August 22, 2012

Warren Buffet Dumps Muni Bonds

Regular Via Meadia readers are by now well versed in the perils of state and municipal finance. Simply put, vast unfunded liabilities (pensions and retiree health benefits) are bearing down on taxpayers who cannot afford to make up the shortfall. Consequently, a once placid  and predictable market for state and municipal bonds is beginning to roil.

Yesterday, it roiled a lot, with the news that Berkshire Hathaway, under the direction of legendary investor Warren Buffett, announced its departure from the state and municipal bond market.

Discerning signal from noise isn’t easy in the cacophony of financial markets, but there was no mistaking this particular signal.  It was front-page news.  Everybody got the message.

In early 2011, Meredith Whitney famously told the CBS News program 60 Minutes that the state and municipal bond markets were headed for disaster. She predicted defaults and bankruptcies.  Tens of billions of dollars would be lost, she said, over the course of the year.

In the event, there were a few declarations of bankruptcy and a few defaults, but the state and municipal bond market, as a whole, rebounded nicely from the mini-panic that followed Ms. Whitney’s prediction.  The market for state and municipal bonds finished the year strong.

So it was that Ms. Whitney was denounced as a fraud and a charlatan. Anyone who defended her (like me, for instance) was deluged with emails and comments unfit for family viewing.  The state and municipal bond chorus was both righteous and vengeful.  They wanted this heretic burned at the stake.

Although Ms. Whitney’s timing was off, her arithmetic was inarguably correct.  Take the municipal bond market as an example.

Municipalities have two ways to raise revenue: property taxes and sales taxes.  There is as well a mind-numbing array of “fees” that have been concocted for cushion, but property and sales taxes account for the vast majority of municipal revenues.

According to a study by the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University, the amount of equity Americans have in their homes has been cut by more than half in the last six years.  In 2006, home equity stood at nearly $15 trillion.  Today, it stands at $6.2 trillion. You can’t raise property taxes on people whose property is worth less than half as much as it was 6 years ago.

As for sales tax revenue, it’s better than it was in 2009, but it’s not nearly as robust as it needs to be to keep feeding the municipal debt beast.  Nor will it soon be.  Middle class Americans are tapped out.  At the same time, they are deleveraging (paying off home equity loans, student loans, etc).  Higher taxes aren’t just politically difficult.  They’re all but impossible on middle class Americans.

Unless you live in energy-boom North Dakota or the Silicon Valley or a few other selected “hot spots,” this combination of depressed property values and diminished retail activity is the new normal. It will be the new normal for some time. It couldn’t come at a worse time.

An aging work force is preparing for retirement.  There aren’t nearly enough people in back of them to help pay the taxes that will keep retirement benefits flowing.  Immigrants, in theory, could make up the difference, but immigration trends have recently reversed.  Mexicans, for example, are no longer coming to America.  They’re staying in or going back to Mexico.

Over the course of the last four decades, public employee unions have been the only segment of the union “movement” that has seen membership growth.  In their negotiations with local and state governments across that time span, public employee unions consistently swapped out sharply higher wage increases for ever-more generous retirement benefits. The deal being that politicians could claim credit for holding the line on present costs, union leaders could claim credit for much richer retirement benefits and no one would have to pay for it any time soon.

Those public employee retiree health and pension benefits, once so far away, are now upon us.  They get more and more expensive as the baby boomers age.  And the money to pay for all those benefits simply isn’t there.

What about the state and local pension funds?  Didn’t they kill it over the length and breadth of the great bull market of the last 30 years? Well, yes they did.  And then they didn’t.  They now struggle to make half of their promised (8%) rate of return.

To make matters worse, the accounting that was used to describe assets and liabilities, was, shall we say, suspect.  So much so that Moody’s recently announced that given new and stricter accounting rules for state and local pensions, it was tripling the size of the total unfunded liability, from roughly $700 billion to $2.2 trillionIn one day.

Further revisions (upward) are expected.  Which is one reason, no doubt, why Mr. Buffett chose to make his exit.

There are serious students of state and municipal debt who believe that the actual size of the total unfunded liability is closer to $4 trillion than it is to Moody’s $2.2 trillion.  Whatever the real number is, it will eventually require (and sooner would be better than later) that all involved take some kind of haircut.  There is simply no way, barring the discovery of the fountain of youth and the erection of a state and muni bottling plant next to it, that these gigantic unfunded liabilities can be made whole.

