Warren Buffett Speaks Out About the Financial Crisis

On Friday, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Committee released several hours of audio from a May 2010 interview with Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK-B  ) boss Warren Buffett. Below are several of Buffett's comments, lightly edited and condensed for clarity.

On the origins of the bubble: An original sound premise becomes distorted as time passes and people forget the original sound premise and start focusing solely on price action. So everyone -- the media, investors, mortgage bankers, the American public, me, my neighbor, rating agencies, Congress, you name it -- people overwhelmingly came to believe that house prices could not fall significantly. And since it was the biggest asset class in the country and the easiest asset class to borrow against, it created probably the biggest bubble in our history. It will be remembered along with the South Sea bubble and the tulip bubble.

Asked when he saw the crisis coming: Not soon enough. It was something we talked about at our annual meetings. At one point I referred to it as a bubblette -- I don't remember what year that was. I talked about my home in Laguna Beach, where the implicit value of the land got up to $30 million per acre. But I was aware of the Internet bubble too, and I didn't go out and short the stocks. I never shorted Internet stocks, and I didn't short housing stocks. But if I had seen what was coming, I would have behaved differently -- including selling Moody's (NYSE: MCO  ) . So I was wrong.

Asked whether rating agencies contributed to the crisis: Yes. But every aspect of society contributed to it, virtually. They fell prey to the same delusion that existed throughout the whole country. The models they had were no good. They didn't contemplate. But neither did the models and the minds of 300 million Americans.

On the insanity of the financial crisis: I sold a Treasury bill in December 2008 for $5,000,090, and it was a $5 million bill due in April. The guy was going to get $5 million for it. So he was saying that the Treasury bill was $90 better than his mattress. He could have put the $5 million under his mattress and been $90 better off.

Asked why Berkshire sold its Fannie and Freddie investments in 2000: I didn't know that they were not going to be good investments. But I was concerned about management at both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. They were trying, and proclaimed that they could, increase earnings per share at some low double-digit range. And any time a large financial institution starts promising regular earnings increases, you're going to have trouble. If people are thinking that way, they are going to do things -- in accounting but also in operations -- that I would regard as unsound. So I just decided to get out.

On Berkshire's 2008 investments in Goldman Sachs and GE: In my own mind, there was only one way the financial world and the economy were going to come out of this situation. I made the fundamental decision that we had the right people in Bernanke and Paulson and a president that would back them up; that we had a government that would take the action that only the government could. I didn't know what they would do. I didn't know what Congress would do. It really didn't make much difference. The important thing was that the American public would come to believe that our government would do whatever it took. And I felt they would. It would have been suicide not to. And therefore I felt companies like General Electric (NYSE: GE  ) and Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS  ) were going to be fine over time.

On moral hazard of bailouts: I think the moral hazard thing is misunderstood in a big way. There is no moral hazard existing with shareholders of Citigroup (NYSE: C  ) , with Freddie Mac, with Fannie Mae, with WaMu, with Wachovia. Those people lost anywhere from 90% to 100% of their money. The idea that they will walk away and think, "Ah, I've been saved by the federal government!" [is wrong]. There's at least half a trillion dollars of loss to common shareholders. Now, there's another question of management. But in terms of moral hazard, I don't even understand why people talk about that in terms of equity holders.

On Wall Street pay: The nature of Wall Street is that, overall, it makes a lot of money relative to the number of people involved and the IQ of the people involved. They work hard. They're bright. But they don't work that much harder and aren't much brighter than someone building a dam and a whole lot of other talents. But in a market system it pays off very, very big. Boxing pays off very big now compared to what it did when the only auditorium you had was 25,000 seats at Madison Square Garden, and now you've got cable television. You can put a couple of lightweights you'll never hear of again on pay-per-view and they'll get millions for it. Market systems produce strange results. Wall Street markets are so big, there's so much money, that taking a small percentage results in a huge amount of money per capita in terms of the people that work in it. And they're not inclined to give it up.

On leverage: If you don't have leverage you don't get into trouble. It's the only way a smart person can go broke. I always say: If you're smart you don't need it, and if you're dumb you shouldn't be using it.

On due diligence: Models work 98% of the time, but they never work 100% of the time. Everyone ought to realize that who uses them.

On investing vs. speculation vs. gambling. It's a tricky definition. It's a lot like pornography and that famous quote. I look at it in terms of the intent of the person engaging in the transaction. An investment operation in my view is one where you look to the asset itself to determine your decision to lay out some money now to get back some more money later on. You don't really care whether there's a quote on it at all.

