GuruFocus Premium Membership

Serving Intelligent Investors since 2004. Only 96 cents a day.

Free Trial

Free 7-day Trial
All Articles and Columns »

Babbling Buyback Buffoons, Round 2

December 13, 2012 | About:
The Science of Hitting

The Science of Hitting

245 followers
My article yesterday addressed the myth promulgated by the financial media that Warren Buffett, the once avowed hater of share repurchases, had turned on a dime with his recent activity. I quoted decades of investor letters that showed that this was blatantly incorrect; unfortunately, the financial media has taken a cue from the political world – a place where facts are secondary to mind-numbing opinions and endless noise from the “experts.”

On Wednesday, Gary Kaminsky, CNBC's Capital Markets Editor, was asked for his opinion on Berkshire’s buyback (BRK.A)(BRK.B) - and while he may not have known what he was talking about, that didn’t stop Kaminsky from letting all the fine viewers of CNBC know how he feels:

“You guys covered this yesterday at great lengths, and I hoped to look at some of the newspapers today - the Wall Street Journal* was the only newspaper [that was] somewhat critical about this. Because look, Warren Buffett is going to be buying back stocks – remember, he was never going to buy back stock, he was never going to split the stock, he was never going to put the stock in the S&P 500. If this is not hypocritical to the maximum level… he has changed - a long time ago, never believed in buybacks, never would split a stock into the B shares, and would never go into the S&P 500… that's just some of the hypocrisy.”

* The same column that I discussed in yesterday’s Gurufocus article, found here

After this, Mr. Kaminsky continued on to discuss the tax code and how hypocritical Warren had been in helping a fellow billionaire avoid a hefty tax bill (unfortunately this was also incorrect due to laws that have been in place for decades). But that’s a discussion for a different website — this is about buybacks.

Some may remember an article I wrote awhile back (here) when Berkshire first announced the share repurchase authorization in 2011; at that time, this is what I wrote (ironically, it was also addressing some idiotic comments from Kaminsky):

“In the CNBC piece, Mr. Kaminsky lays out his views on capital allocation, saying that buybacks are last in line among organic growth (I’m assuming that means reinvestment in the business), dividends, and acquisitions (“the only thing worse than buybacks is sitting on the cash”). He says this is based on “history, what equity investors want managers to do with capital.”

As noted in Warren’s quote, this is simple arithmetic: Major repurchases at prices well below per-share intrinsic business value immediately increase, in a highly significant way, that value. When Kaminsky talks about “history,” he is likely referring to companies that indiscriminately buyback shares regardless of price, which is the exact opposite of what Berkshire is doing. In regards to acquisitions, they are known to often lead to value destruction, not creation (in 2004, McKinney found that only one-fourth of acquisitions have a positive return on investment). In reality, buying back stock at a price substantially below intrinsic value should be at the top of the list, not the bottom.”

As was the case then, Kaminsky has been loose with his words when quoting Buffett (and has no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to capital allocation). By the way, here is Buffett’s take on the stock split, discussed in the 1992 shareholder letter:

“We hold to the view about stock splits that we set forth in the 1983 Annual Report. Overall, we believe our owner-related policies — including the no-split policy — have helped us assemble a body of shareholders that is the best associated with any widely-held American corporation. Our shareholders think and behave like rational long-term owners and view the business much as Charlie and I do. Consequently, our stock consistently trades in a price range that is sensibly related to intrinsic value.

Additionally, we believe that our shares turn over far less actively than do the shares of any other widely-held company. The frictional costs of trading - which act as a major "tax" on the owners of many companies - are virtually non-existent at Berkshire.(The market-making skills of Jim Maguire, our New York Stock Exchange specialist, definitely help to keep these costs low.) Obviously a split would not change this situation dramatically. Nonetheless, there is no way that our shareholder group would be upgraded by the new shareholders enticed by a split. Instead we believe that modest degradation would occur.”

Importantly, here’s the key section from the 1983 report on that “no-split” policy: “We will try to avoid policies that attract buyers with a short-term focus on our stock price and try to follow policies that attract informed long-term investors focusing on business values. Just as you purchased your Berkshire shares in a market populated by rational informed investors, you deserve a chance to sell - should you ever want to - in the same kind of market. We will work to keep it in existence.”

I wonder what “we will try/work” means? This is something that Gary cannot understand — nuance. Buffett can’t stand stock splits for purely cosmetic reasons — much like he can’t stand buybacks and share issuance that spit in the face of sound capital allocation/strategy (for example, JNJ’s use of equity in the purchase of Synthes).

