Text Size

Email Post

Print Post

Comments (7)

Save Article

New York - Within the past two weeks my neighbor, my lawyer, and my doctor each told me that Warren Buffett is suggesting that Americans buy shares in American companies. I tolerated the first two, but I really let my doctor have it today. I blurted out - “AND???” “How does that apply to me and you?” “Are you a billionaire?” “Do you draw a $100k salary?” “Did you just give $30B to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation?” “Have heads of State begged you to make verbal intervention because your wealth is the size of a second tier economy?” “What, precisely, do you have in common with Warren Buffett?”

These are perfectly sensible questions given that the risk tolerance of one person is rarely the risk tolerance of another. How many Americans have the exact retirement goals, financial means, and other suitability fingerprints of Warren the Oracle of Mutual of Omaha Buffett? GET YOUR HEADS ON PEOPLE!

Here are five reasons to eschew EVERY WORD Warren Buffett said here:

1. He bears no significant risk to a complete loss in his “personal” account. If he was 100% in treasuries, as he mentioned, he has already lost nearly 50% of his account. It is a psychological “sunk cost” and switching to U.S. equities from those debentures was more about propaganda than profit. Furthermore, what if his personal account is only a couple hundred thousand? It would be comparable to you and I taking our spare change and buying penny stocks (instead of leaving them in U.S. currency form).

2. He is 78 years old. Any of his actuarians would not give him the benefit of another 10 years on this earth, let alone the 20 that he estimates it may take for domestic stocks to recover. This is proof that he doesn’t need the money and doesn’t even care IF they recover. It also implies that he doesn’t care if you live to see the prediction come true or not - he’ll be dead. What will he care? Again, no consequences for his statements.

3. Buffett carefully omits that Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A) holds several publicly traded foreign stocks: SNY (Paris, France), GSK (Middlesex, ENG, UK), IR (Hamilton, Bermuda), and according to his advertisement, the list is growing to include Israeli and Far-East Companies too. There is a huge difference between what a personal account, without a stated value, and the behemoth Berkshire Hathaway is buying. The first is insignificant, the second is expedient (hence, it is going global).

4. He’s a political puppet now. Notice how many meetings he’s had with the president and future presidents? Who else can politicians turn to? Greenspan “Mr. Midas Touch” got his head handed to him earlier this week over his fallible self-regulating model and short sighted risks. Bernanke is a joke. And no politicians are worth a shake until after elections. So who is the US pinch hitter? Buffett! Yeah, everyone knows he’s rich and actually makes money - let’s see if he’ll do some “verbal intervention” for the good old USA.

5. HE ISN’T YOU. Every investor has a risk tolerance, time horizon, saving potential, investing potential and personality that makes them special. From a suitability perspective, if the average CFP (Certified Financial Planner) told the New York Times that he was moving all of his senior citizen accounts out of bonds and into equities, he would be tried for malpractice due to improper suitability assessment.

Bottom line: it is all propaganda. Go back to your jobs (if you are lucky enough to have one) and ignore Warren Buffett and anyone else with.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And below is an article from today's Wall Street Journal saying that Mr. Buffet has not timed the market well.

Maybe the Oracle of Omaha failed to see how bad the market was going to get.

Mr. Buffett looks to be committing his capital too early. On some bets, waiting might have gotten him better terms or more attractive entry prices.

This is not a cheap gibe based on the S&P 500 being down nearly 7% since Oct. 17, when Mr. Buffett wrote in the New York Times that he was gobbling up U.S. stocks. Any assessment of Mr. Buffett's record would be skewed if it focused too much on timing.

But Mr. Buffett has expressed regret that he didn't do certain deals differently, including an investment in Gillette in 1989. And he might wish he could tweak some recent ones, including two derivatives bets that could show sizable paper losses when Berkshire reports third-quarter results.

With one, Berkshire significantly increased its exposure to credit-default swaps. The company wrote contracts predominantly providing default protection on certain junk-rated corporations in North America. Berkshire more than doubled its notional exposure on these CDS to $8.8 billion between the end of 2006 and the middle of this year.

Berkshire says the CDS agreements have features that cap losses and the company is receiving large payments for writing them. Still, Berkshire booked a $490 million mark-to-market loss on these CDS in the first quarter, which narrowed to $136 million in the second quarter. Given the deterioration in the credit markets, the third quarter hit on them could be large.

The other large derivatives trade uses options to make directional bets on four stock indexes, three outside the U.S. Berkshire increased its exposure to these options through 2007 and the first half of this year. These, too, could produce paper losses in the third quarter.

Mr. Buffett's defenders argue that both the CDS and options will pay off over time. With the CDS, they believe he's carefully chosen the companies on which to sell default protection. And they argue the options are almost certainly going to pay off because they appear to make the safe wager that the indexes will be higher a long time in the future. Berkshire says the options have a weighted average remaining life of 14 years.

But both derivatives trades suggest Mr. Buffett was relatively comfortable about the prospects for U.S. corporations and global stocks at a time when some were predicting a bust.

While long-term profits might be made, Berkshire has arguably tied up capital that could instead have been plowed into trades that might pay off more handsomely -- and more quickly.

Then there's Berkshire's $5 billion investment in Goldman Sachs Group, executed in September. The advantageous terms of deal made it look savvy. But soon after, Goldman's stock cratered as stock investors, clients and creditors got jitters about broker-dealers. Goldman's situation steadied when the government guaranteed bank debt and invested $10 billion. But without those actions, Berkshire's investment was at risk.

Admittedly, Berkshire might always have believed that the government would act to protect Goldman when it sunk $5 billion into the firm. However, the government has shown that it can structure investments in ways that end up hurting other shareholders.

Time for the Oracle to get a new crystal ball.