Quantcast
Channel: Warren Buffett
Viewing all 1997 articles
Browse latest View live

Warren Buffett Makes Another Major Newspaper Investment (BRKA, MEG, BRKB)

$
0
0

Warren Buffett

Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway has agreed to purchase 63 daily and weekly newspapers owned by Media General for $142 million, including titles in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Alabama. 

Separately, Berkshire took a 19.9 percent stake in parent company Media General under an agreement to provide the firm with a $400 million term loan and a $45 million revolving credit line.

The announcement by Berkshire follows the company's 2011 purchase of the Omaha World-Herald, Warren Buffett's hometown paper. 

“In towns and cities where there is a strong sense of community, there is no more important institution than the local paper,” Buffett said.  “The many locales served by the newspapers we are acquiring fall firmly in this mold and we are delighted they have found a permanent home with Berkshire Hathaway.”

Media General has continually shifted from its reliance on print media as a revenue generator — with the company realizing more than 87 percent of its cash flows from its broadcast and digital businesses this political season. 

“Selling our newspapers represents a monumental change for us," Media General Chief Executive Marshall Morton said. "This single transaction for virtually all of our newspapers accelerates the timing of our strategy to focus on our broadcast television business and its future growth opportunities."

SEE ALSO: The truth about gold >

Please follow Money Game on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »


Warren Buffett Trashes Higher Education, Says It's 'Not For Everyone'

$
0
0

Warren Buffett office

Warren Buffett offered some dismissive words on higher education in a conversation with MBA students last month (notes provided by Market Folly).

Here's what he said when asked about the student loan bubble::

The best education you can get is investing in yourself. But this doesn’t always mean college or university. I have two degrees but I don’t have them on my wall, in fact I don’t even know where they are.

I used to be afraid of public speaking, and I realized that I have to do that someday. I do have one diploma I display from Dale Carnegie’s Public Speaking Course and it only cost me $100.

Thus, I don’t think college is for everyone, one benefit is that it gives you a button. In fact none of my three kids graduated from college.

John Mellor did research on group of students for a project. One group was sent to the beach while the other studied at university. Their results are not that different. It’s always about consistent improvement of your abilities.

You should always ask yourself, “does this have any value to me?” I did go to university because of the expectations of my parents.

Buffett himself earned  a Bachelor of Science in business administration at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and a Master of Science in economics from Columbia Business School.

His children have had successful careers despite not graduating from college, with his son Howard making a career in business and politics, his son Peter becoming a composer, and his daughter Susy being active in philanthropy.

Buffett also discussed advice for kids, insight on getting rich and why he would never live in New York.

Don't miss: Robert Reich says new college grads are "f*cked" >

Please follow Careers on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Presenting A Complete Transcript Of The Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting

$
0
0

warren buffett becky quick cnbc

The following are my notes from the 2012 Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting:

Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting
May 5, 2012

 

(Notes taken by Professor David Kass, Department of Finance, Robert H. Smith School of Business,   
University of Maryland)

A one hour humorous film was shown starring Warren Buffett’s secretary (Debbie Bosanek), who has been made famous by the “Buffett Rule” which is based on Bosanek paying a higher tax rate than Buffett.  In the skit, Buffett is forced to take phone calls for Bosanek (including calls from Oprah Winfrey and President Obama), while Bosanek keeps talking on personal calls.  The movie also featured an animated cartoon of the national championship football game between the University of Nebraska and the all-robot team from the University of Washington.  The Nebraska team is coached by the legendary Tom Osborne, while the Washington team is coached by Herman Cain (who has strong ties to Omaha’s Godfather’s Pizza Chain).  The game is being broadcast by Marv Albert.  At half time, with Nebraska trailing 7-0, and many Nebraska players having been injured during the first half, Buffett prevails on Coach Osborne to put him in at quarterback.  Buffett argues:  “I have some good ideas”.  In the final play, Buffett throws a long pass to his vice chairman, Charlie Munger, who tips the ball to the Geico gecko in the end zone to win the game.

Warren Buffett (age 81) and Charlie Munger (age 88) then walk on the stage and sit down.  The format for asking questions was similar to the last three annual meetings.  One-third of the questions were selected by three business journalists:  Andrew Ross Sorkin (The New York Times and CNBC), Becky Quick (CNBC) and Carol Loomis (Fortune).  Shareholders had e-mailed over 2,000 questions to the journalists, who then selected 20 questions relating to Berkshire and its operations.  The journalists who were seated on the stage, alternated with three insurance industry analysts (Cliff GallantKBW, Jay GelbBarclays, and Gary Ransom – Dowling & Partners), and with shareholders in the audience in the asking of questions.

Approximately 36,000 – 40,000 were in attendance, similar to the last two years’ turnout.  (This is compared to previous records of 35,000 in 2009, 31,000 in 2008, 27,000 in 2007, and 24,000 in 2006.)

Buffett initially commented on first quarter earnings.  In general, all of Berkshire’s companies did well except those relating to residential construction. He feels good about the first quarter and the year.

Questions were asked in the following order:

(1) Loomis:  What about the heavy responsibilities of Buffett’s successor?  Does the leading CEO candidate have the knowledge and temperament to be the chief risk officer?  In terms of the recent Goldman Sachs and Bank of America deals, could they have been done by your successor?

Buffett:  The CEO should be the chief risk officer.  I am the chief risk officer. It is up to me to understand what could hit us catastrophically.  We would not select anyone who could not do it.  The primary responsibilities of a CEO are to allocate capital, select managers, and being the chief risk officer.  Berkshire can act with speed and finality and it is rare in corporate America.  It takes a willing party on the other side.  I dreamt up the BAC deal, and I had never talked to Brian Moynihan before.  I said we would do it and he knew we had the money.  Not every deal could have been made by my successor.  But the new CEO can do things better than I can.  Those deals have not been key to Berkshire.  The BAC, GE, GS deals were okay, but they were not as remotely important as buying Coke when we did, and buying IBM in the market over 8-9 months in 2011.

(2) Gallant: Question about mortality rates and reserving for Berkshire’s insurance companies.

Buffett:  Gen Re was under reserved when we bought it, but reserves are developing well currently.  There is no coordination between Ajit, Tad, and Tony.

(3) Audience:  You have made a few investments in China (BYD, PTR).  What advice would you give the Chinese leadership and to corporate CEO’s?


Munger:
We don’t give advice to China.  China has been doing well.  In some ways we should seek their advice.


Buffett: 
We are not in the business of giving advice.  If success in our investments depended on them following our advice, we would go somewhere else.

 

(4) Quick:  BRK is willing to buy back its stock at 1.1 times book value.  Why have you not warned us when the stock was overvalued?

Buffett:  They have never consciously tried to encourage people to buy the stock at a price above intrinsic value.  Currently, they know the intrinsic value is significantly above 110% of book value.  But, they will never announce if the stock is above intrinsic value.

(5) Gelb:  What is BRK’s capacity for buybacks? How attractive are buybacks vs. acquisitions?

Buffett:  Buying shares at 1.1 times book value is something they feel comfortable with.  They want the shareholders to know that they think the stock is undervalued.  None of BRK’s businesses are worth less than their book value.  Some are worth considerably more.  They would love to buy back billions of dollars of their stock at 1.1 times book value.  They could buy back shares as long as their cash did not drop below $20 billion.  The value per share goes up when they buy at 1.1 times book value.

(6) Audience: What is your view on the European and U.S. Banks?

Buffett:  U.S. banks are in far better position than they were a few years ago. They have taken many of their abnormal losses and buttressed capital in a big way.  They have built capital and have liquidity coming out of their ears.  The American banking system is in fine shape.  The EU banking system, on the other hand, is gasping for air.  Overall the TARP policy was very sound for the U.S.  The Federal Reserve and Treasury acted very sensibly.

Munger:  Europe has a lot of problems that we don’t.  We have a full federal union and central bank that can print money.  EU does not have a full federal union.  We are more comfortable with the risk profile in the U.S.

Buffett:  The difference between the two is like day and night.  When Bernanke and Paulson said that they would do whatever it took to stem the crisis, they had the power and the will to do whatever it took.  That is hard to do when you have 17 countries that do not have their own currencies. You never know what country to call if you want to call Europe.  If the governors of 17 states had gone to Washington to try to agree on how to stem the panic in the money markets during the financial crisis, we would have had a different outcome.

 

 

(7) SorkinCan you describe your views on coal and natural gas?  How do the low costs of coal and natural gas impact Berkshire?

Buffett:  MidAmerican will never be hurt by, or benefit from, coal prices.  It is a regulated utility that passes through its costs.  It needs to be operated efficiently to earn a good return.  What happens to coal prices affects its customers more.  In terms of BNSF, coal traffic is important to all U.S. railroads and that traffic is down.  The number of kilowatt hours used in the U.S. went down 4.7% last year.  That is a very large decrease and that affected the demand for coal.  The other thing that is affecting coal is the price of gas being under $2.  If you told Buffett and Munger 5 years ago that there would be a 50X multiple between oil and gas they would have thought you were crazy.

Munger: We should use up every ounce of coal before we use a drop of natural gas.  The gas we have found is the most precious thing we could leave to our children.

Buffett:  In the future we will see less energy generated by coal, but it will not be dramatic.
(8) Ransom: Telematics is the new pricing tool in the automobile insurance industry.  What is GEICO doing in that area?

Buffett:  Progressive is the leader in this area, but GEICO has not done anything with it yet.  If they think there is a better way to evaluate accident probabilities, they will look at it.  There are 51 questions on the GEICO website that are used to assess the propensity for someone to get into an accident.  The move to telematics is not a big change, but if it makes sense to adopt it, they will.  GEICO is quite a business.  BRK carries GEICO at $1 billion over tangible book value.  But GEICO is worth $15 billion more.
(9) Audience:  Should we change what future leaders are taught in business schools?

