Stocks are simple. All you do is buy shares in a great business for less than the business is intrinsically worth, with management of the highest integrity and ability. Then you own those shares forever. I will tell you how to become rich. Close the doors. Be fearful when others are greedy. Be greedy when others are fearful.

May 30, 2009

货币投放量决定股市的涨跌 MAY-31-2009

货币投放量决定股市的涨跌

黄一秦 原创 | 2009-5-31 8:34 | 阅读:3
(2009-05-31 08:28:08) [编辑] [删除]

回头看,本轮行情的启动和央行信贷资金投放有关:

2007年第三季度,美国次贷危机爆发,我国股市出现“大盘股”行情,10月上证指数到达6124点;2007年底,国家开始实施从紧货币政策,股市开始下跌,2008年年中,美国经济危机开始进一步扩散,6月6日,周小川增加存款准备金率1个百分点,国家加速货币紧缩政策,小川“缺口”后,股市也开始加速下跌。

2008年11月份新增贷款开始快速增长,当月新增贷款达到了4769亿元,上证指数2008年10月28日见1664点;12月份更猛增至7400亿元,上证指数走出下跌失败浪,没有再创新低

2009年一季度信贷投放达到4.58万亿,上证指数涨幅30.339%;

4月信贷规模开始迅速下滑到5918亿,可能是惯性原因上证指数振幅达12.18%,涨幅4.397%。

5月从上证指数K线图看,信贷规模只会小不会大。

股市象人一样,当你拿高薪惯了,稍给你降点工资,你就会闹情绪,要是继续降薪,你可能会怠工:

一季度45800/3,月现代规模平均为15266.66667亿;一季度往往是信贷投放的高点。4月份下降到5918亿,相当于降薪61.2%,口袋里有存货,问题还不大,但要是继续给你降呢?下半年的信贷规模要是会落到正常的数值,股市的走向就不见得会象大多数人所想象得那么乐观了。

上市公司的基本面在趋向于恶化,股市却走出了“小牛”行情,不少个股已经超出了6124点的历史新高,中小盘股的狂飙,很可能把以后几年的老本都吃了,狂飙的个股,也可能将进入慢慢熊途的起点,没有基本面支撑的行情,靠资金撬动,一旦资金收缩,行情也就结束了。

A股在大幅上涨的阶段已经结束,回调使之必然,是否会创新低,要看下半年货币政策的调控艺术,但就现在的计划,全年7到8万亿的投放量,余下的份额分配给 每月,月最多也只有3300亿的规模了,(80000-45800-5918-5000=23282/7=3326)。

从一季度的每月15266亿下降到3300亿,股市还能“牛”到哪里去呢?

结论:这轮1664点上涨行情和上市公司本身的基本面关系不大,外围股市的涨跌和我们没有直接的关系,股市上涨的正面关系就是资金推动型,从去年11月以 来,信贷投放68700亿中流入股市有多少?无法考证,流入股市越多,对银行的威胁就越大,最近对房地产最低资本金的下调,可能和房地产还贷有关,所以对 房地产也不能太乐观了。

本人继续看空股市,因为我找不出继续看好股市的理由。


May 29, 2009

中国人寿的估值 2008 OCT-10

从各个角度看,中国人寿的估值都要高于其他两家保险公司。截至10月10日的股价,中国人寿20.24、中国平安27.96 和中国太保13.68的市净率分别为4.4、2.5和2.1倍,P/EV分别为2.2、1.4和1.4倍,市值资产比分别为61%、32%和34%。

国寿为何能享受如此高的估值溢价呢?


高估值理由

综合市场参与人士的观点,主要理由有以下四个:

1.负债成本更有弹性

相对于其它两家保险公司来说,中国人寿的负债成本更有弹性,

在投资收益率下滑的背景之下,这无疑对投资者来讲是好的,因为投资收益率下滑能较多的被负债成本的下滑所消化,从而使投资者因投资收益率下降而蒙受的损失减小。

国寿的负债成本更有弹性最主要的原因是上市时剥离了高利率保单,而其他两家公司均保留了高利率保单。到目前为止,平安和太保的高利率保单准备金占其寿险准备金的34%和23%负债成本是固定的,均在6%左右。

由于高利率保单负债成本是固定的并且较高,使得投资收益率下降的时候,负债成本并不会随之明显下降,从而导致负债成本较为刚性。而国寿没有利差损保单,且其准备金中分红险的比例很高,当投资收益率下降的时候,分红险的负债成本会迅速跟随其下降,因而其负债成本更具弹性。

2.纯寿险业务,理应享受高估值

从目前市场估值情况来看(以市净率为例),寿险高于银行高于财险。由于国寿是纯寿险业务,从总体上来看理应享受更高的估值。我们认为这一点 无疑是有道理的,但关键在于度。我们将平安和太保的非寿险业务(不含集团,因为三家保险公司都存在一定的冗余资本,为作一致比较不剔除平安和太保的集团本 部净资产)按1.5倍市净率来估值,得到剔除非寿险业务的市净率为2.9倍和2.1倍,仍然远远低于国寿。将非寿险业务按10%的市值资产比来剔除,得到 平安和太保的市值资产比为40%和37%,低于国寿的61%。将非寿险业务按照1.5倍净资产从内涵价值中剔除,得到平安和太保的P/EV为1.8倍和 1.6倍,低于国寿的2.2倍。

平安纯寿险EV=15.55 RMB

太保纯寿险EV=8.55 RMB

国寿EV=9.2

3.央企背景

中国人寿是央企,而其他两家没有该背景。作为央企可能的优势在于:1.能获得优质的投资资源;2.面临困境时得到国家援助的可能性更大。

这两点理由都是站不住脚的。央企和政府之间的界线往往较为模糊,在经济下行的背景之下,央企往往更有可能替政府承担一部分义务,而在经济良 好的情况下会从政府拿到一些优质的投资项目。所以我们认为对于国寿来讲,现在很可能是进入还债的阶段而不是收获的阶段。即使我们认为还能拿到优质的投资项 目,现在的财富效应也大幅降低,不能获得太高的溢价。以国寿值得称道的投资中信证券为例,按现在股价来算,国寿的收益为105亿元,若要将国寿的估值拉到 平安的水平(市净率从4.4倍降至2.9倍),那么需要有6个((5620/2.9-1274)/105=6)像中信证券这样的投资项目,如果考虑到税和 准备金的因素,需要这样的项目个数会更多。

目前保险行业的资产中有较大风险的就是10%左右的权益投资,负债中新产生利差损保单的可能性几乎为零(因为保证利率很低),因此保险行业产生严重问题的可能性非常小,因此需要国家援助的可能性比较小。

4.流通市值更小

国寿的流通市值接近300亿元,而平安的是1000亿元,如果考虑到年底的解禁太保的流通市值也有近350亿元。由于流通盘较小,小非的抛 售压力较小,因此享受更高溢价。对此我们认为对小非最恐慌的时候应该即将过去,主要的原因有两点:1.资金紧张的压力将随着央行放松银根而缓解,没有不顾 一切抛售股票缓解流动性的理由;2.目前市场的估值水平较产业资本的估值水平溢价已经相当有限,抛售的动力也不足。既然小非抛售的动力和压力均不足,那么 流通市值小并不能成为国寿高溢价的理由。


估值溢价缺乏支撑

如果将合理的两个因素剔除掉再来看估值水平的差异,能否支撑估值溢价呢?

国寿和其他两家公司最主要的估值差异理由在于:1.没有非寿险业务;2.没有利差损保单。剥离后的估值水平应该没有明显差异,因为1999年之后销售的保单在负债成本的弹性上国寿和太保情况差不多,与平安相比还不如(因为平安在今年销售的保单中非传统险的比例更高)。

将非寿险业务按照1.5倍的市净率来剔除,将利差损保单按照内涵价值报告中所列1999年以前高利率保单的有效业务价值来剔除;剔除非寿险 业务的资产,再剔除高利率保单对应的准备金;我们对资产的剥离方法是这样的,将非寿险业务按照1.5倍的市净率来剔除,再剔除高利率保单对应的有效业务价 值。

剥离之后得到国寿、平安和太保的市值资产比分别为61%、54%和45%,国寿的估值高出平安13%和36%。剥离之后得到国寿、平安和太保的P/EV分别为2.2、1.6和1.5,国寿的估值高出平安和太保约40%。显然,国寿存在明显的高估。

合理的市值资产比应该是多少?假设我们给予保险行业20倍的市盈率,长期来看合理的ROA水平在1.5%-1.7%,由于市值资产 比=P/E×ROA,所以合理的市值资产比应该是30%-35%,而目前国寿的市值资产比是61%,平安和太保的市值资产比是32%和34%,因此平安和 太保的估值基本降到位了,而国寿则有所高估。如果我们依然按20倍市盈率来算,那么现在的市值资产比隐含的ROA水平是3%,这只有在去年牛市的顶点才达 到过。

那么,从资产管理和负债管理能力来看,是否可以找到国寿高估的支撑呢?

从短期来看,对净资产和净利润表现最为关键的因素就是对资产的管理。股市每波动10%对净资产的影响是4%-6%。而负债方的变化对于净资 产的影响则不会有这么敏感。当下的情况是最为关键的资产管理大家没有明显差异,而负债管理有差异但不重要,因此保险公司的估值不应该存在明显差异。

May 25, 2009

上市公司调研林园一直坚持在做,主要就是看财务指标,公司业绩的确定性

截至5月15日,林园2期的净值为54.6元,3期的净值为54.09元,成立以来分别亏损45.4%、45.9%
  在理财周报记者所接触的基金经理中,日常生活能够谈得上"悠闲"的恐怕只有林园了。
  "我们基本没有业余生活。"之前北京一基金公司投资总监对理财周报记者这样描述自己平时的生活状态。
  "我最近在忙着装修房子呢,主要是干这个。"5月20日下午,理财周报记者几经周折终于接通林园的手机,听到他这样的生活内容。其实,在去年6月份时,林园就已经开始忙着装修他刚买的新房,算算时间,房子已经装修了一年。
  "最近我基本不看股票,关注的少。"在记者试着把话题从生活转向股市的时候,林园笑着说,近来,他接受媒体采访已经比两年前少了很多,对于股票,愿意谈的也不是很多。
   有人把林园的这种变化很大程度上归结于2008年他在投资上遭遇的"滑铁卢"。2007年9月17日,以他自己名字命名的2只私募基金林园2期、3期成 立。但随即,A股从6124的高点深幅下挫,截至2009年5月15日,林园2期的净值为54.6元,林园3期的净值为54.09元,成立以来分别亏损 45.40%、45.91%,略好于同期上证综指50.18%的跌幅。
  "基本不看股票,
  主要就做做上市公司调研"
  尽管现在主要时间都放在家里的房子装修上面,但林园对投资并没有撒手不管。
  "前段时间有跑去上市公司做过调研,过两天还要去开茅台的股东大会。"林园跟记者这样讲他最近的行程,对于茅台他表示还是"继续持有"。
  "尽管不怎么看股票,但是上市公司调研林园一直坚持在做,主要就是看财务指标,公司业绩的确定性。买茅台、五粮液(000858)也是因为这个,业绩确定。"
  理财周报记者询问林园对于目前中国经济的看法的时候他回答:"关于经济方面的信息,比如财经节目、书籍,我不怎么看,偶尔听别人给我讲。短期的经济情况我们不怎么判断,但是长期的趋势我肯定关注,现在判断觉得还是不错的。"
  在5月20日下午和林园近半个小时的电话采访中,记者不时听到他招牌式的笑声,还有家中小孩跟他说话的声音,林园正在招呼家人"下馆子",心情显得特别开心,丝毫感受不到是在1年多亏了一半身家的人。
  或许就像他说的那样:"其实我是在做一个试验,我就想看一个结果,看时间检验我的方法是不是正确,看看我在任何时段、随机买入股票的投资理念能不能赚到钱。"
  当记者请林园给投资者讲几句关于投资方面的话时,他表示:"我不能跟别人说什么,大家应该有自己的想法,没有自己的想法是很危险的。"
  谈到退休这个话题时林园表示:"我今年46岁,50岁退休太早,等到60多70吧,投资这个事情可以做的长一点,喜欢。"
  "从20亿到10亿"
  如果时间在2007年停止,那么林园的"股神"故事,基本可以算是以一个完美的结局结尾。可股市让人敬畏的地方,就在于它的跌宕起伏和那些参与股市的投资者同样跌宕起伏的人生。
  就在中国股市创出历史高点的2007年9月,林园亲自管理的两只阳光私募基金林园2期、林园3期成立,截至目前,两只基金的净值已经腰斩,按照20亿的资产计算,林园2期的总资产可能已经缩水到10亿。
  林园在电话里对理财周报记者这样解释自己管理的私募基金的情况:"我管理的3只信托基金,林园1期可能有个别的我不认识的人以外,2期、3期都是我们自己的人,我自己的钱,实际上也是一直持有,没有赎回压力。"
   "2007年成立的2期、3期,是我把自己兜里的股票卖了再去买的信托,也是在高位卖的。因为我从2003年买了一直持有,表面上从2007年到现在有 一个亏损,实际上不是,它有一个衔接,我们从2003年就已经进来了。从2003年起,茅台每年分红、派息率都在20%,成本早已回来,都是无成本运作, 别人有别人的算法,我有自己的计算,反正我觉得是划算的。"
  "在2007年成立信托之前,在我的资产组合中,茅台、五粮液占了70%-80%的比重,还有其他的股票,但占的比例很小。成立信托之后,由于受10%的限制,茅台、五粮液各占约10%的比例,其他的还有医药、高速公路等之前就持有的那些股票,基本没怎么变动过。"
  "股市的调整很正常,好的公司也需要一个业绩修复的过程,等待这样一个过程过去就好了。"林园的心态显得非常轻松。
  "我买的主要是吃喝方面的股票。"林园跟理财周报记者这样笑言他管理的基金的投资组合,"我看好消费类的公司,快速消费业不太受社会经济周期影响,这也是借鉴美国这个较成熟市场的成长经验。"
  "从8000元到20亿"的传奇经历
  谈起林园的现在,无论如何也绕不开他的过去那段让无数投资者羡慕、追捧的"从8000元到20亿"的传奇经历。
  1989年,林园拿着全家人共同筹集的8000元进入股市。
  1990年12月,上交所成立,上证指数从99.98点一直上涨到1992年5月25日的1429.01点,涨幅达1329.30%。林园的8000元此时变成了100万。
  1991年初,深圳证券交易所成立,林园运用他的100万,在之后两年里,他收购并操作深发展等原始股;到1992年,他拥有的股票市值已超过1000万,并在高点撤离股市。
  1993~1994年,林园以1000万入市购得深发展和四川长虹(600839),在1995~1998年期间上涨九倍,林园赚得盆满钵满。
  1999年"5?19"暴涨行情之后,林园却开始收手。当2001年初上证指数攀上2100点时,他已从A股全线撤退。
  2001年到2003年,在股市深陷熊市时,林园去做地产。2003年,林园悄悄杀回股市,低位建立重仓。到2006年牛市初显,他手里的股票市值已经超过4亿元。再到2007年的大牛市,据有关报道,林园的资产已经达到20亿元。

