AsiaYouthMedia亚青传媒sinazen.com  

  

................................
sinazen.com
equitylogs.com
varsitylog.com

ph: enblocsale.com
alt: yuenco.com

Buffett

I think I am like almost everyone else in not knowing much about Warren Buffett, other than (a) he is very rich (b) he is a very successful investment manager (c) he is donating most of his money to charity. It did puzzle me that he was doing this through Bill Gates' foundation and not setting up his own - the superrich would usually do this and let their children run the foundations, which automatically makes them big shots that politicians, journalists and of course charity organizations would pay respect to. Doing so also ensures that the next generation would be able to maintain control over the businesses, without having to pay the inheritence tax that would be necessary if they directly succeed to the wealth. While they would not enjoy the amount of income their parents did, this would hardly be a problem.

What made Warren Buffett decide not to pass control to the next generation, I have no idea. I only know he was separated from his wife for many years and she lived in California, not in Omaha, where he lived with a girlfriend, whom he married just a year or so ago when his wife passed away. I have no idea why he did not get a divorce (Catholic? probably not, but then, how would I know?), nor where their children (child?) lived.

I was therefore interested to read the following news:

NY Post: Warren Buffett fires granddaughter

by contentguy | September 7, 2006 at 10:21 am


AN infuriated Warren Buffett has renounced one of his granddaughters - telling her she is no longerhis relative "legally or emotionally" because she took part in a documentary about the lives of the very rich.

 

Nicole Buffett, the adopted daughter of Buffett's son Peter and biological daughter of Peter's ex-wife Mary, was featured in Jamie Johnson and Nick Kurzon's documentary, "The One Percent," which debuted at the Tribeca Film Festival this year and is a follow-up to Johnson's "Born Rich."

 

Enraged that Nicole not only participated in the documentary, but also plugged it on National Public Radio and "Oprah," Buffett wrote Nicole an "angry letter" two weeks ago telling her she was no longer part of his life, a source tells Page Six.

 

Buffett wrote, "I have not emotionally or legally adopted you as a grandchild, nor have the rest of my family adopted you as a niece or a cousin."

---------------------

I guess you would be interested to know a bit more about this movie:

The One Percent

This 80-minute documentary focuses on the growing "wealth gap" in America, as seen through the eyes of filmmaker Jamie Johnson, a 27-year-old heir to the Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical fortune. Johnson, who cut his film teeth at NYU and made the Emmy®-nominated 2003 HBO documentary Born Rich, here sets his sights on exploring the political, moral and emotional rationale that enables a tiny percentage of Americans - the one percent - to control nearly half the wealth of the entire United States.

Confessions Of The Ultra-rich

"THE One Percent," Jamie Johnson's follow-up to his documentary "Born Rich" - which captured his Upper East Side peers talking about their richness - is premiering tonight, and it promises to be even more titillating than the first film, which had bratty heir Luke Weill bragging he could "buy" people. In the new movie, produced by Johnson and Nick Kurzon, reputed arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi details his role in the Iran-Contra scandal and says, "I gave credit to the CIA for $1 million . . . it was supposed to be a 'hush-hush' operation . . . unfortunately, it backfired a little bit on everybody. As businesspeople, we have ways of manipulating the government officials, and they have ways of manipulating us." Kinko's founder Paul Orfalea, asked if he wants to acquire more wealth, replies, "I want to go to the moon and look down on the Earth and say, that's part of my portfolio.' " The movie also has a scene of Nicole Buffett reading a letter in which her grandfather, multibillionaire Warren, disinherits her for being in the documentary.

---------------------

Why was he so upset? I have no idea, but the non-granddaughter told journalists "Warren Buffett the investor is quite different from Warrent Buffett the person"; so the next question is what does she mean? I guess we all have to make our own guesses.

