Blog Archives

Billionaire investing success Warren Buffett does not like owning bonds at this point, and he thinks the average investor should avoid them as well.

The chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, major investment conglomerate, believes that individual investors should have plenty of cash on hand so they are comfortable just in case something unexpected happens.

He also believes that they should invest the rest of their money in stocks, even though the price of stocks has risen quite higher than they were years ago when the Great Recession first hit.

On Monday while giving an interview on CNBC, Buffett told the world that bonds are a terrible investment at the current time, and he also mentioned that long-term bond owners may see large losses once interest rates eventually rise again.

The Oracle of Omaha also said that stocks are selling for very reasonable prices generally even though the Dow Jones Industrial average is seeing record high levels, along with the S&P 500 index.

Buffett, 82 years old, also mentioned that he doesn’t have any plans to retire in the near future, and he also believes the efforts of the Federal Reserve, with keeping interest rates low, have helped the stock market. Income improvements continue to play a role for stocks as well.

Buffett is a continued fan of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, and he mentions that he believes bond prices are artificially inflated because of the stimulus that is ongoing from the Federal Reserve. The stimulus is $85 billion worth of bonds being bought every month, which keeps the interest rates at a low level. At this time, bond yields are near historic lows, and they move inversely to prices.

On Monday, Buffett gave interviews to Fox Business News and CNBC after Berkshire Hathaway’s annual shareholders meeting this past weekend. It was a star-studded event.

At the time of this writing, Berkshire Hathaway owns more than 80 companies and has large investments in IBM, Coca-Cola and Wells Fargo, as well as other iconic brands.

Buffett also reiterated his support of Jamie Dimon, J.P. Morgan Chase chairman and CEO. He said that Chase has the right person running the show, and he also owns the stock as part of his personal portfolio.

Buffett also believes that Berkshire Hathaway will own a stake in H.J. Heinz – the ketchup maker – forever, and he said that he didn’t have any problem taking on 3G Capital as a partner. They are the Brazilian investment firm that split the bill for H.J. Heinz. He also hopes that the Berkshire Hathaway stake in Heinz will grow as time goes by.

He was also questioned about the way the Heinz deal was structured. People wonder if the 50% split is a change in the way Berkshire Hathaway will invest and do business from now on. Berkshire Hathaway typically buys a company outright, and they let the company run without any intervention whatsoever.

3G Capital is not your typical private equity firm, said Buffett, since they put a large amount of their own money in deals, and they also run businesses.

Buffett even mentioned that Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad’s traffic is picking up, but it’s probably going to haul fewer carloads than it did before the recent recession.

Burlington Northern Santa Fe “has been a terrific acquisition for Berkshire,” said Buffett.

BNSF contributed $798 million to Berkshire Hathaway’s $4.9 billion profit for the first quarter, which the company reported on Friday. Berkshire Hathaway’s profits rose by over 51%, beating last year’s net income of $3.3 billion by a wide margin.

Warren Buffett once told us that avoiding dividends during the early years of Berkshire Hathaway gave him the ability to refocus the company’s money on better businesses, just like a person would overcome “a misspent youth.”

The billionaire Warren Buffett, now 82 years old, is focusing on his legacy as he prepares Berkshire Hathaway for new management as his time with the company winds down to a close. Using the annual letter being published on March 1 as a way to outline a dividend plan could show shareholders a way for the next leaders of the company to look at the challenge of allocating profits.

“It may ease the burden on the successors” if they have the ability to pay a dividend, Richard Cook tells us, co manager of the Cook & Bynum Fund, which has Berkshire Hathaway as one of its largest holdings. Berkshire and its subsidiaries “generate a lot of cash.”

Buffett’s annual letter is there to teach Berkshire Hathaway shareholders about corporate governance, investing and business, as well as the annual meetings in Omaha, Nebraska, where the company is located. As Berkshire grew through acquisitions and investment gains, so did its rather large pile of cash, which by the end of September 2012 amounted $47.8 billion. This large sum has made it very difficult to allocate the funds, since it is often difficult to find large investments that are worthwhile, we learned from Buffett himself.

The CEO and Chairman started buying back Berkshire shares in 2011 and used part of the most recent annual letter to explain when share repurchasing made sense. Last May, while on CNBC, he said that he would probably discuss the makings of a logical dividend policy in the upcoming annual letter.

Buffett’s Blessing

“It’s a very sensible move” to discuss when the company should begin paying a dividend, so the next CEO of Berkshire Hathaway will appear to have a Buffett’s blessing, we learned from Tom Russo, currently a partner at Gardner Russo & Gardener, overseer of more than US$5 billion, and that includes Berkshire Hathaway shares. After Warren Buffett is gone, many will have “a tendency to second-guess,” said Russo.