May 23, 2009

王石 评中国房地产09Q1

万科董事长王石近日在接受媒体采访时称房价进入“后拐点时代”。他认为,当前的房价是维持不住的。 作为房地产业内的一面旗帜,王石曾准确预测2008年楼市将出现拐点,万科也提前开始回笼资金得以抢得先机。因此“后拐点时代”言论一出,立即引发广泛关注。
  经过了今年一季度以来成交量大幅上涨的楼市“小阳春”,关于楼市的焦点也逐渐从成交量转移到房价上来。
  王石在日前接受采访时表示,当前这个房价是维持不住的。特别是看了东南亚金融风波后的香港、新加坡以及日本泡沫破灭后连续10年的房地产惨况后得出结论,房价连续上涨是不可能的。对于现在业界认为楼市走势经过去年以来的“小压”之后还会再弹起来的观点,王石也表示不认同。他还透露,周围一些同行其实也同意他的拐点论,但希望他不要再在媒体上发表类似观点。
  对于后市的谨慎态度,同样体现在万科的定期报告中。前不久公布的万科2009年一季报就指出,虽然一季度成交量回升,但“对这一态势的后续发展,仍需保持进一步的观察。考虑到宏观环境方面仍然存在的诸多不确定性,断言住宅市场调整已经结束还为时尚早”。万科的不少高层也多次在不同场合强调,将继续遵循市场化的定价策略,积极促进销售。


从08年年底开始,部分城市的住宅成交量逐渐呈现出环比上升的态势,其中珠三角地区尤为明显。09年1季度延续了这一趋势,并逐渐演变为全国市场较为普遍的情况,全国商品住宅的销售面积和销售金额同比均有所上升。在前期调整幅度较大的重点城市,成交量回升的现象更加明显,万科持续关注的14个重点城市,1季度成交量相对08年同期普遍出现了大幅上升,部分城市甚至超过07年同期水平。在新房市场成交活跃的同时,二手房交易量也呈现出明显回升。
公司管理层认为,报告期内成交量回升存在多个方面的原因:开发企业为加快消化库存,采取了各种策略积极促进销售;信贷、税收等方面的政策优惠降低了居民自住购房的成本,促进了市场信心的稳定;房地产市场已经调整较长时期,累积的大量自住需求存在一个释放的过程。而珠三角地区由于前期价格调整较为充分,交易量率先回升也具有其合理性。
对这一态势的后续发展,仍需保持进一步的观察。考虑到宏观环境方面仍然存在的诸多不确定性,断言住宅市场调整已经结束还为时尚早。在经营上公司将继续坚持“应对重于预测”的原则,继续遵循市场化的定价策略,积极促进销售。

May 22, 2009

滚雪球

价值投资者和成长性股票是不搭界的。巴菲特曾说过,买入一只股票应该做好永远持有的准备,但实际上他是近些年才这么说的。在他年轻时候,他做股票也是比较激进的,买卖比较频繁。和其他价值投资者一样,巴菲特也没有预测到此次金融危机。

  我认为价值投资的根本点是买入低于内在价值的股票,卖出高于内在价值的股票,而不是持有股票去等待,因为早晚有一天股市会暴跌,投资者不能一直拿着股票直到金融海啸爆发。如果股票的内在价值超过价值就要果断卖出。

  另外,所有的投资经理,包括巴菲特都存在一个问题,就是过去10年中,可以用来投资的钱实在太多了,这使他们想一直持有股票。而那些手中钱不多的fund经理,会想办法把投资组合中价值高估的股票卖出,买入价值低估的股票。

最近中国资本市场发生了一件比较有名的事情:知名投资人赵丹阳花费巨资和巴菲特共进午餐,有市场传言称巴菲特先生给了赵先生了7句投资箴言。

  对此,施罗德表示,她要花些心思才能猜测出巴菲特会给出什么建议。据她所知,对于这样的商业性午餐,巴菲特都会花数个小时来准备,但很明显巴菲 特并没有什么赚钱秘技没有说出来,他是非常坦诚的人。《滚雪球》一书中已经把他的投资方法全都写出来了,包括以下几点投资原则。

①定下的规定不随便偏离。巴菲特给自己定的规矩一定严格遵守,比如他给自己定下的价值投资方法是不会有例外的,不会研究股票时发现这只股票本不适合价值投资,但这次搞个例外。

  ② 投入大量精力对相关企业的历史和财务状况进行研究。

  ③ 在考虑投资时,如果这个想法让你很兴奋,那么这个想法很可能是错误的。

  ④最赚钱的行业多是垄断或近乎垄断的企业,但是这样的企业往往很难持续。就比如美国的报纸一样,它们的垄断地位并不能永远持续,因此你应该知道他们的价值会随着时间的流逝而不断下跌。

  ⑤有两种公司需要特别注意。一种公司是创意性公司,它们比较难被效仿,盈利能力就很强。比如微软就是这样的企业,其他公司很难效仿它;巴菲特有一个GEICO保险公司,它的成本非常低,别人很难效仿;迪士尼也是如此。

  另一种是存在的时间越长,获得更高效益就越难的公司,比如餐馆行业,百货商店、好莱坞的电影等存在越长,越难有效益,消费者喜欢新的口味、新的时尚等,这样的公司应该引起投资者的警惕。

  ⑥那些为了赚钱而需要不断追加现金的企业是最差的企业。最好的则是投资一次就可以持续盈利的公司,比如GEICO公司,一次性投入后就可以持续不断地赚钱;而百货公司则需要隔几年就重新装修一次吸引顾客,才能和新进入者竞争。

  ⑦ 如果一个企业在一处犯错,在其他方面也会犯错,“一次不忠百次不用”,只有在各个方面都不犯错,才是好公司。


素描巴菲特

  实际上巴菲特是非常强硬、专注的。

  他能记住十几年前一笔交易的细节,他注意力非常集中,做事极其专注。

  他会不露痕迹地在不同时间问你同样的问题,以观察你的答案是否前后一致,是不是个值得信任的人。

  他是个热爱学习的人,每天都要阅读5种以上的报纸。

  他另外一个投注巨大精力学习的内容,就是数千家上市公司的业绩情况。



谢国忠: 房价慢慢降

谢国忠:加息将猛烈冲击楼市

  谢国忠认为,中国的房地产库存过高,同时每一任地方政府都要靠房地产支撑经济,因此新盖的房子可谓此起彼伏,究竟库存多少谁也难以确知——在大的金融危机中,肯定会有房地产商倒下,而目前中国房地产商的情况并不正常。

  NBD:此前楼市“小阳春”及目前传出的开发商涨价消息是否意味着开发商无房可卖的情况将会出现,房地产市场已经启动了吗?

  谢国忠:房子缺不缺看库存就行了,中国有20亿平方米库存房,大约合3300万套,中国人有多少能买得起房子?

  NBD:您曾说过,如果说现在宏观经济是0的话,房价还在100的位置,两者要接近平衡,那么房价要跌到什么程度才体现这种平衡?

  谢国忠:这个要用存量比来衡量。以香港为例,房子在香港是按照两个方面考虑,供应量一般是存量的1%,平均房价则是工资收入水平的1.5到 1.6倍。比如香港人月工资是1.6万港元的话,由于这些买房者中有一半人住公房,那么剩下买房的人平均工资算2.5万港币,而房价则是4万港元/平方 米

  但是现在中国房地产的供应量是存量的4%~5%,房价是工资的3倍左右供应量和价格都很高——这种情况在市场刚开始的阶段是可以的,就比如现在的汽车消费,刚开始有钱人买车,后来车供应越来越多,车也会逐渐降价,卖给不那么有钱的人,这一次汽车消费大幅上升也是降价引起的。

  NBD:目前市场的主要问题是信息不透明吗?未来房价会怎样?

  谢国忠:现在大家就是搞不明白到底库存多少房子——好的时候数据只说房价、库存上涨了一个百分点,坏的时候就说降了一个百分点,要知道房价一波动就应该是10多个或者20个百分点才对。

  房子这波卖了,下一波消费者就不买了,只能卖给收入更低的人,房价需要一点点的打折,慢慢地下降。一般房价下降快的时候是市场利息上升快的时 候,现在房价下降得慢是因为银行的利息太低。中国政府的愿望是房价慢慢降,但是如果明年全球都加息的话,对房地产市场的冲击就会比较大。


May 18, 2009

Buffet Meeting 2009 Q&A

Question 1: (Loomis) If derivatives are weapons of mass destruction (as Buffett has indicated on many occasions) are they appropriate for a highly rated insurance company?

Buffett: Believe in the long run they will make money on these positions. Have very minimal collateral posting requirements. This is why they were willing to write these contracts. As of March 31 st, 2009 the collateral requirements were less than 1%. However, derivatives do pose problems for the world on a macro basis. Will only use them if they believe they are mispriced.

Believe it is his duty to explain to shareholders the rationale for these transactions/contracts. Unfortunately, as a result of market to market accounting, the value of these derivatives can swing by billions of dollars on a quarterly basis

Odds are very good that the equity puts will end up making money. However, he believes they will likely lose money on some of the CDS contracts. Those most at risk of loss are CDS on high yield companies. There are far more Chapter 11’s happening now (and will in the future) than previously. Will continue to hold and explain theses contracts. Have no material impact on BRK as a whole. Believe their balance sheet strength makes BRK an ideal company to hold these types of contracts

Munger: There is a limit to how many of these contracts a company can have and BRK is well under that limit

Question 2: (Audience) How can we teach the world to be more financially literate?

Buffett: A world dependent on credit cards and calculators is hard to teach financial literacy. People will continue to do very foolish things. When he first went to Las Vegas he saw a country full of people who will fly from all over just to do something that is mathematically stupid. Thought that this meant the US was a great country to make money in

Question 3: (Quick) Can you comment on Wells Fargo (WFC) and their current position with the government? Apparently they did not want to take TARP. Are these government programs and interventions good or bad?

Munger: The government is reacting to the biggest financial crisis in memory in a very hurried fashion. Unreasonable to expect perfection. They are entitled to be judged leniently. Agreed that some of the reactions appeared to be foolish. Stated that the accounting principle that causes earnings to increase as your credit is destroyed (by being able to adjust the value of your debt) is insane. Thought that the people who made these rules need to be removed

Buffett: Government was facing a total meltdown in September. Frozen commercial paper market and huge outflows from money market funds. When you are getting punched from all sides it is hard to be perfect. He commended the actions of the government. Nature of the emergency requires people to accept government actions

Believes that WFC is a fabulous bank. Has advantages that other banks do not have. Suggested we all read the piece of the JP Morgan (JPM) annual letter written by Jamie Dimon

Quesiton 4: (Audience) Do Buffett and Munger employ the use of complex free cash flow calculations with terminal multiples to determine discounted cash flow and ultimate valuation? Does this process fall in the too hard bin? Do they just use simple cash flow calculations?

Buffett: All investing is laying out cash to see how much you can get back. If you need a computer or calculator to understand a company then you don’t need to buy shares. It should be so cheap that it screams at you

Munger: Some of the worst financial decisions ever made were made based on fancy spreadsheets. People started to believe too much in their projections. Business schools teach this so that they have something to do. The implication is that business schools are not teaching the right things

Buffett: People relied too much on the false precision based on the projection of probabilities of X standard deviation events. People with high IQs are more prone to fall into this trap. There are certain events whose probability cannot be calculated. It is a mistake to think that higher math will take you anywhere in investing. More likely to take you down the wrong path

Question 5: (Sorkin) When it comes to Moody’s (MCO), why do they currently retain such a large holding? Why didn’t BRK use its large stake to influence the business model?

Buffett: The conflict of interest (in terms of who paid for ratings) was not the main cause of misunderstanding the CDOs, CMBS, RMBS, etc. The belief that house prices could not fall was the wrong model to rely on. Congress, bankers and home buyers were all guilty. People levered up their biggest asset. Congress would have likely scolded the rating agencies for not rating these securities higher. They would have been seen as limiting home ownership (would have been labeled Un-American) and suppressing financial innovation

Rating agencies were in a no win situation. BRK is not in the habit of telling the companies that they own what to do when it comes to their business model. They are not there to try to change companies and people. They have had very little luck changing behavior in their history

Believe that MCO is still a good business even though it is subject to attack. There are not many competitors. Doesn’t require large amounts of capital. Won’t do the previous volume but the truth is the capital markets will continue to grow

He and Charlie personally do not believe in using ratings. They never outsource investment decisions. Disagreements about credit worthiness have made BRK tons of money over the years

Munger: Rating agencies are an example people being too smart for their own good

Buffett: At BRK they never use the excuse that everyone is doing something so they should as well. But it is very hard to stop certain practices when the industry starts to accept them as desirable. At Solomon they had enough trouble stopping them from doing business with criminals

Question 6: (Audience) What is your view on US real estate? What do you foresee for California?