Mr. Buffett saw that nearly 20 months after Ms. Whitney.  He got out while he still could. It will be hard, if not impossible, for the state and municipal bond chorus to call him a fraud and a charlatan.

[Image provided by Wikimedia Commons.]

Posted in Economics & Business, Essays
Send Us Feedback Send Post Ideas
Load Comments
  • vanderleun

    How about we call Buffet a fraud and a charlatan on general principles?

  • http://wwrtc.blogspot.com Art Deco

    What Berkshire Hathaway did has been described as follows:

    company noted in a recent quarterly filing that it had canceled credit-default swaps insuring its $8.25 billion muni-bond market wager.

    It does not say they sold the bonds. In any case, Berkshire Hathaway has nearly $400 bn in assets. This bond portfolio amounted to north of 2% of their total holdings.

    We have had some dozens of defaults out of more than 40,000 state and local governments.

    We have had discussions here about the character who produced the figure of $4 tn in unfunded liabilities. Do you really fancy yourself realistic by repeating the most eccentric estimates simply becuase they are congruent with disaster scenarios? Do you think there might be something hinky about the analytical methods used which produce figures which vary by nearly a factor of six?

  • thibaud

    As has been pointed out here before, cherry-picking from certain investors’ bets in order to push a political agenda is a fool’s errand.

    With munis in particular, anyone following the Chicken Little / Norquist script who shorted these would have had his head handed to him in 2010-2011. You’d never guess it from reading the ignorant screeds here, but munis were the best performing asset class in this period. (Meredith Whitney owes a lot of people a big apology).

    As to the Oracle of Ohama, his recent performance has been rather less than oracular. He blew it big time last year on natural gas, also housing, for example.

    These days, Buffett’s famed delphic wisdom increasingly depends on his insider status with the Fortune 500 and Washington.

    Where Buffett has made big money recently has been in sweetheart deals and crony investments in things like convertible shares of GS, TBTF banks, railroads that benefit from the admin’s non-approval of pipelines etc.

  • thibaud

    Re Art Deco’s point (#2 above), some more data points for the challenged:

    Per US bankruptcy court documents from 2009-2010, there are more than * 1,000 times * as many Chapter 11 (corporate) as Chapter 9 (municipal) bankruptcies each year:

    Chapter 9 (municipal) bankruptcies: 16

    Chapter 11 (corporate) bankruptcies: 28,936

    [Source: Report F-5A, US Bankruptcy Courts, Business and Nonbusiness Bankruptcy County Cases commenced by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code during the 12-month periods ending 9/30/09 and 9/30/10.]

    Another data point: the default rate on muni bonds remains at about 0.1%. For ex., about $2.5 billion in munis defautled in 2010 – out of a total muni bond market of * $2.9 TRILLION * .

    Math can be hard, and financial analysis arcane.

    If you don’t know what you’re talking about, roping in this or that Great Investor will not shore up arguments based on superficial knowledge and ideological preconceptions.

  • John Barker

    Since the debt owed by municipalities and states is public, residents may escape some of it by fleeing to states (if any)where public debt is lower. I wonder if such a migration will take place and what the consequences will be.

  • Mrs. Davis

    I wonder if such a migration will take place and what the consequences will be.

    Yes it will. And the consequences will be lower RE prices and ultimately assessments, i.e. lower tax revenue to the municipalities. Which will drive higher tax rates to maintain revenue and lowered services to make up for shortfalls. Leading to more people selling to escape to solvent states.

    Boomers need to suck it up. None of them are going to get the retirement they expected.

  • Corlyss

    @ Vanderleun

    ROFL

  • Andrew Allison

    Prof Mead, we miss you. This is old news (it was last February that Buffett wrote (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/buffett-says-bonds-among-most-dangerous-of-assets/2012/02/10/gIQA07oH4Q_video.html).
    That said, for @2 and @3 to accuse VM of pushing a political agenda is to call the kettle black. It doesn’t really matter whether the unfunded liability is $1 trillion or $4, there’s no possible way that these promises can be kept.
    @5 — the migration is already taking place from California, see, e.g., http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2012/02/02/texas-seeing-migration-from.html

  • Jim.