In 1965, Warren Buffett took over Berkshire Hathaway and changed it from a company that made men’s suit linings and textiles, and turned it into a $251 billion company that currently has retail businesses, lots of manufacturing companies, subsidiaries that generate electricity, they sell insurance and haul freight among many other things. His opinions about investments, due to his excellent record of accomplishment, make his annual letters a must read on Wall Street.

In his 1985 letter, Warren Buffett said that dividends make sense when a company’s managers cannot generate adequate returns when keeping the money inside the business. Berkshire Hathaway never paid a dividend because it’s always been able to earn better rates on retained profits, he told us at the time.

Averting Disaster

Buffett once wrote that paying a significant amount of money to his investors could have actually been “disastrous” in the beginning because the three businesses that he and Charlie Munger oversaw in the beginning had very little money. They also incurred losses and were only a fraction of their original size just 20 years later.

“It’s been like overcoming a misspent youth,” said Buffett of the Berkshire Hathaway effort to expand their chocolate making, newspaper publishing and insurance businesses. “Clearly, diversification has served us well.”

Buffett continually finds the best ways to invest the extra cash that Berkshire Hathaway has on hand. Over the last 30 years, he’s amassed tremendous stakes in large companies including IBM, Coca-Cola and Wells Fargo & Co. He even buys whole companies such as General Re reinsurer and Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad.

Just this month, he teamed up with Jorge Paulo Lehman’s 3G Capital in a deal worth $23 billion to purchase H.J. Heinz Co. and make it a private company. The deal will provide Berkshire Hathaway with $4.1 billion worth of equity and $8 billion in preferred stock that pays a dividend of 9%, we learned from the regulatory filing.

Charles Munger’s Wish

Warren Buffett points out his own mistakes in his annual letters, and he also uses them to praise his managers like Ajit Jain, his reinsurance chief, and the CEO of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Matt Rose. Warren Buffett relies heavily upon the subsidiary heads to oversee the day-to-day operations of these businesses. This leaves him and Charlie Munger the time they need to allocate the profits properly.

I believe that some of the people reading this article will live to see the day when Berkshire Hathaway pays a dividend. But hopefully it isn’t in the very near future.

The enormous size of Berkshire Hathaway could very well make a dividend a necessity at some point in the future since they may not have a better way to invest the accumulated funds, we heard from Munger at a meeting during 2011 in Pasadena, California.

“I think that some of you will live to see Berkshire pay a dividend, but I hope I don’t,” said Munger, 87 years old at the time, responding to the question of a member of the audience. “You’re saying, ‘Do you predict failure?’ And I suppose I do.”

During last year’s annual letter, Warren Buffett told us that the board chose a manager to take over as the next CEO, but they chose not to identify this individual. For a while now, Mr. Buffett has been allowing his investment managers Ted Weschler and Todd Combs to oversee more of the company’s $88 billion worth of stock.

Stock Rally

As of this morning, Berkshire Class A shares gained 0.5% to reach the amount of $152,650 at the opening around 9:35 AM in New York. Over the last 12 months, Berkshire has rallied for a 29% gain due to the gains in their operating units, a buy back in stock and Bank of America Corp. investment. In the same period of time, the S&P 500 index only gained 10%.

One roadblock to potentially paying a dividend now is that Warren Buffett, as the largest shareholder of Berkshire Hathaway, would have to do something with the payments he earns, said Russo. You probably know that he has pledged the majority of his wealth to charity, but he still has stock in Berkshire Hathaway worth more than $50 billion.

“Warren doesn’t want cash. He doesn’t need it. He doesn’t want the burden of investing it,” said Russo.

Paying a dividend could certainly makes sense once Buffett is no longer leading the firm, and more of the current shares he has passed over to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as well as his children’s philanthropic endeavors, Russo said. These charitable organizations are obligated to spend the money generated by a dividend, Russo also said.

The mutual fund manager, Cook, said he’d rather Berkshire skip paying a dividend and hold onto the cash for the time being.

“You’ve got a 50 year track record of being the best capital allocator in the world,” said Cook of Buffett. “As long as he’s alive, we think we’re generally better off with him” handling the money.

Very recently, 3G Capital and Warren Buffett have teamed up to purchase H.J. Heinz. And yes, 3G is a private equity firm.

Warren Buffett isn’t really a big fan of private equity, and in the past he has said that these firms are short-term financial engineers who “don’t love” the companies that they purchase. He has even bragged that he’s never previously purchased a company from one of these private equity firms.

So what is the public supposed to think of the idea that Warren Buffett has now teamed up with 3G Capital Partners, a private equity firm? They are jointly purchasing H.J. Heinz Co. in the total amount of $28 billion.

When you really think about it, this move is kind of hypocritical.

