Buffett Believes in America, Shouldn't We?

This editorial from the NY Times has already received a lot of public attention. But in case you did not have a chance to read it in full, I thought I would make it available to you. I have my arguments with Buffett on his politics, but regarding his investing acumen, there is no doubt.

If American stocks are good enough for him now, they are certainly good enough for me. So I am 100% invested in the stock market as of today, mostly large cap, secure and high dividend producing stocks and mostly in the energy / commodities space, since I am fairly certain we will have price inflation in commodities when the economy rebounds.

"Buy American. I Am. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/opinion/17buffett.html

By WARREN E. BUFFETT
Published: October 16, 2008

THE financial world is a mess, both in the United States and abroad. Its problems, moreover, have been leaking into the general economy, and the leaks are now turning into a gusher. In the near term, unemployment will rise, business activity will falter and headlines will continue to be scary.

So ... I’ve been buying American stocks. This is my personal account I’m talking about, in which I previously owned nothing but United States government bonds. (This description leaves aside my Berkshire Hathaway holdings, which are all committed to philanthropy.) If prices keep looking attractive, my non-Berkshire net worth will soon be 100 percent in United States equities.

Why?

A simple rule dictates my buying: Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful. And most certainly, fear is now widespread, gripping even seasoned investors. To be sure, investors are right to be wary of highly leveraged entities or businesses in weak competitive positions. But fears regarding the long-term prosperity of the nation’s many sound companies make no sense. These businesses will indeed suffer earnings hiccups, as they always have. But most major companies will be setting new profit records 5, 10 and 20 years from now.

Let me be clear on one point: I can’t predict the short-term movements of the stock market. I haven’t the faintest idea as to whether stocks will be higher or lower a month — or a year — from now. What is likely, however, is that the market will move higher, perhaps substantially so, well before either sentiment or the economy turns up. So if you wait for the robins, spring will be over.

A little history here: During the Depression, the Dow hit its low, 41, on July 8, 1932. Economic conditions, though, kept deteriorating until Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in March 1933. By that time, the market had already advanced 30 percent. Or think back to the early days of World War II, when things were going badly for the United States in Europe and the Pacific. The market hit bottom in April 1942, well before Allied fortunes turned. Again, in the early 1980s, the time to buy stocks was when inflation raged and the economy was in the tank. In short, bad news is an investor’s best friend. It lets you buy a slice of America’s future at a marked-down price.

Over the long term, the stock market news will be good. In the 20th century, the United States endured two world wars and other traumatic and expensive military conflicts; the Depression; a dozen or so recessions and financial panics; oil shocks; a flu epidemic; and the resignation of a disgraced president. Yet the Dow rose from 66 to 11,497.

You might think it would have been impossible for an investor to lose money during a century marked by such an extraordinary gain. But some investors did. The hapless ones bought stocks only when they felt comfort in doing so and then proceeded to sell when the headlines made them queasy.

Today people who hold cash equivalents feel comfortable. They shouldn’t. They have opted for a terrible long-term asset, one that pays virtually nothing and is certain to depreciate in value. Indeed, the policies that government will follow in its efforts to alleviate the current crisis will probably prove inflationary and therefore accelerate declines in the real value of cash accounts.

Equities will almost certainly outperform cash over the next decade, probably by a substantial degree. Those investors who cling now to cash are betting they can efficiently time their move away from it later. In waiting for the comfort of good news, they are ignoring Wayne Gretzky’s advice: “I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been.”

I don’t like to opine on the stock market, and again I emphasize that I have no idea what the market will do in the short term. Nevertheless, I’ll follow the lead of a restaurant that opened in an empty bank building and then advertised: “Put your mouth where your money was.” Today my money and my mouth both say equities.

Warren E. Buffett is the chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway, a diversified holding company.