    Ellis’ analysis of American disposable income and sales tax receipts could be a little more numeric, but his point remains as solid as the one about median California incomes at the height of the housing bubble… there just isn’t enough money in the system to pay off the debts being incurred.

    Before the bubble popped, mortgage-backed securities did very well, too. Investors who bet against them took serious losses.

    And the one that timed the collapse right is now a billionaire, if I recall correctly.

    Depserate Keynesian wishful thinking and lengthy posts of Blue blather won’t save a system this far gone. Prudent retrenchment will save what can be saved, and the rest will inevitably fall.

  • WigWag

    John Ellis, do you know the difference between a security and a derivative? What Buffet exited was not the “municipal bond market” but the market for credit default swaps that insure muni bonds. While the two markets are related they are certainly not identical and the factors that cause each market to advance and decline are not identical.

    Has it occurred to you that every time a famous investor exits a particular market or a particular security that it does not necessarily presage the financial ruin of that market or security? Do you understand that there are times that investors sell securities not because they are convinced that those securities are about to be worthless but because they believe there are even better opportunities in other sectors?

    Isn’t it equally plausible that Buffet is exiting this market because he feels that with the recession ending that he thinks the easy money to be made in the market for CDS is over, and that true to his strategy as a value investor, he sees greater opportunities elsewhere where perhaps foolish investors are more nervous or even panicked?

    Has it occurred to you that perhaps Buffet’s exit from this market is not a sign that he thinks that municipal bonds are likely to collapse but a sign that he sees this market strengthening and becoming more stable thus making his ability to earn a substantial profit in muni related derivatives more difficult?

    As even the most inattentive reader of the Wall Street Journal knows, Berkshire recently announced that it had reduced its positions in Exxon and Johnson and Johnson and increased its position in IBM and Wells Fargo. Does this suggest that Buffet thinks the oil market is about to collapse with oil prices plunging? Does it suggest that it’s time to start hoarding the Band Aids and Q-Tips because J&J faces imminent collapse?

    Isn’t what value investors do is move into markets where they believe that the market sentiment is unduly negative and move out of markets where they feel lack of negative sentiment by others precludes their ability to get a sweet deal? Has it occurred to you that perhaps Buffet thinks that far from collapsing, the muni market is about to stabilize in a way that hinders his ability to make a killing on the underlying derivatives?

    None of us know what does or does not motivate Warren Buffet to make a particular investment; we don’t know why he buys and we don’t know why he sells. Buffet may or may not have lost faith in the municipal bond market, but only a dullard would believe that they could divine his belief about the strength or lack thereof of munis by the fact that he has lost interest in investing in credit default swaps.

    Instead of watching Wolf Blitzer explain the story, Mr. Ellis, you would be better advised to listen to Erin Burnett’s explanation, even if her show is poorly produced.

    If all you understand about how these markets work is what you’ve learned on CNN, maybe it would be better to write a post about something else.

  • http://www.everymanblog.com Everyman

    I’m with Gerard on this one. Buffet’s had a nice run, but it’s time for him to catch the bus back to Margaritaville, with his added “t” cousin, Jimmy, maybe with Greenspan collecting tickets. And if we’re even tempted to be taken in by the silly statistical juxtapositions of the likes of the supercilious thibaud, we will deserve whatever losses we incur by staying in the miasma of the muni bond world. I had a cousin named Whitney, and she would have seen through the pea-under-the-shell thing, too.

  • Gene

    Thibaud, it must be a terrible burden to be right about absolutely everything. I suggest decaf and maybe a bubble bath until you calm down.

    Are you perhaps implying that we shouldn’t be worried about municipal bankruptcies? Perhaps, in keeping with your use of a percentage of munis that default, you could offer us a line in the sand–a number of muni defaults that would raise even your exalted eyebrows as a matter of concern?

    Have you read the Aug. 17 article in that well-known Republican house organ, the Washington Post, about Moody’s concerns re muni bankruptcies? I’m sure you could find other similar articles in the financial press full of quotes from intelligent analysts that are also concerned about this.

  • Tom

    Municipal areas have the power to coerce people to give them money. Corporations don’t.

    While we’re talking about fruit, let’s stop comparing apples and oranges.

  • Harun

    “the market for credit default swaps that insure muni bonds.”