Buffett: In the last few months we have seen a pick up in real estate activity in the housing market. These transactions are at lower prices. There are more bidders but we have not yet seen a bounce back in prices. Foreclosure moratorium caused temporary dislocations. Thinks we are seeing something like stability from data provided by their real estate subsidiary in low to mid priced houses in California.

On average there are about 1.3M households created each year. In recessions this number comes down.2M housing starts in recent years has led to a large excess supply of houses. Now housing starts are trending at like 500K per year. The excess supply will be absorbed over the next 2-3 years. We are eating up like 700K-800K per year. Once the current excess supply is absorbed we can get back to 1.3M-1.4M households created per year

Munger: With interest rates so low people should be buying houses if they have good credit

Buffett: Situation is getting corrected. We are on the road to recovery

Question 7: (Loomis) Regarding the 4 managers that are candidates for taking over for [Buffett as investment manager, how did they do in 2008?

Buffett: Well, all 4 are still on the list. There are three candidates for CEO, these are all internal people and are different from the people under consideration to run BRK’s portfolio. Could bring in 1 investment manager in or more than 1. Could even bring in all 4. These are internal and outside candidates. They did not do better than matching the losses in the S&P last year. They did not cover themselves with glory. But they are tolerant of that given the circumstances in 2008

Munger: Most managers got creamed in 2008

Buffett: These 4 have been better than average over time. If you had asked him in January 2008 whether or not these people would do better than the S&P he would have thought they would for sure. Would have been wrong in retrospect. The board knows who the CEO would be if Buffett died

There is an immediate need for a CEO. Portfolio decisions could be more drawn out. Portfolio can survive without an new investment manager coming in the next day

Munger: Don’t want a manager who would jump to cash in tough circumstance. They can’t do that at BRK so they would actually look down on someone who did that in his/her portfolios

Question 8: (Audience) What is you opinion of the likelihood of the US having nationalized health care? Is this necessarily a bad thing?

Munger: Thinks that something like European system will come to the US and be supplemented by a private system. Compared it to the school system that has both public and private schools competing for students. Even though he is a Republican he is not horrified by the idea of nationalized health care. However, he wishes they would wait until the credit crisis was over before they decided to try to fix health care

Question 9: (Quick) Why not bring in a new CEO now and let him/her learn from Warren and take some of the pressure off of him?

Buffett: All of the candidates are currently running a major business and are making capital allocation decisions each day. It would be a waste of talent for the CEO to come in and sit at BRK while Warren reads the Wall Street Journal. These people know how to run businesses. They are all ready for the CEO job right now. Will have to develop relationships with potential sellers of businesses, BRK’s top managers and shareholders. It will take some time but it doesn’t make sense to start the process now. The big challenge will be understanding the different management styles of BRK’s managers. Some managers run with virtual independence and some need more input from Warren and Charlie. The new CEO will have to learn the individual personalities and management styles

Munger: These people are qualified to be the CEO of a BRK subsidiary and it would be a waste of time for them to come sit in Omaha. Thinks that the decentralized CEO building model is better anyway

Question 10: (Audience) How do you teach new value investors?

Buffett: 49 different schools came to Omaha last year to meet with him. Believes that schools only need to teach two courses. How to value a business? How to think about markets?The market is there to serve you, not to instruct you. No other classes are needed, Especially those that teach about modern portfolio theory, efficient markets and beta

Remind people to always stay in their circle of competence. Certain companies do not lend themselves to easy valuation. It is OK to put these in the too hard bin

Accounting can be useful, but it is certainly limiting

One of the most important required traits is emotional stability, a state of peace with your decisions

Said that this could be innate and admitted that it is not easily learned. Not the toughest thing to learn but it is not easy

If you have a 150 IQ then sell 30 points to someone else. You don’t need an IQ above 120 to be an investor. In fact a higher IQ could potentially be harmful

Munger: There is so much that is false and foolish at business schools, in finance, in banking and in academia. If you limit the nonsense then you can eliminate the noise

Buffett: The fact that business schools still teach the efficient market theory biases him against academia. Called it a nutty idea. Said that it is a problem that the people who teach it are so entrenched because science only evolves one funeral at a time. He can’t believe how nutty ideas endure and get perpetuated despite mountain of evidence that the ideas are wrong


Question 11: (Audience) How do you look at the market’s valuation of BRK’s shares?

Buffett: There are two components of BRK’s valuation: earnings and investments. Both of these should rise in value over time. Thinks that the investments are worth more than they are being carried for. Earnings power (excluding underwriting profit/loss) of businesses was not as good in 2008 (and most likely in 2009 as well). Most of the businesses will do well and some will do sensationally. Some obviously have problems

If you add the 2 components of value then you conclude that BRK was undervalued at the end of 2008 versus the end of 2007. But that was true for a lot of stocks

Munger: In 2008 the float business was tough. But over the long run they will have a negative float. Believes their casualty business is the best in the world. If there is a better utility business in the world he doesn’t know of it. Thinks that the quality of BRK’s businesses is going to matter over time. If you think it is easy to find such good businesses then you are crazy

Buffett: In September 2008 people started acting differently. It was like a bell went off and many businesses got hurt as consumers and other businesses changed their behaviors. Despite this GEICO actually saw a huge uptick in interest. Competitive advantage is reaping rewards. Being the low cost producer is a huge advantage in this environment. Fundamentals are in place for greater growth in the future

Question 12: (Loomis) Since it is tough to reinvest retained earnings at the same rates as before, does it make sense to consider a dividend policy now, especially since Buffett has readily criticized others for not paying dividends?

Buffett: They are not going to start paying a dividend. Security values were depressed in 2008. Reinvested earnings did not match return on the stock dollar for dollar in 2008. But they have never underperformed over a 5 year period.

Implied that 2008 was an understandably aberrational year. If these results continued then there would be a case to be made that they had not reached their return goals. Identified WFC as a company that will be better off in 2 years a result of the credit crisis as competitors have pulled back or disappeared. Implied that BRK may be in the same position based on the ability to buy assets at attractive prices. You never want to be in the position in which someone can force you to sell your business. You can’t rely on daily quotes or returns to help you decide on an investment

Question 13: (Audience) Would we better off investing in hard assets as the US and world take on so much debt, a fact that could lead to inflation?

Munger: YES!!!

Buffett: In the 1980s a lot of wonderful things were done to help build this country through infrastructure development. This should be the model now as well. However big organizations (both governments and companies) are prone to be slow and wasteful. The intent should be to get money into action quickly and intelligently. On the day after Pearl Harbor if they had added earmarks to the declaration of war it would have been a disaster. He is often very distressed by all the earmarks attached to bills. We are doing things on a scale that will have consequences in the future. There is no free ride. Implied that inflation was a real possibility. One no brainer that we should be spending on is an improved electricity grid. This has nothing to do with the fact that they own an electricity subsidiary

Question 14: (Quick) Despite the strong balance sheet, is BRK at a cost of capital disadvantage based on not having the government guarantees that more troubled institutions have enjoyed?

Buffett: BRK is at a huge disadvantage. Its raw material cost is higher than that of the troubled banks. Have to find other sources of funding. Especially for Clayton Homes. They can’t become a bank holding company. Only use borrowed money in the utility business. Borrowings are well under the other utilities

Have $58B of float that they can use but right now they can’t go head to head with a government subsidized business

Munger: Have a disadvantage but they would rather be in their position than that of the more distressed companies

Question 15: (Audience) What would Graham have said about derivatives?

Buffett: He would not have liked them. They cause leverage to go wild, lead to counterparty risk, make unexpected problems emerge, and can lead to financial devastation

Having said that, if Graham had seen mispricings he might have bought them in moderation. Would not have done it in a way that another person’s (counterparty’s) problem could affect him. Believe that derivatives are used as a way around regulations on leverage. As settlement dates get stretched out (as they are on CDS) there is more likely to be a default. There is a reason why security markets have 3 day settlement periods

Munger: Derivative dealers are playing games with its clients because they are privy to some of their clients positions. Leads to an unfair advantage. This is a dirty business. We need less of this in the US

Question 16: (Sorkin) Why have we seen no concessions on preferred shares and debt from banks like we have seen from GM and Chrysler?

US Bancorp (USB) and WFC are making lots of money. There is not reason to go to the senior holders as ask them to make concessions when there is a ton of equity below them. No reason for senior debt to give up anything. Companies with strong earnings power are very different from the car manufacturers. Chrysler obviously does not fit in the strong earnings category

Question 17: (Audience) If BRK had a smaller asset base and was more nimble, how would they act differently with all of the volatility?

Buffett: They own stocks they like regardless of what the price has done. Cost basis has nothing to do with how you should run the fund/portfolio. You still look at intrinsic value not the selling price

Question 18: (Loomis) If it is true that Charlie and Warren are BRK’s competitive advantage and are now running a business that is tough to understand, why should someone buy BRK for the long run?

Buffett: BRK has a sustainable advantage that is not Warren and Charlie. They have a cultural advantage based on the business model. They have a different shareholder base than other companies and that is a huge advantage. They have a model that allows businesses that they buy to keep running their businesses without a lot of input from BRK. It is very tough to copy BRK. But this is not just about Warren and Charlie. People will always want to join up with BRK (as a result of the culture) no matter who is in charge

Munger: Many subsidiaries of companies are run terribly by the centralized headquarters of corporate America. This will remain ample enough to give BRK an advantage in the future

Question 19: (Audience) How do you justify buying and holding when the fundamentals of a company change?

Buffett: You sell when you lose faith in the management or they make a mistake from the beginning. Sell when the competitive advantage disappears. They buy a business for keeps. This is unless they promise to lose money indefinitely or have prolonged labor issues

When in doubt buy and hold. If you find something much more attractive then you can sell. BRK does sell stocks periodically. They ask the CEOs the interview what they would do differently if they owned 100% of the company?They often hear a lot of things people would do. There are no examples at BRK. They run it as if they own 100%

Question 20: (Quick) Since BRK does not buy back shares, would it make sense for an investor to sell his/her BRK shares and just buy what Buffett is buying?

Buffett: First off, an investor can’t buy the free float, which is BRK’s advantage. They also can’t buy the businesses they own or make private investments

Munger: It is not a bad idea to do what the question suggests

Question 21: (Audience) How will inflation affect younger generations? What is BRK doing to protect against it?

Buffett: :Inflation will affect younger generations. Even a couple points of inflation can lead to a slippery slope. Policies stimulating the business world will lead to inflation and the government will have the incentive to inflate our debt so we pay it off with less powerful dollars. In essence, the Chinese by funding our debt are paying AIG’s bonuses. Our taxes have not been raised yet. Fixed dollar investments will be hurt the most. Best protection versus inflation is your own earnings power. 2 nd best protection: a wonderful business. A business that people will patronize regardless. A business that does not include high capital investment costs

Question 22: (Sorkin) Since the newspaper/publishing business is struggling what should BRK do with The Washington Post (WPO) shares? Are there better opportunities out there? Would they buy another newspaper?

Buffett: Current environment has accentuated the problem with newspapers (erosion has been accelerated). Would not buy most newspapers at ANY price. Used to be the ultimate business, now they face unending losses. Essential nature is gone. No pricing power. Not essential for advertisers. There is nothing on the horizon that changes that

Could have sold the Buffalo News years ago but refused to do it. It is worth less now. As long as they don’t see unending losses then they will keep it

WPO has no answers for the slump in the newspaper business. Do have good education and cable businesses though

Munger: The decline in newspapers has been a national tragedy. Has been an important part of our history. Used to keep the government and companies more honest. Whatever replaces newspapers will not be as good

Question 23: (Audience) Will consumer spending changes be permanent and impact the discretionary businesses at BRK for years?

Buffett: When it comes to housing, in a few years you could see an equilibrium based on a return to normalized housing starts. This will eventually help the BRK businesses that are tied to housing.

When it comes to retail, the high end has been the hardest hit. Thinks this will last a while. People will save more. The experience of the last 2 years will last a long time.

Retail real estate industry. Tough period to be in for a long time. Shopping center business will not be the same. Centers bought with 5% capital rates will look silly

In the service industry, these companies require less capital and are better businesses. Don’t expect a quick rebound

Question 24: (Loomis) Since BRK has endorsed share buybacks for other companies but refuses to buy back BRK shares, should BRK shares be discounted because of that?

Buffett: Has not written about stock buybacks in years. Sees recent purchases as foolish. Companies spent too much. In the 1970s and 1980s this was attractive for other companies. In 2000 they thought BRK’s shares were too low and they said so. It was self defeating because the stock went up and then they could not buy any shares. Would say so again if they thought shares were that compelling

Question 25: (Audience) : Based on the macro economic picture, how has opportunity cost decision making changed?

Buffett: These decisions are much more in front of mind recently. When intrinsic value is changing fast then opportunity cost calculations are more challenging but also can be more rewarding. Saw this is September and October 2008. Needed a lot of cash around and had to sell Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) shares to get in on really attractive deals. Would do this again but it is hard to sell in huge quantities in falling markets

Question 26: (Quick) What are the deciding factors when it comes to GEICO ad spending and how do they measure return?

Buffett: Measuring return is the problem of advertising in general. Will continue to spend money on ads with GEICO. Want everyone in the US to have in their minds that they can save real money by switching to GEICO. People have to buy car insurance. They don’t like to but in order to drive they have to. Value of GEICO (by adding subscribers) goes up more than the costs of ads. Would spend $2B on ads if they could

Question 27: (Audience) How do you know when it comes to financials/banks if the model is still intact?

Buffett: WFC has the best competitive advantage of all of the big banks. Big 4 banks have different models but WFC’s is the most unique

Was very wrong on the Irish banks. Did not understand their construction exposure.

With WAMU (WM) and the other banks and institutions that have failed there were many signs that they were doing things that highly levered businesses should not be doing. They simply believed that house values could not go down. If you read the 10-K’s and 10-Q’s of these companies you could tell that their models were different from that of good banks like WFC. Has to do with a different cost of capitalThe information is there. You just have to find it.