The Sainthood of Warren Buffett - Part 3

In response to a defense of the Municipal Insurance bailout proposal by Warren Buffett on the grounds that he would be backstopping the bond insurance industry:

Continuing with the Buffett questions: today (February 13), he is being ridiculed by professionals in the financial industry (including Wilbur Ross this morning) for exactly the same point that I made yesterday morning. His very public supposed "bail out" of the bond insurers was very self serving (and yes, he does have a fiduciary obligation to his stockholders) and would not benefit the public or the insurers in any way. In fact, if they did for some reason agree to the extorted terms (paying a premium to Buffett for bonds with virtually no risk 1.5 or 2 times what they themselves received, which would cause even more negative cash flow for the insurers), the bond insurers would be terminally injured, their reserve capital further impaired by the negative cash flow and would thus crush the bond market, thereby extending the problems of working out the financial derivative issues here and around the world.

So, Buffett, who at one time bought out-of-favor businesses with bright long term prospects, good cash flow and very good managers, is now in the business of being a vulture of the worst kind who will make deals that enrich him at the rest of the world's (literally) expense?! It is pathetic. Almost Mafia-like and beneath what I thought was his dignity and esteem. I really have lost respect for him and want nothing to do with him or BRK.

If Buffett was willing to stand behind the CDO and RMBS liabilities in return for the nice, risk-free muni bond insurance, that would be a reasonable and semi-noble position (no one expects Buffett to take a hit for the industry or the economy). But that is not what he proposed. He proposed to relieve the muni insurers (so called monoline, but not really so since they are now in multiple lines of business) of their good merchandise and leave them with the crap. The fact that vulture Wilbur Ross is looking to be a saint compared to Buffett is the whole point. Buffett has plummeted to new lows.

His supposed rescue would not restore confidence in the market in the insurers and would not elevate them back to AAA on their CDOs, etc, it would devestate their credit rating by removing the good assets on their books which at least provide relative risk free cash flow/capital, to something in the junk range and permanently impair their ability to insure muni bonds (since all that would be left against the reserve capital requirement would be wobbly commercial and mortgage derivative paper; this, of course, is Buffett's objective. He wants to eliminate all competition in the muni bond business and have it to himself).

If the insurers go, all the liabilities they insure would go back on the originators, the banks (including the big non-USA banks like UBS, Deutsche and HSBC). This hit to the banks would probably push them over the edge and cause them to default on their capital reserve requirements, putting them in technical bankruptcy. This would affect almost all the global money center banks, and potentially precipitate a global financial meltdown and depression. It probably would not go that far because the government would run to the rescue by reducing reserve requirements and possibly buying the impaired assets onto the government's accounts, or some other means; but that means the burden would be transferred to the tax payer one way or the other, all to benefit Buffett. And he talks about the need to raise taxes! That will surely be the case if he is successful, which he won't be.

Buffett's Saintly Proposal - Part 2

Answering Part 1 by my acquantiance: "If you took the stated book value of BRK and then adjusted it by adding in the value of the float from the insurance business ( which essentially was free capital for Buffett to allocate as long as the loss ratio was below 100 ) you could buy Berkshire for roughly 1X adjusted book. I thought that was a pretty good deal and the logic made sense to me [when I first looked it several years ago]. I could effectively hire Warren to manage my money on a dollar for dollar basis, no management fee!

At this point, I have a pretty substantial gain in BRK and I am concerned what Hillary/Obama and a Democrat [party] congress might do to me. They seem determined to raise taxes on capital and drive more capital and jobs overseas as a result. I love to point to Ireland as the antithesis of this warped way of thinking. Low taxes and favorable treatment of capital attracts capital and creates jobs. You know this as well as I do of course. Anyway - long winded way of saying I'm not sure what I might do with my holdings given the valuation, Warren's age, and the chance that taxes may go up. I would like to re-run the analysis on the value of the float however. It is an interesting viewpoint."