    The other reason to leave a market being that its getting to risky and you are afraid to lose money.

    I have to imagine that’s the issue, not a lack of return on equity.

  • WigWag

    Isn’t one of the secrets of Buffet’s success that he rarely falls victim to the herd mentality that this post shows John Ellis has fallen victim to? Instead of buying high and selling low, which is what many of us mere mortals often do, doesn’t Buffet look for bargains? Isn’t he unafraid of buying when everyone else is panicking and isn’t he inclined to sell when his investment is no longer undervalued?

    Buffet bought much of his CDS portfolio from Lehman Brothers when that company was nearing terminal status; the economy was sinking. Isn’t a recovering economy precisely the time to search for a new investment?

    Perhaps John Ellis is correct that Buffet is exiting this market because he feels it is unduly risky. But it is also possible that he is exiting it because his assessment of the risk and the market’s assessment of the risk is too similar for him to get a great deal.

    At around the same time he bought this portfolio he made a significant investment in Goldman Sachs. Buffet got a great deal. He got preferred stock that paid ten percent and option to buy Goldman Sachs common stock at $115 (it closed today at 104.67).

    Buffet got such a great deal because when everyone else was scared to death that Goldman was going under, Buffet understood that the chances of that happening were near nil. Everyone else thought that Buffet took a real risk on Goldman Sachs, Buffet realized (correctly) that he was taking no risk at all.

    I am sure that Goldman Sachs would be happy to welcome a new investment from Warren Buffet but because the economy and market has stabilized Goldman wouldn’t offer Buffet a deal anywhere near as the deal they offered him in 2008.

    If Goldman were to offer Buffet an inferior deal that offered him significantly less profit potential than Buffet thought he could get elsewhere, would anyone be surprised if Buffet turned down the deal?

    Would this mean Buffet thought Goldman was going to collapse? Would it mean Buffet though that an investment in Goldman was too risky?

    John Ellis really needs to think more deeply about how markets work.

  • http://wwrtc.blogspot.com Art Deco

    Andrew Allison, I am not accusing John Ellis of pushing a political agenda. I do think some of this discourse falls under the category of ‘morose delectation’ or is a self-aggrandizing exercise. As noted in our last exchange on this, when the sum of assets in defined-benefit pension funds is around $2.4 tn, promoting the notion that there is a $4 tn shortfall should trigger some skepticism.

    The people pushing this idea are sophisticated students of economics and finance. This is not like the knucklehead at National Review who was promoting the idea a while back that the ‘real’ federal deficit was $100 tn, derived from someone else’s dubious calculation of the ‘unfunded liability’ of the Social Security program. There is a distinction between stock and flow and a distinction between pension programs and income transfer programs, but don’t bother that chap with that.

    I would not accuse the three or four analysts pushing this of shading anything. It would not surprise me if they were emphazing some points of their analysis and not others in the executive summary or reporting what they models showed with certain extreme assumptions.

  • Jim

    This can mean only one thing. Warren doesn’t think a second term for Obama is likely, in which case the probability of a federal bailout of the blue states from their pension obligations is going to happen.

  • teapartydoc

    I wonder how many people making comments here actually have any skin in the muni game. I do, and I quit actively buying munis about three years ago. Once in a while a really good deal in a really stable place comes along, but otherwise, no, I’ll take my chances elsewhere. Keep in mind that I am at a stage in my life where I am looking for safety, not high potential growth. The prospect of a possible second term for someone with a reputation for screwing over bond-holders was a consideration.

  • Ernst Blofeld

    While equity may have dropped from $15T to $6.2T, that doesn’t mean the value has dropped by more than half. For example, a $100K house with a $90K loan has $10K of equity. The price drops to $95K, equity is halved, but the value of the house has dropped by only about 5%.

    I see an accelerating movement out of California as well, assuming things don’t change in a fairly dramatic way or they don’t open up (and tax) huge new oil fields. Aside from the $10B + deficits as far as the eye can see there’s the gigantic pension obligations which will require greatly increased taxes. The problem is that their workforce is mobile, and the new residents are mostly low-skill immigrants. At some point the skilled, high wage residents will simply leave, even more so than they have already. The state will probably try to jack up property taxes, but property values ultimately rely on the income of residents.

