I was sent a link to the following article called Buffett's betrayal which sumarized how Buffett's investments got bailed out by taxpayers money and suggests that only by high level lobbying did he managed to secure his investments.
Main article here: http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2009/08/04/buffetts-betrayal/
Rarely has an article generated nearly 200 replys. Furthermore, many of the replys are intelligent and non-biased.
Here's my take on it;
The 'true betrayal', I believe , is the faith the general public has invested in financial institutions which had created and sold instruments and products that should never be sold, and investors/speculators that bought things that should never be bought in chasing that ever elusive alpha. And the betrayal of accountants who allowed fuzzy accounting (lobbied by guess who? major US corporation) and shed all responsibility.
I guess we can never be sure about the amount of 'lobbying' that goes on behind the scene, but Buffett sure defended the value of his investments well. Most of 2008 investments are structured such that even without a bail out, the impairment on asset would not be a disaster to Berkshire Hathaway. As such, he has performed well as the steward of Berkshire's capital.
Did Berkshire do better due to the taxpayers bailout? Definitely.
Could the economy (and thus the taxpayers) sailed on without the bailout. Definitely Not.
If bailing out encumbered financial is inevitable, is it wrong to have profited by backing the right horse? I don't know.
p.s. does anyone know why in the çreate post page, i no longer see icons that allow me to format text and upload pictures or links?
(thx jie chao, for the solution)
No comments:
Post a Comment