Speculation I would define as much more focused on the price action of the stock you buy. You are not looking to the asset itself. The real test of what you're doing is whether you care whether markets are open. When I buy a stock, I don't care whether they close the stock market tomorrow for a couple years. I'm looking to the business, Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO  ) or whatever, to produce returns for me in the future from the business.

Gambling I would define as engaging in a transaction which doesn't need to be part of the system. If I want to bet on a football game, the football game's operation is not dependant on whether I bet or not.

On bank management's contribution to the crisis: They didn't appreciate how extraordinary a bubble could be created. People have a difficult time doing that when a crowd is rushing in one direction knowing the other direction is very hard. Usually the people that do that become discredited by the price action. If you were a Cassandra in 2005 or 2006 and houses kept going up, after a while people quit listening. And a lot of people would just tell you you're nuts -- there's a fringe element to Cassandras. Greenspan had his comments in 1996 about irrational exuberance -- that didn't stop the stock market. When people think there's easy money available they are not inclined to change.

On regulators' contribution to the crisis: The biggest failure is they were unable to act contrary to the way humans act. Regulators could have stopped it. Or Congress could have stopped it. If Freddie and Fannie had said, "We will only accept mortgages with 30% down payments, verified income, and payments can't be more than 30% of your income," that would have stopped it. But who could do that?

Whether Congress would have tolerated them coming up with much stricter standards, I don't think it could have happened. I'm not sure they wanted it to happen either. They were enjoying the party too. And they didn't think the party was going to end like this. It wasn't like somebody was thinking this is going to end in the paralysis of the American economy. They started believing what other people believed. It's very tough to fight that.

I don't think even the president of the United States could have stopped it by rhetoric. If any president campaigned on a program of 30% downpayments and verified income, they might not get impeached but they sure as hell wouldn't get reelected.

On the government's role in housing: I do not see anything wrong with a government guarantee program that kicks in when people really have a 20% down payment. People are still going to lose their homes for unemployment reasons and death and divorce and disability. But that's not going to cause a systemic problem. More people are going to benefit from that program, by far, than anyone that's going to be hurt by it. The government has a place in that.

On free markets: I don't believe the market polices itself. Greenspan is a friend of mine, but he read more Ayn Rand than I did, let's put it that way. I do not believe markets police themselves in matters of leverage and other matters. That's why I get back to the incentives of the person. That makes a difference.

On too big to fail: We'll still have institutions too big to fail. We still have them now -- like Freddie and Fannie. But they aren't too big to wipe out the shareholders. Society has done the right thing with Freddie and Fannie in my view. Nobody has any illusion that the government is protecting them as an equity holder. They do have the belief that they will be protected as debt holders, but we were sending that message well before the bubble.

Institutions that are too big to fail are not too big to wipe out. I think there should be different incentives with institutions like that for the top management. They're not too big to send away the CEOs that caused the problem away without a dime.

On executive compensation: You will have fewer failures if the person on top, and the board of directors who select that person and sets the terms of his or her employment, have a lot to lose. Shareholders have lost well over half a trillion. They've suffered the losses; Society has suffered the losses from all the disruption that's taken place. But directors and CEOs, they may only have 80% of what they had before, but they're all wealthy beyond the dream of most Americans. The people that are in a position to make decisions day by day as to trading off the safety of the institutions versus the chance for improving quarterly earnings, they need different incentives. And so far nothing's been done on that.

On CEO pay packages: The SEC has required more disclosure of pay packages. So you've got this envy factor. You have this ratcheting effect. The more information that's been published about compensation, the worse it's gotten in terms of what people do. They look at the other guy and he's got personal use of the plane or whatever, and that gets built into the next contract. It's changed over the years. And the downside has not paralleled the upside in innovation.

On structuring bank CEO pay to prevent financial crises: The best thing is to have an arrangement in place that, if he ever has to go to the federal government for help, the CEO and his spouse come away with nothing. I think that can be done. If society is required to step in and disrupt the lives of millions of Americans, there ought to be a lot of downside. And that would change behavior more than trying to write some terribly complicated [rule]. This would get their attention. I wouldn't know how to get more specific than that.

[Note: When Buffett says "come away with nothing," he means the CEO and his or her spouse would forfeit their entire personal net worth -- not just that year's compensation.]

