Thursday, February 24, 2011

Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Buoyed by Insurance 'Float'

Article published on http://www.wsj.com/
Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. has spent tens of billions of dollars on railroads, machine tools and utility companies in recent years. But Mr. Buffett's 2010 annual letter, to be released Saturday, is likely to emphasize just how much Berkshire's core insurance business is still driving its growth.
Berkshire, where Mr. Buffett serves as chairman and chief executive, is likely to report improved fourth-quarter earnings and an increase in book value, a performance yardstick Mr. Buffett uses to measure the company's growth. Results will be buoyed by rising stock markets that helped Berkshire's large stock portfolio and its derivatives contracts.

The company's manufacturing and retail operations, and its February 2010 acquisition of railroad Burlington Northern Santa Fe, likely boosted net income, as did insurance underwriting. Berkshire's net earnings through the first nine months of 2010 totaled $8.6 billion, already exceeding reported net income for the whole of 2009.

Of importance, Berkshire's pool of funds from insurance—something known as "float"—could have swelled to roughly $67 billion at the end of 2010 from $63 billion a year earlier. It is poised to rise further in 2011 despite challenging insurance-market conditions amid the slow economy, analysts say.
This float is money Berkshire holds to pay insurance claims in the future, but in the meantime can be put to work in stocks and long-term investments that earn returns for Berkshire's own benefit. Effectively borrowed funds at little or no cost, Berkshire's float enables the company to acquire businesses and assets beyond what its equity capital alone would permit, Mr. Buffett has previously said.
Last year's growth in float occurred even though Berkshire Hathaway Reinsurance Group, the giant reinsurer run by Ajit Jain, wrote its lowest level of property insurance to protect against hurricanes and other disasters in nearly a decade, as of Sept 30. As the broader market for commercial insurance extended a multiyear pricing slump, Berkshire limited the amount of catastrophe and individual risks it took because it didn't find premiums attractive enough.

Instead, the reinsurer acquired large books of long-term business from other insurers to bring in billions of dollars that Mr. Buffett and Berkshire's new investment manager Todd Combs can invest for many years—if not decades—before payouts have to be made. For example, Berkshire collected $2 billion in premiums last summer from a single asbestos and environmental-liabilities deal with insurer CNA Financial Corp., whose earnings had been hurt by liabilities from policies sold many years ago.

"Insurance companies that want to clean up parts of their balance sheet from historical woes often look to transact deals with Berkshire," said Bryon Ehrhart, chairman of reinsurance broker Aon Benfield's analytics division.

Berkshire Hathaway Reinsurance Group also grew significantly in the business of life reinsurance, by taking over coverage on the lives of thousands of Americans. A contract with Swiss Reinsurance Co. that closed in early 2010 gave Berkshire a block of individual term-life reinsurance business. This likely brought in over $2 billion in life and annuity premiums for Berkshire last year, estimates Jay Gelb, an analyst at Barclays Capital.

More premiums will come in this year from a recent acquisition of the life-reinsurance business of Toronto-based Sun Life Financial Inc., which was one of the largest players in this space.
The life-reinsurance deals will enable Berkshire to collect potentially tens of billions of dollars in premiums over the next few decades, money that Messrs. Buffett and Combs will put to work.
Berkshire will have to make payouts if individual policyholders die during the covered periods, but that won't happen immediately.

"These are all float creation deals," said Paul Howard, director of research at Solstice Investment Research. The expectation is that above-average investment returns generated by Berkshire over the long term will ultimately outrun its insurance liabilities, he adds.

Investment returns, however, have fallen across many asset classes since the financial crisis, when Berkshire was able to use money from its insurance operations to scoop up high-yielding securities in such companies as Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and General Electric Co. Those aid packages have earned Berkshire double-digit annual returns, but much of the money is expected to be repaid by the companies this year.

In his widely followed annual letter this Saturday, Mr. Buffett may repeat an earlier warning he has given Berkshire investors: The outsize returns he made on those crisis-era investments are unlikely to be repeated.

Berkshire's insurance businesses, which also include auto insurer Geico Corp. and reinsurer General Re Corp., likely generated underwriting profits last year, meaning they made money from the insurance they sold before factoring in investment income.