    Note for investors: eventually California will be faced with either servicing their debt or reducing services. If you know anything about the California electorate you realize that when presented with that choice they won’t be friendly to bond holders. It doesn’t matter what the state constitution says. You’ll be stiffed.

  • http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/81753 Lee Dodson

    Here’s why Warren dumped his munis: the California Secretary of State announced on Friday that sales tax receipts in the Left State have plummeted by 33.5%….in the Golden State. Get it?

    The west coast now feels the pain of disastrous policies and a lousy economy built on the “Wimpy hamburger” meme. No business means no taxes, no taxes means no way to pay off bond debt. The states borrowed their way into this, or floated bonds into it.

    Way to go, Warren. Great perception of the market. Too bad your external analysts are so busy explaining away a bad economy by running their alter ego treatises.

    Facts are facts. No money coming in means no way to pay off debt.

    To the retirees and pensioners: Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy night…year…years.

  • HAPPY2

    Munis and state bonds are a lot like real estate….location, location, location….

    What no one mentions, somewhat surprisingly, is the volatility and upward march of the most important benchmark rate in existence: the 10-year US T-bond. In just a little over 3 weeks, it has shot up from <1.40%, to a high yesterday morning of 1.87%, to today's 1.72%! The swing of .15% in 2 successive days, in the low-rate environment today, is huge…..

    And nobody noticed!

  • Ed

    Mr. Thibault

    Don’t tell us how great the muni market is, put your money into it. It’s still a free country and you are free lose your stash if you so choose.

    If you are right, well, you’ll be rich. I know that’s not what you want to be but at least you won’t be a burden on the taxpayers.

  • VladTheImpaler

    Bailout Buffet doesn’t play by the same rules you and I do. His bonds get protection, which the GM bondholders get shafted. His purchase of railroads may be shrewd, but also a consquence of NO Keystone XL pipeline. We may never know.

    I only hope R&R will help restore integrity in the financial and investment communities.

  • Rick Caird

    @Art Deco and @Thibaud

    While it is true Buffett sold CDS’s, he did so at a loss. The CDS’s Buffett sold were ones he had written against municipal bonds. If you did not think you would have to pay off on those CDS’s, you would hold them and let them expire worthless. So, Buffett did sell the bonds in the sense he feels the risk has gotten too great.

    Second, ZeroHedge had a story on this:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/buffett-joins-team-whitney-sees-muni-pain-ahead-he-unwinds-half-his-bullish-exposure-ahead-time

    Other stories have pointed out when Moody’s or other ratings agencies talk about muni bond defaults, they are only talking about the ones they have rated. There are a lot more default on unrated bonds. Given that any new muni bonds have incredibly low interest rates (one year rates being like .2%), I have zero intention of buying a muni bond or a muni etf.

    Sometimes, financial analysis is not all that hard.

  • Mick The Reactionary

    “eventually California will be faced with either servicing their debt or reducing services. If you know anything about the California electorate you realize that when presented with that choice they won’t be friendly to bond holders. It doesn’t matter what the state constitution says. You’ll be stiffed.”

    May be. But it is not at all clear.
    Legally speaking, how will CA refuse to pay bonds?

    Corporations and municipalities can declare bankruptcy and default on bond payments.

    States, there was never a state bankruptcy and it is not clear that it is legally possible.

    It is up to SCOTUS, they may decide CA can go bankrupt and CA might decide to do so. A bankruptcy overseerer will be appointed and will decide which creditor will get what.

    A recent example of Chrysler bankruptcy indicates that politics will trump all the legal niceties, politicians friends will do well, bondholders will be urinated on.

    If SCOTUS will deny CA bankruptcy rout, bond holders could sue and force the sale of state assets to pay off some of CA bonds.

    CA does not have to pay off all of their bonds, they have to balance money inflows and outflows.

    CA might choose to take that opportunity to clean up their finances. I don’t expect them to do so.

  • You still sick warren

    Buffet is a fraud, a charlatan, and a limousine pinko. Meredith wasn’t wrong, she was early.

  • WigWag

    I can’t help but wonder whether Mr. Ellis did any research at all before he made this contribution to “Mead in Depth.”