My response to the idea that BRK was still a good value:

"Your analysis / logic of BRK and mine are about the same. I read everything ever written on Warren Buffett during the mid 1990s. I became quite a student on his technique, and by extension, his mentor (Ben Graham). But, I also read the quips that he thought his own company was overvalued and wouldn't buy it himself. But you did choose the right time to buy (2002-03) his stock. That was near the end of a eight plus year plateau in BRK during the dot com bubble when insurance and consumer durables were too boring and that culminated with Katrina and concerns over his exposure through General RE. That period included a few mistakes like US Air and Solomon Bros that damaged his reputation as the untouchable / invincible investor.

But since that time, the B shares have spiked from $2000 to $5000 over a two year period as he has come back into vogue with his timely utility, CNOOC and railroad investments. At the same time, nothing special happened with BRK's fundamental value to justify that spike (the deals that went his way did not double the cash flow). This is a company that probably can't grow earnings / cash flow more than 10 to 12% annually, just based on its size, no matter how smart individual deals. So, a 150% pop in stock price has probably taken it past fair value. But I haven't done the analysis either, so can't say that for certain. I am also concerned about his age, and, irrationally, his politics.

You express concern about Hil-Obama. But Warren is a major benefactor to Hillary's campaign, and would back Obama, if not Hillary. He also came out with the ridiculous and dishonest position supporting raising income taxes on the wealthy, even though he shows very little income the way he compensates himself (minimized by paying no dividend). He is a hypocrite on this point and it was a big disappoint to me when he took this position. I wonder if he would support a wealth tax just as readily. The idea that the government can do a better job taking care of society than people of means, like himself, is against what he has always stood for. If he really believes his own hyperbole, Buffett should have just donated his wealth to the government rather than to the Gates Foundation. It would be more genuine for him to campaign for be tter treatment of charitable giving than to bash wealth. (BTW...he was notorious for being a skinflint and not giving anything to charity until the last few years when he finally realized he couldn't take it with him)."

On BRK and Buffett's Proposal to "Assist" the Mortgage Insurers

In response to a positive comment from an investor acquaintance on Berkshire Hathway, Warren Buffett's investment vehicle:

So, you have thrown in the towel and are riding Buffet's coattails? I know that is enticing. I had BRK-B until a few weeks ago when I sold it to raise cash. It was one of my few winning positions. But I thought at that time (near $5000) that it was probably a little overvalued and I had owned it since the low $3000s. People pay a big premium for BRK, more than the sum of the parts. Some of those parts won't be doing well for a while. He owns a lot of homebuilding materials companies, including furniture. His newspapers probably aren't worth too much any more, either.

The best time to buy BRK the past few years was after Katrina, when all the insurers got knocked down. That is when we got in. BRK has to have some very bad news to lose any of its market premium, there are so many people that want to own it. Maybe there will be enough bad news in consumer durables that will cause BRK to lose some premium, at least that has been my thinking. It is too big to grow much on its own, so it has become more of a valuation game to make money on BRK. (Buffett himself has said in the past at times that he would not buy BRK based on its over-valuation).

I think his proposal to reinsure the bond insurers (AMBAC, MBIA, PMI, etc), but only the municipal bond pool, is very interesting. Reinsuring something that doesn't need insurance in the first place is quite the joke. It is a typical Buffett move, intended to give him a lot of money, quickly, at very low risk. He is asking for $12B (1 1/2%) for extending 30 days of protection on a portfolio that is not at risk (the $800B of AAA municipal bonds insured by the group). But his proposal does not address the real problem with the bond insurers, the CDOs, et al.

It seems to me that if the insurers take the deal, they are admitting defeat: they are in such bad shape that only their very best, the municipal bonds, is worth anything at all, the rest is worth nothing. If the insurers tank, it will cause significant additional damage to the financial markets, and to the economy by extension. While I don't blame Buffett for trying to extort the insurers (that is exactly what this is), they should turn him down and work on deals that address their real problems.

They do need a capital infusion (Buffet's proposal does not provide them any more permanent capital, but only temporarily shifts capital coverage requirements) and a return of confidence by the market, but the best way is a gradual unwind of their positions in a rational way rather than a fire sale of their best assets as in a "going out of business" sale. They can always find a buyer for a municipal bond insurance portfolio.