Buffett:  Business schools have taught a lot of nonsense about investing. 

Munger:  What business schools have taught has been a big sin.  But, business school education is improving from a low base.

Buffett:  When it comes to business education, he would say that the silliest stuff that has been taught is in the area of investing.  Schools have focused on one fad after another in finance theory, and the fads have usually been very math heavy.  When an idea becomes popular it becomes hard to resist if a professor wants to advance within a faculty. There should be one course on how to value a business, and one on how to look at markets.  This would be far more valuable than option pricing and Modern Portfolio Theory.  If you know the difference between a business you can value and one you cannot, you can make money.

Munger:  What is taught in business schools affects accounting.  A long-term option on a stock or an index should not be priced by Black-Scholes.  But the accounting profession decides to use that formula because they want a standardized solution that does not require them to think too hard.

 

 

(10) Loomis:  Is the Buffett Rule being discussed in the media different from what you had in mind?

Buffett: This idea has been used in different ways. It was more fun to attack what he did not say than what he did say.  People who have very large incomes should pay a rate that is commensurate with what people think those people pay. If you make $30 million per year, people think you are paying a 30% rate.  But 131 of the 400 largest income earners paid rates below 15%.  That amount is less than what the standard payroll tax was for most of the last decade – 15.3%.  Under the Buffett Rule there would be a minimum tax on high earners, and the rate would be restored to what it used to be.  There are still wealthy people paying in the 30% range.  But if you are asking for shared sacrifice, people with large incomes should get taxed at a rate similar to how they used to be taxed.  Two-thirds of the people do pay that much, and it would raise a lot of money. Even though his income was $20-$65 million over the past few years, he had the lowest tax rate in his office.  The 20 people in his office were paying in the 30% range, and he was at 17%.  The tax law has been changed to favor the high income earners. There were 31 people in the top 400 earners who paid less than 10%. The cleaning lady in the office has been paying 15.3% on her Social Security taxes, when people who make hundreds of millions are paying less than that.  It is time to look at this discrepancy.
(11) Gallant:  The world has seen a lot of catastrophes lately. Is there a trend to more catastrophes? What impact will this have on reinsurance?

Buffett: The trend is hard to predict.  It is hard to separate randomness from new trends. Right now BRK is willing to take on large risks for the right price.
(12) Audience: MidAmerican has a large investment in wind and solar power.  How important are subsidies in this area?

Buffett:  With respect to wind power, they receive 2.2 cents subsidy per kilowatt hour for 10 years.  That makes wind projects work.  They would not work without it.  Neither wind nor solar projects would be working without their subsidies.  You cannot count on wind for the base load.  It works and it is clean, but if the wind is not blowing, people do not want the risk of having their lights go off.  Therefore, it is only for supplemental generation.  

Greg Abel (MidAmerican): In solar power there is a 30% construction cost recovery, which is especially useful to BRK since it is a full tax payer. 

Buffett:  BRK has a large competitive advantage since BRK pays lots of income taxes.  When there are programs that involve tax credits, BRK can use them.  80% of utilities in the U.S. cannot reap full or any benefits from doing those things because they do not pay income taxes.
(13) Quick: Some shareholders are concerned that the recent publicity around the Buffett Rule could be having a negative impact on the price of BRK stock.  Should Buffett’s involvement be more limited?

Buffett:  No employee at BRK or any of the CEO’s who run the companies that BRK owns have had their citizenship restricted.  When he and Charlie started BRK, they decided to put their citizenship in a blind trust.  He does not know the politics or religions of the CEO’s who run BRK’s companies.  All he cares about is how they run their businesses.  If a man invests in a company based on whether or not he agrees with management team’s politics, it sounds like he ought to own Fox.
(14) Gelb:  Would you consider an acquisition over $20 billion?  How would you finance it?

Buffett:  They considered a $22 billion deal recently that did not work out.  They will not use stock anymore as they did in the BNSF deal.  But they would not let cash fall below $20 billion.  Money build ups month to month, so next year they might do a $30 billion deal.
(15) Audience:  There are reports that jobs are coming back to the U.S. as companies that have outsourced jobs are hiring in the U.S. again.  Could BRK do that?

Buffett:  Of BRK’s 270,000 employees, only 15,000 work outside of the U.S.  Last year BRK invested $8 billion in plant and equipment, with 95% being spent in the U.S.  10 years from now most of BRK’s employees will still be working in the U.S. 
(16) Sorkin:  How are you feeling?

Buffett:  He feels terrific and always feels terrific. He loves what he does and he loves the people he works with.  He has more fun every day.  He has a good immune system.  He has 4 doctors, a few of whom own BRK stock.  Maybe he will be shot by a jealous husband, but he doesn’t think that cancer is a major threat. 

Munger:  He resents all of the sympathy Buffett is getting.  Munger probably has more prostate cancer than Buffett.  He doesn’t know since he will not let them test for it.  So, he wants the sympathy that Buffett is getting.

Buffett:  His secretary was getting too much attention, so he decided to put attention back on himself.  It is a non-event.  He may have less energy, but that might stop him from doing stupid things.
(17) Ransom:  Would you look at buying an annuity business or buying more annuities?

Buffett:  BRK would accept annuities if we could earn a good rate of return.  They prefer writing P&C policies.
(18) Audience:  If Buffett were starting over, what would he be looking at and what would he do differently?

Buffett:  He would do things the same way, but do it a little better.  He would try to aggregate money a little faster.  He would try to get an audited record as fast as possible and try to raise money quickly.  Then he would buy entire businesses to keep and run.  This is different from private equity firms that buy and then sell businesses.
(19) Loomis:  Why is BRK undervalued?

Buffett:  Over 45 years there have been several times that BRK has been significantly undervalued.  At times its price has been cut in half over fairly short time frames.  Tom Murphy ran one of the most successful companies ever (Capital Cities Broadcasting), in the early 1970’s it was selling for 1/3 the value of his properties.  BRK in 1971 was selling at a very low price.  The beauty of stocks is that they sell at silly prices from time to time.  That is how we got rich.  BRK has traded closer to intrinsic value over 47 years than most companies.  There is less fluctuation in BRK’s stock than with most companies.  This is a good sign.  Buy stocks based on what you think the businesses are worth.  Stick with businesses you can value and you will make money.
(20) Gallant:  Have systematic risk fears ever caused them to be afraid to buy stocks?

Buffett:  He and Munger have never had a discussion about buying or selling in which they discussed macroeconomics.  If they find a business they like and can understand, they buy it.  It doesn’t matter what the Fed is doing or what is going on in Europe. There is always going to be bad news.  Buffett bought his first stock in June of 1942 when the U.S. was losing the war.  Stocks were cheap.  He knew that the panic would flow into the economy, but the U.S. would not go away.

Munger:  BRK did keep liquid reserves at the bottom of the financial panic just in case things did get worse.

Buffett:  A fair amount of liquid reserves.  The first rule is to be able to play tomorrow.
(21) Audience:  Which of BRK’s businesses have done better and which have done worse over the last 5 years?

Buffett:  The large ones have done well.  BNSF has improved dramatically over the past 15-20 years.  Railroads are an extremely efficient and environmentally friendly way to move things.  The infrastructure could not be duplicated for 3 -  6 times what it cost them to buy it.  GEICO is a much better business today than it was 10 years ago.  It is approaching a 10% market share now versus 2% in 1995.  Tony Nicely has maximized what needed to be done. It is worth billions more than what we paid for it.  BNSF and Iscar are worth billions more than their purchase price. 

Munger:  At least 80% of their businesses add to values each year.

Buffett:  The mistakes were made in purchasing, when he misjudged the competitive position of a company.  The big deals have worked out – even General Re.  Ajit Jain has created something from nothing and now it is worth billions of dollars.  All he had was brains, energy, and character and he has created a business like no one I have ever seen.

Munger: They have been fortunate and the success will not go away after Buffett dies.
(22) Quick:  Who will manage the derivatives book after Buffett is gone?

Buffett:  There will not be much of a derivatives book when he is gone.  There will be some derivatives in the utility business that are required by regulators as a hedge.  BRK companies also engage in swaps and a number of activities.  BNSF formerly hedged diesel fuel and may do so again.  Some operating companies will have minor positions. It is unlikely that the people who follow him, and there will be at least two with Todd Combs and Ted Weschler, will do anything in derivatives.  BRK will do well with the positions they have.  They have done well with the positions that have expired.  He does not like the new rules for collateralizing derivative positions.  He and Munger always think about the worst case all of the time.  They are never going to expose themselves to a worse case and collateralization means you could have to come up with cash tomorrow morning.

Munger:  BRK would not have entered their derivative contracts without the favorable terms they received.  BRK should earn a profit of $10 billion on them, and maybe a lot more.

 

(23) Gelb: How do you value the operating companies and the insurance companies?

Buffett:  He would value GEICO differently from valuing General Re. GEICO has an intrinsic value that is much greater than the sum of its net worth and float.  With GEICO it is rational to assume a large underwriting profit and that it will grow. Different operating businesses have different characteristics.  He would love to buy operating businesses that have similar characteristics at 9-10X pre-tax earnings.  EBITDA is ridiculous.  It works for people who want to sell businesses.
(24) Audience:  Since 1999 gold has gone up a lot, while BRK has not.  Why?