This is a very tough assessment for people who are not familiar with the banking industry. Hard to distinguish between two banks so these are companies better left to people with experience. Black boxes are not suitable for passive investors. Produce numbers, not cash.

Munger: GAAP allows companies to improve their earnings by changing their accounting treatment of certain items. A lot of the new regulation that is coming would not be needed if accounting had done its job. Accountants should be ashamed of their profession

Question 28: (Sorkin) At first glance BYD looks like a speculative venture capital investment. Is this really a value investment?

Buffett: Does not believe there is an investment that is not a value investment

Munger: BYD is not an early stage venture capital company. Not unproven and speculative. Called what they achieved have a “damn miracle”. Achieved a leading position in lithium batteries off of a base of zero. Then they decided to go into the auto business with no experience. Now have the single best selling car in China. CEO Wang-Chuan Fu is hiring the smartest engineers in China. Charlie is not going to bet against 17,000 Chinese engineers. Would be amazed if something great did not happen. Believes this is a talented group of people who may carry the future of the world. The car we are going to see is made basically from scratch by BYD. Everything but the glass and the rubber. This is unheard of in the car industry

Question 29: (Audience) How do you view the US Dollar (USD) versus other currencies? Is inflation going to hurt the USD?

Buffett: This is unpredictable but the dollar will buy less 5-10 years from now. But this is true in the rest of the world with other currencies as well. Hard to compare the USD to other currencies. Governments around the world are running large national deficits to offset demand contraction

Munger: There has been a lot of inflation in our history. A little bit of inflation is not going to hurt us. But you want to avoid runaway inflation

Question 30: (Loomis) How do we quantify the impact of the AAA downgrade?

Buffett: BRK won’t regain the AAA soon because the agencies won’t turn around that quickly even if they should. CDS cost actually went down when Moody’s downgraded BRK. AAA spread versus AA spread is not material. Impact on borrowing cost is immaterial

They lost some bragging rights in terms of their insurance business. But no one has a better rating than they do. In Buffett’s mind BRK is an AAA.They run the company in a way that no one could be a better credit.

Credit agencies can’t quantify (in the ratings) management’s opinions and views about obligations. They can’t actually quantify the fact that no one ever has to worry about BRK being willing and able to meet its obligations

Munger: Next change from Moody’s will be an upgrade. He thinks they deserve a higher rating and he knows that MCO is smart

Buffett: If they hypothetically write a $1B equity put they get $150M in cash (the premium) and this creates a liability on the balance sheet. The guy on the other side of the trade sets up a receivable. On a mark to market basis the asset goes up and the liability goes up if the market falls. But BRK has the cash and the other guy then has to buy CDS on BRK to protect against the company not living up the contract. The more the asset goes up the more CDS they have to buy and then the CDS on BRK goes up. This is a senseless self-reinforcing process

Question 31: (Audience) Can you talk about the potential for building wind farms at Mid American?

Buffett: Mid American is the largest wind farmer in the US. Wind only blows about 35% of the time in Iowa. Iowa has been receptive and is the biggest wind using state. Wind cannot be your base load because of the unpredictability. Mid American has not raised rates in a decade in Iowa. They have been able to keep rates down through a wind tax credit and by exploiting other efficiencies. They charge a rate that leads to a good return and is fair to consumers. Company is putting in more wind farms through Pacific Corp. as well. Coming online soon in California

Munger: In anything that makes sense when it comes to the utilities BRK is going to be a leader

Buffett: Constellation was close to Chapter 11. Were about to receive a ratings downgrade that would have forced them to post collateral and would have forced them into bankruptcy

Buffett: and Mid American were there that day with a firm cash offer. This is BRK’s competitive advantage: the ability to write a check the day they see an attractive deal. Also have managers that can deliver

Question 32: (Quick) In regards to the Bank of America (BAC) and Merrill Lynch deal, does protection of the banking system justify a lack of disclosure? What would BRK if they were put in a similar position?

Buffett: This was a very fragile situation. Merrill would likely have gone under without the deal. Can see why the government did not want the deal to blow up

Munger: You can criticize original contract legitimately. But, once signed, the Treasury acted properly as well as BAC

Buffett: The deal was done over a weekend. Between Saturday and Sunday BAC got 2 separate fairness opinions on the deal. Paid $10M for each. Those turned out to be pretty worthless

Question 33: (Audience) What has the net effect (or future effect) of the government interventions on BRK? Have the companies been helped or hurt?

Munger: New rules are going to come out and it is not clear what those rules will entail. The lobbying pressure from the financial institutions has been quite strong and effective. But the climate of disdain for financial institutions will limit some of the lobbyists’ impact. BRK will have to adapt as needed

Buffett: Wall Street is thrashing around. People do not like Wall Street right now. People have had to worry about things such as money market funds that they have never had to before. It is hard to satisfy the fury without high profile people going to jail or being punished. Anger right now is sort of amorphous and without a specific group of villains it is aimed broadly at Wall Street and the banks. Believes this will eventually result in legislation. Some of which could affect BRK

Question 34: (Sorkin) Due to BRK’s size the returns are not likely to be as strong going forward as they have been in the past. Do they target a specific return or acceptable rate?

Buffett: Impossible for BRK to average 20% a year again. He would be satisfied beating the S&P 500 by a few percentage points each year. 10% better than the S&P just can’t be achieved now because of their size. Book value will continue to be a good proxy for and barometer of intrinsic value

Munger: Understand that they can’t multiple book value per share at the same rate they used to. But believes that the best days of BRK are still ahead. BRK will make a large and positive contribution to society in the future

Question 35: (Audience) How do you look at investments in China? How do the Chinese keep the purchasing power of their reserves?

Buffett: Will evaluate Chinese opportunities as they see them. They can’t own more than 24.9% of an insurance company in China. GEICO faces a limitation on ownership. BRK does a lot of things that are exportable.

Should see opportunities in buying companies in the future. China can’t get rid of their dollar denominated assets. The US trade deficit requires that China at least hold some dollars. Going to build their dollar reserves as long as they have a trade surplus. Have focused on bonds and are now not too happy about the prospects for the purchasing power of those bonds. They have a right to be concerned in his eyes

Munger: If he was the Chinese finance minister he would be doing and saying the same things. But they are advancing so fast that some loss of purchasing power will only hurt them trivially. US and China should be close friends because they are tied at the hip. China will be very hard to compete with in the future

Question 36: (Loomis) Can you give us a post mortem on the General Re deal?

Buffett: Post mortems are good to do internally but they should not always be public. This is not done at enough companies. Should not blame the company you bought because your projections were wrong. So far this deal has worked out well after some initial trouble. BRK has made some dumb decisions. Did not realize that the General Re they bought was not the General Re of 15 year prior. Reserve and underwriting policies had changed. Now it has been resurrected by BRK’s management. Now it is the company that Buffett thought it was. Believe is has a great future

Munger: It is important to turn lemons into lemonade. It is not pleasant, pretty or easy. Ordinary managers could not have turned General Re around

Question 37: (Audience) How does BRK view union workers versus managers and workers with set contracts (where they are not unionized)?

Buffett: Do not believe in contracts. Don’t want relationships that are based on contracts. They want managers who will be passionate about the business no matter who the owner is

Munger: The BRK model is based on a seamless web of trust. The Hollywood model based on no trust and specific contracts is not their model

Question 38: (Quick) Why not spin off some BRK companies to unlock more value?

Buffett: They won’t be spinning off any companies. They don’t care about increased trading multiples. If they have great businesses they want to keep them for the long. Their structure allows them to move cash within the company with no tax consequences. Can move money from See’s Candy for example to other businesses that have a higher return on invested capital. BRK buys to keep and people know they can trust BRK

Munger: So many spinoffs are just used to produce Wall Street fees. Are not really good for shareholders. Short of some sort of crazy regulation BRK would not split off any divisions

Question 39: (Audience) Do you have any comments on the troubles in the student loan industry?

Munger: There has been a lot of scandal based on certain sales methods. Companies got real cozy with school administrators. In all honesty he does not know much about the business

Buffett: Was approached about a deal concerning Sallie Mae (SLM) and he passed

Question 40: (Sorkin) Are GE and Goldman Sachs (GS) attractive businesses or were the available securities attractive? Does the fact that these companies have a history of managing earnings worry them?

Buffett: Lots of companies have been managing earnings recently. This is not unique to GS and GE. Liked the terms of the deal and the quality of management. Markets were in chaos and it was a really extraordinary period. There was not another alternative for these companies. So BRK jumped in and made attractive deals during this period

Munger: Have done a lots of business with GS and have been very happy with the service they have received over the years

Buffett: BRK does a lot of business with GE. Have bought many wind turbines.In general he is happy with this deal as well

Question 41: (Audience) What happens to BRK’s businesses if the world economy continues to be bad or gets worse?

Buffett: The world system works well. We will live better in the future. The system brings out human potential. Capitalism will have some bad years. But we have not reached our potential. We will continue to move forward at a rapid rate. There are always problems in the world. But this is the only world we have

China used to have a model that took away from people’s potential. Now they have a model that works. We will find more ways to innovate and move forward

Munger: He is cheerful about the economic future: 1. We will harness the energy of the sun; 2. We will turn sea water in fresh water; 3. We will preserve carbon resources; 4. He believes that technological breakthroughs will change energy production

If you have enough energy then you have fewer problems. Solving the energy problem solves mankind’s biggest problem

Question 42: (Loomis) Now that BRK is in control of Swiss Re, should we be worried about the underwriting standards at Swiss Re? Shouldn’t we be wary based on the General Re deal?

Buffett: They have a convertible security that pays 12% and is callable at 120% of par. Convertible at 25 Francs. Expect it to be called

This company’s problems have not come from underwriting. BRK is fine with the 20% quota share they own. Believe it will provide an attractive float. BRK also has a reserve-loss sharing deal in which they would pay out $5B over a certain loss threshold in 10-15 years. In the meantime they have $2B to invest

Question 43: (Audience) How do you develop the right compensation structure in capital intensive subsidiaries?

Buffett: You have to include a factor in compensation that includes capital cost. Can’t just be based on earnings. Would lead to earnings manipulation. Unfortunately boards have had little effect on compensation. CEO becomes a large determiner of his/her own compensation. Often selects the compensation committee. Of the 19 boards Buffett has been on he has been on 1 compensation committee. No one wants a tough guy like Buffett on the compensation committee. Boards do not do enough to monitor and affect compensation. Not every CEO wants a rational compensation structure.

Believe that there should not even be a separate compensation committee. The whole board should be involved. The board rarely acts enough like owners. Has gotten better though over the last few years. But off a really low base

Munger: There is often a club-like atmosphere. Directors are liberally paid and they have the incentive to keep CEO pay high as well. Creates a mutual pay raising climate

Buffett: Thinks 100 page proxy statement are absurd. If it takes that many pages then something is very wrong. When his/her personal compensation is important (financially) to an individual director then he/she is not likely to argue with the CEO

Munger: A man/woman who has a lot to lose if he/she loses his/her office or position is not likely to be independent

Question 44: (Quick) What is the worst case scenario for BRK’s insurance business?

Munger: A catastrophe loss that costs $2-$3B pretax. But he wouldn’t trade their insurance business for any one else’s. Even that big a loss would not impair the company over the long run

Buffett: Would pay 3-4% of a $100B catastrophe based on their current share. The kind of scenario in which this could occur would be a situation in which there was so much inflation that people became unhappy about their daily purchases and the government was forced to nationalize businesses. This is a very low probability event but it is not impossible

Question 45: (Audience) How should BRK shareholders outside the US hedge against a slide in the USD?

Buffett: Euro Dollar is an easy thing to hedge if you want. Not as easy with other currencies though. BRK will continue to do things that make sense. They will own companies that make money outside the US through direct and indirect means. They don’t have a goal about a certain percentage of earnings coming from abroad. They don’t wake up and think they should put more money in a specific country. They look at deals as they present themselves

Munger: Modern capitalism is messy and has defects. There is plenty right and wrong with all models

Question 46: (Sorkin) How do you look at temporary or permanent layoffs based on short term changes in the economy?

Buffett: Things can change very fast in the economy. BRK’s brick plants are closed now. But won’t permanently contract. But the Buffalo News business may never come back as the textile business never did. If business changes are material then you must change the model. Have to lay off as you see fit when your competitors are. Firms usually err on the side of waiting too long and you never like doing it

Munger: Some businesses have a shared hardship model in which layoffs get delayed. But you can’t operate each plant at 50% to avoid closing the weakest one

Question 47: (Audience) How can shareholders work to help curb compensation?

Buffett: The AIG bonus scandal has had a huge impact on the government and the public. People are enraged. No statute will be able to make constituents 100% happy. Clinton era compensation bill was terribly counterproductive. In the end the shareholders paid when companies could not deduct more than $1M of compensation for executives and this reduced earnings. Led to a lot of people hiring lawyers to try to get around the tax laws. Led to longer proxy statements as well. Suggested repealing this Clinton era bill. If the money management companies spoke out on just the most egregious cases then they could embarrass people and behavior would likely change. Restraining factor is not present now though. Consultants inflate compensation even more. No one wants to be in the bottom quartile of pay

Munger: He is not optimistic about money managers changing their ways. A money manger who is making $20M a year managing a fund is not likely to try to curb other executives’ pay. It would be like throwing stones in a glass house. Pension funds are also dominated by liberals that will not allow the values to change

Question 48: (Loomis) How does BRK evaluate potential managers?

Buffett: Usually buy companies that have great management teams in place. You have to ask yourself whether or not these people will feel the same way about the company the day after the deal. What do they do when managers get too old and lose their edge?. BRK has no mandated retirement age (probably because it would force Mungerout). Decisions to remove older managers are tough on Warren and Charlie. Have been really slow on these in the past. This is the only part of the job they do not like. Want to find people who love their businesses. Believe they can spot that in people

Question 49: (Audience) What is Buffett doing in his own portfolio?

