You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why Warren Buffett Said No to Lehman and AIG in 2008
- Thread starter dealmaker
- Start date
What do you mean by that? (marked to market comments)Do not really care what he says. He was bailed out by not having his positions marked to market. He would have lost all his fortune had he have to folow the rules we are forced to folow.
Then again Ceasar and commoners are never facing same rules. Way of the world we need to folllow.
If I were Warren Buffett, I wouldn't have given Lehman Brothers or AIG anything either and I think the majority of the ET members here would think the same thing. These two companies are not young start-up's who are in the process of developing their businesses and that they are "desperate for cash". These two companies are established financial companies that are almost the pillars of wall street and the financial industry itself with 100+ years of history in Lehman Brother's case and $trillions in assets and yet they are "desperate for cash"??!! Something is obviously extremely wrong. Either they weren't running the company right or there was fraud to the point that they are beyond help. So WHY would I throw my money away for some company that's beyond any hope. If I can realize this, Buffett would've definitely realized this probably long time ago way before they presented him their Form 10-K's. I mean even the US government didn't even want to help Lehman Brothers at the end and they expected Buffett would foot the bill, to throw his good money away to the bad? LOL
What difference would it have made? For his personal fortune he wouldn't care how the market valued his position. Berkshire still has to follow GAAP accounting rules, correct?Do not really care what he says. He was bailed out by not having his positions marked to market. He would have lost all his fortune had he have to folow the rules we are forced to folow.
Then again Ceasar and commoners are never facing same rules. Way of the world we need to folllow.
Last edited:
Do not really care what he says. He was bailed out by not having his positions marked to market. He would have lost all his fortune had he have to folow the rules we are forced to folow.
Then again Ceasar and commoners are never facing same rules. Way of the world we need to folllow.
Lol The closest his fortune has to being wiped out was early 90's when he purchased some bank that ended up with huge legal trouble, he admits to that in various interviews. In 08', Berkshire was sitting on $35-$40B in cash which is why he was able to make those lucrative warrant deals with BAC and GS to name a few then buy Burlington Northern, a few years later. If you mean his S&P500 puts he sold those weren't due for a decade and netted him billions. Those were marked-to-market, every year, which is why Berkshire shows a "loss" sometimes even when it's minting money. At no point was Berkshire in trouble, the only time their rating hasn't been AAA, I believe is in the railroad purchase which is why BRK.B was created.
Yeah, you're gonna have to explain that, it's not the kind of accusation you can just lob out and expect this group to lap up without further details.Do not really care what he says. He was bailed out by not having his positions marked to market. He would have lost all his fortune had he have to folow the rules we are forced to folow.
Then again Ceasar and commoners are never facing same rules. Way of the world we need to folllow.
The something wrong is this ridiculous nonsense..... These two companies are established financial companies that are almost the pillars of wall street and the financial industry itself with 100+ years of history in Lehman Brother's case and $trillions in assets and yet they are "desperate for cash"??!! Something is obviously extremely wrong...
Even trillion dollar market cap Apple doesn't have trillions of dollars of assets.
What difference would it have made? For his personal fortune he wouldn't care how the market valued his position. Berkshire still has to follow GAAP accounting rules, correct?
He would have lost all his fortune in forced liquidation of his derivatives trades at the most unfavorable prices. In his case it would have been even worse since these were OTC contracts.