In the press, 3G Capital has been labeled a hedge fund manager as well as a private equity firm. Both of these statements are correct from a factual standpoint. The company oversees several private equity funds. The most recent fund had a gross asset value as of last October in the amount of $1.12 billion. Here’s the way 3G describes their family of funds in the company brochure:

The 3G Special Situations Funds’ objectives are to achieve superior long-term capital appreciation by making either controlling or non-controlling (but, in such cases, typically influential) investments in a small number of companies operating fundamentally good businesses with easy to understand business models that are being undermanaged or to which the Adviser believes it can add meaningful value. The 3G Special Situations Funds focus on leveraged acquisitions, recapitalizations, and acquisitions of controlling or influential stakes of businesses in industries where the Adviser has either operating experience or a strong network of contacts within the industry.

It currently appears that 3G charges 20% carried interest for all of these funds, and the management fee is around 1 to 2%. About one quarter of company capital comes from firm principals, and the rest of it comes from a minute group of high net worth Brazilian investors (and there’s even a smaller group of institutional investors).

3G Capital manages a few different small hedge funds through diversified strategies. Some of their funds hold stakes in companies such as SandRidge Energy, Goldman Sachs and Google.

That’s why it might be smarter to describe this company as an alternative investment platform, that also features varying strategies. Basically the way you may categorize Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and The Blackstone Group.

Those people familiar with 3G aren’t often comfortable with these comparisons. However, the company certainly does have a much grander investment horizon than your average and ordinary private equity firm. So in a sense, 3G resembles Berkshire Hathaway more than KKR or even Blackstone.

It hasn’t been possible to determine the investment lifecycle of a private equity fund from 3G, as a way to compare it to the industry-standard of 10 years. As a matter of fact, one source tells us that there might not even be one. If that is the truth, then you’re looking at one major distinction between Berkshire Hathaway and 3G.

If that statement isn’t true, then the only major difference between the 3G and Berkshire is that they raise their money by tapping into rich Brazilian friends instead of university endowments and public pension funds in the United States.

3G certainly doesn’t own any publicly traded securities the way Berkshire Hathaway does (which tells us that there has to be some viable path to investor liquidity).

Looking at the private equity track record of the firm doesn’t seem to remove the label either. As an example, 3G purchased Burger King in 2010 mainly by leveraging bank debt, then returned the money back to the public two years later through a reverse merger (instead of the usual IPO). 3G still has a major stake in Burger King, but there’s nothing novel in regards to a private equity firm remaining in control of our portfolio company three or four years down the line of the initial purchase.

When talking about bank debt, even the deal with H.J. Heinz is technically a leveraged buyout. There’s no question that it includes more equity than a typical mega-LBO with Berkshire Hathaway putting up as much as $12 billion and $13 billion (as well as 3Gs smaller equity slug), but the move will still keep billions of dollars worth of new debt of the books of Heinz.

Maybe Warren Buffett was only being hyperbolic when he speaks of his private equity contempt. Think about this for a second… if he truly believed the things he said, then he would have found another partner with whom he would purchase Heinz.

It’s almost crazy to mention that you have regular deals, and then you have Warren buffet style deals. And when looking at a Warren buffet style deal, the acquisition of H.J. Heinz for $23 billion certainly fits the bill.

Warren Buffett is known specifically for choosing a target that he like to buy, letting them know his price and then ultimately acquiring that target without doing too much bargaining in the process. Would you like to take a look at a few examples? Then check out the Berkshire Hathaway acquisitions of Wrigley’s, Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad and Lubrizol. In every instance, once Warren Buffett came to the table, each company lost interest in looking for any other bidders. That’s a powerful position to be in.

As of this time, it’s difficult to know the full story around the Heinz acquisition, and we have no clue how they looked at other suitors when trying to make sure that their shareholders will get the best deal. Once the proxy statement for the deal is filed, we will certainly learn more information. But as I’m sure you can imagine, this is already a very unusual deal from the beginning. If you’d like to see further evidence, then you can take a look at the last Friday morning agreement filed in regards to this deal.

One occurrence you need to be aware of is that there is no “go shop” provision that will allow Heinz to search for other bidders once the deal was announced. This type of provision is very common when a private equity deal takes place, and it also happens in some strategic deals as well, since it prevents the target from negotiating with any other bidders prior to announcing the deal.

But once the deal is announced, the target company can do a market check and look to see if there are any other bidders. If another bidder does come along, then the termination fee they would have to pay in order to acquire the company is actually lower than when there is no go shop provision in place.

There are some very good reasons for this particular type of mechanism. For starters, it will let the board of directors feel comfortable that it is actually receiving the best reasonable price that is available. Secondly, even though a ghost out provision is not mandated under the laws of Delaware, companies feel like it helps them satisfy their Revlon duties, which basically requires that a board of directors receive the highest price that is reasonably available when they sell a company.

