Monday, May 19, 2008

Rippling Secondary, Tertiary Effects

No end in sight to market woes say Trichet, Buffett

I'll talk about the United States. I don't think the effects of the credit crunch are far from over at all. I think there will be rippling secondary, tertiary effects. - Warren Buffett

Confessions of a Short Seller

The consumer is spent up, not pent up, and more levered than during any period in history. That's one of the structural problems facing the economy. At the same time, job growth is declining and real disposable incomes are pressured as inflation literally is eating away at the consumer's buying power. It is frightening that the consumer has entered this economic downturn with the most levered position in history. On top of that, we're facing four consecutive months of job losses. We've seen the depreciation of the two most important assets, home prices and equities. Consumer confidence is at a 26-year low. The availability of credit continues to be a problem that will plague the economy for a while. Inflation, the cruelest tax of all, is rising as energy and food prices, in particular, are soaring. And the first-quarter GDP report contained a number of ominous signs that the consumer is spent up while the housing depression continues apace.

It is frightening and justifiably so.

More than anything, I'm short Berkshire because of Buffett's recent investment-style drift. In the past five years, Buffett frequently called derivatives "financial weapons of mass destruction." Yet, very much out of character, he immersed himself in several large and thus far unprofitable derivative transactions, leading to an unrealized $1.6 billion pretax loss in the first quarter. I'm also short Berkshire because the salad days for insurance, which is the cornerstone of Berkshire's business, are over. Also, Berkshire's premium valuation seemingly has been a byproduct of the credit crisis, and the perception of the company as a safe haven. Berkshire's shares might underperform as some of the deflated financial companies regain their footing. And Buffett is substantially exposed not only to financials -- he owns large positions in Wells Fargo [WFC], Bank of America [BAC] and American Express [AXP] -- but also to a weakening housing market through his ownership of Clayton Homes.

Buffett has also been saying that the salad days are over. I saw him speak at great length about future investment returns yesterday.

I continue to watch real yields die. There's way too much money chasing too few ideas. A small fraction of that money has taken an interest in commodities. Heaven help us if the trend continues. Money that flows there hurts the "real" part of real returns for everyone else.


Meanwhile, there's way too much debt. A small fraction of that debt has decided eating at home is cheaper than eating out. Heaven help us if the trend continues. We're a service economy. People better keep wanting service.

Want really scary though? I think Ben Bernanke likes looking at the averages in a spreadsheet. I think that's why he didn't see the housing bubble coming. Averages don't show an accurate picture (one foot in boiling water and one foot in a freezer is not a comfortable experience). If you combine way too much money and way too much debt things can look fairly tame overall. Just one problem. The people with money keep seeing their money grow (after inflation). The people with debt keep seeing their debt grow (after inflation). I strongly suspect that both trends are unsustainable and are dependent on one another.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Stag,

Buffett has also been saying that the salad days are over. I saw him speak at great length about future investment returns yesterday.

Don't hoard Buffet's views. What is his outlook?

Shorting BRKA? Who would ever let Kass manage their money?

Stagflationary Mark said...

MAB,

Sorry! Didn't mean to hoard his views. I'll try to give you what you want but I'm paraphrasing some from memory and it is a bit like asking a witness to a crime scene for a description (my objectiveness might be somewhat subjective).

Buffett won't bid for RBS insurance arm
http://www.reuters.com/article/bankingFinancial/idUSL1927772920080519

Buffett said he still liked the insurance business in the United States, even if some favourable trends in recent years, particularly in car insurance, had begun to reverse.

He spoke of insurance in general. He said the results of 2006 and 2007 (the post Katrina years) would not likely be duplicated to that extent in the future. That combined with the trend reversal in auto insurance triggered my "salad days" thinking.

He spoke of the dollar again. He doesn't know where it will head in the coming years. On a purchasing power parity (the price of a burger overseas), the dollar is fairly beaten up these days. Ultra long-term he's convinced it will go lower though and blamed our country's policies.

He spoke at great length about future returns being lower and that investors shouldn't expect him to be able to grow anywhere near like he had in the past.

Check out this quote from earlier this month.