As long as the insurance is profitable, any money made by Messrs. Buffett and Combs on the float from these businesses belongs entirely to Berkshire. Mr. Buffett has previously described this as investing using other people's money without having to pay interest on the borrowed funds. The recent reinsurance deals, however, aren't without risk.

The deal with CNA Financial transferred $1.6 billion in asbestos and environment-pollution net liabilities to Berkshire along with $2 billion in premiums. Called "retroactive reinsurance" because it covers losses that have already occurred but whose final costs aren't known, Berkshire will be on the hook for up to $4 billion in insurance payouts. But if this limit is hit, it will likely be years in the future, by which time Berkshire could have multiplied the money it collected, say analysts.

Berkshire reached a similar retroactive reinsurance deal in 2006 with Equitas, a company formed by underwriters at Lloyd's of London. Berkshire agreed to pay up to $13.9 billion in asbestos and environmental claims and expenses at Equitas in the years ahead in exchange for $7.1 billion in cash and securities up front.

Mr. Buffett told shareholders in 2007 that there was no guarantee the Equitas deal would earn Berkshire money in the long term. But, he wrote, "Ajit and I think the odds are in our favor. And should we be wrong, Berkshire can handle it."

The retroactive reinsurance deals typically require Berkshire to record accounting losses over a period of time. Unlike most public companies, Berkshire "is willing to take business that depresses reported profits" if it expects to generate large economic profits over the long run, says Tom Russo, a partner at Gardner Russo & Gardner, an asset manager that holds Berkshire stock.

Mr. Gelb of Barclays Capital says it will "take a fair amount of time for the profits to emerge, but [the deals] will enable Berkshire to build up a tremendous amount of wealth over time."

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Banks will demand bigger down payments


The subprime meltdown is living proof of the infinite number of systemic failures within mortgage origination practices applied by many, if not all of the lenders in the USA.
Today, WSJ’s Mitra Kalita presents us with a brief analysis on what could potentially be the uprising of a new mortgage origination era, one that could lead lenders and borrowers to act in a more responsible and conscious way.

Even though, some of you could argue that tougher loan origination policies may restrict credit accessibility for potential home buyers with little or no cash available, it’s also true that the recent subprime crisis was caused by both irresponsible lenders and borrowers that took advantage of the widely spread origination malpractice that allowed them to extensively profit either from lending money, debt securitization, speculating with properties' artificially increasing prices or from borrowing money that they could never pay back. Even though lenders, mortgage brokers, real estate agents, as well as sellers and buyers gained from such strategy, their actions consequently sparked a loss to us all.

I believe that the demand of bigger down payments will help strengthen our financial industry and will boost a sustainable growth in Real Estate markets across the USA. Certainly not everyone will profit or benefit from new responsible practices: housing markets will move slower, property inventories will suffer from smaller rotation and many of us will not be able to buy our dream home unless we actually have the means to do so (that’s not too bad, is it?).

Its common sense…which is in fact the less common of all our senses.
Not everyone will profit or benefit from responsible lending, but it is time to learn from mistakes of the past, to instead strengthen sustainable growth for all to benefit from.

Hope you like the reading:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703312904576146532935600542.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLETopStories#dummy


Santiago H.

Monday, January 31, 2011

Startups = Jobs


Looking for Jobs in All the Wrong Places: Memo to the President
6:04 PM Wednesday January 26, 2011 by Henry R. Nothhaft with David Kline



Dear Mr. President,

Your State of the Union address last night offered hope to a nation made weary by an economy stubbornly resistant to job growth. But I must take issue with your claim that "None of us can predict with any certainty...where the new jobs will come from."


Brand new research conducted just last year by multiple teams of economists confirmed what many entrepreneurs such as myself had long suspected: startup businesses are responsible for all of America's new job growth.


Until now, the conventional wisdom has always been that small businesses create most jobs. But thanks to a new Census Bureau database called Business Dynamics Statistics (BDS) that correlates job creation with the annual number of new business starts, we now know that it's actually new businesses that do so (although most are obviously also small).


According to a recent study by the Kauffman Foundation, for example, all net job growth in the U.S. since 1977 has been due to start-ups. The data show that if you took start-ups out of the picture and looked only at large established firms, job growth in the U.S. over the last 34 years would actually be negative.


