Again With The Berkshire Puts

Author:
Publish date:

Though he claims to be unmoved by share price, it is hard to imagine that Buffett is totally ignoring the crazy ride that is Berkshire's share price, or the constant drubbing the firm (and WB himself) keeps taking over the variety of "Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction" it has collected over the last several years. Bloomberg, gleeful as a grandfather telling war stories to the grandkids and pawning off that scar he got falling off the ladder changing the kitchen lightbulb while drunk as a war wound, isn't missing this chance to retell the story, and is, therefore, on the case again:

Chief Executive Officer Warren Buffett's increasing use of derivatives -- contracts whose value is based on the performance of stocks or bonds or the outcome of a specific event. That Buffett once called derivatives "time bombs" doesn't calm investors.
Berkshire held contracts with a combined notional value of $67.3 billion at year-end. While this figure is used mostly for reporting purposes and isn't indicative of potential losses, it dwarfs the company's $25.5 billion in cash.

Though not quite as bad as the sinkhole it fell into back in February, Berkshire is getting tagged again and, at least to the extent you can believe any reason financial journalism comes up with to describe stock movements, the Berkshire Puts seem as good a reason as any. Sort of.
We've managed to harp on the poor reporting surrounding the Berkshire Puts morethanonce before, so it should come as no surprise that these are no ordinary puts and that Berkshire's exposure isn't typical of options writers. In this connection, we think we can be forgiven for thinking the issue of Berkshire's ratings is a bigger one than the options themselves.
Berkshire's 31% Decline Spurred by Derivatives Buffett Derided [Bloomberg]

Related

Former Berkshire Hathaway Executive Has Only The Nicest Things To Say About Warren Buffett

On March 30, 2011, Warren Buffett penned an open letter expressing support for his former lieutenant, David Sokol, whose trading activities had been called into question. "Neither Dave nor I feel his Lubrizol purchases were in any way unlawful," Buffett wrote. Then, a month later, he told shareholders and reporters gathered at the BKR annual meeting in Omaha that, actually, Sokol was a degenerate bum; a piece of garbage that needed to be taken out, lest it stink up the place. (Actual words: "inexcusable," "inexplicable," in violation of "the company's insider-trading rules and code of ethics." Buffett added that Berkshire "had turned over some very damning evidence" re: Sokol to the Securities and Exchange Commission, to boot.) Though Sokol did not publicly respond to the comments at the time, they presumably stung quite a bit, since having your unassailable ex-boss basically call you a lowlife does not do wonders for the reputation. Now, a year later, after being informed that the SEC would not be taking action against him, is he in a Zen place about life in general and Buffett's words specifically? Are the two men cool? Could Sokol see them being friends again one day? At the very least, is he ready to laugh about them? Yes, yes he is.