarily always have a particular reason to be following a particular cause. Somebody presents something and it sounds like a good idea, and you kind of think, 'Well, that's connecting with me right now: that feels like it's worthwhile. I've been thrilled to be part of the Multibank. It's a brilliant idea, a really clear, simple idea. And then sometimes I support a cause because it's not loud enough and maybe I can help make it a bit louder. But, listen: I think I could do a lot more than I do. GB: You're sounding Scottish – the old Presbyterian… Lonely at the top: Brazil's president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, in his union days, being hoisted aloft by fellow metalworkers at a rally near São Paulo in 1979. Photo by Claudinei Petroli / AFP via Getty Images DT: I know, but you know what it's like. It's that Presbyterian ethic that has you believe you can never actually be doing enough; that you're never as good a person as you'd like to think you are and that there must be a hair shirt somewhere you should be struggling into! GB: What I think is happening at the moment is that there are a lot of people who want to help, but we don't always find the best ways of helping them do it. One of the things that's broken down to some extent is community engagement: the Mothers' Union and the Women's Institute just don't have the kind of memberships they used to have. The Boys' Brigade don't have the kind of memberships, trade unions have about half the members they had at their peak. Political parties are the same. You've got less engagement in your communities, and I think that's one of the reasons that people feel distant from what's happening around them. Is the alternative social media? But you're talking to people in silos… DT: And it's not face-to-face connection. There seems to be a race to cruelty in that world – it feels very difficult to have rational debate. GB: I think we need to encourage more volunteering and new types of endeavour. What kind of organisation would young people relate to now? Park runs, for example, are becoming very popular, but traditional organisations are not working. And then, how do you persuade people to give more financially? The tax system could be better in offering a greater incentive. Companies could do more; some of the biggest companies in Britain give very little to charity. The whole point of the Multibank was to bring together companies who've got surplus goods, charities who know the people who need these goods, and foundations that can help finance the sort of distribution and the transportation. It's environmental as well, because it's anti-pollution and it's trying to create a circular economy. Child poverty is something that you feel as strongly about, David, as I do. Is there anything that you feel from your experiences – both as a parent and from seeing, going round Britain – that would make a difference? DT: I think it's allowing people to find the joy in intervention. It feels quite hard to get out from under the sense that you are powerless. We need to empower everyone to believe they can make a difference, that there's something they can do that will effect actual change. Because if everyone can do a bit, we will manage a lot. But that's quite hard to hold on to when the world feels difficult and onerous and like there are forces at work that are just so beyond our control. GB: As far as the poverty problem in the United Kingdom is concerned, what would you want the government to do? DT: [Laughs] That's not a question for me… GB: Do you know this great story about Lula? Before Lula became president of Brazil, he was a young trade union leader. 'When I was a trade unionist,' he said, 'people would say, 'Things are terrible in Brazil, what's gone wrong, who's to blame?'' And he used to reply, 'The government.' And he said, 'Then I became the leader of the trade union and people would say, 'Things are still going wrong, who's to blame?'' And he said, 'The government'. 'And then I became the leader of the opposition, people said, 'Who's to blame?' – the government. And then I became the government, and people said, 'Who's to blame? Things are still awful.'' And he said, 'America'! That's the end of his story! [See also: Gordon Brown: Child poverty is a scar on our national conscience] Related
Straits Times
05-05-2025
- Business
- Straits Times
How Warren Buffett changed the way we think of investing