    The following link provides a list of the yields and maturity dates of various California municipal bonds. To get a yield approaching four percent you need to go out about 20 years and even that is only for less secure securities. Perhaps Mr. Ellis is right and California munis represent a real default risk. Or perhaps the thousands of sophisticated investors are right who are pricing these yields at a rate that suggests default is a remote possibility. These yields are remarkably low by historical standards in spite of the fact that California has one of the poorest economies in the current economic climate.

    Has the possibility occurred to Mr. Ellis that Buffet is exiting the market for CDS in this area because both he and the rest of the market agree that the risk of default is low thus making it impossible to price CDS in a robust enough manner for Buffet to make a profit as big in this arena as he thinks he can make elsewhere?

    http://california.municipalbonds.com/bonds/recent/

  • RHD

    Ellis doesn’t mention the most worrisome fact until near the end of his piece — the accounting for state and muni debt is questionable. That makes it difficult to quantify the risks, and thus to price the debt sensibly (from a buyer’s perspective, for sure).

    There will probably be buyers for this debt even accepting those risks (there are still risk-takers willing to buy Greek sovereign debt at a deep discount). But uncertainties about repayment coupled with an unquantifiable risk will make sensible buyers insist on a major discount (very high yield ) compared to other bonds.

    Ellis’ point is well taken, and would be foolish to ignore for anyone considering investing in these bonds.

  • thibaud

    Financial blogs create noise.

    Political blogs that dabble in investment analysis create noise squared.

  • WigWag

    Note to Professor Mead and Damir Marusic; this post is a perfect metaphor for the declining quality of this blog. As a loyal reader and fan of Professor Mead it brings me no pleasure to say it. Mead at his best when writing about a field in which he has expertise is second to none. Over and over again Mead impresses all of his loyal readers with his erudition and his eloquence.

    For the past several months, for whatever reason, the “short takes” have become shallow and sometimes
    silly. They’ve become repetitive, snarky and frequently tendentious. Often they take a complicated issue and dumb it down in the attempt to use it as evidence that verifies Professor Mead’s preexisting inclinations. In the attempt to prove that his inclinations are correct, all too often Professor Mead cites anecdotal examples as if they were powerful evidence. The excuse sometimes given for this lack of nuance is that it’s hard to offer much nuance in a short post.

    Fair enough. The good news is that the posts in “Mead in Depth” have usually been thought provoking, sophisticated and well worth reading even for readers who disagree with the premise of the post.

    With this post “Mead in Depth” descends to the level of superficiality that we find in “short takes” with increasing frequency. I know that Mr. Ellis is a guest poster; I am sure he’s very smart and very knowledgable. But this post just doesn’t cut it. The “short takes” often represent little more than a regurgitation of a news story from the New York Times along with a snarky comment about how it proves the “blue model” is dying. It’s often shallow and embarrassing. Does this post mean that “Mead in Depth” is about to suffer the same fate?

    I am a big fan of Via Meadia. Professor Mead has written in his blog that he welcomes feedback from his readers. Other readers may find this post to be sophisticated and pithy. In my opinion it represents a troubling omen.

  • http://wwrtc.blogspot.com Art Deco

    While it is true Buffett sold CDS’s, he did so at a loss. The CDS’s Buffett sold were ones he had written against municipal bonds. If you did not think you would have to pay off on those CDS’s, you would hold them and let them expire worthless. So, Buffett did sell the bonds in the sense he feels the risk has gotten too great.

    It is not absolutely clear, but if the quotation above is correct, he bought protection on his portfolio of municipal bonds and then cancelled the contract later. In other words, he paid a regular fee to the seller in return for a promise of an indemnity in case of a default. Later, he cancelled the agreement. I am not sure why he did this. My guess would be that his models suggested that the side bet had suboptimal terms – that the outflow of payments to the other part in the swap was to large to justify given the assessed risk of default.

  • sean

    Maybe next year he will no longer have a lower tax rate than his secretary and I can no longer call him a hypocrite.

  • http://wwrtc.blogspot.com Art Deco

    Your “Zero Hedge” piece indicates that Berkshire Hathaway sold credit protection to Lehman Brothers years ago. Do you think closing out the contract might have something to do with the liquidation process? Just guessing.

    “Zero Hedge” simply asserts the termination of the contract required taking losses, even though no figures were provided. That is one reason I pay no attention to “Zero Hedge”. (See the confident assertion that Meridith Whitney will be proved right, as if the author were omnicient).