You may have already gathered this, but there is no go shop provision in place during the Heinz deal. The company has only negotiated with 3G Capital and Berkshire Hathaway, according to all reports that are circulating. If there were another bidder to possibly come along, they would have to pay a $750 million termination fee, and there would also be another $25 million worth of expenses. That estimates to roughly 3% of the total transaction value, and this is a standard for a deal like this. But if a go shop provision were in place, it would typically be about three times less than this amount. No matter what way you look at it, we are still talking about a very large sum of money.

The deal is ultimately structured a lot more as a private equity deal than a strategic deal. 3G and Warren Buffett are financial buyers, and this deal specifically depends on the financing. They have jointly negotiated a common right in the private equity deals that if there is a failure and financing, Heinz will be able to sue them and they will be forced to obtain the financing. But if it is still not available, both buyers will be able to walk away from this deal, even though they would have to pay Heinz a whopping $1.5 billion.

I’d like to make a note that both Berkshire Hathaway and 3G capital also negotiated a very unique financing extension provision that will actually be for Heinz from forcing the payment of this see immediately if there is an event that financing failure takes place. This will allow the buyers to delay the termination and force the banks to finance this deal. We are going to officially call this new requirement The Ketchup Provision.

Getting back to the main story, it appears that Heinz has purposely gone out of its way to limit their options. Do you have any idea why they would do this?

One potential reason is simply the market dynamics, meaning that 3G and Warren Buffett didn’t allow a go shop provision with the deal. Since mergers are often driven by the market, the very common go shop provision use in situations like this would have provided Heinz a good reason to draw a line in the sand. All in all, it would show the shareholders that this truly is the best deal available to them.

There is also another potential reason that may come into play – the Heinz peculiarities. The company is actually incorporated in Pennsylvania, unlike most major American corporations that incorporated in Delaware.

The law of that state is created to provide total latitude to boards when it comes to deciding whether or not they should reject or accept the takeover offer. Under the Pennsylvania statute, the board is not required to take the shareholders into consideration as their main deciding factor when they choose to sell the company. The directors are able to base their decision on the interests of the “employees, suppliers, customers and creditors of the Corporation, and upon communities in which offices or other establishments of the Corporation are located.”

The overall effect of this particular statute is there to repudiate the Revlon rule in Delaware. Heinz, which is a Pennsylvania company, has no obligation whatsoever to take the highest price possible for their shareholders, and the courts in Pennsylvania have rejected this doctrine specifically. Instead, there are other interests such as community that come into play. (Mister Buffett and 3G must agree to section 7.15 that states that Heinz headquarters must stay in Pittsburgh, the company has to continue to retain the name Heinz, and they have to preserve the charitable commitments and heritage of this business. They also have to honor the naming rights of Heinz Stadium.)

Based on the advice of Heinz lawyer – Wachtell Lipton for special committee and Davis Polk for the company – they are told that the board doesn’t have to make shareholders their main requirement, and since this isn’t the state of Delaware, they can take other interests into consideration and still justify the sale to 3G and Warren Buffett.

Deals like this have been made before under great criticism. During the year 2009, Apax Partners purchased the Bankrate under similar circumstances. Since the Corporation was based out of Florida, they did not have to adopt the same safeguards you would normally come across during a private equity deal, mainly because the Florida laws did not require it. The board of Bankrate chose to go with the letter of the law instead, and they were also advised by Wachtell.

So what it all boils down to is this… If there is another bidder interested in purchasing Heinz, since there is no go shop provision in place, the Board of Directors can legally turned down this bid even if it is higher. The board can easily justify this rejection as the better move for Heinz if it feels the original deal upholds the interests of the community.

In reality, the state of Pennsylvania truly assisted Warren Buffett in his latest blockbuster deal.

If you have been curious about what Warren Buffett’s next big purchase was going to be, that I’m happy to tell you that the suspense has come to an end.

We learned today that Warren Buffett, the Oracle of Omaha, is again showing us that he really likes to buy American food companies.

Berkshire Hathaway and Warren Buffett are joining with 3G Capital, a Brazilian investment group, to purchase the H. J. Heinz Co. For a total of $23.3 billion. If you add on the debt that the new owners will assume on purchase, then the deal technically comes to a total of $28 billion, we learned according to Berkshire Hathaway.

3G Capital bought Burger King back in 2010. Berkshire Hathaway currently owns Dairy Queen. They now have a way to easily stock their chains with plenty of ketchup, there’s no question about it any longer. Heinz also owns the TGI Friday’s restaurant chains, which are now also a part of their holdings.

This deal is currently the largest ever business purchase in the food industry. The H.J. Heinz shareholders will make a total of $72.50 per share in cash.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette says that “Berkshire Hathaway and 3G capital have pledged to maintain Pittsburgh as [Heinz’s] global headquarters, and to fulfill and continue its philanthropic support of community initiatives and related investments.”