"When it comes to U.S. job growth," said Kauffman Foundation economist Tim Kane in his report, "start-up companies aren't everything. They're the only thing." In your address last night, Mr. President, you correctly noted that, "The first step in winning the future is encouraging American innovation." Here, too, start-ups are the driving engine of our nation's global innovation leadership.


It is startups who have generated virtually all of our nation's major technological breakthroughs in the last hundred years — from cars and planes to semiconductors, PCs, software, and the Internet — and in the process sparked the creation of whole new industries and millions of new jobs. And as economists have demonstrated, this kind of start-up-led innovation is the source of virtually all economic growth and increases in living standards in the U.S.


In other words, Mr. President, everything depends upon start-ups: Job creation. Our standard of living. Our prosperity as a nation. The American Dream itself. So if the target of national policy is job creation, then the bullseye of that policy must be centered on startups. Yet policy makers in both parties continue to aim at the wrong target.


Last month, Mr. President, you held a summit meeting with 20 of the nation's top CEOs to look for ways to spur job creation. But Fortune 100 CEOs are exactly the wrong people to talk to about jobs. Big Business is not a major job creator. Indeed, as one commentator put it, the guest list at this summit meeting represented "a who's who of outsourcing American jobs."


Then, this past Monday, you appointed General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt to chair your new council on jobs and competitiveness. Jeff Immelt is by all accounts an excellent CEO and a strong advocate of American competitiveness. But again, Mr. President, he is exactly the wrong person to talk to.


Instead, you should be meeting with the one group of people in America who actually creates jobs: entrepreneurs. Last night you spoke so compellingly about the "small business owner who dreams of turning a good idea into a thriving enterprise." But unfortunately, entrepreneurs are still largely invisible to policy makers. Everyone else has a voice in Washington — Big Business, retailers, insurers, doctors, bankers, and every other interest grouping you can think of. Only entrepreneurs lack a voice.


Mr. President, I have been a high-tech serial entrepreneur and CEO for more than 35 years. And in that time, I've created more than 6,000 jobs and returned $8 billion to investors. So please trust me when I say that one of the biggest roadblocks to job creation is the huge logjam at the patent office that prevents entrepreneurs from getting the patents they need to obtain venture funding. Without those patents and the funding they attract, few start-ups can afford to hire the people they need to develop their new products, services and medical treatments for the public.


Consider the case of Silicon Valley start-up Innate Immune, founded by world-renowned Stanford immunologist Sam Strober. It developed a new treatment for lupus, but has waited more than 7 years for a patent to be issued by an overburdened, underfunded USPTO groaning under a backlog of 1.2 million patent applications waiting for review.


"Hundreds of thousands of groundbreaking innovations are sitting on the shelf literally waiting to be examined," conceded your own patent office chief, David Kappos. And how many jobs are left un-created along with them? "Millions," said Kappos. "Millions of jobs."


My own analysis — conducted with retired Chief Judge Paul Michel of the nation's main court for patent appeals and reported in our New York Times op-ed last year — found that the U.S. could create as many as to 2.25 million new jobs just by clearing the patent backlog. A mere $1 billion spent on such an effort would create the most cost-effective jobs program in history.


To be sure, the patent backlog is not the only barrier to job creation. Start-ups today are also burdened by tax rates that are 50 percent higher than the average in Europe, belying your promise to "make America the best place on earth to do business."


And as for regulation, I applaud your promise to "reduce barriers to growth and investment." But if you could accomplish just one thing here, Mr. President, I hope it will be to end this nation's mindless one-size-fits-all approach to regulatory policy.
Who ever said that it was either smart or fair to impose on start-ups the same burdensome regulations meant to keep Big Business from sinking the whole economy again?


Perhaps the biggest job killer — and it's the greatest threat to the survival of America's once-vibrant middle class — is the systematic offshoring of our high-tech manufacturing capacity.
For 30 years now, we have all been fed the carefully-cultivated myth that so long as America did the creative work, the inventing, then we could let other nations like China do the so-called "grunt work," the manufacturing.


But in our arrogance and naiveté, we failed to realize that a nation that no longer makes things will eventually forget how to invent them.

Sincerely,


Henry R. Nothhaft

Monday, January 24, 2011

The Genius Dilemma - Newsweek


The Genius Dilemma - Newsweek

Just how essential is a company’s visionary founder? Apple and Google are about to find out.

