Warren Buffett said, “When a management with a reputation for brilliance tackles a business with a reputation for poor fundamental economics, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact.”
What does this mean? I couldn’t figure it out.
Is it that good managers lose reputation, or bad companies gain reputation? Who loses and who wins? Any thoughts?
What I think is (unconfirmed) that when good guys invest themselves in bad plans, they lose reputation. Bad plans have nothing to lose. I am not sure. If this is true and confirmed by experts, I can give a practical example from my experience how this happens in transmitting electromagnetic radiation from one computer to another.
Yeah, I think all the posters above me have it right. Warren Buffett frequently emphasizes the importance of a good management team and corporate governance, but if the business is fundamentally broken, there’s not much a management team can do to revive it.
The real-life application of this is that frequently, investors will buy into a company with a new management team when they seemed to have good track records turning around prior businesses. Sometimes turnaround investing works, but more often than not people are either too early to the game (i.e. turnaround hasn’t shown signs of life yet and things get worse before they get better), or the turnaround just doesn’t happen…ever.
This is Buffett’s admonition that even a great captain frequently can’t save a sinking ship.