????自從3月30日沃倫?巴菲特宣布大衛(wèi)?索科爾辭職的消息后，華爾街上各種傳言就不絕于耳。有些人說，索科爾作為伯克希爾哈撒韋公司(Berkshire Hathaway)的高管，曾在伯克希爾哈撒韋收購化工巨頭路博潤（Lubrizol）之前的幾個月，個人購入約1,000萬美元的路博潤股票（并從中獲利300萬美元），這可能已涉嫌內(nèi)幕交易或老鼠倉。

????其他人認(rèn)為，索科爾買入路博潤股票并不違法，不過這確實(shí)表明這位常被媒體稱為巴菲特接班人的高管缺乏正確的判斷力。究竟索科爾是違法，還是只是打了個擦邊球，將由聯(lián)邦調(diào)查人員決定， 不過美國證券交易委員會(SEC)及行業(yè)監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)是否會介入調(diào)查還是未知。

????After Warren Buffett announced David Sokol's resignationon March 30, the Wall Street rumor mill got cranking at full speed. Some wags proposed that Sokol, the Berkshire Hathaway executive who bought some $10 million worth of Lubrizol shares in the months leading up to his company's acquisition of the chemicals giant (and made a $3 million profit in the process), might have committed insider trading or front-running.

????Others say his Lubrizol (LZ, Fortune 500) share purchases were not illegal, but certainly displayed poor judgment by the man most often mentioned in the press as Buffett's heir apparent. Whether Sokol broke the law or merely bent it will be up to federal investigators to determine, and that's if the SEC or an industry regulator moves to investigate.

????更有意思的問題，或更具戲劇色彩的是，這個曾自費(fèi)出版書籍《高興但不滿意》(Pleased But Not Satisfied)，將誠信列為自己職業(yè)六誡之一的人，行為上卻顯然缺乏正確的判斷力，并最終卷入丑聞。他究竟是個怎樣的人？

????索科爾在這本曾分發(fā)給員工的書籍的第30頁寫道：“如果你不確定一件事情，不妨自問：‘倘若明日本地報(bào)紙頭版就此刊登一篇由一位有見識的、心思縝密的記者撰寫的文章，這篇文章被我的家人、朋友和同事看到的話，我會不會對我的行為感到十分坦然？’”，或者這件事在《紐約時報(bào)》(The New York Times ) 或《華爾街日報(bào)》(Wall Street Journal)上被披露？

????眼下大衛(wèi)?索科爾不愿發(fā)表言論，但去年夏天我在為《財(cái)富》雜志(Fortune)撰寫《巴菲特的修復(fù)先生》（Buffett's Mr. Fix-It）時曾與他有過很多接觸。我發(fā)現(xiàn)索科爾是一位非常出色的管理人士，在打造企業(yè)方面卓有成效。1991年，索科爾和巴菲特多年的老朋友沃爾特?斯考特一起收購了一家年收入2,800萬美元的小型地?zé)峁?，之后通過收購和內(nèi)生性增長將其打造成為MidAmerican，這家發(fā)展壯大后的公用事業(yè)公司去年為伯克希爾哈撒韋公司帶來了114億美元的收入。

????這樣的成就絕難出自一位意志薄弱者，而索科爾——正如我所見，一個充滿動力的高管——曾激怒了很多人。在他接手伯克希爾哈撒韋旗下虧損累累的NetJets公司并實(shí)現(xiàn)扭虧為盈的過程中，被掃地出門的一個管理人士這樣說：“一旦你在會議中質(zhì)疑他，他就會用像要?dú)⑷说难酃饪茨悖阋矔芸臁笆櫋薄！?/p>

????在我的采訪過程中，索科爾一直很客氣并耐心地解釋各種事情，但談到誠信話題時，他突然就像是變了一個人。去年當(dāng)我問到那項(xiàng)3,200萬美元的裁定時（即判定其公司MidAmerican “蓄意并故意”誤算未來利潤，在上世紀(jì)90年代迫使小股東退出菲律賓的一個水電項(xiàng)目），他看起來有些心煩意亂，連珠炮似地說了一堆理由試圖說明這項(xiàng)裁定是錯誤的，以及他將如何上訴。但他說，最讓他傷心的是他曾感覺就像家人一樣的菲律賓業(yè)務(wù)伙伴缺乏誠信。

????因此，如何理解關(guān)于路博潤股票的爭議？我認(rèn)為，要是說索科爾當(dāng)時明知自己的行為不正當(dāng)而故意為之，這種可能性很小。他太聰明了，不可能不了解內(nèi)幕交易、老鼠倉以及它們意味著什么。他是一個非常富有的人，并不需要在路博潤股票上賺那300萬美元。他自視是一個誠信的人——巴菲特文化更是強(qiáng)化了誠信信仰。巴菲特曾在致高管的一份備忘錄中這樣寫道：“我們可以承受金錢損失——即便是很多錢。但我們無法承受名譽(yù)的損失——即便是點(diǎn)滴的名譽(yù)”。

????這對于索科爾而言可能也是難以置信的——他會做違背職業(yè)道德的事情？或許，這是因?yàn)樗麑τ谑褂脗€人賬戶購入1,000萬美元股票后再向巴菲特建議收購那家公司的后果毫不知情。索科爾日前在CNBC電視頻道露面時看起來對整個事件感到既詫異又氣憤，他聲稱自己沒有做錯任何事，如果一切重來，他還會購買這只股票，但不會告訴巴菲特這是一項(xiàng)前景不錯的收購。