Buffett: Not buying as aggressively as he was in 1974. That was the best period ever.There was a different interest rate situation then. Country is not in as much trouble as it was in 1974. Has recently bought some equities and bonds. Likes when things get cheaper. Buy things on sale when you can get a lot for your money. Said he spends 99% of his time thinking about BRK and only 1% on his portfolio

Munger: In general when stocks go down by 40% they are more attractive. Plus, interest rates are low now as well. This is not as bad as 1974. In 1974 he knew it was his time to buy. Too bad he didn’t have enough money

Question 50: (Quick) How do they identify capital intensive businesses that overstate earnings because they understate actual depreciation?

Buffett: Utility earnings come from regulated ROE. They are more afraid of non-utility companies. You don’t get rich or poor on utilities. But inflation could end up affecting the utility business. A lot of moats have been filling up with sand recently. Newspapers and TV stations have lost their moats

Question 51: (Sorkin) Is there a succession plan for Ajit in place? Considering the size of the re-insurance business, is it risky not to have a plan in place?

Buffett: It is impossible to replace Ajit. If something happened to Ajit they would have to limit the amount of capital, risk and authority of who ever came in after. The authority comes with the person, not with the position. Enormous damage can be done in the insurance business with a pen so you have to be careful who you give that pen to

Buffett: talks to Ajit every day because he likes to hear about what Ajit is up to. Not because Ajit needs him

Munger: The fact that it is true that a fool may eventually run a business (referring to the idea that you should find a business that a fool can run because eventually a fool will run it) does not take away the importance of finding a company that is managed by incredibly capable people

Buffett: Preliminary Comments on Q1 2009 Q1 earnings of $1.7B versus $1.9B in Q1 2008. Underwriting profit was up. Float was up $2B as a result of a March transaction with Swiss Re (this is long duration float). Utilities’ earnings were down. Constellation Energy (CEG) stock was down during the quarter and there was a payment to buy Mid American options that hurt earnings

All of the other businesses were down as well. Insurance and utilities should be better the rest of the year

He is not expecting the others to do well

$22.7B in cash. They then spent $3B on the Dow Chemical (DOW) deal the day after the quarter ended so cash was just about $20B as of 4/1/2009

BV/Share was down. CDS contracts were down even more from Q4 as a result of the market turmoil

施罗德: 巴菲特says中国的投资机会远远多于美国,而且他看好新能源企业

5月16日,《滚雪球》(巴菲特生平唯一授权的传记)作者艾丽斯·施罗德在北京接受中国媒体采访时透露,巴菲特认为中国的投资机会远远多于美国,而且他看好新能源企业

  在回答早报记者提问时,施罗德一度潸然泪下,坦言朋友的陆续离去让巴菲特这位70多岁的老人对金钱的关注度下降了。

  芒格首先相中比亚迪

  施罗德说,巴菲特一直比较看好中国的资本市场,认为中国将是决定世界经济未来增长最重要的因素之一。在施罗德眼里,巴菲特最关心的问题 是中国资本市场的监管程度,“巴菲特要研究哪些中国企业的类型与他的投资理念和投资风格是匹配的,巴菲特对科技类企业不太感兴趣,但对能源类企业很感兴 趣。

  去年9月,巴菲特注资18亿美元购买比亚迪股份增发的2.25亿股H股,占股10%。半年多时间里,比亚迪股份已经由当时的8.4 港元上涨至目前的25.6元,涨幅达200%。施罗德相信,巴菲特不会卖掉比亚迪股份,因为这不是他的作风,对于喜欢的公司巴菲特不会轻易出售。

  巴菲特的老搭档芒格对像比亚迪这样的新能源企业是很感兴趣的,这个投资创意也是芒格首先提出的。

  “巴菲特年轻的时候对小企业的股票很关注。他会对小企业的状况进行仔仔细细的调研,甚至与企业管理层进行了会晤,到他们的仓库看一看,看他们生产什么样的产品。”施罗德说,“现在中国就有这样的机会,因为中国有很多新兴的企业,而在美国这样的机会不多了。”

  股票比大宗商品有价值

  作为巴菲特投资理念的推崇者,施罗德说,持有股票比持有大宗商品更有价值,购买股票所代表的公司将来会盈利、会带来利润,而买入大宗商品更多意义上是一种投机。

  施罗德认为,可在全球多元化的基础上持有股票,选择那些近期上涨不多的市场,目前的情况下,中国、欧元区和美国的股市都要在回调之后才值得介入。

  施罗德透露,《滚雪球》是自己在2003年开始创作的,6个月之后巴菲特的夫人苏珊被诊断出患有口腔癌,后来她就去世了,并且在这段时间巴菲特有数个朋友去世,这些亲友的离去使巴菲特的人生观发生了重大的变化。

  在这段时间,嗜财如命的巴菲特对金钱的关注度下降了,他和自己家人开始异常亲近,对自己的家人和孩子也更慷慨了,尽管没有像对全人类那样的慷慨,但毫无疑问,工作在他人生中的重要性下降了。


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

如果以巴菲特作为投资者的标杆和楷模,在施罗德看来,巴菲特身上所具有的四个特性是所有成功投资者所必需具备的

  首先,巴菲特是一个注意力非常集中,做事十分专注的人。巴菲特曾经说过这样一句话,“紧张”是优秀的代价。其次,巴菲特对数字有着非常强的把握 能力和超强的记忆力。第三,巴菲特非常善于对人做出判断。而这种对人敏锐的判断力,并不是靠直觉,也不是天生的,而在于后天的学习和培养。最后,巴菲特非 常强调学习,每天都要读五种以上的报纸了解数千家企业的情况。

  通过与巴菲特的近距离接触和观察,施罗德指出,“投资需要大量的时间投入。大家不应该指望自己能像巴菲特一样的富有,但可以努力效仿、适用他的一些投资规则让自己成为一名成功的投资者。”

  巴菲特曾经说过:“投资不应该是漫不经心的,不应该是以业余者的态度来做,必须以专业、专注的精神来做。

  作为成熟市场中的一位成功投资者,巴菲特的投资经验和价值投资规则是否也同样适用于像中国这样的新兴市场?施罗德对于这个问题毫不迟疑地给出了肯定回答。

  施罗德指出,目前中国企业和中国资本市场发展的状况,类似于上世纪50年代时美国的情况。众多小公司的存在,使得投资者可以有机会成为对于某一特定公司的“专家型”投资者,发现别人所没有发现的投资机会。

  “现在很多人说,中国市场中的股票是比较贵的,市场经历了持续大幅的上涨。”但施罗德认为,市场中还是会有一些比较廉价的股票,“投资者在投资时一定要买股票,而不要买市场。

  在谈到巴菲特备受推崇的价值投资理念时,施罗德却告诉记者,价值投资并非是一条放之所有投资者皆准的真理,有三类投资者就不适合进行价值投资。

  施罗德表示,对于任何价值投资者来说,耐心是必须的。所谓的“耐心”,是指至少要能够达到5年到10年的投资持有期限。而公共基金的基 金经理,一年的投资业绩不佳,就有可能辞退。因此,对于公共基金的基金经理来说,价值投资理念可能并不适用。此外,即将退休或者已经退休的老人,以及借钱 投资的人也不适合做价值投资。



黄华民 comments on 中国平安

《投资者报》:三家保险公司今年一季度的业绩并不尽如人意,保险行业是否已经摆脱金融危机影响,恢复稳定增长?

  黄华民:保险是一个抗周期行业,在这次金融危机中受到的冲击并不大。去年保险公司的亏损主要来自权益投资,其中平安投资富通出现巨亏,对该项投资已计提227.9亿元减值准备,2009年可“轻装上阵”。对于整个保险行业来讲,承保业务本身波动不大,基本面非常扎实。

  保险业尤其在寿险产品方面具有消费金融的概念。作为一种消费品,寿险的购买通常以个人为主,如果万能险和投连险这两个险种占比高,可能会导致保险公司的收入出现较大的波动,但这种波动主要还是和资本市场的波动挂钩。

  看保险公司的业绩和估值,除了关注保费的增长之外,更应关注保费的结构,因为有些保费的增长并不能给保险公司带来更多的价值。保费结构从渠道上分为个人和银行保险渠道,从产品上分为传统分红和投连万能险,不同的保费结构会使利润率相差很大。

  今年一季度,保监会公布的数据显示,个人代理渠道保费增长15.4%,标准保费增长超过25%,但是整个保险行业保费增长为10%。而实际上,保险公司的估值更看重的是个人代理渠道和标准保费两方面的增长。未来消费者对于安全和保障型产品需求的增长,将有助于促进高利润率产品的销售,提升行业的总体价值。

  《投资者报》:保险行业的亏损主要是权益投资亏损,那么资本市场的拐点是否能成为保险行业复苏的拐点?

  黄华民:保险公司的业绩、投资收益率与资本市场的联动性很强。当前投资于资本市场的保险资金占行业总资产的10%左右,去年在股市下跌和降息的双重影响下,投资收益的波动比较大,其中一方面是股票,一方面是债券,一旦这两个市场见底基本上就表示保险资金投资收益率见底。

  除关注资本市场之外,还要关注利差问题,目前降息周期接近尾声,而债券市场的发展非常快,以前债券投资主要是投资国债和金融债,这些主权债的利率相对较低,而保监会最近指出,将放开保险资金投资地方政府债、无担保债这些新的债券品种,这些债券品种收益率相对较高。

  当前中国固定资产投资保持高位增长,各地政府为保增长也积极促进投资,对于资金的需求会不断上升。目前来看,债券市场的利率处于上行的状态,但保单资金成本保持稳定,保险公司享有的利差有望逐渐扩大。未来经济体如在宽松货币政策和积极财政政策中走向复苏,利差基本上就会持续扩大,这对保险行业业绩和估值回升非常有利。
《投资者报》:投资富通的大笔亏损,是否会影响平安今年的业绩?

  黄华民:只要全球经济能从危机中走出来,投资对平安来说反而能转败为胜。富通目前的价格相对去年已有所回升,而且对于富通投资的部分平安并没有出售,去年的亏损已经全部计提,今年可谓是“轻装上阵”。如果资本市场好转,原来计提减值准备的部分就能转回,对平安的业绩应该会很有利。

《投资者报》:你在研究报告中最为看好中国平安,但从保险规模上看,中国人寿(601628,股吧)还是行业“老大”,平安有哪些优势?

  黄华民:从保费增长上看,中国平安4月份增长41%,而整个市场差不多增长10%,中国人寿3月份增长1.8%,太保保费则下降12.7%。目前来看,平安保费增长并没有受到金融危机的影响。

  首先,保费增长良好和平安代理人队伍的扩张速度有很大关系,平安的代理人队伍一直在扩张,2008年底有35.6万,目前正向40万的目标迈进。而且平安70%以上的保费收入来自于个人代理,人寿和太保只有30%~40%。个人代理销售的产品相对来讲保费收入较稳定,利润率较高。从保险公司未来的竞争格局上讲,以个人代理渠道为主要营销方式的保险公司更抗压,如果以后商业银行也经营保险业务,这种营销模式更能抵御其他金融机构的冲击。此外,平安保持了比市场同业更高的结算利率,对投保人有更大的吸引力,也利于保费收入的增长。

  其次,在银保渠道方面,平安在三家公司中占比最低,因此只要稍微在银保渠道的产品上下点工夫,马上就能将规模做起来。2009年一季度,平安银保渠道保费收入增幅超过150%,尽管最近银行并购保险公司有望获批,一部分客户资源会分流,但是银行的介入只是为了使得这个市场成长的速度更快,不会对保险公司的银保销售构成大的冲击。

  第三,平安致力于提供保险、银行、投资一站式服务。未来个人消费金融服务的市场很大,随着个人家庭财富水平的增长,个人消费金融的需求会逐渐增大。平安看到了这样的一个趋势,并以目前的保险平台为依托,发展和保险客户相关联的业务,客户资源能共享,金融产业链上的每一分利润都能赚到。消费金融产品最关键的是建立信任关系,这种信任关系的确立是一个过程,一旦确立就能给公司带来很大的价值。

  中国目前存在的问题不是金融产品过剩的问题,而是金融产品和服务严重不足,这主要是因为监管体制有所限制,没有让金融机构的自主创新能力得到有效发挥。保险公司应该在资产与负债长期的匹配过程中,做好保险产品的营销,不断扩大管理资产的规模。

  此外,平安最近的交叉销售的成果比较显著,交叉销售就是通过授权代理人帮公司卖车险、卖信托产品、卖信用卡,招揽存贷款客户。

  《投资者报》:今年一季度,平安的营业收入同比增长44%,净利润却下滑66%,为何收入和净利润的增长不成正比?

  黄华民:保险责任准备金的计提大增是主要原因,由于今年保费增长较快,计提的准备金必然就会更多,准备金的计提是预计将来发生的赔付,但是实际上也没有赔付,因此这个成本实际上不是已经发生的,只是预计成本。

  我们看保险公司的发展更多的是关注保单利润率、内涵价值等,不能仅从净资产和EPS(每股收益)来评判保险公司的价值。中国股市波动大,保险市场扩张速度快,这会导致净资产和EPS的波动比较大,从而往往会出现净利润和营业收入的增长不成比例的现象。

  比如说,如果银保产品转存到个险产品的情况增多,就要计提更多的准备金,因为产品的利润率越高,承受的风险就越大,从而就要提取更多的保险责任准备金;如果银保的渠道占比较大,计提的准备金就相对较少。

  《投资者报》:保险公司保费收入越高,就得计提更多的准备金,一旦计提更多的准备金又会压低企业的利润,保险公司应该如何去寻找一个平衡点?