Berkshire investors mull life after Buffett
http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2008-05-03-berkshire-buffett_N.htm

"Anyone who expects us to come close to what we've done in the past should sell their stock," Buffett said.

I don't necessarily think that Buffett would buy his own stock if he was a small time investor. That's just an opinion though. I think he's constrained by its enormity. He mentioned yesterday that a $200 billion company (his) can really only buy big things now. There's no way he can micromanage a ton of smaller companies nor will he even attempt it.

Stagflationary Mark said...

I do want to add that I sympathize with Kass's reasoning.

Berkshire is mostly a financial company. Buffett is seeing the pain firsthand. Buffett said yesterday that he avoids the macroeconomics and simply wants good businesses at good prices. That being said, he's holding a lot of businesses that have done very well over the years but aren't necessarily positioned well to appreciate in the coming years (at anywhere near the pace thay have anyway).

I'm reminded of Gillette. He bought that one cheap. I did too. The triple bladed razor came out and the stock went up 75%. I figure one extra blade was worth only 50% more (somewhat sarcastic back of envelope math, lol). I sold (for a short-term gain, something I loathe in general)! It was one of my luckier trades. Schick announced a four bladed razor and Gillette promptly tanked! True story. Go figure.

Stagflationary Mark said...

Check out this Gillette parody. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F7TMlrDXtw

Stagflationary Mark said...

Correction. The Schick was introduced much later. I have confused what we were thinking back then to what eventually happened. A few of us were wondering what would happen if someone else came out with a four bladed razor.

The whole thing just screamed of waste to me when the Mach 3 was announced though.

Gillette Mach3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillette_Mach3

The Gillette Mach3 is a line of safety razors produced by Gillette and introduced in 1998 after more than $750 million in research and development costs.

How could it cost so much to add one more blade? It just staggered the mind. The market initially loved it though. That part I am certainly remembering correctly.

Here's another related article (with interesting commentary of unsustainable trends).

Static Analysis
http://www.answers.com/topic/static-analysis-1?cat=technology

Stagflationary Mark said...

Since I made a mistake on some of the Gillette story I figure that might draw into question the rest of the story (and perhaps my entire blog). I know I'm just an anonymous blogger and I should not be trusted, but I sincerely am attempting to speak the truth on my blog (or at the very least uncover truth).

Here's the 75% gain on Gillette (mostly thanks to the market's euphoria over a third blade being added to a razor). The three ring binder attacked the March 1999 date.

http://bp3.blogger.com/_1pb7adF2Rp0/SDIL3j6FN-I/AAAAAAAABJM/NzZTnWv_v_8/s1600-h/Gillette.jpg

Anonymous said...

Stag

I do want to add that I sympathize with Kass's reasoning.

If you're a guy who makes a living selling short, I'm CERTAIN there must be better targets than Buffett & Munger. Zeroing in on BRKA out of a universe of 5000 publicly traded U.S. equitites is a total non-starter for me. Especially when BRKA is trading at a market multiple and sitting on 40+ billion of cash. BRKA is also backed by the most loyal and longest term shareholders on the planet. You're not going to bully day traders to sell a six figure per share stock. I don't like Berkshire here, but only in the larger context of not liking any stocks at present valuations. I really like Hussman, but I even think his hedged stategy is swimming against the tide.

I see low returns ahead. I like my low fee, hopefully low risk, low tax stategy. FWIW, my stategy is trailing yours over the past seven years. That's not a disclaimer, but it might as well be.

Stagflationary Mark said...

MAB,

If you're a guy who makes a living selling short, I'm CERTAIN there must be better targets than Buffett & Munger.

Quality can be overpriced too, but I agree with you in practice. 40+ billion of cash is not performing all that well, but it sure beats a a sharp poke to the eye (i.e., banks desperately seeking financing).

I really like Hussman, but I even think his hedged stategy is swimming against the tide.

Hedging longs vs. shorts certainly doesn't guarantee you can keep up with inflation. I keep going back to the 1970s. Neither longs nor shorts generally made out like bandits. Inflation, taxes, and inflation taxes (the insult to injury) takes from us all.