Yale's Jeffrey Sonnenfeld writes about visionary founders and the companies that need to outlast them. Could Apple, Berkshire, Google and many others survive to their own leaders and continue to outperform their competitors? It goes well beyond Corporate Governance and Succession plans.

Hope you enjoy the reading!

Friday, January 7, 2011

Is Facebook worth $50 billion?

Is Facebook worth $50 billion?
By Jennifer Valentino-DeVries


The social-networking giant raised $500 million from Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Russian firm Digital Sky Technologies, putting its valuation at $50 billion, the Journal’s Anupreeta Das confirmed. The New York Times had earlier reported the investment.
Does that number make sense? First, let’s compare Facebook’s valuation to the market capitalization of other Internet companies — Yahoo, EBay, Amazon and Google. Yahoo comes in at $21 billion, and Google is at about $190 billion. (Sure, it’s not apples to apples. Among other things, the other companies are more mature. And Amazon and EBay, as e-commerce companies, aren’t competing for Web surfers’ eyeballs the way Google and Yahoo are. But still. Worth a look.)



When you take a look at revenue, Facebook is bringing up the rear, as far as estimates for fiscal 2010 go.

But when it comes to reach, Facebook is a real competitor, J.P.Morgan analyst Imran Khan points out today in his 2011 Internet investment guide. As a percentage of U.S. Internet users, Facebook is behind both Yahoo and Google, but people spend more time on Facebook — and Facebook usage is growing.


And it’s not just about traffic, Mr. Khan says. He makes the case that Facebook has an edge on portals like Yahoo because it doesn’t have to rely on advertising space. Instead, he says, Facebook’s value is as a “platform” — like a credit-card company, it can enable other businesses and charge them a small fee when users buy from them. And he’s not just talking about social games like FarmVille; he means e-commerce, online payments and even fees for content.

That’s the bullish case. The bears, of course, point out that social networking is still in its infancy, especially as a moneymaking “platform.” Facebook is moving to cement its ubiquity, with log-ins across the Web, but the space could still face a shake-up. And the company still has a ways to go to before it makes as much money from each user as Yahoo and Google do; the J.P. Morgan analysts estimate Facebook generates $4 per user, while Yahoo gets $8 and Google gets $24.

For Goldman, though, this long-term speculation might not matter, Felix Salmon at Reuters points out. The investment means Goldman will be sitting pretty when it’s time for Facebook to pick a bank to lead its IPO, and that alone could generate massive fees. “Facebook doesn’t need to stay worth $50 billion forever — Goldman just needs to engineer an IPO valuation somewhere north of that, then exit quietly in the public markets,” he writes.
Readers, what do you think? Was this a good move by Goldman? And does Facebook merit this valuation?

Monday, December 6, 2010

Why top talent earns so much money: Malcolm Gladwell


"There was a time, not very long ago, when people at the very top of their profession—the “talent”—did not make a lot of money. In the postwar years, corporate lawyers, Wall Street investment bankers, Fortune 500 executives, all-star professional athletes, and the like made a fraction of what they earn today. That era was an upside-down version of our own: when society gazed upon captains of industry and commerce, it marvelled at how ordinary their lives were. The truly rich in the nineteen-fifties and sixties were people who had inherited money. And then, suddenly, the world changed..."
Representing one of my favorite writers, Malcolm Galdwell presents an interesting take on the evolution of salaries and our increased interest for "talent", money and recognition.
Is money the only way to acknowledge talent? I believe it is not. Recognition is much more than how much we get paid. Even though money is important and it provides us with certain "social status", we should re-consider our set of social values and principles. For me, an individual's contributions to society and to the well-being of those around him should provide the base upon which society and corporations acknowledge talented individuals.
"Invest in people...a management that is full of integrity and talent" Warren Buffett



Tuesday, November 23, 2010

"What good is Wall Street?" The New Yorker Article


Wall Street, investment bankers, and social good: newyorker.com

Is our financial and economic model out of place? Can we justify the fact that the most profitable industry in the world is one that doesn't produce, build or sell a single tangible thing?

As investment banks and wall street "smartypants" investors come back on track with millionaire gains, mainstreet keeps wondering whether Wall Street it's absolutely neccessary for the world's economic and social development.

Here is an interesting article on how key players in the industry, such as Citigroup's Vikram Pandit, are assuming new leadership approaches whithin their industries and organizations.

What good is Wall Street?