On derivatives: You remember the situation with Procter & Gamble (NYSE: PG  ) . If you read the nature of those contracts, they had these exploding factors when you got beyond a certain point. The CFO of a place like Procter & Gamble was probably not understanding those things very well. There's just more money in contracts that people don't understand. So you get this proliferation of these things. And who knows what's in the mind of the end user that thinks they're protecting themselves against this or that -- think Jefferson County, Alabama. It's an instrument that is prone to lots of mischief.

On circle of competence: Anybody that's investing in something opaque should just walk away. Whether it's a common stock or a new invention or whatever. That's why Ben Graham wrote books -- to try to get people to investigate an investment. It's very tough to get that message across sometimes.

On banks' capital vs. liquidity: No capital requirement protects you against a run. If your liabilities all are payable that day, you can't run a financial institution. And that's why we've got the Fed and the FDIC. You can be the most soundly capitalized firm in town. With no Fed or FDIC, if you have a bank capitalized with 10% of capital and I have a bank with 5% capital, and I hire 50 people to stand in front of your bank, you're the guy that's going to fail first. You need the Federal Reserve and the FDIC. I think the FDIC and Social Security were the two most important things that came out of the 1930s. The system needs them.

You can listen to the entire interview here. Comments? Share 'em below.

Fool contributor Morgan Housel owns shares of Berkshire and Procter & Gamble. Berkshire Hathaway, Coca-Cola, and Moody's are Motley Fool Inside Value choices. Berkshire Hathaway and Moody's are Motley Fool Stock Advisor recommendations. Coca-Cola and Procter & Gamble are Motley Fool Income Investor selections. Motley Fool Options has recommended writing puts on Moody's. The Fool owns shares of Berkshire Hathaway, and Coca-Cola. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Read/Post Comments (17) | Recommend This Article (111)

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 February 14, 2011, at 12:33 PM, MRCORVAIR wrote:

    W.B. THATS MY MAN.

  • Report this Comment On February 14, 2011, at 3:42 PM, pogicraft wrote:

    Using poker as an example I would say that gambling is a game where skill does not play a role, where having research and studied would not give you an edge in the current wager.

    If there is a way to research or learn or adapt to improve your odds, it becomes speculation

  • Report this Comment On February 14, 2011, at 7:57 PM, Merton123 wrote:

    I find Warren Buffet comment why he sold Fannie May because management had started to promise regular earnings increases very interesting. He didn't sell because he forsaw anything going wrong with Fannie - he sold because of the changed behavior of management.

  • Report this Comment On February 15, 2011, at 7:16 AM, SPARTANBURG wrote:

    Why is it that when I read Buffett, I believe I know what I'm doing. He is so down to earth and simplifies everything. Now I know that in 30 minutes I'll start trying to decipher all the information in hand, instead of trying to get to the crux of the matter.

  • Report this Comment On February 15, 2011, at 8:00 AM, dpsimswm wrote:

    We believe that the government of the United States of America should not have the power to profit from the seizure of private property without providing "just compensation" to private property owners. Governmental powers already include the power to tax, spend, regulate, and enforce the laws. These are implied powers of government and explicit powers given under the Constitution. Giving the government the power to profit provides them with unjust incentives to act against the will of the people.

    http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/fannieandfreddie/

  • Report this Comment On February 15, 2011, at 10:18 AM, wrenchbender57 wrote:

    "On structuring bank CEO pay to prevent financial crises: The best thing is to have an arrangement in place that, if he ever has to go to the federal government for help, the CEO and his spouse come away with nothing. I think that can be done."

    I buy into most of what W.B. says, but I don't think this will ever happen. Very difficult to take away what the CEOs, etc. have spent their earnings on. Best that can be done, probably, is to boot them with no bonus and perhaps a very reduced paycheck for the current year. Even that move would be extremely difficult in today's environment.

  • Report this Comment On February 15, 2011, at 10:21 AM, TopAustrianFool wrote:

    "On free markets: I don't believe the market polices itself. Greenspan is a friend of mine, but he read more Ayn Rand than I did, let's put it that way. I do not believe markets police themselves in matters of leverage and other matters. That's why I get back to the incentives of the person. That makes a difference."

    So if WB thinks that the Fed's monetary manipulation is a Free-Market then he is obviously clueless when it comes to economics. Most people confuse finance, stock picking and economics. He obviously is one. He should just say that it is out of his area of expertise.

  • Report this Comment On February 15, 2011, at 10:49 AM, Jpburnsnyny wrote:

    I wish WB and his team had a cable TV show. he is so entertaining.