Buffett:  When they took over BRK (1965) gold was $20 an ounce and BRK was $15.  Now gold is at $1600 and BRK at $120,000.  So, the return depends on your time period.  Over time BRK will do better than gold, as will farm land and common stocks.  If you own an ounce of gold today, you will still own an ounce in 100 years.  But if you own farm land, in 100 years you will still own the farm land plus all of the earnings from that land.  It is hard for unproductive assets to beat productive assets over long periods.
(25) Sorkin:  How does Buffett distinguish between purchases for his own account such as J.P. Morgan versus purchases for Berkshire (Wells Fargo)?

Buffett:  He likes WFC more than JPM.  But since BRK owns WFC, he cannot buy WFC for his own account.  So, he bought JPM as a second choice.  His best ideas are all held by BRK.  He likes JPM but he knows WFC better and thinks it is easier to understand.  BRK bought WFC last quarter, last year, and during many years. 

Munger:  He likes WFC more than JPM.  If he wasn’t managing BRK, he would have a lot of  money with WFC and BRK.
(26) Ransom: With all of the companies within BRK, is there a problem with using capital efficiently?

Buffett:  He would prefer money being held in the property and casualty businesses instead of the life insurance businesses.  But some has to be held there for regulatory reasons.   The best place to have money is in the holding company where they have $10 billion now.  That gives them maximum flexibility.  Most of the operating businesses keep more cash than they need.  He wants BRK to have at least $20 billion. BNSF is combined with National Indemnity.  The rating agencies should like the idea  of having a cash generating business tied to National Indemnity.  BNSF earns $5 billion per year.
(27) Audience:  Wouldn’t a dividend help the stock go up and get it closer to intrinsic value?

Buffett:  A dividend might not help the stock trade higher.  BRK is willing to pay 110% of book value to buy back stock. There goal is to have the stock trade as close to intrinsic value as it can.  When it trades at intrinsic value or higher they would consider using stock for acquisitions, but they would rather use cash. He gives away BRK stock each year, and those gifts will do more for charity if the stock trades at a higher price.

 

(28) Loomis:  With the newspaper industry in decline, why did BRK buy the Omaha World-Herald?

Buffett:  BRK will do more with newspapers in places where people care about their communities.  When people have strong ties to a specific region, they care about things that cannot be found on the Internet.  People will pay for newspapers and advertisers will pay to access those people.
(29) Galant:  Are there other BRK businesses that could be impacted by technological change?  What about Amazon’s impact?

Buffett:  Amazon could affect a lot of businesses including some of BRK’s retailing operations.  It will not affect Nebraska Furniture Mart which did $6 million of business this past Tuesday.  That business will expand to Dallas in a few years and we will have a store that will break all records.  GEICO was affected by the Internet and they were slow to respond.  GEICO was mail based in the 1930’s and 40’s, and then it moved to TV.  People love Amazon and it has millions of happy customers.  It will be a power house, and it could affect a lot of businesses.
(30) Audience:  Please explain BRK’s unique model and the free float.

Buffett:  It has taken a long time to build what they have and the consistency has come from Buffett and Munger being controlling shareholders.  It took a long time to get people with large private businesses to offer to sell to BRK first.  BRK does not do well buying at auctions.
(31) Quick:  How does BRK vote in the annual proxies for publicly held companies?

Buffett:  BRK has almost never voted against management.  But they have voted against management when the issue of stock option expensing was on the ballot.  They are large shareholders of companies they like.  They may not always think the same way as those managers.
(32) Gelb:  Do you want to increase your commercial insurance operations?

Buffett:  BRK could expand by buying a great company.  They got into medical malpractice when they bought a division from GE with a first class manager.  If they could find a quality company in commercial lines with good management they would buy it in an instant.
(33) Audience (Whitney Tilson – T2 Partners):   Has BRK’s plans to buyback its own stock at less than 1.1 times book value put a ceiling and a floor on the stock?  Would you consider being more flexible?

Buffett:  He does not think this put a ceiling on the stock.  Floors disappear when things get chaotic. If he thought they would buy a lot more stock at a higher price , he would adjust the multiple up.

 

(34) Sorkin (Question submitted by David Kass, University of Maryland):  One of Berkshire’s largest investments is in Wal-Mart.  Have you changed your opinion of this company as a result of the Mexican bribery scandal?

Buffett:  It may lead to a large fine and is a huge diversion of management time.  The earning power of Wal-Mart five years from now will not be materially affected.  There is nothing fundamentally dishonest about Wal-Mart.

Comments Prior to Lunch

Buffett:  He made a $1 million bet with hedge fund managers at Protégé Partners as to which index would outperform the other:  an index of hedge funds or an S&P 500 index (Buffett’s bet).  Over the first four years of this bet , the S&P 500 is down 6.27%, while the hedge fund index is down 5.89%. They each bought a $1 million zero coupon bond to make sure the money was there at the end.  So far the bond has been the best performer. The proceeds from this bet will be donated to charity.
(35) Ransom:  What personnel adjustments were made at General Re and do they have room to grow?

Buffett:  General Re was more concerned with premium volume rather than profitability when BRK bought it.  It took BRK awhile to figure that out.  But, when Joe Brandon came in, he focused solely on profitability.  Tad Montross followed up on that which required getting rid of a lot of business.  The life business kept growing during that period, while P&C business shrank.  They will not miss the business they lost.  General Re is a great business that will grow.
(36) Audience:   In a post-Buffett BRK, will senior managers leave and will a large investor try to gain control?

Buffett:  The successor they have in mind has the culture deeply embedded.  People would probably not leave for more lucrative jobs.  Many could retire.  They do not need to work at all.  They only work because they love it.  A takeover would be very hard given the size and the share structure.  Even 10 years from now, either Buffett or his estate will probably still own 20% of the company.  The Buffett family would own 20% of the company and have 10 times the voting power of anyone else.  Also, BRK will grow larger over time and its size will be an inhibitor.  BRK’s businesses will take its market cap from the current $200 billion to $400 billion.
(37) Loomis: When would BRK buy a capital intensive business?

Buffett:  Cash consuming businesses are unattractive unless they earn a target return.  In the electric utility business, we can earn 12% which we are comfortable with.  BRK will also earn a reasonable return on BNSF with high capital expenditures.  It is difficult to earn 20% ROE so we are satisfied with 12%.

(38) Galant:  Buffett suggested in the annual report that the float will stop growing.  But, could it actually shrink?

Buffett:  It could shrink due to the nature of some retroactive contracts.  The float of GEICO and the smaller companies will grow.  In Ajit’s operation there is a lot of stuff that runs off.  When the float was $40 billion Buffett was concerned it would not grow. Now it is $70 billion. It is possible the float will grow slowly or decline.

Munger:   The casualty business is not a great business and you have to be in the top 10% to be good.  BRK has the best casualty business in the world.  Ajit and Tony Nicely have done a great job in helping the float grow.

 

 

(39) Audience:  How do you value declining businesses such as the encyclopedia business?

Buffett:  It usually pays to stay away from declining businesses.  The newspaper business is a declining business.  They will pay a price to be in that business, but they will not earn a big profit.  He will not spend a lot of time to value a declining business just to get one last puff out of the cigar.  The same amount of energy and intelligence brought to other businesses will work out better.  BRK started out in U.S. made shoes and textiles in New England as well as a trading stamp company.  They are experienced in declining businesses.  They have a business that did millions in revenue in the 1960’s but only $20 thousand this year.  Munger is still in charge of this business, but Buffett can’t get him to sell it.  They were masochistic and ignorant in those days.  In 1966 Buffett, Munger, and Sandy Gottesman bought department store in Baltimore for $6 million through Diversified Retailing.  That store and others at its location are all gone.
(40) Quick: What types of investments should we avoid?

Buffett:  We should stay away from things we do not understand.  He needs to understand competitive position and earnings power 5 -10 years into the future.  If the price is too high, that eliminates another group of potential investments.  Company size (small) eliminates other investments.  BRK has not bought an IPO in 30 years.  The idea that a new issue is going to be the cheapest thing to buy among thousands of stocks is crazy. 

Munger:  Especially when it carries a 7% commission (investment bank underwriting fee).

Buffett:   IPO’s come to the market when the seller wants to sell.  It makes no sense to spend 5 seconds on new issues.  In investing, you just need to have some investments that do really well, while avoiding huge disasters.

Munger:  Buffett made people rich who copied him.
(41) Gelb:  What are the implications if BRK were to become subject to the Investment Act of 1940?

Munger:  The chances of that happening are very remote.

Buffett:   There is no way they would be considered an investment company.  BRK owns 8 companies that would be part of the Fortune 500 if they were stand alone companies.  BRK also has 275 thousand employees.
(42) Audience:  How long do you think it will take China to create great companies like those in the U.S. such as Coca-Cola?

Munger:  China has some great companies, but there are not many branded companies there. 

Buffett:  China is not yet exporting fast food companies to the U.S.  BRK has 500 Dairy Queens in China.  China has some huge companies that may eclipse Coca-Cola in market value some day.

 

 

(43) Sorkin:  Now that you own IBM, are there other entrenched leaders in technology that are “inevitables”?  What about Google and Apple?

Buffett:  Apple and Google are extraordinary companies.  They are huge , make money and achieve high returns on capital.  They look tough to dislodge.  They could be worth a lot more in 10 years, but he would not buy either.  Neither would he short them.

Munger:  Other people understand those companies better than they do.  They have the reverse of an edge.  How are those companies different from IBM?

Buffett:  The chances of being very wrong in IBM are way lower.  They understand IBM better but that does not mean Google and Apple will not do better than IBM.  It is hard to know how successful Apple will be over the next 10 years.  There are a lot of people trying to compete with them.
(44) Ransom:  Can you discuss political issues facing BNSF such as coal plant shutdowns?