How Warren Buffett changed the way we think of investing – As Mr Warren Buffett, 94, called an end to his historic run atop Berkshire Hathaway, Wall Street luminaries rushed to praise the man whose extraordinary investment career spanned more than 80 years (he bought his first shares when he was 11). The famed investor delivered a more than 5,500,000 per cent return on Berkshire's stock as he turned a once-failing textile firm into the most valuable company in the world that isn't either a tech giant or state oil producer. In the process, he became the rare investor who crossed over into public consciousness through his folksy wisdom and witticisms. Mr Buffett's approach to investing is deceptively simple. 'Forget what you know about buying fair businesses at wonderful prices; instead, buy wonderful businesses at fair prices,' he once wrote to Berkshire shareholders. This method - known as value investing - had existed long before Mr Buffett, now 94, began his career. But no one did it as well - or for as long - as he did. Over the 60 years that Mr Buffett has controlled Berkshire Hathaway, he used value investing to turn a failing textile manufacturer into a US$1.1 trillion (S$1.4 trillion) conglomerate, corporate takeover machine and microcosm of the US economy. One of America's largest railroads? Owned by Berkshire. The biggest shareholder in American Express and Coca-Cola? Berkshire, too. Mr Buffett amassed a Midas-like personal fortune, valued at about US$168 billion, and along the way became the avuncular avatar of American-style capitalism who was called upon for help by both corporate executives and government officials in the 2008 financial crisis. That unparalleled success earned him millions of admirers around the world. Tens of thousands of them were on hand at Berkshire's annual meeting in Omaha on May 3 when he declared he finally planned to step down as CEO. His announcement was greeted with surprise and then minutes of thundering applause from shareholders - many of whom became millionaires by owning Berkshire stock and hang onto his every financial aphorism. 'I tell people everything I know about investing I learned from Warren Buffett,' Bill Ackman, a billionaire hedge fund manager who was in the crowd, said in an interview after Mr Buffett's announcement. 'Warren Buffett represents everything that is good about American capitalism and America itself,' said Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase. Mr Buffett has acknowledged that his enormous fortune owes no small debt to pure luck. As he has put it, he won 'the ovarian lottery' by being born in the United States, when stock markets were primed to create one of the biggest economic booms in modern history. He learned about stock picking from a pioneer of value investing, Benjamin Graham, who was his professor at Columbia University. With crucial advice from Charles T. Munger, a fellow Nebraskan who became his longtime business partner, Buffett turned Berkshire into the best-possible argument for the discipline. But few lived and breathed the discipline as he did, reading corporate balance sheets for research - and fun - from dawn to dusk. Mr Buffett then put that knowledge to work in several ways. Berkshire bought a vast array of successful businesses, including See's Candy, Fruit of the Loom and the private jet service NetJets. But the most transformative were the acquisitions of insurers including National Indemnity and Geico, which sat on premiums that customers paid but hadn't yet claimed. That cash, known as the 'float,' became the first financial engine of Mr Buffett's deal machine. He used that money, along with profits from the company's other businesses, to buy what is now a collection of 189 companies. Among the biggest are the BNSF railroad, acquired in 2010 for about US$26 billion; and the electricity producer Berkshire Hathaway Energy, purchased in 2000 for US$2 billion that was then expanded via its own acquisitions. As of March 31, that cash pile was nearly US$348 billion. Those who have sat across from Buffett at negotiating tables over the years have said that he is friendly and courteous - but unyielding when it comes to the numbers. When he is involved, rounds of haggling over price are not in the cards; he is ready to walk away. Mr Buffett also used Berkshire's cash to buy an array of stocks, with a portfolio that includes American Express, Bank of America, Coke, Chevron and - in one of his most profitable investments - Apple. For those companies, Berkshire's ownership has tended to be the equivalent of a Good Housekeeping Seal of approval. And with Berkshire's huge balance sheet and Mr Buffett's unparalleled control, the conglomerate has been able to swoop in at opportune times, buying when others must sell. Another key to his success was holding onto investments for ages - 'our favorite holding period is forever,' he has said - letting returns compound again and again, a process that he has compared to a snowball rolling downhill. Berkshire's other advantage for its investors is that it charges no fees, unlike mutual funds or hedge funds. In fact, Mr Buffett has criticized the size of the fees charged by Wall Street vehicles. That said, Mr Buffett has admitted that he made plenty of