Recs

18

Congratulations, but No Need for the Victory Dance, Mr. Buffett

Watch stocks you care about

The single, easiest way to keep track of all the stocks that matter...

Your own personalized stock watchlist!

It's a 100% FREE Motley Fool service...

Click Here Now

Warren Buffett's thank-you letter to the government reminds me of watching an English Premier League soccer "match." Let's say EPL powerhouse Manchester United are playing. It is fitting that their uniforms used to feature the AIG symbol brazenly across the chest.

The opponent is a blue-collar, but outmatched, team like Wolverhampton that the everyday man would like. It's been a good game, but they are still down 2-0 with five minutes left, when a Manchester United cherry-picker scores on a breakaway to put the game out of reach for good. However, instead of acting like gentlemen, the entire team breaks out into an obnoxious dance mocking Wolverhampton. The match was almost unfair. Manchester United knew they had much more money than the other team, as well as important relationships with all of the big sponsors and influential people. They certainly worked hard to earn the right to dance, but it was completely unnecessary.

Buffett has certainly earned the right to celebrate his investments, but I believe this public victory dance was unnecessary. I am not going to argue the merits of the bailouts, and whether we would be better off with or without the assistance. Fortunately, we'll never know if the country would have gone into the abyss if the government did not intervene. However, I will argue that the bailouts have benefitted Warren Buffett much more than the majority of Americans, and that thanking the government is like thanking the arsonist who burned down your house for cleaning up the mess.

Sorry about the mess
The government shouldn't bear all of the responsibility for the financial crisis, but let us not forget who repealed Glass-Steagall in 1999. In fact, only eight United States senators voted against what President Bill Clinton's administration at the time was hailing as one of the most important breakthroughs in the history of our financial system. The law is what separated "Main Street" commercial banking from investment banking, essentially preventing banks such as Citigroup (NYSE: C  ) , Bank of America (NYSE: BAC  ) , and JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM  ) from becoming "too big to fail."

Then-Treasury Secretary Larry Summers said, "This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy."

The government also waived laws that restricted the amount of leverage these megabanks could take on. In addition, credit agencies like Moody's (NYSE: MCO  ) , of which Buffett owned 20% of the shares outstanding around the time of the crisis, were allowed to change the way they were compensated. This new profit extravaganza allowed the credit agencies to charge the actual underwriters for their highly minted ratings. So it didn't matter how overlevered these banks were because the agencies were now incentivized to give favorable ratings to everything on the banks' balance sheets.

The global savings glut
This is what Ben Bernanke called the pre-crisis global economic condition in 2005. This referred to the increasing amount of saving over consumption across the globe in emerging and large economies, due to a lack of investment opportunities domestically. Much of this foreign savings was invested in America, and low interest rates provided incentive for spending over saving. Pre-crisis, foreign funds bought U.S. Treasuries and mortgages, keeping already artificially low interest rates even lower. In the late 1990s, this went into the hot tech bubble, and of course more recently it helped Americans fuel the housing bubble. Increasing stock prices or inflated home values help consumers feel wealthier, which in turn creates more spending.

As Buffett said himself, "In truth, almost all of the country became possessed by the idea that home prices could never fall significantly. ... This bubble was a doozy, and its pop was felt around the world."

But it wasn't the millions of Americans who saw the value of their homes plummet that got bailed out. It was the financial institutions that helped fund the bubble, and that were counterparty to many of Buffett's investments and his own company Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK-B  ) .

Buffett's largest equity holding at the time TARP money was handed out was in shares of Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC  ) .  The bank received a cool $25 billion of taxpayer-backed TARP funds. And who can forget Buffett's deal with $10 billion TARP recipient Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS  ) ?

In September of 2008, Buffett invested $5 billion in the investment bank, which gave him preferred shares that came with a 10% yield and warrants that allowed him to buy $5 billion in common stock about $10 below the price of the stock when the deal was first announced. I don't know many other Americans who were allowed in on this one.

The long cleanup
Indeed, Warren Buffett should be thankful for the government work that bailed out many of his investments, and perhaps his own company. Unfortunately, Americans whose homes didn't get bailed out or the nearly 10% unemployed Americans who still don't have their jobs bailed out don't have as much to be thankful for.

The fire that the government helped ignite may be cleaned up on the Buffett estate, but for many the flames still rage on, and the cleanup has yet to begin.

Congratulations on your personal victories, Mr. Buffett, but the celebratory dance was not necessary.

The Steve Jobs Betrayal
You may already know that in the final year of his life, Jobs revealed a stunning betrayal — and told his biographer, "I will spend my last dying breath... and every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank to right this wrong." What was it that made Jobs so irate — and why could it make a few in-the-know investors some major profits over the coming months and years?

Enter your email address below to find out what made Jobs so enraged!

Andrew Bond owns no shares in the companies listed. Berkshire Hathaway is a Motley Fool Inside Value selection.  Berkshire Hathaway is a Motley Fool Stock Advisor pick. The Fool owns shares of Berkshire Hathaway.  You can follow Andrew on Twitter @Bond0 or on his RSS feed. Try any of our Foolish newsletters today, free for 30 days. The Fool has a disclosure policy.


Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On November 24, 2010, at 1:11 PM, TMFHousel wrote:

    I think people get too worked up about Buffett's positions in WFC and GS influencing his opinions. If both wells and goldman lost 100% of their value, the total cost to brk would come to about 7% of its market cap.

  • Report this Comment On November 24, 2010, at 1:12 PM, TMFHousel wrote:

    Which I'm insinuating is not a huge deal.

  • Report this Comment On November 24, 2010, at 1:44 PM, ToddFinances1 wrote:

    I believe the author of this article has mistaken what Warren Buffett said in the op-ed piece. This was not a "Victory Dance" for Warren Buffett's portfolio. It was an article of relief that we didn't enter into a Depression. The common thread with the financial media is that Wall Street was spared and somehow Main Street was sacrificed. However, they are joined at the hip. If you let Wall Street slide with no government intervention then Main Street would have slid even further likely leading to HIGHER unemployment, MORE bankruptcies, MORE foreclosures, etc. In the op-ed piece Warren Buffett states: "Nor was it just business that was in peril: 300 million Americans were in the domino line as well." Back in the Great Depression unemployment was 25%, not 10% and the GDP contracted almost by 50%. The government intervention ended up saving Main Street too, the financial press just doesn't know it. Populism and bank hating is popular now but I believe history will show how lucky we were to avoid another Great Depression, thanks to quick action and intervention. The fire was put out before it spread.

  • Report this Comment On November 24, 2010, at 1:49 PM, Klippenstein wrote:

    I think the writer is a little confused about the nature of the bailouts. For one thing the TARP money Wells Fargo and other banks "received" was loaned the them and paid back with interest. In Wells Fargo's case they were more or less "forced" to take the money. They did not want it, felt they did not need it. Indeed, check their earnings through the crisis and you will see they made money each year, including 2008! In the end they had to pay the government a some 5% yield on TARP monies, which cost them alot. Happily, the government made money on the transaction, Wells didn't.

    Further, shareholders of banks that failed lost everything. Who the writer could rightly take issue with is CEO who got 10s or hunderds of millions in "golden parachute" monies after running their banks into the ground. This is wrong, wrong, wrong, but reflects how most CEO today are grossly overpaid at shareholders expense irrespective of how well or badly their company does. They should be paid like buffett pays himself: basic living wage (100,000 in his case) and the rest of your fortune (or misfortune) is paid and held in shares of the compan, many of which were bought by the CEO with is own cold, hard cash.

  • Report this Comment On November 24, 2010, at 2:39 PM, scoobydoo27 wrote:

    So repealing Glass Steagal is what caused instituions like Citigroup to become "too big to fail", huh?

    One problem: the facts: The Citigroup conglomerate was formed BEFORE Glass Steagal was repealed.

    Banks have been able to form giant conglomerates prior to Glass Steagal's repeal, but they had to do so through holding companies. The only thing that Glass Steagal accomplished was to make information sharing harder and more costly, which is why Democrats and Republicans supported it repeal.

    The left continues to try to spread the lie about Glass Steagal in hopes divert attention from their own culpability in the mess. They continued to demand that low-income, high risk borrowers get dirt cheap rates and their friends and Fannie and Freddie obliged.

  • Report this Comment On November 24, 2010, at 3:44 PM, TheDumbMoney wrote:

    "Buffett's largest equity holding at the time TARP money was handed out was in shares of Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC). The bank received a cool $25 billion of taxpayer-backed TARP funds. And who can forget Buffett's deal with $10 billion TARP recipient Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS)?"

    And it was all repaid to the government. Repaid, in fact, with handsome interest.

    More importantly, in his letter/op-ed, Buffett was merely defending the actions taken in Fall of 2008/Spring 2009 in heading off the systemic collapse he believe would otherwise have happened. You irrelevantly tie the 'letter' to our ongoing problems. But Buffett was not saying, "thanks for solving all of our problems," or "thanks for making our lives perfect again."

    By saying you won't get into a discussion of whether the crisis-actions prevented systemic collapse or not, you make it totally impossible for yourself to comment substantively on the only reason why Buffett wrote the letter, which was to defend the government, and the Fed, at a time (now) of populist myopia and Monday-morning-quarterbacking about whether the costs of that bailout are justified given our lack of knowledge about the systemic collapse it may have prevented.

    Which begs the question of what point you are trying to make at all. It appears to be tarring the validity of Buffet's opinions by virtue of the fact that he benefited. Well duh. He benefited. He has never tried to hide it. I'm sure that hadn't escaped his mind when he wrote the letter. But do try, amidst the populist venting, to recall that he invested in GS (and GE) before the bailout, in some sense trying to bail them out and provide them with bridge capital before the government got its act together to enact TARP. He put billions in capital on the line, a week after Lehman turned its belly to the sky in a skazillion dollar bankruptcy. Unless I'm missing something, in a capitalist economy, the whole point is to take risks, and be rewarded for them. While it may seem self-evident to genuises like us now, years later, that TARP would come along, and banks would be bailed out, and that it would actually work at all, my memory of it is that in the wake of the total collapse of Lehman, and even after TARP was enacted, it was anything but. Maybe you recall what happened to the stock market, as an example, between October 2008 and March 2009.... Buffet stepped with both feet into that breach, with billions, long before any positive result was gauranteed, and to gainsay the returns generated by taking that risk seems foolish, and not in a Foolish way. In short, this is an op-ed that purports to respond to his, but which does not really address it at all.