    They list four sets of state bonds for which B-H agreed to indemnify Lehman. They include California and Illinois. I do not think either state is representative of the municipal market as a whole.

  • http://wwrtc.blogspot.com Art Deco

    Are you perhaps implying that we shouldn’t be worried about municipal bankruptcies? Perhaps, in keeping with your use of a percentage of munis that default, you could offer us a line in the sand–a number of muni defaults that would raise even your exalted eyebrows as a matter of concern?

    Are you and John Ellis implying that we cannot be concerned about the state of municipal finance and the value of some bond issues with out thinking along the lines of “In early 2011, Meredith Whitney famously told the CBS News program 60 Minutes that the state and municipal bond markets were headed for disaster. She predicted defaults and bankruptcies. Tens of billions of dollars would be lost, she said, over the course of the year.”?

    Do you think maybe some of us might be skeptical of the opinions of a man in the word merchant sector who comes up with gems like “Although Ms. Whitney’s timing was off, her arithmetic was inarguably correct. Take the municipal bond market as an example.” as if he had done the analysis himself when the whole article confounded trading in bonds with trading in credit default swaps?????

  • dexcente

    This is a situation where a piece of information out of context leads people to draw wild conclusions about intentions. BRK is terminating CDS as part of a restructuring where the CDS will be replaced by a guarantee. The municipal bonds in question are banking book assets hedl to maturity but the CDS are trading book assets marked to market. Replacing the CDS with guarantees aligns the investors accounting treatment of the munis and the hedge. While it may be true that the municipal bond market is headed for a fall, this particular transaction is not an indicator that Buffet believes that to be the case.

  • ez

    The US had the world by the manufacturing gonads after the 2 grewat wars of the 20th century. We rode that bull to this point. Now we are the last bastion of stability in a world of debtors. What if we loose some of that shine?

  • Jim.

    @thibaud-

    Thanks, I needed a laugh today! Your sense of comic irony is impeccable.

  • thibaud

    Isn’t it funny that those who seek to enlist Buffett’s/Berkshire’s investment moves on behalf of their political views always seem to emphasize one part of his investment portfolio while ignoring other equally large or significant parts?

    So Buffett’s shift re muni insurance derviatives proves one thing, but Buffett’s massive investment in solar and wind power – the latter via Berkshire-owned subsidiary MidAmerica Energy, the largest utility in Iowa – mean nothing.

    Right. So …

    $4 billion invested by MidAmerican in wind projects that will generate 2,284 MEGAWATTS by the end of 2012;

    the state of Iowa now generating 20% of its power from wind;

    wind energy’s ascension to prominence as a major campaign issue in the battleground state of Iowa –

    and none of this merits comment from our cherry-picking political pundits at VM.

    Curious indeed.

  • thibaud

    What WigWag #30 said:

    “For the past several months, for whatever reason, the “short takes” have become shallow and sometimes
    silly. They’ve become repetitive, snarky and frequently tendentious. Often they take a complicated issue and dumb it down in the attempt to use it as evidence that verifies Professor Mead’s preexisting inclinations….”

    The domestically-oriented (and most of the Europe-focused) “Quick Takes” on this blog are absurd. They detract from Mr Mead’s deserved reputation for expertise in international relations.

    Perhaps Mead thinks he’s burnishing the Tea Party’s reputation, but in reality, drive-by posts like this one and Mead’s almost daily inversions of reality are just dumbing down the discussion. A pity, because his voice deserves attention when he’s talking within his sphere of expertise.

  • Anthony

    WigWag’s comment @30 notes directly quality concerns which are becoming perceptible to some loyal readers and supportere. Thanks WigWag and WRM no doubt appreciates the feedback.

  • M. Report

    ‘Prediction is hard, particularly
    about the future.’

    It depends on how far in the future;
    The beast is now so close that one
    can count its teeth, and looking
    the other way will not help.

  • Esteban

    Those baby boomers are so sweet. They wanted a revolution to tear down the government so they could take acid and spend all day communing with the cosmos. Now they want the suckers who come along behind them to prop up the government just long enough to pay for their golfing retirements. The most selfish and self-absorbed generation in American history? Gets my vote.

  • Jim.