  黄华民:准备金计提比例的波动很大,高的时候可达70%至80%,低的时候只有20%至30%,很难有很精确的把握,而准备金这块又同业务结构和业务增长速度有关。

  保险公司的经营,一般是一年追求规模,一年追求结构和质量,因此其经营策略每年都会像钟摆一样来回变化,2007年中国人寿增长只有7%,2008年为50%左右,平安也是一样,每年都会有波动,背后的逻辑就是公司希望寻求规模和结构之间的平衡点。

  《投资者报》:平安一季度业绩增长没有达到预期,但是给予“买入”评级;人寿净利润同比增长,却只给予“增持”评级,这是什么原因?

  黄华民:这主要是考虑到估值和未来成长的潜力,EPS指标有很大的迷惑性,影响EPS的主要是投资收益和准备金。有些刚刚开业的保险公司,保单和结构都很好,却要计提很多的准备金,业绩就很差,但是如果按照内涵价值和新业务价值来看,这些保单的质量都很好,只是从当期的利润来看存在亏损。

  之所以评级不同,是因为我们主要通过新业务价值来看公司未来的成长,新业务价值是今年新卖保单未来净现金流的贴现值。人寿当前股价隐含的新业务价值倍数是25倍,平安则在15~16倍左右。目前平安保费的增长空间更大,毕竟它还是一个中型的保险公司,而人寿的市场份额已经很大,想要保持原来的增长势头很难。

  没有哪只股票能脱离大盘的波动,如果股市走弱平安的股价同样面临风险。如果不考虑资本市场本身波动对股价的影响,平安今年内有望达到55元的目标价位,还有30%以上的上涨空间,目标新业务价值倍数为25倍。

May 17, 2009

房地产价格水平还有40%到50%的降价空间,谷底可能存在于两年之后。

当全世界的房地产市场还处在低迷之中,中国的楼市似乎 已经率先苏醒。随着房价的逐步回落,特别是中央政府和地方政府为拯救房地产市场,在税收、信贷、入户等方面给予政策优惠,房地产的成交量开始出现了一定程 度的放大,房价的下跌也呈明显减缓的态势,有的项目甚至出现了较大幅度的上涨。那么,究竟是楼市出现回暖,还是下跌过程中的短暂反复?是一个非常值得判断 的问题。

  一、令人迷惑的楼市成交量和房价

  阳春三月,各地楼市出现成交量明显放大的行情。根据深圳市国土房管局网站公布的数据,2009年3月份的前两周,深圳市共成交新房3483套,环比上升31%,二手房成交量每天都在350套以上,最高日成交更达到623套。

   进入三月份已来,北京、上海等一些大中城市住宅成交量都出现了明显的回升,部分楼盘也出现了久违的涨价现象,楼市“小阳春”的说法频传。北京市房地产交 易管理网的数据显示,3月1日-19日的签约量高达11673套,已经远远超过2月的签约量9373套,日均签约创下了614套的新高。 易居中国的监测数据显示,3月1日至20日,上海剔除动迁房及配套商品房外的商品住宅成交面积已达到86.9万平方米,超过了2月份81万平方米的成交总 量,是1月份全月成交量的1.71倍。而3月份上海二手房成交量超前2个月也已确定。

  房价下跌也呈明显减缓的趋势。2009年3月10日“春暖楼市”北京春季房展网上联展正式启动,万科、中信、远洋、北辰、城建、天鸿置业等21家房产企业共推出26个项目、2300余套优惠房源销售,降幅2%至16%,优惠和打折幅度较之前期大幅度减少。

   不仅如此,一些项目不仅不降价,甚至还借成交量上升之势大幅度涨价。中原地产研究院调查万科、金地等十家房地产公司2009年2月全国各地项目的销售价 格发现,保利、复地、雅居乐、招商等房地产公司在售项目的销售均价,较2009年1月有一定幅度的上涨,最高的达到30.6%。

  深圳的 房价格外引人注目。从2007年底到2009年2月份,深圳楼市的价格下跌了30%,北京下跌了16.8%,上海下跌了8.6%。基于以上数据,万科的董 事长王石放言,珠三角楼市调整已基本触底,进一步下调的空间几乎没有。实际的情况与2008年萧条的时期相比,深圳的楼市今年的确表现活跃,但是价格却没 有随着成交量的急剧盘升而上涨,根据深圳售房透明网的信息,2009年2月份新房的成交均价为10987元/平方米,环比下降0.42%,同比下降 24.48%。

  二、房地产救市和信贷政策推动楼市成交量回升

  促进房地产成交量回 暖的因素很多,并且由于税务窗口技术因素,导致楼市在3月份出现了一个喷薄的行情。在这些因素中,给市场信心和实惠的,首先是政府救市政策。中国的房地产 救市政策起自2008年11月,在此之前对房地产的基调是紧缩银根、提高税收征管力度。美国金融危机爆发以后,中国也一改2007年10月以来的信贷紧缩 政策,开始全力介入房地产救实行动,包括财政部降低住房交易税费、央行2008年10月以来5次降息、四万亿救市计划中的住房计划和9千亿保障房计划、各 地方政府的房地产救市政策;其次,房价一年来的持续回落吸引买家进入。再次,扩张性货币政策大大缓解了开发商的现金流,这成为开发商一改2008年下半年 的销售策略,重拾2007年及以前控盘造假等手段的重要原因。四是开发商通过虚假手段制造的成交量,包括一线销售环节的造假、网络签约的造假行为和假按揭 行为。五是保障房上市以及大型国企、高等院校等受中央对房地产救市的影响,误以为房价已到谷底从而引发的一定规模的团购因素。

  在所有的 救市政策中,信贷政策无疑是最重要的。2007年10月银监会收紧二套放贷政策,以及作为宏观调控政策的提高利率和存款准备金率,对于房地产投机活动的打 击非常明显。本次救市的政策有税收政策、信贷政策,也有地方政府实施的“购房退个税”、“住房入户”等公共政策。但是,真正促成本次楼市短暂回暖的,最重 要的仍是信贷政策。

  根据中国人民银行的统计,今年1季度人民币贷款增加4.58万亿元,逼近全年信贷额度5万亿元的下限(见图1)。由 于实物产品受到世界金融危机的严重影响,在较长时期难以改变产能过剩、产品供过于求的格局,货币投放很难流向这个领域。货币大规模投放引起的流动性增加, 并没有在消费品和大宗商品领域引起过度需求。(表1)

  与实物产品市场的情况截然相反的,中国的股市特别是房地产股市出现了较大的上涨行 情,这与信贷的大规模投放特别是短期信贷和票据贴现资金进入股市、并短期看好房地产业密切相关。2009年以来,上证指数上涨超过40%。股价上涨大大缓 和了房地产上市公司的资金压力,但也出现了不少房地产公司高管大肆套现问题,显示市场对现有房地产股价的严重高估,以及包括上市公司高管在内的人士对未来 房地产市场的严重看空。

  房地产业明显受益于扩张性货币政策,统计显示,209年1-3月,房地产开发企业本年资金来源10070亿元, 同比增长9.2%。其中,国内贷款2545亿元,增长8.0%;利用外资150亿元,增长41.9%;企业自筹资金3791亿元,增长13.1%;其他资 金3585亿元,增长5.0%。在其他资金中,定金及预收款2029亿元,增长1.6%;个人按揭贷款984亿元,增长13.2%。可见,资金面的好转为 房地产开发商一改降价策略并借机涨价的重要原因。

  2009年3月18日,央行和银监会联合下发了《中国人民银行中国银行业监督管理委员 会关于进一步加强信贷结构调整促进国民经济平稳较快发展的指导意见》,提出鼓励发展消费信贷,做大做好汽车、住房、家电、教育、旅游等产业的消费信贷市 场。4月15日,国务院常务会议要求稳定住房、汽车等大宗消费,不排除为新的以“保增长”为借口的房地产救市政策。

  但是,在房价明显超出普通城镇居民收入水平的情况下,对房地产业的融资,能不能带动国民经济的快速发展,同时规避如美国次债危机引发的严重金融风险,的确是一个两难的选择,也是对宏观调控政策的严峻考验。

  三、房价仍有40-50%的下降空间

  尽管房价在资金注入之后,可能出现反弹甚至上涨的行情,但房地产过剩状况、居民收入水平和经济增长形势等因素,均不支持房价上涨。我们认为,只要不出现特别意外的因素,我国城市房价将在2-3年内回落40~50%,将是一个不可避免的事实。

  (一)房屋供求格局不支持房价上涨

   一直以来,人们认为刚性需求是导致中国城镇房屋供不应求的主要原因。但这种命题成立的前提条件,是住房不存在价格弹性。实际的情况否定了这个命题。进入 2008年以来,我国商品房竣工面积累计增速明显超过同期竣工面积累计增速(见图1),2008年12月商品房竣工面积远远超过当月销售数量,商品房积压 形势日益严峻。(图2)

  根据建设部的统计,2008年全国空置房面积达到1.64亿平方米。空置的概念按照国家统计局的解释,是竣工以 后没有售出或出租的。如果按照国际上的空置率概念,还应该加上存量房当中未被使用的部分。假定2003年及以后销售的商品房有20%属于投机性空置的部 分,则在1.64亿平方米之外,还有5.89亿平方米的存量空置房,两项相加为7.53亿平方米。这个数字大约相当于2008年全国商品住宅销量的 1.35倍,竣工量的1.58倍。如果考虑到2008年的未完成项目,以及2009年的新开工项目,可以认定我国城镇住房目前面临严重的过剩局面。我们认 为这需要很长的时间去消化,再加上目前经济增长的预期下降,将导致土地价格下降,所以房价还有继续下降的空间。

  (二)经济增长形势不支持房价上涨

   2009年1月28日,IMF在新的《世界经济展望》预计2009年世界经济增长将下降至0.5%,这将是第二次世界大战以来的最低增长率。目前全球经 济严重衰退,我国工业品出口衰减呈腰斩之势;国内收入严重分化,绝大部分人缺乏消费扩大能力。这种情况注定我国的经济增长失去了最根本的动力。在出口和消 费不振的条件下,试图依靠投资拉动经济增长后果难料。因为消费才是拉动经济增长(包括投资增长)的最终动力,脱离消费能力的过度投资,必然会对经济发展造 成更大破坏。

  房地产价格的实质是土地的价格,而土地价格完全依赖于地租。地租则反映了使用土地所获得的边际产品价值, 也就是新创造的社会产品分配给土地所有者的部分。这个价格在经济告诉增长时,可能价格上涨明显;但经济不景气时,则先于其他行业而发生价格暴跌。

  (三)居民收入水平和收入增长不支持房价上涨

  尽管近期北京、深圳等地的楼市因政府救市政策的推动而成交回暖,但是房价下降仍然是大势所趋,这是由居民收入水平和收入增长决定的。

   在国际上,房价和居民家庭年收入的合理比例是3到5倍。美国在1980-2000年时全国中位数房价-家庭收入比值一直稳定在3倍左走,只是在2001 年以后才有所上涨,但最高也只有4.6倍(见图3);而中国目前这个比例大约在12倍左右,也就是说一个居民家庭12年不吃不喝的全部收入才够支付一套房 子。这远远超过了公认的合理比例,住房的消费、住房的购买也透支了很多购房者的其它的消费。所以,即使通过信贷投放炒高了房价,但由于最终的消费者没有能 力支付,房价回落将势成必然。

  基于以上分析,我们认为我国城镇房地产价格水平还有40%到50%的降价空间,谷底可能存在于两年之后。


经济视点报:最后,请你谈谈今年房价走势,对其进行预测。

  曹建海:这个不好确定。因为2009年,国家一系列的救市方案和大规模的信贷投放,特别是对消费信贷彻底放开,为房屋租借、假按揭创造了得天独厚的条件,我认为,至少上半年是不会跌的,甚至有小范围的反弹,下半年要看信贷政策和中国整体的经济形势。

  不可否认,保8是需要地方政府完成的,而土地出让金和房地产税收则是地方财政收入主要来源 ,从这些因素来看,地方政府也在想方设法保房地产市场,今年房价不一定会下降,但未来城市房价回落将是一个不可避免的事实。


  来源:《中国商界》杂志

  作者:曹建海 王诗瑶

May 16, 2009

Rogers - Nine weeks for a correction

The dollar’s rally is set to end in a “currency crisis,” legendary investor Jim Rogers told Bloomberg yesteray, adding that he may bet on a slide in equities after nine weeks of gains. He said “We’re going to have a currency crisis, probably this fall or the fall of 2010,It’s been building up for a long time. We’ve had a huge rally in the dollar, an artificial rally in the dollar, so it’s time for a currency crisis.” The dollar has climbed against all of the so-called Group of 10 currencies except the yen over the past year , The U.S. currency was at $1.3592 per euro today from $1.3582. Rogers said, that He’s avoiding The Dollar and equities for the next two to three years because prospects haven’t changed,“The market in the U.S. went up very powerfully for nine weeks in a row so of course it’s time for a correction,” Rogers said . Rogers owns some Chinese and Japanese stocks, and also continues to hold some shares of airlines, he said without naming any companies. Stocks in commodities economies such as Canada and Brazil may also perform better than U.S. shares, Rogers added.

May 05, 2009

Buffet May,4,2009

George Soros, the billionaire financier, helped unsettle markets by voicing fears that share prices had further to fall. In an interview, he said: "It's a bear-market rally because we have not yet turned the economy around. This is not a financial crisis like all the other financial crises that we have experienced in our lifetime."

 
Warren Buffett tells shareholders that "I would love to buy all of US Bancorp or I would love to buy all of Wells Fargo, if we were allowed to do it."

The problem, he says, is that Berkshire Hathaway would have to become a bank holding company.  Berkshire already owns substantial stakes in the two banks.


Buffett says they're making a lot of money and have strong earnings power, in contrast to a company like Chrysler.