  • Report this Comment On February 15, 2011, at 9:46 PM, stan8331 wrote:

    There's a great deal of sound reasoning and an excellent understanding of human nature in evidence within this interview, and that doesn't surprise me in the least.

  • Report this Comment On February 16, 2011, at 7:49 AM, RLR0528 wrote:

    I always enjoy reading Mr. Buffett. He seems to be a person that I would like to know personally. Perhaps the President and Congress should aspire to know him more personally and benefit from his common sense advice.

  • Report this Comment On February 20, 2011, at 9:05 PM, rasta999 wrote:

    Fifteen years ago I started following Mr Buffett. I was quite enamored with his success. After fifteen years I find him more of a politician, I have started asking questions that do not have good answers about him. I find him more like Greensbaum, he likes the limelight, he likes the press, he likes the political limelight of whatever administration plays up to him. He is not all forthwright or a squeaky clean as CNBC and the talking heads put on.

  • Report this Comment On February 21, 2011, at 10:30 AM, ilovesumm wrote:

    No question that he is a smart man but he pulls himself down a few notches with his view that Moody's was no more culpable than any guy on the street.

    If you hear his testimony under subpoena at congress he looks like a fool. Many media outlets said it was the worst day of his life.

    Emails showed that Moody's staff laughed about assigning junk products AAA .

    It would be like saying the patient is as knowledgeable as the doctor. These people were getting paid for their expertise not to rubber stamp everything for a commission.

    The govt. included liability back into the rating agencies because they are a sham.

    If Moody's is so sound why is Berkshire unloading their shares?

    Unfortunately you can't blindly believe everything you hear. WB is now in that category.

  • Report this Comment On February 21, 2011, at 1:23 PM, ilovesumm wrote:

    Comments by WFC John Stumpf and his predecessor Dick Kovacevich indicate they saw

    a credit bubble coming and didn't want to buy at the top.

    http://www.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/news/2011/02/17/Wells...

    Berkshire owns 342 million shares of WFC , their #2 holding .

    The management of WFC saw the bubble but Berkshire didn't ? Someone needs to explain this to me ...

  • Report this Comment On February 21, 2011, at 2:07 PM, banjo1104 wrote:

    If you are looking to make Warren Buffet into God able to see every possible downfall in the market then you are going to be disappointed. The fact that someone else saw the bubble coming does not translate mean that WB should have.

    The statement that WB made is that a great majority of the nation did not see it coming but there will always be the few who saw it coming even if WB had invested in the company those few prognosticators who correctly saw the bubble bursting.

    My opinion on WB's statements is that he seems to be very straightforward in his statements and most times very humble despite his extraordinary record or achievement

  • Report this Comment On February 21, 2011, at 2:40 PM, AvianFlu wrote:

    My opinion of WB has fallen from genius investor to yet another crony capitalist trying to manipulate politicians (successfully, I might add).

  • Report this Comment On February 21, 2011, at 7:16 PM, TMFHousel wrote:

    "My opinion of WB has fallen from genius investor to yet another crony capitalist trying to manipulate politicians (successfully, I might add)."

    Curious: what politicians has he manipulated? And how? And If so, how has it differed from his past behavior?

  • Report this Comment On February 25, 2011, at 7:49 PM, erixbid1 wrote:

    WB is just a man (not a wizard with special powers) who has made some great common sense investment choices in his life.

    How much was just being the right guy at the right time with the right belief system is anybody's guess. I think he has a good deal of experience and wisdom, plus he is easy to understand-- not all investor advisers make sense to me.

    Too often I hear the words "guru" "the best ..." "genius" etc. all of which are dangerous concepts in my mind. No one has all the answers. There is no secret formula, no guru to guide us to be infallible.

    Still, it's like paying attention to the "fool" with the highest cap rating... if someone plays the game better than the others, I will listen to how they did it. Maybe it will keep me from making any elaborate plays and screwing things up because I missed something.

    It's fun to hear these opinions and stories about how the west or the $$$ was won!

    my newbie $0.02

    lisa

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 1440952, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 9/19/2014 4:15:47 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...

Apple's next smart device (warning, it may shock you

Apple recently recruited a secret-development "dream team" to guarantee its newest smart device was kept hidden from the public for as long as possible. But the secret is out. In fact, ABI Research predicts 485 million of this type of device will be sold per year. But one small company makes Apple's gadget possible. And its stock price has nearly unlimited room to run for early-in-the-know investors. To be one of them, and see Apple's newest smart gizmo, just click here!


Advertisement