Buffett:  Railroads, utilities, and insurance companies are affected by the political process.  Railroads are much more efficient than trucking and move 42% of intercity freight.  BNSF will spend $3.9 billion this year and it will go to improve the present system and to expansion.  The government will not have to write a check and the country will be better off.  The railroad industry after World War II had 1.7 million employees.  Now there are fewer than 200,000 as railroads have become more efficient.
(45) Loomis:  The chart that BRK includes in its filings compares the S&P 500’s returns with changes in book value of BRK.  Shouldn’t the change in BRK’s price be used instead?

Buffett:  You could look at BRK’s market value versus that of the S&P.  BRK would still perform better even though it would bounce around a lot.  The gain would be about 35% higher in aggregate over the time period as compared to the book value gain.  You could also show the book value of the S&P versus the book value of BRK, but that relative outperformance would be about the same as the previous metric.  They could show calculations that are favorable to BRK, but there aren’t any calculations that would make them worse.

Munger:  Over the long-term, the stock returns have tracked book value growth.  But the stock has outperformed slightly over time.
(46) Gallant:  In terms of risk management, how do you share information across insurance units?

Buffett:  Information is not shared.  Tad Montross, Tony Nicely, and Ajit Jain are friends and see each other sometimes.  But they do not coordinate.  Buffett and Munger want the businesses to run autonomously and the managers to feel they have freedom.  They don’t tell people at Clayton to buy carpets from Shaw.  Any gains they would receive by doing that would be offset by the negative feelings of the managers.  When they buy companies, they hand people billions of dollars in return for stock certificates.  They want mangers to act the same way the next day after they have received those billions. They do not want to change anyone.

(47) Audience: Would a well run forest products firm fit with BRK given the potential synergies with other BRK units?

Buffett:  When they buy a business they do not consider synergies between the new business and other BRK businesses.  They have looked at several forest product companies but they have not met BRK’s hurdle rates of return.
(48) Quick:  Please explain why you target a minimum of $20 billion in cash on BRK’s balance sheet?

Buffett:  There is no magic number.  They think of the worst case and then add an extra margin for safety.  They have 600,000 shareholders and members of his family have 80% of their net worth in BRK.  So they do not want to go broke because they took a chance. They are never going to risk what they have and need for what they do not have and do not need.  At BRK, risk is at the top of their mind all of the time.  Accordingly, BRK’s returns 99 out of 100 years will be less than they would otherwise have been.  But they will survive that 1 year when no one else does. Life in financial markets has nothing to do with sigmas and standard errors.

Munger:  Mathematical techniques have created a lot of false confidence.  People on Wall Street know a lot about fat tails, but they don’t know how to quantify them.  In Salomon meetings we would roll our eyes when risk control people were talking.
(49) Gelb:  Does BRK plan to replace Swiss Re premium volume that runs off in 2012?

Buffett:  They will not do anything to replace those billions.  They would love to write new business, but they are not going to write dumb business.  It is a non-event in terms of future strategy.  Every decision is independent.  Some opportunities will come along that will be terrific. 

Munger:  There is not an insurance company in the world that enjoys losing volume as much as they do.  They are happy to lose bad business.
(50) Audience:  What about the housing market, especially relating to Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE)?  Have they become too big?  How many years can they stay in conservatorship?

Buffett:  FRE and FNM are a mess because we haven’t figured out yet what the best structure is to finance mortgages. A government guarantee program lowers the cost of financing mortgages.  These institutions were half trying to serve a housing mission and half adhering to a profit mission.  Eventually, the profit mission won out.  This is a huge problem that Congress has not yet figured out.  It is important that you have a market that minimizes costs for the right borrowers.  They will stay in conservatorship until both parties can agree.

Munger:  Canada had a more responsible system and had almost no problems. We departed from morality and soundness and the government was part of this.  It was wrong not to step on a boom that was full of fraud and folly.  Apparently, Alan Greenspan overdosed on Ayn Rand when he was young. A lot of damage was done by letting craziness go unchecked.  We had no choice but to nationalize FNM and FRE.

 

(51) Sorkin:  How are Todd Combs and Ted Weschler compensated?

Buffett:  We pay them each a salary of $1 million per year plus 10% of the amount by which they beat the S&P 500 on a rolling 3 year basis.  Also, they get paid 80% based on their own record plus 20% based on the record of the other.  So they have the incentive to work together.  This is the same formula as was used to pay Lou Simpson.  If they employ others, it comes out of their performance compensation.  Each of the two had $1.75 billion at year end.  We added another $1 billion at the end of March.  So, they have $2.75 billion each to manage.  They use their own brokers.  He wants to know the name of each investment only to make sure he does not have inside information on that company. They operate in different stocks and have a much larger universe of stocks to operate in than does Buffett ($2.75 billion vs. $175 billion).  They have also pitched in for other duties that they do not get compensated for.  They will do a great job.  Ted joined us this year.  Todd did substantially better than the S&P 500 last year.  He was paid 1/3 of his incentive compensation, with 2/3 being deferred.  He could lose it back.

Munger:  At least 90% of the investment management business in the U.S. would starve to death on our formula, but Ted and Todd will do well.  Each of them could earn more money elsewhere, but with a less desirable lifestyle.

Buffett:  We have a free Coke machine.

(52) Ransom:  The GEICO combined ratio went over 100% in the fourth quarter.  What is going on there?

Buffett:  The issue involved Florida and some interpretation of PIP rules that had to do with setting up one time higher reserves.  In Q1 of this year, the combined ratio was only 91%.  GEICO is a terrific asset.
(53) Audience: What financial statement or other data do you use to see if a company represents an environmentally friendly investment?

Buffett:  They try to predict how a company will be performing in 5, 10, and 20 years.  With respect to railroads, it takes fewer resources to move goods by rail than by trucking.
(54) Audience:  In terms of executive compensation, how do you provide incentives to managers?

Buffett:  Buffett and Munger have thought a lot about why they do what they do when they don’t need the money.  They have the opportunity to paint their own painting and they love that.  The painting will never be finished.  They have more fun doing it together than they would apart. They also like applause.  If that works for them, it should work for BRK managers as well.  In many cases these people have as much money as the need but they like what they are doing and that may be why they are good at it.  They get to keep the paint brush, they receive applause, they are compensated fairly and Buffett and Munger do not tell them how to paint.  As a result, there have not been compensation problems at BRK.  Todd Combs and Ted Weschler are being compensated below hedge fund and private equity standards and are getting less favorable tax treatment.  But, they will earn a lot of money and he hopes they will have a good time.  Buffett and Munger want their managers to enjoy their lives – both business and personal.  With respect to the managers of BRK’s businesses, the businesses are so different they could not use the same metric to gauge their performance.  For example, return on capital as a measure does not make sense for a lot of businesses.  Managers at BRK have made a lot of money (8 figures).  We use logical measures of performance.  The amount of time they spend thinking about compensation is very little.  Buffett is the compensation committee for 60 people and he is not overworked.  Compensation consultants please the boss and get referred (“ratchet, ratchet, and bingo”).

Munger:  In past years he has said that for compensation consultants, prostitution would be a step up.
(55):  Audience:  How do we get the U.S. to grow at 4% (GDP) again?

Buffett:  If the US population grows at 1% per year and GDP grows at 2.5% per year, that would be remarkable.  It would lead to a 4x multiple of GDP per capita every century.  But 2.5% growth may take a while to get the US out of the economic slump.  But it is good for a country with a high standard of living. In his lifetime, real GDP per capita has gone up 6x.

Munger:  For a mature economy with lots of competition, a 1% annual per capita growth rate would be good.

(56) Audience:  Would you consider giving money to a Super PAC?

Buffett:  He wishes Super PACs had never been created and he will not give them any money.  He doesn’t want to see democracy going in that direction.

Munger:  If you could reduce legalized gambling in the US by giving money to a Super PAC, he would.  Gambling is very bad.  This is true of securities markets acting like a gambling casino.
(57) Audience  (Glenn Tongue – T2 Partners):  Since the beginning of last year, BRK’s portfolio has gone up, but the stock has not moved.  Is the market manic?

Munger:  The market is not going to do what you want, when you want it.  If you are short-term oriented you are not welcome in this room.  He feels better about the margin for safety in the stock now.
(58) Audience:  Why not pay a dividend?

Buffett:  They can create more than $1 in present value for each $1 they invest in BRK’s businesses.  If you want an income stream, sell 2% of your stock each year.

Munger:  MidAmerican will have the ability to deploy a lot of capital at high rates of return over the next 20 years.  That is why they do not pay dividends.
(59) Audience:  If they were starting over now, what would they do differently?

Buffett:  They have learned a lot since they were managing only $1 million and could probably earn a better return than they did when they were younger.  Over 50 years they have learned how to make better use of small sums of money.
(60) Audience:  What are the best ways to minimize mistakes? 

Buffett:  They have made mistakes and will make more.  They try to not make mistakes that stop them from being in the market.  They are always thinking of avoiding the worst case.  They do things in a big way.  He doesn’t worry much about mistakes.   He is making better judgments of people over time.

Munger:  Prefers to learn from other people’s mistakes.
(61) Audience:  How do you build barriers to entry?

Munger:  We buy them, we do not build them.

Buffett:  Coca-Cola benefits from barriers to entry.  BRK has a number of businesses that cannot be rebuilt, such as the railroad.  Nobody is going to build another railroad.
(62) Audience: What about BYD and the potential for its electric cars?

Munger:  The car market in China is huge and BYD is located in China.  This is their focus.  The first cars they will try to bring to the U.S. will be for fleets in California due to environmental restrictions there.  There are subsidies for electric cars.  BYD has 100 million sq. ft. of buildings and 180,000 employees.
(63) Audience:  How do we value the insurance business, especially in terms of float and economic goodwill?