Let’s remember why the “B” shares were split — it wasn’t some evil scheme to screw over the minority shareholders or to make Berkshire look “cheaper” (and yes, there are people who think a $20 stock is automatically cheaper than a $40 stock — a key motivator for many share splits). The deal was commenced so that Berkshire could acquire Burlington Northern — a deal which looks better for Berkshire’s long-term shareholders with each and every passing quarter. If Gary wanted to question the rationale for selling a portion of Berkshire to buy BNSF, that would be a discussion well worth having (and the type of conversations that would make me watch CNBC much, much more than I do now); the fact is that he wants to lash out at Buffett (why, I don't know), and he hopes that something, anything, might stick.

As Buffett continued to say in 1983, “One of our goals is to have Berkshire Hathaway stock sell at a price rationally related to its intrinsic business value. The key to a rational stock price is rational shareholders, both current and prospective.”

The purpose was to have equity returns align with value creation, leaving investors unaffected by the gut-wrenching volatility that leads so many individuals to poor investment decisions at exactly the wrong time; doesn’t it seem a bit odd that Kaminsky is so worked up about this?

I would simply close with the following: The Internet is full of nuts writing whatever they want (some people might group me in there), and the established media is supposed to be (or used to be) a source of factually accurate information; stations like CNBC, and particularly contributors like Gary Kaminsky (who never quotes anything Buffett has said or wrote in these rants), are an example of why you must take everything you read and hear in today’s media with a grain of salt.

About the author:

The Science of Hitting
I'm a value investor, with a focus on patience; I look to buy great companies that are suffering from short term issues, and hope to load up when these opportunities present themselves. As this would suggest, I run a fairly concentrated portfolio by most standards, usually with 8-10 names; from the perspective of a businessman rather than a market participant / stock trader, I believe this is more than sufficient diversification.

I hope to own a collection of great businesses; to ever sell one, I would demand a substantial premium to the average market valuation due to what I believe are the understated benefits to the long term investor of superior fundamentals and time on intrinsic value. I don't have a target when I purchase a stock; my goal is to replicate the underlying returns of the business in question - which if I've done my job properly, should be very attractive over many years.

Rating: 4.4/5 (29 votes)

Comments

paulwitt
Paulwitt - 1 year ago
corrected


The Science of Hitting
The Science of Hitting premium member - 1 year ago
Thanks!
asawhneyy
Asawhneyy - 1 year ago
CNBC has to learn to do some research ,before let Kaminsky use the micro phone.Buffet always thought it is a bad idea to overpay while doing a buyback. He has been very clear. These guys on tv don't know what they are talking.

Joe Kernen is another joker talks out of his mouth and should take some investment lessons.He should open a barber shop to talk about his hair.--smarty pants

I wish these guys provide a good commentary- Simon is very good and Ron insana is always excellent.
The Science of Hitting
The Science of Hitting premium member - 1 year ago
Asawhneyy,

I'm all for good commentary! Thanks for the comment.

SapientInvestor
SapientInvestor - 1 year ago
Nice article. This is why I have long since stopped watching any of those shows. It wasnt just CNBC that got the estate tax issue wrong, reuters and others did too. Beyond annoying.
rdj1234
Rdj1234 - 1 year ago
Hi TSOH, I was wondering what we might learn about Buffett's price metric first at a maximum of 110% of book, and now 120% of book.The only thing I could think of was his favorite Berkshire metric of book growth and how that has averaged 20% per year over the last 10 years or so. At 110%, was he buying that growth at his 50% margin of safety, and now at 120% he's paying Intrinsic Value? Any thoughts?

The Science of Hitting
The Science of Hitting premium member - 1 year ago
Sapient,

Good point, saw that regurgitated over and over again...

Rdj1234,

Not too sure what you mean with that math to be honest; all I know is that I think IV is well above 120% of book for Berkshire (my measure is well above the current price, and I think BRK.B is still at the point where buying is an intelligent investment - my only concern is that it keeps growing as a percentage of my portfolio!). Thanks for the comment.