????如果情況是這樣，他現(xiàn)在的處境會好得多，因?yàn)檫@樣的投資故事并無瑕疵。太多問題仍未得到回答。紐約州懷特普萊恩斯Lane, Sash & Larrabee律師事務(wù)所的合伙人兼證券欺詐專家米奇?伯恩斯認(rèn)為，關(guān)注點(diǎn)應(yīng)集中在12月13日索科爾同花旗集團(tuán)（Citigroup）的一次會面，在那次會面中索科爾要求花旗的一位銀行家試著安排同路博潤首席執(zhí)行官詹姆斯?漢姆布瑞克的會面，探討這兩家公司之間可能的交易。

????那次會面后不久，索科爾首次購入路博潤股票。伯恩斯說：“在那次會面中，索科爾收到了路博潤可能有興趣被收購的積極反饋？在這之前索科爾早已安排伯克希爾哈撒韋公司員工認(rèn)真考慮此項(xiàng)交易？抑或伯克希爾哈撒韋收購只是他個人的模糊想法？在此類問題得到回答前，我們不知道索科爾是否真的參與了什么非法活動?！?/p>

????與此同時，索科爾已轉(zhuǎn)身開始將精力投向自己的“小伯克希爾”——他肯定希望遠(yuǎn)離媒體的聚光燈。

????The more interesting question -- and one of perhaps Shakespearean proportions -- is what kind of guy writes a self-published book calledPleased But Not Satisfied that names integrity as one of his six business commandments, but then displays what is inarguably bad judgment and ends up embroiled in a scandal?

????On page 30 of his book, which he hands out to his employees, he writes: "If you are uncertain about an issue it's useful to ask yourself, 'Would I be absolutely comfortable for my action to be disclosed on the front page of my hometown newspaper in an article written by a knowledgeable and thorough reporter, and read by my family, friends and co-workers?'" Or blared, for that matter, in The New York Times or Wall Street Journal?

????David Sokol will not talk on this point, but I did have the opportunity last summer to spend a lot of time with him while reporting the Fortune story: "Buffett's Mr. Fix-It." I found Sokol to be a brilliant executive, a company builder who gets results. With longtime Buffett friend Walter Scott, Sokol had bought a small $28-million-a-year geothermal business in 1991 and through acquisitions and internal growth built it into MidAmerican, the utility powerhouse that last year brought $11.4 billion of Berkshire's revenue.

????You don't get those kinds of results by being a milquetoast, and Sokol -- as driven an executive as I've met -- rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. During his turnaround of Berkshire's NetJets fractional-share business, one executive shown the door commented: "Once you challenged him in a meeting, he'd give you a look to kill, and you'd fall very fast out of his favor."

????Throughout my reporting, I always found Sokol to be civil and patient to explain things, but when the subject of integrity came up, he suddenly seemed to switch gears. When I asked him last year about a $32 million ruling that declared his company MidAmerican had "willfully and intentionally" miscalculated future profits to force out minority stockholders in a hydropower project in the Philippines in the 1990s, he seemed upset and rapidly fired off numerous reasons why the ruling was invalid, and how he'd appeal. But what saddened him most, he said, was the lack of integrity displayed by his business partners in the Philippines, whom he felt had been almost family to him.

????So what to make of the Lubrizol stock controversy? I think it unlikely that Sokol believed he was doing anything wrong. He is too smart not to understand insider trading and front-running and their implications. He is a vastly wealthy man who does not need the $3 million in profits he made on the Lubrizol deal. He sees himself as a man of integrity -- and the Buffett culture reinforced such beliefs. Buffett has written in a memo to his executives: "We can afford to lose money --even a lot of money. But we can't afford to lose reputation -- even a shred of reputation."

????It may have been inconceivable to Sokol that he could do anything that was unethical. Perhaps, therefore, he was blind to the fallout that would ensue from buying $10 million of a stock for his personal account and then recommending to Buffett that Berkshire buy the company. During his appearance on CNBC earlier today, Sokol seemed both surprised and piqued by the whole affair, saying that he had done nothing wrong but if he had it to do over again, he'd buy the stock and not tell Buffett about it as a prospective acquisition.

????And he'd be so much better off if he had, because this story is not going away. Too many unanswered questions have been left hanging. Mitch Berns, a partner and securities fraud specialist at the White Plains law firm of Lane, Sash & Larrabee thinks attention will be focused on the December 13th meeting between Sokol and Lubrizol's banker Citigroup (C, Fortune 500), in which Sokol asked one of the Citi bankers to try to arrange a meeting with Lubrizol CEO James Hambrick to discuss a possible deal between the two companies.

????Shortly after that meeting, Sokol made his first buys of Lubrizol shares. Says Berns: "Did Sokol receive positive feedback in the meeting that Lubrizol might be interested in being acquired? Had Sokol already engaged Berkshire's staff to seriously look at the deal, or was a Berkshire acquisition just a vague notion of his? Until we know the answers to these types of questions, we won't know whether Sokol engaged in any kind of illegal activity."

????In the meantime, Sokol is heading off to start what he calls his own "mini-Berkshire" -- far, he must hope, from the glaring lights of the press.