Buffett:  The economic value comes from the ability to use the float at a bargain rate.  At GEICO, one can expect an underwriting profit as well as growth along with a growing float.  GEICO is the low cost producer.  At GEICO, they have thousands of policies.  By contrast, Ajit needs to be smart in each deal because people come to him with huge deals.  They grow a large and low cost float.  People are paying them to hold $70 billion. 
(64) Audience:  What about the current account deficit and how it relates to oil and natural gas imports and exports?

Buffett:  If we produce more of our energy needs, then our current account deficit will decline.  The energy situation is improving as is the current account deficit.

Munger:  Energy independence is a stupid idea.  Our single most precious resource is our petroleum (hydrocarbon) reserves.  We should use the other fellow’s oil and keep our own.
(65) Audience:  Citing an example of excessive CEO compensation at Liberty Mutual ($50 million per year), what good does it do if profits go to the top managers and not to policyholders and employees?

Buffett:  He hopes that the 1% growth in GDP per capita would not concentrate in the top 1% of society.  The tax code has encouraged this concentration.  Democracies are moving to plutocracies.  The tax code issues are combined with what has happened in terms of the ratio of CEO pay to that of the average worker.  There has been much more poor behavior in the corporate world than in the mutual insurance industry.

Munger: Most of the large mutual insurance companies do not have skewed compensation. State Farm is a good example.  Liberty Mutual is an egregious example.

(66) Audience:  Are you concerned with large sovereign debt levels?

Buffett:  Governments do not have to pay you, and creditors cannot grab assets from them.  Sovereigns have defaulted over history and there is a reallocation of wealth.  The ECB has given 1 trillion Euros to banks that have large amounts of sovereign debt. These banks may be using these funds from the ECB to purchase more sovereign debt. There might be a bad ending in Europe.  In the U.S. we have a budget deficit of 8-9% of GDP, which is a huge stimulus to our economy. Leaders of both parties know that we need to get revenues up to 19% of GDP and spending down to 21%.  Both parties are worried about being seen as weak.  The leaders of one party cannot even speak for their party. In general, he would avoid all medium-term and long-term government bonds (U.S. or other countries) at these interest rates.

Munger: He would spend on infrastructure that we need. People should pay much more cheerfully like the Romans during the Punic Wars.  We need more sacrifice and more sensible ways of spending money, along with more civilized politics.
(67) Audience:  What do you think is the ideal corporate tax rate?

Buffett: Last year the actual corporate tax rate paid was 13% as compared to the statutory corporate tax rate of 35%. Corporations were able to write off 100% of fixed asset purchases. Corporate liquidity, profits, and balance sheets are not the problem in the US economy. Corporations have a lot of money.  The main issue is that medical costs are 17% of GDP, while corporate profits are only 1.2% of GDP.  Medical costs in the US are 7% higher as a percentage of GDP than it is in other countries. Both parties agree that the corporate tax rate should be lower, but more equal across companies.  But, this will be difficult to implement because those whose tax rate will go up will fight vigorously.

Munger:  He recommends a value added tax. It makes sense to tax consumption.

 

 

MEETING ADJOURNED

 

David I. Kass, Ph.D.
Tyser Teaching Fellow
Department of Finance
4412 Van Munching Hall
Robert H. Smith School of Business
University of Maryland
College Park, Maryland 20742
dkass@rhsmith.umd.edu
drdavidkass.com

Please follow Clusterstock on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The Video From This Year's Berkshire Meeting Sounds Absolutely Ridiculous

$
0
0

image

Dr. David Kass has posted an excellent transcript from the Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting.

It includes a description of the one-hour humorous film that opened the meeting, continuing a long tradition of the super billionaire mocking himself for everyone's entertainment.

The video sounds ridiculous:

A one hour humorous film was shown starring Warren Buffett’s secretary (Debbie Bosanek), who has been made famous by the “Buffett Rule” which is based on Bosanek paying a higher tax rate than Buffett.  In the skit, Buffett is forced to take phone calls for Bosanek (including calls from Oprah Winfrey and President Obama), while Bosanek keeps talking on personal calls.  The movie also featured an animated cartoon of the national championship football game between the University of Nebraska and the all-robot team from the University of Washington.  The Nebraska team is coached by the legendary Tom Osborne, while the Washington team is coached by Herman Cain (who has strong ties to Omaha’s Godfather’s Pizza Chain).  The game is being broadcast by Marv Albert.  At half time, with Nebraska trailing 7-0, and many Nebraska players having been injured during the first half, Buffett prevails on Coach Osborne to put him in at quarterback.  Buffett argues:  “I have some good ideas”.  In the final play, Buffett throws a long pass to his vice chairman, Charlie Munger, who tips the ball to the Geico gecko in the end zone to win the game.

If anyone has a copy, please send to tips@businessinsider.com.

Don't miss: Warren Buffett Dresses Up As A Newsie And Sings To The Obama Press Club >

Please follow Clusterstock on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

BUFFETT: Europe's Financial Crisis Could 'Spill Over In A Big Way'

$
0
0

warren buffett

WASHINGTON (AP) — Despite recent signs of weakness, the U.S. economy isn't likely to slip back into a recession, Warren Buffett said Tuesday. He also said both political parties deserve blame for the federal government's failure to reduce the deficit.

Speaking at the 25th anniversary dinner of the Economic Club of Washington, the billionaire investor said he sees the odds of a renewed recession as "very low."

But he warned that could change if the effects of Europe's financial crisis were to "spill over in a big way."

European leaders need to reconcile the "half-in, half-out," nature of the euro zone, Buffett said. The 17 nations that use the euro share the same central bank and interest rate policies, but follow wildly different national tax and budget policies.

Buffett, who is the CEO of Omaha, Neb.-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc., also reaffirmed his support for the so-called "Buffett Rule." The proposal would require Americans with incomes above $1 million to pay a 30 percent tax rate.

"I couldn't get a disease named after me, so I settled for a tax," he said.

When asked how he would reduce the U.S. government's budget deficit, which is on track to top $1 trillion for the fourth year in a row, Buffett recommended raising taxes and cutting spending.

"The problem is the Democrats don't want to talk about what expenditures they would cut and the Republicans don't want to talk about raising revenues," he said.

"You've got to get specific about it," he added. "Just talking about reform won't work."

That echoed the criticism many Democrats have leveled against GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney. They say his budget-cutting proposals consist mainly of broad targets and don't include enough details about actual cuts.

Buffett jumped into the tax debate last August by noting that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, which he said is unfair. Like many wealthy Americans, much of Buffett's income comes in the form of capital gains and dividends, which are taxed at lower rates than incomes.

President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress seized on Buffett's approach. But it hasn't gained much traction in Congress. A proposal modeled after the Buffett Rule was defeated in April in the Senate. It fell short of the 60 votes needed to cut off a Republican filibuster.

The Economic Club of Washington is a group of local business executives. Buffett participated in an interview with David Rubenstein, the president of the club and co-founder and co-CEO of the Carlyle Group, a private equity firm.

Please follow Clusterstock on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Warren Buffett's High School Yearbook Totally Nailed What He Would Be When He Grew Up

$
0
0

While everyone may be buzzing about Warren Buffett's speech at the Economic Club of Washington yesterday, many are overlooking the fact that the genius investor also took time to visit his old junior high and high school while he was in the Washington D.C. area.

Buffett was spotted at Alice Deal Junior High and Woodrow Wilson High School, both in the D.C. area, according to the Washington Post. He told reporters that he was there for his 65th high school reunion. Although Buffett calls Omaha his hometown, he grew up in the Washington D.C. area when his father served as a Congressman.

The D.C. Public School System were quick to promote the Oracle of Omaha's presence via Twitter, and sent out an instagrammed photo of Buffett touring Woodrow Wilson High with principal Pete Cahall.

The tweet also added that Buffett's high school yearbook photo read "likes math: a future stock broker."

Considering Buffett was thinking of ways to make money and picking stocks by the time he was 11, we aren't surprised that his future investing career already came through in high school.

Here's the photo—

Warren Buffett

SEE ALSO: 11 Things We Learned About Warren Buffett From Bloomberg TV's Excellent New Profile

Please follow Clusterstock on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The One Thing That Warren Buffett Will Do For Hours On The Computer—And It's Not Investing

$
0
0

It's common knowledge that Warren Buffett doesn't have a computer in his office and doesn't rely on technology much when he makes investing decisions.

But during a talk at the Economic Club of Washington yesterday, Buffett told his interviewer, the Carlyle Group's David Rubenstein, that he is in love with the Internet and is on the computer many hours every night when it's not work-related.

Why?

"When Bill and I appear together, sometimes we use the trick question of 'Aside from e-mail, which one of us is on the computer more?' And the answer is me. I play bridge on the Internet, a couple of hours every night," he said.

Buffett's bridge habit is no big secret, he once also said that he gets so drawn into the game he wouldn't even notice if a naked woman walked by.

Here's a video fo the talk from CNNMoney—

Please follow Clusterstock on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Barbarous Times Call For Barbarous Relics

$
0
0

Gold is “forever unproductive,” says Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway.

“Civilized people don’t buy gold,” says Buffett’s sidekick, Charlie Munger. Civilized people, says Munger, “invest in productive businesses.”

So let’s see… Where does that lead us?

If…

A) Berkshire Hathaway invests in productive businesses and;

B) Investing in productive businesses is civilized and;

C) Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger direct Berkshire’s investments;

Then…

D) Buffett and Munger are civilized.

Gee whiz! That’s lucky!

But to make sure the world appreciates just how civilized these two civilized gents are, they continuously (and very publicly) belittle both gold and the uncivilized masses who consider it a store of value.

“Gold gets dug out of the ground,” Warren Buffett famously observed, “then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head.”