I did receive various glimpses of Warren Buffett as investment manager; people give him credit for first choosing the right companies to invest in, then putting the right people to run them, and leaving them alone to make decisions. There was the story about his neighbour (I think a professor at U of Nebraska), who found Buffett a nice guy and showed his confidence by investing 50K, which became 50M 10 years later. The one dramatic story was the rescue of Salomon Brothers, but the most recent offer to rescue AMBAC, the bond insurer in trouble because of the mortgage related CDOs, seem rather too sharp to me - he was willing to take over the municipal bond portion, the good part, for an increased premium, and was willing to keep the offer open for 30 days while the company explores a better alternative, provided he gets a 1.5% option fee. In fact the offer looks self-contradictory to me: you pay a fee to hold on to an offer because it is alreay very good, but if so, the chance of getting a better one would be low. Doing something like this would seem to make sense only in a fluid negotiating situation, to force another party that you know is capable of making a much better offer to a quick decision. In the absence of this factor, you either accept the offer already on the table or reject it, not pay money just to think about it.

In any case, I look forward to the definitive biography to be written on Warren Buffett.

added on 2/10/08

Buffett has just started to bargain hunt, investing $8B of his >$30B cash into Goldman Sachs and General Electric, buying 10% preferential shares convertible into common stock at advantageous strike prices - he gets better terms than others first because few others have that amount of ready cash on hand, but also because in these trouble times, having an investor with his reputation greatly increases the confidence level a company enjoys in the market

--------------

here is an article saying something I suspected all along

被誤解的巴菲特 / Mr.X選

2010-03-09 08:34 |迴響:0|點閱:28
 

The Pragmatic Capitalist 發表評論文章表示,巴菲特在公眾眼中是一個價值投資者,僅僅依靠成功選股便成了世界首富,但真實的巴菲特要複雜得多。


        巴菲特(Warren Buffett)是有史以來名氣最大、最受尊敬的投資者,而且也是名副其實的。畢竟,他基本上是通過選股而成了世界首富。但巴菲特也被公眾極大地誤解,我個人認為,關於巴菲特的迷信是有史以來散戶投資者受到的最嚴重的愚弄。
 

   對於普通投資者而言,巴菲特是一個和藹而簡樸的老頭,只不過在選股方面造詣很高。你知道,他只是選擇那些“價值股”然後坐等它們升值,對吧?然而這與事 實有十萬八千里之遙,我們看到整整一代投資者都被這樣的觀念所愚弄:價值投資或買入持有策略是積累財富的唯一最佳途徑。但過去十年來股市的糟糕表現讓投資 者終於開始挑戰這一觀念。
 

  在很大程度上,對巴菲特的迷信和誤解助長了投資熱潮,讓一代美國人希望能夠通過股票投資而致富。誰最適合兜售這一理念?自然是華爾街自己。不管怎樣,快速投資於比爾·米勒(Bill Miller)的Value Trust或者是彼得·林奇(Peter Lynch)的Fidelity Magellan(現在基本上已經壽終正寢了),你幾乎可以複製巴菲特的投資手法,對吧?也不儘然。
 

   我首先聲明,我對 巴菲特 先生是無比敬仰的。當我還是一個年輕投資者的時候,我會把巴菲特所有的年度信件列印出來,一頁一頁拜讀。到現在為止,這仍是我接受過的最棒的教育。對於任 何還沒有做過這件事的人,我強烈推薦他去做。但是在深入瞭解之後,我發現巴菲特並不僅僅是一個大家今天所描繪的價值股選股專家。真實的巴菲特遠比這要複 雜。
 

  事實上,巴菲特曾經成立了一家原始的對沖基金(巴菲特合夥公司), 並用賺來的錢收購了伯克希爾哈薩韋。我們今天所看到的作為價值投資者的巴菲特是長期以來形成的。別搞錯了,巴菲特是一位對沖基金經理人。是的,他出生于為 人詬病和指摘的惡劣的對沖基金部落。今天,巴菲特隱藏在公司的幕後,但從很多方面來講,與那個巴菲特合夥公司時代的他相比,他並未有絲毫的改變。
 