The Science of Hitting
The Science of Hitting premium member - 1 year ago
CNBC (via Melissa Lee) acknowledges late Thursday that they made a mistake:

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000135099&play=1

I'll wait to hear Mr. Kaminsky's next rant...
ansgarjohn
Ansgarjohn - 1 year ago
CNBC

"okay.well, we here want to clarify some comments from earlier today. our gary kaminski was critical of the berkshire hathaway purchase of a billion dollars of purchase, saying warren buffett never believed in buy-backs and suggested it may have been motivated to take advantage of lower tax rates this year. mr. buffett was watching, responding with a letter, taking issue with both of these points. and mr. buffett is nothing but meticulous.he said that it's not true that he never supports stock repurchases. he highlighted a 1984 annual report where he states there is good reason for share repurchases under certain conditions. he's repeated that position, including in this year's annual letter to shareholders. now, regarding the timing of the sale and possible tax reasons for doing so, mr. buffett says estates received a stepped up basis upon death and therefore the estate did not have a gain regardless of when the stock was sold.

we thank mr. buffett for watching and setting us straight."
kfh227
Kfh227 premium member - 1 year ago
Buffett has also said that you have to change your thinking as your knowledge evolves over time. Based on that I don't see how anyone can call him a hypocrite for changing his ways.
toponemike
Toponemike - 1 year ago
Kandinsky is just an idiot with LOTS of energy
crafool
Crafool - 1 year ago


Gary Kaminsky, Patti Domm, Jeff Cox, Jim Cramer, Michelle Caruso-Caberra, Melissa Lee, Simon Hobbs, Bob Pisani and Tyler Mathinson are CNBCs "All-Stars". It is amazing that they give them this title. The CNBC network should be forced to put a disclaimer on the screen when these individuals talk. They frequently are wrong and it is either they have no comprehension of what they are talking about or worse they are dilberately trying to create confusion in the minds of the viewers.

It is most likely both. CNBC benefits from advertising and subscriber revenue. No surprise there. Also, their viewership goes up when the market is in turmoil and surround with great uncertainty. So the surprise to many investors is that the network is biased toward promoting negatives and creating uncertainty!!! Just as their are comedy news shows this is just the opposite, however the audience isn't made aware of their unethical pursuits toward making themselves money rather than giving quality unbiased reporting. Average people and investors should not watch CNBC in my opinion, and rather should watch Bloomberg or Fox Business.

Does anyone remember whenjon Stewart busted Cramer in lie after lie? What did CNBC do about it? Nothing. They send him to the nightly news with Brian Williams and to the Today show so he can effect an even wider population. Gary Kaminisky being dead wrong. CNBC won't do anything about it unnless pressed as Warren Buffett did to them.

CNBC's motto should be "No character, no morals, no ethics but full of Characters with no morals or ethics!!!"

Happy Investing to All of you. The Real "All-Stars"!!!

vgm
Vgm - 1 year ago
Crafool,

I wholeheartedly agree with your comments. These talking heads are getting away with murder with their comments and commentaries, and never being held responsible. And it's not only the 'All Stars'. CNBC's Fast Money crowd (mistakenly named "pros" by the media) spout off on any and every stock on demand. A galaxy of investing nobodies if ever there was one. Whatever happened to accountability?

CNBC should fire Kaminsky (and Joe Kernen who wastes precious interview time with great guests like Buffett and Wilbur Ross time after time after time with his inane interruptions) immediately to set a precedent. And CNBC itself should come with a government financial health warning.

I remember when Jon Stewart busted Cramer. But Cramer should've been put down or sent out to pasture years before that.
The Science of Hitting
The Science of Hitting premium member - 1 year ago
Crafool brings up a good point, which might explain some stuff: Buffett followers (long term investors focused on sustainable competitive advantages) don't have much reason to stay glued to the tube - there's much more time spent talking about the "hot stocks" than there is spent on the Coca-Cola's of the world...

And here's Jim Cramer with Jon Stewart - enjoy:

http://vimeo.com/3695694

Valu2day
Valu2day premium member - 1 year ago


Just learn the science of turning the volume down and all will be well.
jonmonsea
Jonmonsea premium member - 1 year ago
Ditto for "Joe." Whenever Buffett or anyone of caliber is on the show, he wastes the time by trying to get under their skin. But Buffett got him back once when he offered to take his daughter on a plane ride, which shut the guy up. Seriously though, Joe makes me want to turn off CNBC.
Carol Nadon
Carol Nadon premium member - 1 year ago
I spend less of my time with the big mouths of CNBC. On the web, I prefer Bloomberg TV. It's far better on my opinion. I'm long with BRK.B and I'll stick with it. Thank you for your writing.

Carol Nadon

Montreal

Please leave your comment:


Get WordPress Plugins for easy affiliate links on Stock Tickers and Guru Names | Earn affiliate commissions by embedding GuruFocus Charts
GuruFocus Affiliate Program: Earn up to $400 per referral. ( Learn More)
Free 7-day Trial
FEEDBACK