Yes, that’s right, anyone from Mars…or from Berkshire Hathaway headquarters. But most of the other seven billion folks residing on either Earth or Mars understand that gold has at least some utility. At a minimum, they understand that gold possesses more utility than the gold-bashing blather that spills from the lips of Buffett and Munger. Gold may be inert, but at least it’s not toxic.

“When it comes to bashing gold,” writes Eric McWhinnie for Wall St. Cheat Sheet, “few do it as publicly and extremely as the crew at Berkshire Hathaway… Buffett dedicated a decent part of his latest shareholder letter to criticizing gold. He painted an analogy of the world’s gold stock as a useless cube that would fit within a baseball infield. Buffett wrote:

Today the world’s gold stock is about 170,000 metric tons. If all of this gold were melded together, it would form a cube of about 68 feet per side. (Picture it fitting comfortably within a baseball infield.) At $1,750 per ounce — gold’s price as I write this — its value would be about $9.6 trillion. Call this cube pile A.

Let’s now create a pile B costing an equal amount. For that, we could buy all U.S. cropland (400 million acres with output of about $200 billion annually), plus 16 Exxon Mobils (the world’s most profitable company, one earning more than $40 billion annually). After these purchases, we would have about $1 trillion left over for walking-around money (no sense feeling strapped after this buying binge). Can you imagine an investor with $9.6 trillion selecting pile A over pile B?

Ummm…maybe…depending on the circumstances in which one finds oneself.

Even Charlie Munger acknowledges that “gold is a great thing to sew onto your garments if you’re a Jewish family in Vienna in 1939.” Although Munger’s tasteless remark was an attempt to disparage gold, he inadvertently paid the monetary metal a compliment. He acknowledged that gold is the “go to” investment during times of crisis. It is the thing to own in uncivilized times.

Clearly, gold was not the very best thing to own when the young Buffett and Munger were launching their careers — a period that happened to coincide with America’s post-WWII, once-in-an-empire, economic boom. At the end of the Second World War, the United States possessed a robust manufacturing infrastructure; its competitors possessed ruble. Not a bad time to invest in America’s “productive businesses.”

But not every investor will find himself in the midst of one of the most powerful, world-dominating economic expansions in human history. Instead, some investors may find themselves in some sort of “Vienna, 1939.” In such circumstances, the ideal investment may not be a share of Coca-Cola…or even a share of Apple (more about which below). It may be an ounce of gold.

“Some Jews in Vienna in 1939 operated extremely productive businesses,” we observed in the May 24 edition of The Daily Reckoning. “Unfortunately, they could not stitch any of those into their garments.”

But gold is not merely a great thing to own amidst extreme circumstances. It can also be a great thing to own amidst merely marginal circumstances, like, for example, if you happen to be living during the tail end of one of the most powerful, world-dominating economic expansions in human history…rather than at the beginning of it. In other words, gold may be a great thing to own in America in 2012 — no matter whether you be Jewish, Christian, atheist or spiritually confused.

“As civilizations lose their civility,” we observed a few days ago, “investing in productive businesses can be a very unproductive activity. As civilizations lose their civility, share prices tend to fall and gold prices tend to rise…which is exactly what has been happening in our beloved U.S.A during the last few years.”

Thus, as we never tire of observing, gold has delivered a much higher return during the last 15 years than Berkshire Hathaway, perhaps the most civilized of American stocks. By any quantitative measure, gold has kicked Berkshire’s rear-end from wherever you happen to be reading this column all the way back to Omaha, Nebraska.

chart

Unlike Buffett and Munger, David Einhorn, founder of Greenlight Capital, believes we Americans are in an era in which gold is likely to reward those who hold it. He recently countered Buffett’s “analysis” of gold by saying, “If you wrapped up all the $100 bills in circulation, they would form a cube about 74 feet per side… The value of all that cash would be about a trillion dollars. In a hundred years, that money will have produced nothing… It will not pay you interest or dividends and it won’t grow earnings, though you could burn it for heat… Alternatively, you could take every US note in circulation, lay them end to end, and cover the entire 116 square miles of Omaha, Nebraska. Of course, if you managed to assemble all that money into your own private stash, the Federal Reserve could simply order more to be printed for the rest of us.”

Einhorn’s dig at the Berkshire boys is merely his latest counter-punch against the anti-gold elite. A few weeks back, he likened Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s monetary policy to gorging on jelly donuts.

“A jelly donut is a yummy mid-afternoon energy boost,” Einhorn explained. “Two jelly donuts are an indulgent breakfast. Three jelly donuts may induce a tummy ache. Six jelly donuts, that’s an eating disorder. Twelve jelly donuts is fraternity pledge hazing.

“My point,” Einhorn elaborated, “is that you can have too much of a good thing… Chairman Bernanke is presently force-feeding us what seems like the 36th jelly donut of easy money and wondering why it isn’t giving us energy or making us feel better. Instead of a robust recovery, the economy continues to be sluggish…”

“As a result,” Einhorn concluded, “I will keep a substantial long exposure to gold, which serves as a jelly-donut-antidote for my portfolio.”

Like Einhorn, many other high-profile hedge fund managers are amassing large quantities of gold and gold-related investments. According to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, several big hedge funds upped their allocation to gold during the first three months of 2012. Billionaire fund manager John Paulson, for example, maintained his large 17.3 million-share position in the SPDR Gold Trust (NYSE:GLD). He also upped his holding of NovaGold Resources (NYSE:NG) and IAMGOLD (NYSE:IAG).

Daniel Loeb’s Third Point hedge fund maintained its position in “GLD,” while boosting its stake in Barrick Gold (NYSE:ABX). George Soros’ management firm nearly quadrupled its exposure to “GLD” during the first quarter, while also buying call options on Newmont Mining (NYSE:NEM).

Those guys aren’t buying gold because they expect it to be “forever unproductive,” as Buffett asserts, or because it is only useful during a Nazi occupation, as Munger asserts. They are buying it because they believe the American economy of the near-future will not treat investment capital as hospitably as the American economy of the last several decades.

They are buying it because they perceive that important aspects of American civilization are becoming somewhat more barbaric…like, for example, the barbaric fiscal policies that never fail to produce trillion-dollar deficits, or the barbaric monetary policies that always fail to produce sustainable economic activity.

Barbarous times call for barbarous measures.

Regards,

Eric J. Fry
for The Daily Reckoning

[Joel’s Note: Obviously, Dear Reader, the Berkshire Boys are not the only folks pooh-poohing gold these days. In fact, bashing gold is something of a daily Wall Street pastime. And even those folks who feel no need to bash gold are quite content to ignore it. They’d rather buy a “hot stock” like Facebook...ugh...or maybe a proven winner like Apple.

We have no idea who’s right or wrong here or, more importantly, who will be right or wrong going forward. But we’d love to hear your thoughts on the subject...just for kicks. We’d like to hear from you whether gold or Apple will be the better bet over the next five years.

Matt Nesto posed this identical question a couple days ago to his guest on “Breakout,” Lee Munson, Chief Investment Officer at Portfolio, LLC. Munson responded unequivocally, “I’d rather you go out...and buy Apple.” As for gold, Munson scoffed, “When the world looks to be ending, like 2008, people aren’t going to buy gold, they’re going to buy dollars, and if things really get bad, they’ll buy dry food and automatic guns.”

What about you, Dear Readers? Do you side with Munson (and Buffett and Munger)? Or do you think gold might be the better bet? Or maybe you are conflicted, just like Daniel Loeb, the hedge fund manager Eric cites in his column. Although gold is the second largest holding in Mr. Loeb’s hedge fund, Apple is the fourth largest holding. Hmmm...maybe that’s the perfect hedge. Anyway, we’d love to hear your thoughts.]

On Jelly Donuts and Gold originally appeared in the Daily Reckoning. The Daily Reckoning, published by Agora Financial provides over 400,000 global readers economic news, market analysis, and contrarian investment ideas. Recently Agora Financial released a video titled "What Causes Gas Price to Increase?".

 

Read more posts on The Daily Reckoning »

Please follow Money Game on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »


WATCH: Warren Buffett's Badass Personal Bodyguard In Action

$
0
0

Dan Clark has been Warren Buffett's personal bodyguard for almost 20 years, so his services to one of the world's richest men isn't big news or any surprise.

Clark runs security firm Clark International, and got the gig being Buffett's protector 18 years ago when he met Buffett's daughter in a bagel shop. Before that, he was a police officer in Omaha. He generated a lot of buzz last year when the Omaha World-Herald ran a lengthy profile on him and his job.

But now that CNBC will be airing a special on "Billionaire Super Security" next Monday, we get treated to some awesome shots of Clark in action, teaching his employees how to take down a man in hand-to-hand combat, the correct way to point a gun, etc. 

CNBC's special will air next week at 9:30 pm. For now, check out the action packed preview—

Please follow Clusterstock on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

A Steak Lunch With Warren Buffett Now Costs $3.5 Million

$
0
0

Warren Buffett Dairy Queen Ice Cream

The value of a private lunch with the Oracle of Omaha just skyrocketed.

An anonymous individual paid $3.5 million yesterday in an annual charity auction that lets the winning bidder lunch with Warren Buffett, according to the AP.

The selling price of the lunch this year is nearly a million more than the $2.6 million that was paid last year to lunch with the famous investor, but many believe that it is well worth the money. Hedge fund manager Ted Weschler, who forked out about $5.3 million for lunch with Buffett in 2011 and 2010, ended up getting a job with Berkshire Hathaway.

Buffett said he doesn't plan on hiring the person that wins the auction this year, but we're sure he'll still be full of investing insight and advice. The lunch is traditionally held at the famed steakhouse Smith and Wollensky in New York. Buffett donates all the proceeds from the auction to the Glide Foundation in San Francisco, which fights homelessness in the city.