  巴菲特合夥公司的歷史之所以特別令人感興趣,還因為巴菲特最近大肆批評對沖基金的表現和費率。然而具有諷刺意味的是,巴菲特合夥公司曾經在基金利潤超過6%的情況下,收取利潤的25%作為傭金。這正是巴菲特財富如此迅速增長的原因。他當年運作的這家對沖基金與今日的對沖基金並無分別。它不僅僅是一隻價值型基金。巴菲特經常使用杠杆,很多時候他會把整個基金投資於幾隻股票上。巴菲特一筆著名的投資就是收購Dempster Mill,對這家公司,巴菲特採取了一項最早的激進型對沖基金的做法——替換了公司的管理層。如此說來,巴菲特是一個激進型對沖基金經理人?對,而且屬於最早的那一批。不要被他謙和的風度所欺騙。他大膽買進伯克希爾哈薩韋的做法也非常類似。
 

   巴菲特希望留給大家這樣的印象:他只是向證監會備個案、打一個電話、敲定交易,然後購買一隻股票,簡直是信手拈來,不費吹灰之力,而華爾街也希望你能夠 獲得這樣的印象。但事實上巴菲特遠比他故意展現的形象更為足智多謀。伯克希爾哈薩韋的複雜性就是一個例證。伯克希爾並不是一家普通的保險公司。巴菲特將伯 克希爾變成了一家全球最大的期權出售中心,從中獲得的權利金和現金流被投資於其他業務。同時巴菲特並非僅僅購買可口可樂和Geico,他在衍生品市場、期權市場和債券市場都有一些短期的和長期的複雜投資。這正是為什麼我們說把巴菲特當成一個純粹的價值投資者是一種誤讀。
 

  伯克希爾已經成長為全世界金融業務最複雜的公司之一。巴菲特賴以成名的投資組合僅占伯克希爾市值的25%左右。他最有名的持股(可口可樂、美國運通和華盛頓郵報)大約占總市值的10%。有意思的是,巴菲特最有名的兩筆投資根本不是傳統的價值投資,而是抄底投資。他最初投資美國運通和Geico的時候兩家公司都處在破產的邊緣。這些交易更像是今天很多抄底的對沖基金經理人的所作所為,而不是比爾·米勒和其他“價值”投資者的作風。
 

  別搞錯了,這位和藹可親的老者可是一位冷面殺手般的生意人。從他2008年與高盛和通用電氣達成的交易就能窺見一斑。他幾乎是站在他們的咽喉之上,要求獲得高收益率的優先股。當然,巴菲特自己把它描述為長期的價值投資。然而,如果同樣的交易是由一位元對沖基金經理人達成的,媒體一定會將這位經理人描述成趁火打劫的強盜。
 

  巴菲特的成功決策到底是出自于天才,還是純粹的好運,這一點我們留給專業的統計分析師去判斷。然而我們不能否認存在這樣的迷信:任何一個小散戶都能夠通過運用格雷厄姆的投資技術成為下一個沃倫·巴菲特。要真是這麼簡單就好了!
 

  也許最有意思的是大家對巴菲特參與銀行救援的誤讀。很顯然,巴菲特在金融危機中下了相當大的賭注。儘管他一再譴責衍生品,但他自己在衍生品市場的確有相當大的利益。除了Gen Re業務和他出售的指數看跌期權,巴菲特自己的投資組合和保險業務當時也處於危機的心臟地帶。也許我們不能說2008年秋季伯克希爾的清償能力受到了威脅,但如果高盛真的破產了,情況會發生什麼變化呢?巴菲特的投資組合和伯克希爾背後的多米諾骨牌將會迅速倒塌。更讓我懷疑的是,如果沒有政府援助,巴菲特能否靠個人的智慧渡過難關?
 

  巴菲特是一個偉大的美國人和偉大的投資者,但是在你投資於股票市場、夢想有朝一日坐上“世界首富”的寶座之前,你應該先做一些功課。投資並不是那麼簡單的事情,儘管華爾街想方設法要讓你相信這一點。

文章來源:http://www.wretch.cc/blog/phigroup/16210724

引用:http://blog.chinatimes.com/phigroup/archive/2010/03/09/476950.html

 

since I started on one tycoon, why not another - old article


 

Mr Wee Cho Yaw (Chinese: 黄祖耀; pinyin: Huáng Zǔyào)has at last decided to hand over control of UOB to his son Ee Chong, and it is a good time for me to summarise what I know of him.