Well, it wouldn't come as a surprise to me.  I don't know anything about it, but, you know, Citi has needed some money from time to time.  Citi - the real question is their earning power going forward.  Citi is not - nothing bad is going to happen to people who have their money with Citi.  Nothing is going to happen bad with any of the big banks.  Or the small banks.  There has not been any money lost with an insured bank since the FDIC started in 1934.  So people's money are totally safe in banks now.  How much capital the people who supervise them want them to have, is up to the supervisors.
BUFFETT: Sure.  Well, I do it by looking at the details of their operation.  Wells Fargo obtains their money, which is the raw material, they obtain their money cheaper than anybody else.  You can look at the figures for every bank and you would be startled at the trillion dollars, roughly, that Wells Fargo gets from depositors, and to some extent from debt -- how much more cheap, how cheap that is compared to most of the other big banks.  If you're a copper producer, and copper is selling for two dollars a pound, and you want to measure the stress of copper going to $1.30, for a guy whose production cost is $1.50, you know, he's got problems.  If his cost is a dollar, he doesn't have problems.   And Wells, in terms of its raw material costs, is better situated than any large bank, by some margin.   So, it's built to sustain a lot.  


But in a live Squawk Box interview in the driveway of his Omaha home, Buffett repeats his long-held optimism that the economy will get better -- he just doesn't know when.

Becky asked him about headlines in the morning's newspapers.

Here are the highlights:

Buffett still "100% enormously optimistic" about U.S. economy over long-term, but doesn't see short-term signs of a pick-up


"American economy is slow, and still getting slower, but that will turn" .. just don't know when .. hopes it's soon


Time to buy stocks is when "business is bad" .. not when things are going well.  Buffett says he's had some of his best investing years ever during recessions


Buffett sees some signs of a turnaround in residential real estate

MORE FROM THE MEETING IN OMAHA

Current DateTime: 02:43:23 04 May 2009
LinksList Documentid: 30557971
Buffett Live on CNBC: Economy Getting Slower .. But Will Turn
Transcript: Buffett on CNBC
Buffett's Q&A With Shareholders
Buffett to CNBC: Not Worst Year
Munger's Rare Praise
Video: Buffett's 'Stress Test'
Q1 Earnings Will Be Down 11%
Transcript: Buffett on Q1 Earnings
Some Derivatives Will Lose Money
Where Will Next CEO Come From?
Buffett Would 'Love' To Buy Banks
Would Not Buy Newspapers
No Berkshire Buyback
No Berkshire Spinoffs
Berkshire Still AAA In Buffett's Opinion
Bought 'Cheap' Corporate Bonds
No 'Glory' For Investment Candidates
'Impossible' to Replace Insurance Chief
Government Doing Right Things
Warren's Mood? Pick Your Headline
Michelle's Omaha Journal

Buffett repeats confidence in Wells Fargo and US Bancorp; doesn't know enough about SunTrust's business model to comment (Berkshire has stakes in all three banks)


"Very important" for Chrysler to get out of bankruptcy very soon


Sympathetic to both sides in the Chrysler bankruptcy 
Repeats long-held belief that U.S. will need more tax revenue eventually, just a matter of who pays. Country can take a higher tax rate.  (He thinks the very rich should be taxed more than they are now)


"We don't need to build new houses" now .. we need to sell down the existing housing inventory


Buffett on 'cramdowns': I would be more careful about lending money if courts are able to change the contracts

 

Buffett on last fall's New York Times op-ed: I just said what I was doing at the time, not trying to "talk-up" the market.


"The cheaper things go, the better I like it" .. especially when compared to buying Treasuries .. stocks will beat out Treasuries over the long-run.  Asked if he or Berkshire has been buying stocks recently, he repeated his statement that he likes things when they're cheaper


Buffett: "I love newspapers," but they don't have a future .. print editions getting too expensive compared to the Internet.  But in Washington Post stock "for keeps." 



What's happened to AIG over past few years is a "tragedy."  "They had a black box" that delivered great numbers but the black box turned into a "black hole."  They were making bets they didn't understand.


Don't look at Bank of America's specifics more than looks at Wells Fargo 


Asked about main takeaway from Berkshire meeting over the weekend:  We had fun and we sold a lot of (Berkshire) products


BECKY:  We’ve been listening to Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger all morning long, all weekend long.  We’ve probably asked them every question you possibly could under the sun.  But another day means another full set of headlines.   So we thought that while we’re in Omaha we couldn’t help but try and get the Oracle of Omaha, Omaha’s most famous son,  to maybe sit down with us.  Mr Buffett, thank you very much for joining us.

BUFFETT:  My pleasure.

BECKY:  You said at the meeting that you read five papers a day. 

BUFFETT:  At least.

BECKY:  At least five papers a day.  I know, we’ve probably asked you every question under the sun, but I thought with these new headlines, maybe we could go through some of them and get your thoughts.

BUFFETT:  OK. (Laughs.)

BECKY:  Let’s start things off with the Wall Street Journal.   I brought five or six papers, to give you a quick quiz off of some of these. 

BUFFETT:  Uh oh.  (Laughs.)

BECKY:  First of all, you’re all over the papers with the meeting.   A lot of papers that have come out – this one on the front of the Journal says Slump Has Dealt Buffett a Rather Rough Hand.  Inside it says Buffett Plays Down Hoopla and Hope.  The funny thing, I thought, is depending on which newspaper you pick up, which headline you read, some people say you’re very optimistic about the future, others say you’re very concerned.  What’s the right take?

BUFFETT:  Maybe they both have got it right.  I’m 100 percent, enormously optimistic about the future of this country over time.  I mean, there’s no way you can bet against America and win.  Just look back at a couple of hundred years ago, how people were living and how they live now.  We’re not any smarter than they were a couple of hundred years ago.  We’ve got the same land and everything else.   But we’ve unleashed human potential and will continue to do so.   So twenty years from now, fifty years from now,  your kids and grandchildren are going to live far better than you live.  But, in the short term,  things are going to be tough for awhile.   And we see no real pickup in a whole variety of businesses we have.   But they’ll be doing fine in a few years.   I don’t know whether they’ll be doing fine in three months, six months, two years.  I know they’ll be doing fine in five years, and I hope they’ll be doing fine in five months.  I don’t have the answer to exactly when.

BECKY:   You say you see no real sign of pickup.  Have you seen any sign of a slowing in the rate of decline?  Or any signs of a bottom, I guess?

BUFFETT:  Certainly in residential real estate in important parts of the country, like California, where they’ve been in a nose dive, you know, a year ago, and six months ago, we’re seeing a lot more activity, particularly in the medium to lower priced homes.  Lower mortgage rates help.  There have been a few – California has a special program to help.  So houses are moving.  Now, California is a very big area, so Stockton’s not the same as San Francisco would be, but there’s a lot of activity.   And I would say that the prices have tended to stabilize in a place like that, whereas in South Florida you still got a huge oversupply.  So, but, that’s getting better.

BECKY:  OK.  In the Financial Times this morning, the lead story is about Citigroup [C  3.20    0.23  (+7.74%)   ] and Bank of America [BAC  10.38    1.68  (+19.31%)   ], how they’re each working on plans to raise ten billion dollars in additional capital.   Today was supposed to be the day that we’d be getting those stress test results.   You own stakes in three out of the 19 banks that are going through the stress test.   Well Fargo [WFC  24.25    4.64  (+23.66%)   ], SunTrust [STI  17.27    3.46  (+25.05%)   ], and US Bancorp [USB  20.32    2.36  (+13.14%)   ].   Do you know the outcome of the stress tests for any of them?

BUFFETT:  No, no.

BECKY:  What do you – you’ve said in the past you’ve done your own stress tests.

BUFFETT:   Yeah sure.  You know, we’ve got very appreciable money in them.  So we, we know the business model of two of those three quite well.  The third I don’t know that well.

BECKY:  Which do you know well? 

BUFFETT:  I know US Bancorp and Wells Fargo.  I don’t know the business model of SunTrust that well.   So I can’t talk about SunTrust intelligently.   But I can tell you that US Bancorp and Wells Fargo are extremely strong banks.  They have terrific earning power and earning power is enormously important in looking at what happens to a business in the future.   And you couldn’t have two better banks virtually positioned than those two for future earnings.   They got – things could get a lot, lot worse and most companies would come through fine.

BECKY:  Does that mean you don’t think the government will make them raise additional funds, or once things wind up in Washington you don’t know what’s going to happen?

BUFFETT:  I don’t know what’s going to happen.  (Laughs.)

BECKY:  OK, let’s talk about the front page, this morning, of, or at least the business section of the New York Times.   It’s got – talk about how over the weekend, despite Obama trying to get people to go out and buy cars made in Detroit, they saw little bump for Chrysler sales over the weekend.   Chrysler, obviously, at this point, in bankruptcy.   What are some of the aftershocks and effects and some of the unintended consequences that could come up from putting Chrysler in bankruptcy and what happens to GM [GM  1.81  ---  UNCH  (0)   ]?

BUFFETT:  Well, I think, you know, it is tough to be in bankruptcy.   If you’re not in it very long, and that’s the hope of everybody, that they’re out in 60 days or something like that, the disruption is less.  But, it obviously has to worry dealers.   It worries consumers.  Now the government said they stand by the warranties and everything, so I don’t think people should be worried.  But they may worry, even though they stand behind the warranties, that the fellow who has been servicing their call, you know, over the years, won’t be around in a year or two.  It’s very  important for Chrysler to get out of bankruptcy very quickly and it depends on the bankruptcy judge.

BECKY:  There is some talk out there that the bondholders should accept this deal that’s been pushed down.  Are you sympathetic to that?

BUFFETT:  (Laughs.)  Well, I’m sympathetic to both sides on it.  I mean, the bondholders want a secure bond.  If I have a first mortgage on my house here, and the first mortgage is for half of what the house is worth, and somebody says I want you to take a big haircut because I’ve got credit card debt someplace else, that’s got problems.  It has problems in terms of future lending.  I mean, if priorities don’t mean anything that’s going to disrupt lending practices in the future.  On the other hand, to have a few people standing in the way of something that has, ah, so much importance to the whole country, I can see why people on the other side are very upset.  But giving up priorities in lending, abandoning that principle, would have a whole lot of consequences.

BECKY:  A whole lot of bad consequences down the road?

BUFFETT:  I think it would.  If we want to encourage lending in this country, we don’t want to say to somebody who lends and gets a secured position that that secured position doesn’t mean anything.  So it’s a tough problem both ways. 

BECKY:  OK, back in studio Joe and Carl are both standing by, and our guest host today is Senator Judd Gregg.  Joe, you have a question as well?

JOE KERNEN:  I do.  I’m looking at – let’s keep, keep doing this with the newspapers for Warren.  I’m looking at the Wall Street Journal, Warren.  I see the Cherry Coke.  That looks to be your’s.  I can see your hand, your bridge hand, and I see the way you’ve got it all – you’ve got a seven and an eight of hearts.

BUFFETT: (Laughs.)

JOE:  And then you’ve got the hearts, you’ve got everything going in, sort of, in sequence.  I’m wondering, A, do you remember whether you did well with that hand that you have there?  And B, the article above it, Warren.  In the past – 

BUFFETT:  Well – 

JOE:  No, go ahead.

BUFFETT:  Well, if you don’t know whether I did well or not, Joe, I’m going to tell you I did well, regardless.  (Laughs.)

JOE:  Yeah, I don’t know.  In the past, you have said to return to some of the capital gains rates and the dividend rates and the marginal rates of the 90s, not a big deal for corporations.  You’re OK with that.   This latest proposal to tax corporations.  Cisco [CSCO  19.54    -0.04  (-0.2%)   ], for example, thinks this is not a great idea, that it’s going to hurt U.S. corporations.  Could you weigh in on whether this is, you have a problem with this move?

BUFFETT:  Well, I can’t talk about all the details of this bill because I don’t know it.  But I would say this. We’re going to raise, probably at most, 2.3 trillion at the federal level in taxes.  So we’re raising close to 2.6 trillion just a couple of years ago and you know what we’re going to spend, so one way or another we’re going to need more taxes down the road.  There’s no magic wand on this.  The question is, who they should come from, and everybody that is a target of any increases is going to be back in Washington screaming.  So, the country can take higher tax rates.   It did very well, extremely well, in the 60s and the 90s with tax rates considerably higher in many areas than now.  So, I think it’s a question of, you know, who gets socked and when.  But the one thing I know is if we keep raising 2.3 trillion a year, we’re going to have massive deficits for a long, long time and those have consequences as well.

SENATOR GREGG:  Well, Mr. Buffett, if I could ask you that, following up on that.  What do you do about the debt?  I mean, if you going to expand, explode the debt here, it’s sort of like chasing your tail to try to catch up with revenues when you’ve got a debt ratio that’s going up to 80 percent of GDP.  Is that sustainable?  And if we’re looking at five to six percent, four to five percent, in deficits for the next ten years, and the debt ratio jumping from 40 percent to 80 percent, in the long run how do you get yourself out from underneath that type of debt situation, and the spending which is driving that debt?

BUFFETT:  Well, at some point you have to have tax revenues that are a whole lot closer to expenditures and you can get that in two ways, and both ways are unpleasant.  But if you don’t get it, the consequences are unpleasant as well.  And you mentioned going to 80 percent, you know, it will go a lot higher than that unless at some point you get a more of a balance between revenues and expenditures.  And we started from a fairly low debt position, and of course we came out of World War II with well over 100 percent.  But a country that continuously expands its debt as a percentage of GDP and raises much of the money abroad to finance that, at some point it’s going to inflate its way out of the burden of that debt.  I mean, every country that’s denominated its debt in its own currency and has found itself with uncomfortable amounts of debt relative to the rest of the world, in the end they inflate.  And that becomes a tax on everybody that has fixed dollar investments.

CARL QUINTANILLA:  Hey, Warren.  It’s Carl.  It’s good to see you.  One quick question on employment.  You know, we had the Chrysler bankruptcy last week.  This morning, Filene’s Basement is said to be filing for Chapter 11.  The Boston Globe may shut down in the coming days.   I wonder if you think those types of actions will pose a renewed threat to the economy or whether we can grind through some sort of jobless recovery like we have in the 90s.