mistakes over the years. One was passing up opportunities to invest early in technology giants like Amazon and Microsoft, whose businesses he said he didn't understand at the time. Still, despite several periods of underperformance, especially in recent years, Mr Buffett's track record is astounding. According to his calculations, Berkshire gained 5,502,284 per cent from 1964 through 2024, compared with the S&P 500's 39,054 per cent over the same period. His average annual gain was 19.9 per cent, while the S&P's was 10.4 per cent. Though a Democrat who endorsed Hillary Clinton for president and whose name graced an Obama-era proposal for higher taxes on the wealthy, Mr Buffett advised presidents from both parties. That was most visible in 2008, when he was beseeched by corporate executives and the George W. Bush administration to help the global financial system from melting down. Mr Buffett eventually agreed to invest billions in Goldman Sachs and General Electric, moves that Mr Ackman compared with J.P. Morgan's efforts to save banks early in the 20th century. True to form, however, he charged both companies a then-astronomical interest rate of 10 per cent - a burden executives have said they were willing to pay to gain his imprimatur and survive. While the future of Berkshire appears financially solid, longtime Buffett followers say that it may not retain its seemingly mythical status without its chief architect. Berkshire's next CEO, Greg Abel, is regarded as an excellent operator of businesses and a savvy dealmaker, and Mr Buffett hired Todd Combs and Ted Weschler as high-level investment executives more than a decade ago. But some investors worry that the company will become a bit less special, and won't revolve around the stock picking that put it on the map. Bill Smead, whose investment firm owns Berkshire stock and who attended this year's annual meeting, said the company has already become less ambitious, eschewing potentially transformative deals. 'It's the end of an era,' Mr Smead said. NYTIMES Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Observer
04-05-2025
- Business
- Observer
Warren Buffett says he plans to step down as head of Berkshire
Warren E. Buffett has been at the forefront of American capitalism for decades as the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, the conglomerate he built into a $1.1 trillion colossus. By the end of the year, he is preparing to give up that role. Buffett said at Berkshire's annual shareholder meeting Saturday that he plans to ask the company's board to approve making Gregory Abel, his heir apparent, the CEO by the end of the year. Abel would have 'the final word' when it comes to the company's operations, how it invests and more, Buffett, 94, told the tens of thousands of Berkshire shareholders at the meeting in Omaha, Nebraska. But Buffett added that he 'would still hang around and conceivably be useful in a few cases.' He will remain chair of Berkshire — turning that role over to his son Howard Buffett upon his death — and remains the company's single biggest shareholder, with a roughly 14% stake that is worth about $164 billion. Buffett's plan, which he said had been known only to two of his children who sit on the company's board, Howard and Susan Buffett, was greeted by a minute-long standing ovation by Berkshire shareholders. Abel, 62, appeared surprised by his boss's announcement. After the announcement, several board members attending Berkshire's meeting hugged one another. Although Buffett looked in good health, having led several hours of questions from investors Saturday, changes to this year's annual meeting — his 60th at Berkshire — reflected his advancing age. He used a cane, which he first mentioned in the company's annual letter in February, and shortened the shareholder question session by several hours. If the board approves the plan, it would signify the end of an era for one of the most successful companies in modern capitalist history and one of its most famous investors. Buffett has amassed a Midas-like fortune by being a savvy stock picker, buying up companies and holding them for the long term. Through that investing philosophy, he assembled a conglomerate that runs a huge insurance operation, a major railroad, and dozens of consumer companies and oversees a vast stock portfolio. Among Berkshire's most notable holdings are names that many consumers recognize: auto insurer Geico, the BNSF railroad, power utility Berkshire Hathaway Energy, Dairy Queen, See's Candies, Fruit of the Loom, paint company Benjamin Moore, and private jet company NetJets. Together, those businesses helped Berkshire grow a cash hoard that now sits at nearly $348 billion, more than the stock market valuation of McDonald's. Berkshire's financial firepower has made Buffett one of the most influential businesspeople in the world, giving his pronouncements on many topics, including politics, great weight. That included his criticism of President Donald Trump's trade policies, which Buffett took aim at Saturday. 