    As for WigWag 30-

    “For the past several months, for whatever reason, the “short takes” have become shallow and sometimes silly. They’ve become repetitive, snarky and frequently tendentious.”

    Add the terms “tasteless” and “poorly thought out partisan talking point attacks”, and you describe the decline in the quality of comments from some posters here.

    Best defense is a good offense?

  • Jim.

    As for the in-depth essay itself…

    The existence of alternative explanations to Buffet’s behavior does not detract from the core point of this essay… the most likely explanation for Buffet’s departure from the insuring munis is that they are no longer worth insuring.

    Ellis is right to bring this up.

  • http://wwrtc.blogspot.com Art Deco

    the most likely explanation for Buffet’s departure from the insuring munis is that they are no longer worth insuring.

    No one seems to be clear here about whether he bought or sold credit protection. Surely the least likely explanation is that he adjudged a municipal portfolio as worthless. More likely that any fee payments were not justified by the projected losses.

  • http://wwrtc.blogspot.com Art Deco

    Those baby boomers are so sweet. They wanted a revolution to tear down the government so they could take acid and spend all day communing with the cosmos. Now they want the suckers who come along behind them to prop up the government just long enough to pay for their golfing retirements. The most selfish and self-absorbed generation in American history? Gets my vote.

    Can we please have some acknowledgement that a comfortable majority of people born during the years running from 1946 through 1957 spent their lives as wage earners, never earned a baccalaureate degree (or spent any time on a campus that awarded them), as often as not (if they were male) served in the military or the reserves and did their service without subsequent complaint, and will collect just enough in Social Security to pay for a one-bedroom apartment, their groceries, and their MediGap plan?

    They differ from previous cohorts primarily in their propensity to make use of divorce courts. (Regrettable, to be sure).

  • Eurydice

    @WigWag etc. – if this John Ellis is the one who plays golf for a living, then he might not know the difference between a security and a derivative. If he’s the John Ellis who’s an investment banker, then chances are he does know the difference. As for the “snarky” slant against the blue model, perhaps its because the investment banker Mr. Ellis has been a political columnist for quite some time, including a stint as a FOX consultant/contributer (or however they call that position at FOX). But if he’s actually the golfer, that explanation doesn’t work.

  • http://wwrtc.blogspot.com Art Deco

    There is another John Ellis who is an editor working in New York.

  • Frank Arden

    Credit risk and financial sector performance are not the only considerations for munies. Their market values are also affected by interest rates and tax rates.

    If interest rates go up, the value of bonds fall. If tax rates go down, the value of the bonds will also fall because the tax exempt interest paid to bondholders is less valuable.

    Just having fun here, but could we not also make the aggressively sweeping observation that Buffett sold because he sees a republican win in November?

    If he thinks 1)tax reform under republicans would include lower tax rates and, 2) higher economic growth promised by republicans would push historically low interest rates up and, 3)inflation when all the Fed’s QE money printing catches up with us, then he could reasonably predict a decrease in the price of his bonds and want to sell now.

    Yep. That’s it. He thinks Obama is going to lose. I wonder if he’s told the president yet.

  • Jim.

    @Art Deco-

    Fair or not, currently the reputation of the Boomers is in the hands of the “Summer of ’69″ types who either fit with, heartily approved of, or dabbled in the sort of culture Esteban described.

    If the Boomers want to recover the honor of their generation, they still have time. Just living small and unobtrusive lives (on the public dole!), after wrecking the greatest country (arguably the greatest civilization) the world has ever seen, is not going to be enough to salvage their name.

  • Jim.

    Pardon me.

    “…after allowing their fellow Boomers to wreck the greatest country …”

    Evil men will triumph if good men do nothing.

  • http://wwrtc.blogspot.com Art Deco

    Excuse me, I am not seeing why the working class majority of those born ca. 1952 need to ‘recover their honor’. The schlubs you are talking about are an odd (haut bourgeois) minority.

  • Mr. Lynch

    Meredith Whitney claims to have a large package of research for sale which exhaustively documents the Muni hazard. In her interview with Fortune, she essentially teased that report, letting out a few enticing tidbits.
    Since she earns her living at least partly on reputation, there is reason to give her some respect.

  • Esteban

    ArtDeco: “Can we please have some acknowledgement…”

    Acknowledged. Sorry for the broad brush, but I think you get the point.