BUFFETT:  Well, we’re going to face more unemployment, and who knows where it tops out.  It will top out eventually.  I mean, you know, we’ve hit double-digits in the past.  We have a wonderful economy over time.  The markets overshoot.  People make mistakes.  I mean, it’s not perfect at all times.  We had six panics in the 19th century, the Great Depression in the 20th century and all kinds of recessions.  We do come out of them.  How fast we come out of them depends, on some extent, on the wisdom of the policies in Washington.  But the biggest thing that brings us out of them is that we have a system that works very well over time even though it gets gummed up periodically.  It’s gummed up right now.  We’ll come out well, you know, whether the government does it exactly right or not.  But government policy is enormously important.  We will have more unemployment.  We won’t have more unemployment five years from now than we have now.  I’ll guarantee you that.  I think it will be appreciably less. When it turns, I don’t know.

BECKY:  Yeah, we’ve got that jobs number coming up on Friday.  Hard to say exactly what happens there.  If that number falls below 500-thousand, I believe the estimates are somewhere between 500 and 700-thousand jobs that will have been stripped from the economy again over that last month.  If it’s below 500-thousand, is it too soon to start celebrating the idea that we’re reaching the end?

BUFFETT:  Yeah, it would be too soon.  We have not – we’re not reaching the end.  At some point, we’re going to reach the end, and I don’t know when that will be, but I know whatever the day is, May fourth, in terms of the figures we’re getting out of all our businesses, the American economy is slow, very slow, and at the moment, still getting slower.   But that will turn.  And I can’t predict when.  I hope it’s very soon.

BECKY:  Another story over the weekend in Barron’s, Ron Baron was interviewed.  He said that the most attractive time of, this is the most attractive time of his lifetime to be an investor.   Would you agree with that?

BUFFETT:  Well, no, but I would say it’s among the more attractive.  But 1974 and ’75, the stocks were far cheaper then.  And incidentally, the best year the Dow, ah, the S&P has ever had in my investing lifetime was a year of recession.  In 1954, people don’t remember these things, but, so you don’t want to not buy stocks just because business is lousy at the time.   That may be the very best time to buy stocks.  In 1954 the Dow was up 50 percent and the country was in a recession.  It was the best year I ever had in my life.  And I’ve had other good years in recessions, so you don’t want to say, it’s a big mistake to say business is bad, therefore I shouldn’t buy stocks.  That usually is the time to buy stocks.  And when everything is wonderful, it’s not usually a very good time to buy stocks.  But I don’t know when it will turn.  And the unemployment number, the job layoffs this month, the report we get about last month, you know, it’s an interesting statistic but it will not tell you what’s going to happen in the following months.

BECKY:  What do you watch?  If the jobs number is sort of a backward looking, or lagging indicator, what’s the number that you watch most closely out of all your lines of businesses?

BUFFETT:  Well, housing is so important.  It led us into this.  It was the housing bubble that pricked a lot of other bubbles.  But it was a huge bubble.  I look at,  I mean I’m very interested in something like housing starts because we’re going to form maybe a million, three-hundred thousand households a year, and they’re going to live someplace.  And if we’re building two million houses a year, we’re going to have trouble down the road and that’s exactly what we were doing a few years ago.  If we’re building 500-thousand then we’re eating up that inventory and the faster we eat up that inventory the better off we are.  That’s why it’s really not a good idea to have any big premium to induce people to buy new houses.  We don’t need new house.  We need to move the houses we’ve got around.  When that gets done and we hit equilibrium, the world will change in a big way.

 
BECKY:  Joe?

JOE:  Thanks, Becky.  Mr. Buffett, I think a lot of business people take some satisfaction, solace I guess, when you talk to President Obama, talk to his people.  And President Obama, I think, appreciates your support during the election and uses your name at times to say, well, Warren Buffett would talk to him about things and he agrees with how we feel on this.  But then there was a time when he mentioned Wells Fargo, and he said, well, Warren Buffett has a big investment in Wells Fargo.  I’m just wondering, do you still talk to the president on things?  Have you spoken to him since the election? 

BUFFETT:  Ah, I’ve waved at him once or twice at public events and I’ve spoken to him once.

JOE:  Do you feel like you’re a confidant on –

BUFFETT:  I’m sorry, Joe.  I’ll correct that.  You said since the election.  I’ve spoken to him more often than that since the election.  I’ve spoken to him once since he was in office.

JOE:  When you disagreed with him on maybe trying to do too much, cap and trade or whatever, or the Wells Fargo comment is one that sticks in my mind, when we said well, Warren Buffett has a big investment in Wells Fargo, implying you were talking your book when you were talking about the banks.  Did that cause any consternation in you at that point?

BUFFETT:  (Laughs.)  I don’t think, I don’t think I’ll ever talk about what I talk with the president about.  But I will confirm I had one conversation with him.  But the truth is we do have a big investment in Wells Fargo.  I’ve owned Wells Fargo since 1991.  I’ll probably own it five or ten years from now, so it really doesn’t make any difference to me whether Wells Fargo’s stock goes up or down in a day or a week or a month.  It does make, it’s enormously important to me how they conduct their business.  And I think they’ve done an incredibly good job of running their business.  They’ve got the lowest cost of money in the country; they’ve got the greatest community banking system that the world has ever seen.  And incidentally, when the government needed to do something with what was probably the fourth largest bank in deposits, Wachovia, they transferred it over to Wells Fargo and they didn’t have to put up a dime of guarantees or money by the FDIC.  So the government obviously had to think pretty well of Wells Fargo at that time. (Laughs.) 

BECKY:  Carl?

SENATOR GREGG: Mr. Buffett, I was just wondering.  You mentioned this issue of prioritization of debt, which is a huge issue, and as you know the Congress is dealing with this issue of cramdown, which basically allows bankruptcy courts to rewrite the prioritization of debt.  I’d be interested in your thoughts on that.  It seems to me that following up on your basic theory there, that cramdown would undermine the prioritization of debts substantially.

BUFFETT:  Well, if I were lending money on, ah, in any form, but certainly if I was lending money in housing, and I have seen people, courts unilaterally change the amount of the debt, I would be a little more careful about how I lent money.  (Laughs.)   Any time you get involved in the sanctity of contracts, you’re going to make people more reluctant to engage in those contracts in the future.  And you’re going to make those kind of contracts more expensive because somebody has to build in the cost of, ah, legislation or a court later fooling around with them.

SENATOR GREGG:  Well of course that was the point made by Daniel Webster in the Dartmouth College case, as I recall, so I think that’s nice to hear.

BUFFETT:  Yeah, well,  I’m glad I’ve got, I’m glad I’ve got authority on my side someplace.  (Laughs.)

BECKY:  Carl?

CARL:  Hey Warren, one last question.  I don’t want to give you too hard of a time about the op-ed – 

BUFFETT:  That’s OK, give me a hard time.

CARL: - about the op-ed that you wrote in the Times last fall, but we all remember it.  Buy American.  I Am.  I wonder if you stand by what you wrote, first of all, and second if you felt any personal obligation or responsibility to talk people off the ledge at the time?  If any part of that was you trying to do some greater good, if that makes any sense?

BUFFETT:  No.  I was saying what I was doing.  And I said I don’t know what the stock market is going to do in a week or a month or a year.   But I, the truth is, I did feel that equities over a ten-year period of time were almost certain to beat a policy of buying ten-year bonds or buying short-term bonds and continuing to roll them, which a lot of people were doing.  So I thought people were following foolish policies.  If they really were committed to buying, like I say, the 10-year government or buying short-term bonds and rolling them, because they were going to lose purchasing power over time and equities were going to do fine over time – I had no idea what they do in the short-term – and I would still do, I still say the same thing.

BECKY:  I was going to ask that.  As we get into March and we saw some of those lows, did that make you feel even more strongly about those positions?

BUFFETT:  Oh, sure.

BECKY:  Did you continue buying?

BUFFETT:  Oh, the cheaper things go, the better I like it.  I mean, if I can buy the whole American economy at three-quarters of X instead of X, I feel better off.  And particularly when I compare it with rolling, you know, Treasury bills at a quarter of a percent, of a half of a percent, or buying the ten-year at three percent.  I know that buying the ten-year at three percent is not going to work out very well in terms of purchasing power.  I know that rolling Treasury bills is not going to work out in terms of purchasing power.  And I think I know that if you buy the American economy at 60 percent of what it was selling for a few years ago, and you get a cross-section of companies that aren’t highly leveraged, or something of that sort, you’re going to do well.

BECKY:  Does that mean that as we got into March that you stepped up or continued your buying, either in your personal portfolio or through Berkshire?

BUFFETT:  The cheaper things have become, the more I’ve wanted to buy, yeah.

BECKY:  And the more – 

BUFFETT: If I run out of gas, I run out of gas. 

BECKY:  I was going to say, in terms of how much cash you have on hand, are you able to do those things?

BUFFETT:  Sure.  I like, if McDonald’s reduces the price of hamburgers today, I’m going to feel good even though I bought hamburgers at a different price yesterday.  I mean, I’m going to be buying hamburgers every day for the rest of my life and the cheaper they get, the better I like it.  There’s nothing wrong with American business over the long-term.  I mean, the conditions that made it wonderful continue to, the Dow Jones Average started the 20th century at 66.  It ended at 11,400.  We had a Great Depression, world wars, all kinds of things in between.  It doesn’t work perfectly every day, but it works over time.

BECKY:  One thing that’s not going to be getting cheaper is your New York Times.  There’s a story in the Financial Times today talking about how the New York Times is expected to raise its newsstand prices to two dollars from a dollar-fifty during the week and to six dollars from five dollars on the weekend.  Do newspapers have a future?  You’ve got a stake in Washington Post.

BUFFETT:  Unfortunately, they don’t.  I love newspapers.  But if the New York Times is going to sell for two dollars in the print edition and be free on the Internet, that’s a very unsustainable model over time.  I still read the print edition because I like to.   But if I were a young person making some lesser sum, why would I, why wouldn’t I go to the Internet and read it free rather than pick up the print edition.  So I, they’re going to have to answer that at some point and so far it hasn’t been answered.

BECKY:  But you are still keeping your stake in the Washington Post? [WPO  352.36    -13.52  (-3.7%)   ]

BUFFETT:  Yeah, I’ve had the Washington Post stock since 1973 so, you know, I’m in there for keeps.  And they have a good educational business, they have a good cable TV business.  But newspapers, I mean, if Mr. Guttenberg had come up with the Internet instead of movable type back in the late 15th century, and for 400 years we’d used the Internet for news and all kinds of entertainment and everything else, and then I came along all of a sudden today and said I’ve got this wonderful idea, we’re going to chop down some trees up in Canada and we’re going to ship them to a paper mill which will cost us a fortune to run through, and deliver newsprint, and then we’ll ship that down to some newspaper and we’ll have a whole bunch of people staying up all night writing up things, and then we’ll send a bunch of kids out the next day all over town delivering  this thing, and we’re really going to wipe out the Internet with this, yeah, (laughs), it isn’t going to happen.

BECKY:  OK, there’s a story today in the Wall Street Journal about AIG [AIG  1.46    0.08  (+5.8%)   ], talking about how it is close to the sale of its Japanese headquarters building for about a billion dollars.  This is significant because, the paper points out, this is kind of a show of the decline of AIG in Asia.  You know AIG well.  You know Hank Greenberg.  What do you think about what’s happened to AIG over the course of the last few years.

BUFFETT:  Well, it’s a tragedy.  It started in the financial products business, I mean, there’s nothing wrong with their property-casualty insurance business.  We work with them.  And their life business, they had probably more of a stake than the asset side, but there’s still, they’ve got a big, powerful life distribution system.   They had a black box.  And the black box delivered little numbers to them that they loved, you know, quarter by quarter.  And then somebody looked into the black box and they found out it was a black hole.  And tens of tens of billions – I was there in September when they thought their problems were, 18 billion actually I think it was the exact number – and they really had no concept of how big the troubles were.  And it was a huge, huge black hole.  And they were making bets they didn’t understand.

BECKY:  You know, we’ve just gotten contacted by Bank of America, called in to point out the fact that they are denying the Financial Times article that we pointed out before, saying that they are denying they are seeking fresh capital.  Got any thoughts on that?

BUFFETT:  Well, one thing about Bank of America.  It has a wonderful deposit-gathering system.  It’s not quite as wonderful, in my view, as Wells, but that - (laughs.)  Bank of America might disagree with me.  Their money costs more than Wells but it’s very cheap compared to some of the other very large banks.  The Bank of America was built on that, if you go back decades.  They’ve got a wonderful system, and then they’ve got some activities that are maybe less wonderful.  But they do have a terrific base, so I don’t want to comment beyond that on that.  I don’t look at the specifics of B of A as hard as I look at the specifics of Wells.  But there is a very good fundamental asset underlying the Bank of America.

BECKY:  In your opinion of what happened this weekend, you had 35,000 shareholders who came from around the globe,  most that have ever come to one of your meetings, what was the most important takeaway for you?

BUFFETT:  Well, we had a lot of fun and we sold them a lot of goods.  We sold them 180-thousand dollars of See’s Candies, which was a record.  We had record numbers.  And I think people had a good time.  We had good weather, we got lucky on that.  We had a much better questioning system this year, so we had a much higher quality of Berkshire-related questions and we’re going to follow the same format next year and I hope we top 35,000.  People have a lot of fun.  I have a lot of fun. 

BECKY:  Did any of the questions surprise you?  Were any of them tougher than you were expecting?

BUFFETT:  Well, we like tough questions.  It makes it more interesting.  We’d fall asleep, Charlie and I would, if everybody just said, you know, do you like hamburgers as well as you used to or something.  So tough questions are fine.  And if we don’t know the answer, we’ll say we don’t know it.  If  we think we know the answer we’ll try to respond.

BECKY:  Well, Warren, we want to thank you so much for being so generous with your time this morning, and we appreciate you going through the papers.  Just a quick head start, I’ll leave the rest of these with you so you can – 

BUFFETT:  That’s terrific.  That’s terrific.  I’ll save some money.  (Laughs.)

BECKY:  Warren, thank you very much.  We appreciate it.  Warren Buffett.