Please follow Clusterstock on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Warren Buffett And Lloyd Blankfein Spoke About Small Businesses On MSNBC This Morning

$
0
0

Blankfein BuffettGoldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein and Warren Buffett are speaking now on MSNBC's Morning Joe.

- The two are on to discuss Goldman Sach's small business program, "10,000 Strong."

- (Reminder: Buffett owns a big chunk of Goldman Sachs stock.)

- The program equips small business owners with skills they need to succeed through a 20-week class. The most recently class of 37 entrepreneurs in the Chicago area have just graduated through the Goldman program, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

- Buffett and Blankfein are discussing individuals that have benefited from Goldman's small business program.

- Buffett calls it "the secret sauce of America."

- We think this TV appearance is an attempt by Blankfein to not seem as "vampire squidy" as he is. 

- The key to running a successful business is to have happy customers, Buffett says. "Take care of your customers and your customers will take care of you." Blankfein says he wants to help those entrepreneurs understand leverage.

Please follow Clusterstock on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

POLL: Warren Buffett Says Kids Born In The US Today Are The Luckiest People In The World — Do You Agree?

$
0
0

Warren Buffett cheerleaders

Warren Buffett and Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein were just on MSNBC's Morning Joe. And while you can probably imagine what kind of amazing one-act show/buddy comedy those two could put on together, that's not what happened.

It was kind of a snooze fest.

But Warren did say something that got us talking. He said that the luckiest people in the world are children born in today's United States of America.

Do you agree?

There are a few positive things to consider — like our GDP per capita of $48,100 and the U.S. life expectancy, which sits at 78.1 years.

On the other hand, there's the U.S. debt to GDP ratio of over 100% and clear political gridlock that keeps politicians from finding solutions to some of our most pressing problems.

Again, that's just to name a couple of things, good and bad. So what do you say — is the US still on top of the world?

Please follow Clusterstock on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

THE MICROSOFT INVESTOR: Skype's User Metrics Are Pretty Impressive (MSFT)

$
0
0

The Microsoft Investor is a daily report from SAI. Sign up here to receive it by email.


baby on SkypeMSFT Up With Markets  
Stocks are up after a rocky morning despite Europe closing largely in the red. Shares of MSFT are up after morning lows. Catalysts for the stock include Windows 8, Windows Server 8, Office 15 and Windows Phone 8; expansion in the smartphone market with primary hardware partner Nokia; strides in cloud computing; profitability in the online business, including integration of Skype; and continued evolution of Kinect and next generation Xbox. The stock currently trades at 7.3x Enterprise Value / TTM Free Cash Flow.

Stats: Skype By The Numbers (The Next Web)
Microsoft announced that Skype will be rolling out a new ad product to monetize its free users. In doing so, they also dropped some pearls:

  • Unique Users: 41 million
  • Time Spent: 13 minutes
  • Gender: 46.3% are male, 53.7% are female
  • Age: 65.8% are 18-49 while 58.5% are 25-54
  • Education: 33.3% have graduated college or higher
  • Income: 61% have a household income of $50K+

Skype had more than 145 million active users in 2011 as well.

Apple Is Good About Lying When The Truth Hurts (Neowin)
Apple's good about bending the truth. Take a look at Apple's classic (because they do it all the time) user adoption rate; they proudly proclaimed that consumers are adopting OS X Lion far faster than that of Windows 7. It's cute, but when your market share pales in comparison, it is an easy statistic to slant to provide a screwed view of what is really happening. Over the same time scale, Microsoft, as it should be no surprise, dominates Apple in sales. Check out more comparisons in the article.

Rumor: Microsoft For Yammer For $1 Billion (Business Insider)
Microsoft is in talks to buy Yammer for more than $1 billion, with a deal coming as soon as Friday. Yammer's Web-based software lets employees work together on projects and share information in an environment that looks more like Facebook than Microsoft Office.

Yahoo's Search Share Loss Is Google's And Microsoft's Gain (Business Insider)
Yahoo has lost search market share for nine consecutive months in the U.S., according to comScore. May saw Yahoo drop another 0.1% in May to 13.4%. That's down almost 3 full percentage points from last August. Most of those losses have been Google's gains - its market share is up about 2 percentage points since August 2011, while Microsoft's Bing has gained 0.7% since that time. In a research note, analyst Ben Schacter from Macquarie says that he sees "no structural bottom" to Yahoo's decline. These stats don't include mobile browsing, where Google is probably even more dominant. Google is also stronger outside the U.S., with the notable exception of China.

Microsoft: The Quintessential Tech-Value Play That Buffett Would Love (Validea)
Warren Buffett’s long term investment record is one of the best ever. He seeks out strong companies with strong competitive advantages, and he has the patience to wait for the value of the shares to come in before making his move. According to Validea, Microsoft rates highly in their Buffett model. The company has seen its earnings grow in all but one year over the last 10 years. The company’s 10-year return on equity and return on total capital are 29.3% and 27.9%, respectively, which shows that Microsoft has a wide competitive moat around its core business. Using the average of the ROE and average EPS growth method, Validea's Buffett model estimates investors in the stock could see a 16.5% average return over the next 10 years from these levels.

Please follow SAI on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

UPDATED: Warren Buffett Responds To Report Benjamin Moore's CEO Was Fired After Taking A Bermuda Cruise

$
0
0

Denis Abrams

This post has been updated. 

UPDATE (6/28): The Wall Street Journal obtained a letter from Warren Buffett responding to the New York Post story about a Bermuda cruise that lead to the ouster of Berkshire Hathaway-owned Benjamin Moore's CEO Denis Abrams earlier this month.  

From The WSJ (emphasis ours): 

"The recent story coupling a top management convocation on a boat with the decision to make a management change at Benjamin Moore is completely false," Mr. Buffett wrote in the letter. "I had never heard of the boat trip prior to reading about it in the paper on June 14. There was no reason for you to let me know about the meeting and, if you had, I would have had no objection to it at all."

The Post, which is also owned by News Corp like the WSJ, says it stands by its story, according to the report. 

EARLIER POST: The CEO of a Berkshire Hathaway-owned company was canned by Warren Buffett after treating himself to a Bermuda trip on the company's dime, the New York Post reports citing sources familiar with the matter. 

Benjamin Moore's CEO Denis Abrams took the trip with a group of employees to celebrate the paint maker posting its first quarterly sales increase since 2007, sources told The Post.

The paper also reports that there were already worker complaints against Abrams before his ouster.

Anyway, here's how he was booted after his vacation.

From The Post:  

Whether or not because of worker complaints, a half-dozen Berkshire officials descended on Benjamin Moore’s North Jersey headquarters last Tuesday to give Abrams his walking papers — and escort the CEO from the building, sources said.

"[Abrams] kept asking what he’d done wrong," according to an insider briefed on the ouster. "[Berkshire officials] told him to clear his stuff out while they stood and watched every move he made."

Oof! 

We put in a call to Benjamin Moore for further comment.  When we tried Abrams' office we were told he was not there. We'll update this post when we hear back.  

Please follow Clusterstock on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Buffett's Favorite Valuation Metric Is Turning Bullish

$
0
0

The most recent update to Warren Buffett’s favorite valuation metric is showing some fairly encouraging signs. For those who aren’t aware, Buffett is quoted saying that the total market cap vs GNP is one of his preferred valuation metrics.

The current reading of 89% is still above his preferred buying range (70-80%), but well off the highs we’ve seen in the last 15 years.  Buffett has previously explained his thinking behind the indicator:

“For me, the message of that chart is this: If the percentage relationship falls to the 70% or 80% area, buying stocks is likely to work very well for you. If the ratio approaches 200%–as it did in 1999 and a part of 2000– you are playing with fire.”

So stocks aren’t cheap, but they’re also not terribly expensive based on this measure.   If the recent trend holds we could be nearing Buffett’s preferred buying range in the coming years….

chart

Please follow Money Game on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »


I Know A Guy Making 16.5% Gross From Buying And Leasing Homes

$
0
0

most expensive homes in every state, north carolinaOne crisp fall Sunday afternoon under bright blue skies, my wife and I visited five homes up for sale. We remembered them by their street names: Big Acre, Blue Silo, Pontiac, Prairie Rose and Lamont. The lineup has a poetic ring to it, but the real music is the potential rates of return from owning them and renting them out.

This was the second weekend we went hunting. It’s been a fascinating experience so far, and what I’ve found tells me the housing recovery is not too far off, despite all the dire talk to the contrary. The investment implications are many and varied.

Being bullish on housing is a contrarian view. In a recent national survey, 37% of homeowners say they think buying a house is a “risky investment.” And 86% think prices will either stay flat or fall.

This is a big difference from four or five years ago. But people always tend to gauge the future based on their recent experience, like trying to predict the weather tomorrow based on what it was yesterday.

In 1958, for instance, the Federal Reserve did a survey in which they found 58% of respondents thought owning real estate was a bad idea. Of course, folks said that based on recent experience. In 1920, if you bought a home in the US, odds are it was worth about half what you paid for it two decades later. In many instances, it wasn’t until 1960 that housing prices got above pre-Depression levels. In this context, the feelings of people in 1958 were reasonable… but their predictions were wrong.

So too people in the year 2011 will rue their bearishness on housing.

The beauty of markets is how they self-correct, when allowed to do so. The housing bubble popped in 2008. Prices collapsed. The bust shredded the balance sheets of many an American family and did violence to their credit ratings. Today, foreclosures and short sales chew through the inventory of homes, re-pricing them and putting the assets on better financial footings. The prices of homes are now at realistic levels, supported by the rental market and more in tune with what people can afford.

