We knew that Warren Buffett wasn’t too happy with Kraft’s planned acquisition of Cadbury – he’s been firing shots for a while now – but today, he’s saying that he “feels poorer” because of it. The deal doesn’t need to be approved by shareholders, which is good news for the Kraft/Cadbury people, because Buffett told CNBC this morning that if he could, he’d “vote no.”
Yeah, sure, Kraft CEO Irene Rosenfeld is a “good operator” and a “good person,” they even have “cordial relations.” It’s just that well, they disagree. The O-Man believes that Kraft – of which Berkshire Hathaway owns 9.4% – is overpaying for the $19 billion deal. He said this is just a “bad deal” and he has “a lot of doubts about it.”
Buffett also told Becky Quick that he isn’t too happy either with the economy- Berkshire Hathaway subsidiaries have cut 25,000 jobs in the last year and a half, and won’t be rehiring “until orders start coming in.” (Obama’s proposed tax on banks doesn’t make him feel good either- he thinks banks already paid enough, and it’s just not fair to ask them to shell out more dough.) And don’t get him started on bank CEOs getting uber-packages when they walk away. They should “essentially be wiped out,” according to WB.
But there is a special someone that makes Buffett smile. Ben Bernanke is his man and he is calling for his confirmation. He even joked “that there would be a big market stock sell-off if Bernanke does not win Congressional approval.”
He looks so regal in that pic.
He mourns for Obama.
Yael = Greg (the ratio of words to sentences in this story gives it away.)
Welcome back, Greg
It feels arrogant to say, but while he might be right on Kraft/Cadbury, he's wrong on many other things.
Bank taxes? Wrong. Structure of Obama "fee" is all wrong, but don't bullshit me that "the banks have paid enough". The banks haven't paid anything at all.
Bank CEOs getting "essentially wiped out"? Wrong. (look at the structure of the walk-aways – these weren't golden parachutes)
Bernanke? Wrong.
Becky Quick? Wrong – lazy eye.
Well, ya know, this KFT call really has me wondering how I am going to afford things.
I called my buddy Lenny and he suggested I look at holing up at that NetJets place; what the hell, they have some space there and you don't even have to use the toilet.
But not to worry, we are on the right path, my buddy Obama has told me so, so, you know, everything is great.
One last thing – props to my peep Munger, He told me that bitch Rosenfeld would blow all of my dough on bon bons and get all up in it with a giant ass. Damn, I should have listened.
@4
Um…guess you didn't listen to the interview because he was arguing that bank boards should structure CEO compensation so that the CEO DOES get wiped out if the bank has to take government money – and he said that the current system (a la Chuck Prince) is bad.
So I guess you agree with him on that count too?
@6 – no, of course I wouldn't waste time listening to the interview. It was on CNBC.
And I repeat – he's fucking wrong about the current system, or at least the reason that the current system is bad.
Sure, structure of deals should avoid turning CEOs (bank and all other) into rich little potentates, but Chuck Prince and the recent rest didn't walk away with giant parachutes. That was money they already owned, in most cases. Anyone who claims they should have been bankrupted on their way out the door is advocating theft.
Try to keep up.
Becky and CNBC are so deadly boring I was left wishing it were the Claman babe who spices it up way more with Buffett. halfway thru I switched to ESPN2, not even 1. zzzzz
But Bill Ackman likes the deal. Bess I thought you'd be all over this…
@9 who cares? bess does the funny ackman stories, in which he launches one stock funds and cries. this isn't that interesting.
@7,
"Anyone who claims they should have been bankrupted on their way out the door is advocating theft."
That's actually how they used to do it back in the 19th century–the guy who ran the bank pretty much guaranteed full faith and credit with his personal assets. That's real credibility there. Gotta put your balls on the table, son.
good on ya, @8. It's La Liz on Fox Business or nothing. Is it me or is cnbc looking a little grey at the temples as is snooze-news?
@8 I'd kill for some CNBC, right about now.
Crotchety old fart probably has some cadbury stains in his drawers right about now….
Good post. W-Bizzle is correct. KFT is paying an absurd price for this acquisition. If you threw in some Cherry Coke and a cheeseburger it still wouldn't be a good deal.
-Bitchtern
Lackey: Excuse me, Mr. Buffet, sir. The council is worried about the economy heating up. They wondered if it would be possible to fire 10,000…
Buffet: Fire 25,000.
Lackey: But… 10,000 is all they need, sir.
Buffet: [eye twitches]
Lackey: 25,000! Fine, sir! Sorry to have disturbed you.
@17 but those god damn eggs are so good.
@11 – I just checked the calendar, and it's no longer the 19th century.
One other difference between then and now, the guys who ran the banks back then also owned them.
Buffet is, as usual, full of sh*t and hot air (not attacking his track record here so spare me). If he didn't like the KFT deal he could start dumping share, methinks the KFT c-suite/BoD would take notice.
Has a frozen Cadbury dildo up his butt.
Yael needs to improve his tags
@23 You don't think "Poor People" is a nice tag?
@21, why he's just a simple old-fashioned investor who believes in company fundamentals and drives a Buick and wouldn't get involved in stuff like all this high-falutin derivatives tradin they're doing up in New York City.
@ 23
That should be:
"Yael needs to improve her tags".
For Crissake do some damn research or shut up. Fuckin' amateur.
It is amazing to read the comments here. So much feeling.
Don't you get the feeling that Buffett Boffed Becky?