Wall Street Journal-April 30, 2010
OMAHA, Neb.— Warren Buffett offered a vigorous defense of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Saturday, saying the embattled firm hadn't engaged in improper activity and shouldn't be blamed for the losses of its clients.
Goldman has been reeling from Securities and Exchange Commission allegations that the bank had engaged in fraudulent activities in relation to a mortgage deal called Abacus 2007-AC1. Goldman says it did nothing wrong.
Mr. Buffett's comments—which came early in the day at Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s annual shareholders meeting—offer a powerful vote of confidence in Goldman, which has seen its shares slide since the SEC announced the investigation on April 16. Goldman's stock fell 9.4% on Friday alone after it emerged that the Manhattan district attorney's office was conducting a preliminary criminal probe into its mortgage-trading activities.
"We have had a lot of very satisfactory transactions with Goldman Sachs," Mr. Buffett said.
The billionaire investor said he fully supported Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein. Asked if he could choose a successor for Mr. Blankfein, Mr. Buffett said: "If Lloyd had a twin brother I'd go for him."
Mr. Buffett, who invested $5 billion in Goldman at the height of the financial crisis, said he didn't believe that Goldman had acted improperly. Rather, counterparties to the deals, which plunged in value when the housing market fell apart in 2007, should be responsible for their own actions.
Mr. Buffett said he believed that one of the banks that had purchased Abacus deals in the transaction, the Dutch bank ABN Amro Group, was a sophisticated investor. "It's a little hard for me to get terribly sympathetic for a bank that made a bad credit deal," said Mr. Buffett.
He said a firm that had acted as an intermediary in the deal, ACA Management, had drifted from its original business of insuring municipal bonds into structured finance, a more complicated and risky business. He said he believes most press accounts haven't properly explained ACA's business model.
Mr. Buffett also said the fact that Paulson & Co., the New York hedge fund that worked with Goldman and ACA to structure the Abacus deal, was on the other side of the Abacus deal was irrelevant. "It doesn't make any difference whether it was Paulson on the other side of the deal or whether Goldman was on the other side of the deal or whether Berkshire was on the other side of the deal," he said.
Mr. Buffett has also been taking some heat for a push he has made on Capitol Hill for exemptions for several large derivatives deals his firm has made in recent year. A bill before Congress could force Berkshire to post billions in collateral for the deals. In the past, Berkshire hasn't been required to put up much cash—if any—to back its derivatives transactions.
Link to complete article
Ah shucks, isn't Buffett great, as he truly cares about the little guy
and that business is conducted in a fair manner.....
How about the other side of Warren Buffett?
Buffett’s Betrayal by Rolf Winkler
Reuters-Aug 4, 2009 13:54 EDT
A good chunk of his fortune is dependent on taxpayer largess. Were it not for government bailouts, for which Buffett lobbied hard, many of his company’s stock holdings would have been wiped out.
Berkshire Hathaway, in which Buffett owns 27 percent, according to a recent proxy filing, has more than $26 billion invested in eight financial companies that have received bailout money. The TARP at one point had nearly $100 billion invested in these companies and, according to new data released by Thomson Reuters, FDIC backs more than $130 billion of their debt.
To put that in perspective, 75 percent of the debt these companies have issued since late November has come with a federal guarantee.
Without FDIC’s debt guarantee program, even impregnable Goldman would have collapsed.
And this excludes the emergency, opaque lending facilities from the Federal Reserve that also helped rescue the big banks. Without all these bailouts, the financial system would have been forced to recapitalize itself.
Banks that couldn’t finance their balance sheets would have sold toxic assets at market prices, and the losses would have wiped out their shareholder’s equity. With $7 billion at stake, Buffett is one of the biggest of these shareholders.
He even traded the bailout, seeking morally hazardous profits in preferred stock and warrants of Goldman and GE because he had “confidence in Congress to do the right thing” — to rescue shareholders in too-big-to-fail financials from the losses that were rightfully theirs to absorb.
And what of Moody’s, the credit-rating agency that enabled lending excesses Buffett criticizes, and in which he’s held a major stake for years? Recently Berkshire cut its stake to 16 percent from 20 percent. Publicly, however, the Oracle of Omaha has been silent.
This is remarkably incongruous for the world’s most famous financial straight-shooter. Few have called him on it, though one notable exception was a good article by Charles Piller in the Sacramento Bee earlier this year.
Buffett didn’t respond to my email seeking a comment.
Link to complete article
"It's a little hard for me to get terribly sympathetic for a bank that made a bad credit deal," said Mr. Buffett. How sympathetic would you have been Warren if the FDIC was not there to back the debt? Of course you defend Goldman Sachs, you could be his twin!
No comments:
Post a Comment