In fact, rental rates have been rising. In 12 of the 27 largest metropolitan markets in the US, it is cheaper to buy than to rent. In some markets, the gap is pretty wide. In Atlanta, monthly rental rates average $840. By contrast, mortgage payments, including taxes and insurance, average $539. So there is a good opportunity there for investors.

Real estate is intensely local, of course. Housing markets are multifaceted prisms. It is hard to generalize. But clearly, there is value out there.

One individual I know runs a partnership that has purchased 87 homes in Georgia and North Carolina during the last year. When he leases out these homes, his firm averages a 16.5% gross yield. That’s annual rent divided by purchase price, plus closing costs and estimated repair costs. And that is without leverage, net of all expenses, and includes estimates for vacancy and maintenance.

This is what the big-picture guys miss. Economists can talk all they want about how a housing recovery is years away. Maybe so, but the opportunity to invest and make good money is now. In a world of 2% Treasury rates, 16.5% gross ain’t bad.

I’m not seeing those kinds of yields in my home market, but more-modest cash yields are still attractive. I fully intend to put a mortgage on my properties, locking in rates that are the lowest in six decades. Don’t forget rental rates can rise over time, while the mortgage is fixed. When housing prices rise, you can really make a killing.

Why does this opportunity exist? To me, it’s clear, especially now, after bidding unsuccessfully on one property and hunting for others. It’s simply because, in the post-bubble rubble, there aren’t that many people with the kind of clean credit and cash that can afford to be investors in residential real estate. Nor is there much appetite for it. But there are plenty of people with good-enough credit and cash to rent. Even so, we’re finding competition from other investors for the properties we’ve looked at. We’re not the only ones who have sat down and done the math.

Now, I am not saying a housing boom is about to happen. There is more wood to chop before we get there. But I am saying that American housing as an asset looks cheap. And I think the free competitive forces at work are improving the market. It’s not getting worse. The bottom is in. Where rental markets are supportive of current pricing, I don’t see much downside.

This has all kinds of investment implications beyond just buying a house and renting it. There is a lot of money that will go toward renovations as this process unfolds. Spending on home improvements is at a multi-decade low, well below the long-term historical trendline. This suggests a recovery in the future.

The housing recovery is likely to be a long-term story. But here’s an early prediction: In the ashes of the bust, a phoenix shall rise. That phoenix is the humble American home.

Regards,

Chris Mayer
for The Daily Reckoning

On the Trail of the Housing Recovery originally appeared in the Daily Reckoning. The Daily Reckoning, published by Agora Financial provides over 400,000 global readers economic news, market analysis, and contrarian investment ideas. Recently Agora Financial released a video titled "What Causes Gas Price to Increase?".

 

Read more posts on The Daily Reckoning »

Please follow Money Game on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Warren Buffett's 'Pseudo-Folksiness' Is Getting Old (BRK, A, BRK, B)

$
0
0

Warren Buffett ukulele

Barron's is out with its list of 100 Most Respected Companies. (Spoiler alert: Apple kept its spot at the top of the list.)

Among the losers this year was Berkshire Hathaway, the global conglomerate run by billionaire Warren Buffett.  The companies ranking fell twelve spots to #15.

From Barron's:

Yet, to judge from write-in comments and conversations with money managers, respondents don't appreciate Buffett's vocal advocacy for upper-income Americans to pay more in taxes. His vigorous support encouraged President Obama to back a minimum 30% tax rate on incomes above $1 million, dubbed the "Buffett tax" with the Berkshire CEO's approval.

Says Adrian Day, president of Adrian Day Asset Management in Annapolis, Md.: "Buffett's pseudo-folksiness is just a little too much. Also, I can't respect a company whose head wants to raise my taxes."

Day didn't have to add that jab about "pseudo-folksiness," but he did.

Read more at Barrons.com.

SEE ALSO: HORMONES, MISTAKES AND MOYNIHAN: Here Are The Highlights From Warren Buffett's Annual Letter >

Please follow Clusterstock on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

And Now For A Video Of Warren Buffett Playing The Ukulele With Jon Bon Jovi

$
0
0

More and more it seems like Warren Buffett sees philanthropic events as an opportunity to show case is musical talents. Fine.

That's what he did last night at the Forbes 400 Summit on Philanthropy, a problem-solving brainstorm session for the world's wealthiest. In this performance, he was joined by rock superstar Jon Bon Jovi.

So watch them get down. Buffett's on the ukulele, of course (h/t Forbes):

Please follow Clusterstock on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The Spectacular Rise And Fall of Salomon Brothers

$
0
0

Salomon

As we anxiously await the film adaptation of Michael Lewis' seminal Wall Street book, "Liar's Poker," we figured we'd take a few moments to re-familiarize ourselves with the rise and fall of the book's most infamous subject: Salomon Brothers Inc.

A Wall Street fortress for most of the twentieth century, Salomon Brothers fell from grace when it found itself tangled in a chain of scandals in the early 1990s, which led to the firm's emergency takeover by Warren Buffett and eventual integration into Citigroup.

While Salomon's infamously reckless behavior is now a thing of the past, what remains today is a cult-like loyalty to the firm and, of course, a great story. 

Salomon Brothers was founded in 1910

By—you guessed it—brothers Arthur, Herbert and Percy Salomon. 

The brothers began with $5,000 and some help from their father's (a broker himself) clerk and opened their first money brokerage office on Broadway near Wall Street. 

Source: Funding Universe



By the end of WWI, the brothers ruled the market for government bonds

Thanks to the Liberty Loan Act of 1917, the brothers capitalized on the newly-created government bond market. 

By the 1930s, the Salomon brothers had set up shop in six cities around the Northeast and Midwestern United States.

Source: Funding Universe 



The Great Depression hit hard, but the Salomon name survived

By remaining bearish in the years leading up to the Great Depression, Salomon Brothers was able to weather the market crash of 1929, its largest struggles between family members as to whom should take over the business.

Source: Funding Universe



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

Please follow Clusterstock on Twitter and Facebook.

Why Warren Buffett Keeps Adding To His Wells Fargo Investment

$
0
0

In its annual report for 2011, Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A) (BRK.B) reported common stock investments in eleven companies that each had a market value exceeding $1 billion.  However, there has been only one of these companies that Warren Buffett has been adding to every year since 2005.

That company is Wells Fargo (WFC).   Berkshire further added to its stake in Wells Fargo during the first quarter of 2012.

Currently, Wells Fargo is Berkshire’s second largest investment, valued at $13.7 billion.  (Berkshire’s largest common stock investment is in Coca-Cola (KO), with a market value of $15.6 billion.  Berkshire’s third largest investment is in IBM (IBM), which has a market value of $12.6 billion.)

In 1990, Berkshire Hathaway made an initial investment in Wells Fargo of $289 million (5 million shares). That position was relatively stable from 1990 through 2004.  (In 1998, Wells Fargo merged with Norwest and each share of Wells Fargo was converted into 10 shares of the “new” Wells Fargo.)  Beginning in 2005, Warren Buffett has added to his stake in Wells Fargo, as shown in the table below:

buffett fargo

(Source: Data derived from Berkshire Hathaway Annual Reports 2004-2011, SEC 13F First Quarter 2012, and Yahoo Finance.)  (Note:  It is assumed that Berkshire Hathaway purchased its Wells Fargo shares at the average price in each time period.  Neither the annual reports, nor the 13F filings, reveal the actual cost of these purchases each year, or each quarter.)

From this table, it can be seen that Berkshire’s largest investments in Wells Fargo were in 2007 ($2,866 million), 2005 ($1,183 million), and 2011 ($1,168 million).  Even at the peak of the financial crisis in 2008, Warren Buffett added $32 million to his position in Wells Fargo.  As of March 31, 2012, Berkshire Hathaway owned 7.7% of Wells Fargo and is its largest shareholder.

In recent Berkshire annual meetings, Warren Buffett has praised Wells Fargo as one of his favorite investments.  It is ranked number one in the U.S. banking industry in total market value ($176 billion), even though it is only fourth largest by assets.  It has the most extensive bank branch network in the U.S., with 6,200 retail branches in 39 states, and serves one of every three U.S. households.  Wells Fargo originates one of every four home mortgages and services more home loans than anyone else.

What seems most notable of all is that this is one of a relatively few large banks that has focused almost exclusively on its original mission of commercial banking.  It has not diversified into the high risk area of investment banking as so many of its major competitors have.  In addition, it has avoided geographically expanding into Europe, where the banks and economies of many countries are facing enormous challenges.

Indeed, 97 percent of Wells Fargo’s assets and 98 percent of its employees are based in the U.S.  Wells Fargo vigorously pursues a cross-selling strategy, in which additional products are sold to its existing customers.  The average Wells Fargo customer now uses six products from the bank, a substantial increase from the one or two in the 1980’s.

Wells Fargo’s 2011 net income was almost $16 billion, up from $2.7 billion in 2008.  In 2008, it purchased Wachovia for $15 billion, which greatly expanded its presence in the East and the South.  This acquisition also resulted in a major entry into brokerage services through Wachovia’s A.G. Edwards, which enhanced its ability to cross-sell additional products.

Finally, the current quality of Wells Fargo’s loan portfolio compares favorably to its competition.  In the first quarter of 2012, Wells Fargo’s net charge-offs were 1.25% of its total loans, versus 1.8% at Bank of America (BAC), 2.19% at JP Morgan Chase (JPM), and 3.19% at Citigroup (C).

With analysts currently projecting Wells Fargo to achieve annual growth in earnings per share exceeding 10% over the next five years, and with the shares reasonably valued at 10 times earnings, Wells Fargo is a very attractive investment with an appealing risk/reward profile.

Please follow Clusterstock on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Viewing all 1997 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images