'Trade should not be a weapon,' Buffett said at the annual meeting. 'I don't think it's right, and I don't think it's wise.' Buffett's comments on tariffs were far from his first foray into politics. A Democratic supporter, his name was attached to a proposal years ago by President Barack Obama that would have raised taxes on millionaires. But Buffett has kept a low profile for months, and even on Saturday, he did not mention Trump by name. Buffett's plan to step down would complete one of the most-watched leadership transitions in corporate America. For years, he faced questions about who could take over Berkshire, a uniquely complicated business, and many executives had been floated as his successor. But in 2021, Buffett finally confirmed that it would be Abel, who joined the Berkshire fold when the company bought his energy business in 2000. Since then, the Canadian executive has risen through the ranks, turning what is now called Berkshire Hathaway Energy into one of America's biggest power producers. Abel is currently the vice chair of Berkshire's businesses other than insurance. Oversight of the conglomerate's behemoth insurance operations has remained with Ajit Jain, a longtime Buffett lieutenant. Buffett and other executives have professed their belief that Abel could maintain Berkshire's culture. 'Greg is ready,' Ronald L. Olson, a longtime Berkshire director who is also stepping down, told CNBC after Buffett's announcement Saturday. Olson added that he hoped Buffett could serve as a valuable sounding board for Abel, much as Charles T. Munger, Buffett's longtime business partner who died in 2023, did. Together, Buffett and Munger entertained investors and more — notably at the Berkshire annual meetings — with a sort of vaudeville act, Buffett as the wry optimist and Munger as the sharp-tongued pessimist. Berkshire's latest financial report card underscored the complications that Abel will confront as CEO. The company reported a sharp drop in first-quarter earnings, with operating income — Buffett's preferred measure — down 14% from the same time a year ago to $9.6 billion. Using generally accepted accounting principles, Berkshire reported a nearly 64% drop in net income, largely because of paper investment losses. But while markets have grown more volatile in response to Trump's whipsawing approach to trade, Buffett professed little worry about the effects of that volatility on Berkshire. 'It's nothing,' he told shareholders, suggesting that riding out market vicissitudes was part of stock investing. The company reported that a 'majority' of its businesses had lower sales and earnings in the first three months of the year, particularly in insurance underwriting income, which was hit by losses tied to the California wildfires. In a regulatory filing Saturday, Berkshire warned that Trump's trade policies were generating 'considerable uncertainty,' which could affect the company's operating results. 'We are currently unable to reliably predict the potential impact on our businesses, whether through changes in product costs, supply chain costs and efficiency, and customer demand for our products and services.' Berkshire's cash pile grew to $347.7 billion, a record, reflecting that Buffett has not found the kind of blockbuster investment opportunities that helped put the company on the map. In the past, he has acknowledged that given Berkshire's size, it is nearly impossible now for Berkshire to find deals that could meaningfully augment its earnings. During his question-and-answer session with shareholders at the annual meeting Saturday, Buffett acknowledged stocking up on cash to prepare for any potential buying opportunity. He revealed that he had weighed a potential $10 billion investment but later refused to elaborate. Berkshire continued to be a net seller of stocks, selling $4.68 billion worth of equity in the quarter, compared with $3.18 billion in purchases. One matter that Buffett did not directly address Saturday is what would happen to Todd Combs and Ted Weschler, whom he hired more than a decade ago to help pick stocks for Berkshire. The two have been widely expected to become Berkshire's stock pickers after Buffett steps away, though Combs has also become the CEO of Geico. A number of prominent corporate and business leaders were on hand Saturday, including Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, Tim Cook of Apple (which is one of Berkshire's biggest stock holdings) and billionaire financier William A. Ackman. Two first-timers, Hillary Clinton and Priscilla Chan, the wife of Meta's CEO Mark Zuckerberg, were also present. This article originally appeared in