    In the words of Amy Poehler and Seth Meyers of weekend update fame, "Really. Really? Really? Sorry, but really. I mean, really."

    If you people give me any thought at all, which I doubt, you must hate me. I'm sure I deserve it. But anyway, peace out and have a happy Thanksgiving.

  • Report this Comment On November 24, 2010, at 4:17 PM, ronbeasley wrote:

    It is sadly amusing to see Internet bloggers take potshots at Warren Buffett. Mr. Buffett has done more for more people than just about anyone out there. Admire and learn.

  • Report this Comment On November 24, 2010, at 4:46 PM, TMFAleph1 wrote:

    One comment: Bank of America, Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase were all considered 'too big to fail' before the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Roughly speaking, any financial institution with total assets in excess of $100 billion is considered to be part of the 'elite' group, regardless of whether they have any investment banking activity.

    Alex Dumortier

  • Report this Comment On November 25, 2010, at 1:19 AM, Ruhaan wrote:

    Ok it seems like people hate winners or they cannot stand themselves in the mirror. Otherwise how do you justify all these articles criticizing Buffett and trying to put a spin to reflect poorly on Buffett. And why do they forget to mention GE which is still in Red for Buffett. They only like you to know how he made money on GS. If you, the writer, had the balls, you had the better opportunity to invest in Goldman Sachs. After buffett announced his investment in GS @122, the GS Stock fell to almost $65 or close.. You could have made the killing. Why lament the deal you or a regular investor could not have had. For arguments sake, even if you had that kind of money, I doubt you would have had any brains to construct that kinda deal. So why not stop this non sense. I did not make that deal when GS was at 65 but at least I am not crying like you loser

  • Report this Comment On November 25, 2010, at 11:51 AM, onareach wrote:

    I rarely, if ever, agree with people that are critical of Warren. I own a big chunk of BRK stock.

    However, in this rare instance, I think that that Warren would agree with some of the writer's points. Repeal of Glass-Steagal (which stands for regulatory loosening before and after the actual law change) was symptomatic of overconfidence (the real cause of bubbles). I think Warren would agree with this repeal is among the "maddening" things Uncle Sam does. I also think Warren would agree that the bailouts helped bigger players in the economy more directly than smaller players, though many more would be unemployed now if we hadn't taken the steps we did to restore confidence.

    Finally, I think that on reflection, Warren might even wince a little at an element of trumphalism that crept into his editorial. I think his primary goal was rebuke those on the right who say the government should play no role when the economy is on the ropes and those on the left who are unwilling to see that Wall Street's health is essential to Main Street's. But there is some merit in the observation that Warren's outsized benefit from the bailout is a partial spark of his gratitude.

  • Report this Comment On November 25, 2010, at 5:21 PM, herchato wrote:

    There was a lot of pushing the envelope by wall street and government officials but the decision to finance homes with no proof of income was the straw that broke the camels back.

  • Report this Comment On November 28, 2010, at 1:27 PM, TMFAleph1 wrote:

    @Ruhaan

    It seems that you don't know the terms on which Buffett invested in GS/ GE. For example, the investment in GE most certainly is not underwater.

  • Report this Comment On November 30, 2010, at 9:35 PM, ilovesum wrote:

    Great article ,it tells the truth.

    Buffet had an empire to protect and the bailouts saved his billions. Between his bank , Moodys and insurance investments he + BRK would have been bankrupt. Yes bankrupt.

    For you posters that defend what he was done, how do you feel about him defending Moody's in Washington?

    No one in their right mind can say Moody's had no fault in the financial crisis as Buffett tried.

    Sad to say that was the worst public display of dishonesty I have seen in my life.

    Why has he been dumping Moodys shares if he was defending them ?

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 1380038, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 5/26/2012 3:06:41 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated 5 hours ago Sponsored by:
DOW 12,454.83 -74.92 -0.60%
S&P 500 1,317.82 -2.86 -0.22%
NASD 2,837.53 -1.85 -0.07%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

5/25/2012 4:02 PM
JPM $33.50 Down -0.47 -1.38%
JPMorgan Chase & C… CAPS Rating: ***
MCO $37.36 Up +0.11 +0.30%
Moody's CAPS Rating: **
WFC $31.86 Up +0.05 +0.16%
Wells Fargo & Comp… CAPS Rating: ****
BAC $7.15 Up +0.01 +0.14%
Bank of America Co… CAPS Rating: ***
BRK-B $79.25 Down -0.55 -0.69%
Berkshire Hathaway CAPS Rating: *****
C $26.47 Down -0.19 -0.71%
Citigroup Inc CAPS Rating: ***
GS $96.70 Down -0.16 -0.17%
Goldman Sachs Grou… CAPS Rating: ***

Advertisement