Buffett's huge derivatives bet proves costly - Top Stocks Blog - MSN Money
 
Search Top Stocks:

Buffett's huge derivatives bet proves costly

Posted Nov 20 2008, 12:48 PM by Jon Markman
Rating:

Shares of Warren Buffett's insurance holding company are on the ropes this month, plunging 30% in part because the famed investor dabbled in an area of the market he has long publicly derided: derivatives. And due to a tangled web of financial relationships, they may be taking Goldman Sachs shares down with them.

Investors are concerned about a $37-billion bet that Buffett made last year that U.S. and world equity values would be higher in 15 to 20 years than they were then, when the Dow Jones Industrials were trading around 13,000. Through his firm, Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett sold option contracts, known as "naked puts" to an undisclosed group of investors for around $4.85 billion, reportedly using Goldman as broker.

The buyers saw the puts as a type of insurance that would pay off royally if stocks fell over the next decade. They were seen by Buffett as an easy way to pocket a quick $4 billion-plus, which was booked much like an insurance premium, even though he is famous for scoffing at derivatives as "weapons of mass financial destruction."

But easy money is the worst kind. The problem is that stocks worldwide have gone downhill in a hurry, and with a lot of the sort of volatility that makes put contracts swell in value. And due to accounting rules, this has made Buffett already need to mark down a $6.7 billion loss on the trade even though the trade has another 14 years to work out.

Because of its solid-gold credit rating, Berkshire Hathaway was not required to put up collateral to make this trade. But now rumors are flying on Wall Street that the owners of the contracts have demanded that broker Goldman Sachs put up collateral for the rest of the amount due. Since the value of the trade could be enormous, the collateral demands are said to be very large, and fears that Goldman will struggle to make good on its obligation has panicked shareholders.

Indeed one theory making the rounds this week is that Buffett put $5 billion into Goldman at around $125 per share in September not as an investment but to help provide funds for the collateral. 

Of course, there are other reasons for investors to sell Berkshire shares, which are down 42% overall this year, back to 2003 levels. Many of its biggest stock holdings have plunged in value this year, including American Express, General Electric, SunTrust and Goldman itself. And like most insurance companies, it holds a lot of bonds that have plunged in value during the credit debacle.

To see how Buffett described the put contracts in his 2008 letter to investors, click here. There's little doubt that he and Berkshire will survive this mess. But for now this a blemish on his otherwise sterling record of achievement.

To see my comments and links on stocks and the economy throughout the day, follow jdmarkman on the free social networking site Twitter.

Related reading:

A look at Buffett's third-quarter holdings

Is there a Warren Buffett backlash?

Buffett's Goldman deal is great -- for him

Comments

 

The article states that Buffett sold naked put options. These contrqcts pay Max[ Strike - Index, 0]. In the worst (for Buffett) case, the Index value is 0 (zero) and he has to pay FIXED (and known) amount -- strike.

So the maximum loss on a naked put writing is FINITE and KNOWN. The article incorrectly states that "Since the value of the trade could be infinite..."

E, you hit the nail on the head.  Money made so easy, and so quickly is why we are in this mess.  The fat days of tapping a few keystrokes on a computer to make $20,000 in a day are on their way out.  And what skills do you have that will keep food on your table when Wall Street is gone?

Yes, but the 6.5 /yr is investing, and the trading account is gambling. Now, wasn't it gambling that got us here. I'll stick to investing, thank you.

you dont how these trades work.  the trades are directly against Berkshire.  GS is not intermediating these trades, they woudl have been stupid to step in between for 15 years.  BH put teh screws to counterparties on these tardes not to post collateral.  Every other person in teh world would need to post collateral. e

That  there are only 6 or7  post on here is amazing ... William is an a-hole  ... boasting of his  "chicken -meow "   $ 260 k  in  Cd 's while the rest of us are drowning  .... good luck  .... maybe you can spend it before someone hits you in the head  on your way to the bank   ( what bank ?? )   ... this is far more serious than having something hoarded away in the bank .... hey what you gonna  spend it on when all the stores are closed ??  .... you better have plenty of ammo stored away before the big "O " Man  takes that all away too !! I welcome your  comment !!  

mr. reality

dr drey -- you are correct, unlike selling naked calls the potential loss is not infinite as the indexes can only go to zero. i'll correct that in the blog item. ...

meanwhile, it's kind of interesting to look at the language that Buffett used to describe the potential risk. if you click that PDF link you'll see he says: "Changes in the value of a derivative contract must be applied each quarter to earnings.

Thus, our derivative positions will sometimes cause large swings in reported earnings, even though Charlie and I might believe the intrinsic value of these positions has changed little. He and I will not be bothered by these swings – even though they could easily amount to $1 billion or more in a quarter – and we hope you won’t be either.

This shows that they really didn't seem to understand the risk they were taking, which I find fascinating. Just six months later, they had to take a $6.8 billion write-off on the value of the holding -- not $1 billion, which was used as sort of a "crazy" upward limit in the letter.

To see the Q3 earnings report where Berkshire reports that figure, click here: www.berkshirehathaway.com/.../3rdqtr08.pdf

Jon ,

You have been absolutely on the mark since your article on credit default swaps over a year ago . Now your haunting perdiction of Dow 4000 seems very real . In fact ,, more plausable than anything else I have read . So ... does it all melt down by Monday's close . That is my prediction.

Jon,

Second the kudos.  

You and NR have allowed all of us to find some quite cove to watch this perfect storm….not to say we don’t like to venture out for a little surfing.

I think you might complete the story about Buffett and tell us where he keeps his personal holdings.

$260k in cd's is ok but nothing to brag about.   I have 7 times that amount diversified and also in tax free mm.   Now if you said you had your $ in a short term muni bond fund paying 5% that's federal tax free with an equivalent yield of 7.8% like I do then I would be impressed.

doom and capitalrules -- thanks. well i certainly hope that the forecast of 4000 does not come true. but what i'm concerned about now is that the ratings agencies will almost certainly have to downgrade all these banks, and that will lead to a new round of forced selling. it's a terrible forest fire that feeds on itself. it's pretty sickening, really. it will burn til it runs out of fuel.

and so now i need to ask -- who is NR?

Send a Comment

Comments must be directly related to the blog entry. Comments with offensive language will be deleted. Your e-mail address won't be displayed.

(please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):