When I first came to Singapore in 1983, there were a few (unconfirmed) stories circulating about him: he was supposed to be unpopular with the Chinese community for agreeing, as Chairman of Nanyang University Council, to its absorption into NUS, and the government was supposedly out to "get" him for one thing or another. This soon changed: in 1987 UOB was given permission by the stock exchange to take over Industrial and Commercial Bank, and everyone who talked about it agreed that this would not have been possible if Mr Wee was someone the government was trying to "get". The course of events illustrates a number of aspects of the Singapore system.

In addition to UOB, Mr Wee's family company also controls through various corporate channels major listed property/hotel companies UOL, UIC, Singapore Land, Haw Par, Hotel Plaza, Hotel Negara, and until its recent divestment to the Indonesial Lippo group, OUE. The building up of this conglomerate occurred gradually. Haw Par, for example, was originally under the Aw family that owned the Singtao newspaper group and other businesses in Hongkong, and used to have several newspapers in Singapore and Malaysia. Long before my arrival in Singapore this old conglomerate broke up, with the newspapers joining the company that eventually became SPH, while the properties and other businesses passed trhough several hands, including some scandal ridden foreign speculators, but eventually ended in the UOB group.

Shortly after my arrival, I began to read about UOB's attempt to take over Goldhill Plaza and some other properties, mortgaged to the bank by their owner family which had problem servicing the loan. Eventually UOL became the owner. UIC/Singapore Land were previously unrelated to UOB, till they went through an expensive merger process that first resulted in Singapore Land becoming a UIC subsidiary, then with the Indonesian Salim (林绍良)group becoming the controlling shareholder of UIC; the Salim group, however, soon invited Mr Wee to join them in running UIC, and later sold its shareholdings to the Philippines's Gogongwee group, leaving the UIC/SingLand in the UOB stable.

During the same period, a number of smaller banks, ICB the largest among them, became part of UOB. This was also the period when Keppel Bank took over Tat Lee, and was a few years later itself taken over by OCBC. However, in 2001 occurred UOB's major coup: shortly after the OCBC-Keppel Bank merger, DBS made a takeover offer for OUB, with the support of its then CEO Peter Seah but apparently without the prior clearance of OUB's major shareholder, the Lien family, which preferred to sell out to UOB instead. OUE, Hotel Negara and several other significant businesses all became part of the UOB group.

And all this expansion was taking place under the shadow of new MAS regulations that, when first announced, was believed to be aimed at causing the break up of the UOB group: banks were forbidden from owning more than 10% of any non-financial businesses, meaning that UOB had to divest major parts of its property and hotel stakes. In addition, a business linked to a bank can only own up to 2% of the bank's shares. Previously, the various UOB subsidiaries owned significant percentages of the bank's shares, so that, added to the family company's percentages and other allies', help to provide majority control. Yet, through a number of steps over several years, including distribution of shares of subsidiaries to bank's own shareholders, share buybacks by the bank itself, and selling of some of the shares to the family company, Mr Wee was able to retain control of everything except for OUE.

I am not privvy to the various inside machinations. All I know is, as an opportunity to take over something comes up, Mr Wee was there to take it, and somehow has not suffered any problem of over extending himself or dilution of control that others fell victim to. I saw him rise and rise but do not know how he did it. I am not sure anyone else understood it all either.

where is Peter Seah? where is David Lim? if your answer is "who?", I would not be surprised - once big shot CEOs, they have become almost unknown, except to the few people with long (actually not that long - just a few years) memory

Peter Seah is actually still in Singapore's senior business circle, as Chairman of the ST Engineering Group and CEO of ST Private Limited which is (as its website says, whatever that means) the operating headquarter of the ST Group; I would guess the headquarter is just another name for the Board of Directors, and its CEO means basically the same as Board Chairman. He is also a director of Capitaland, a government link real estate company. I could not find information on the web about David Lim in the Singapore business circle at all.

Peter Seah was the CEO of Overseas Union Bank (maybe you never heard of that either?), controlled by the Lien family - I do not know why Lien brought in an outsider instead of handing over to a family heir the way UOB did; in 2001 he was going along with the plan of DBS, the government linked bank, to take over OUB, but Lien decided to sell out to UOB instead, thus making Seah's position untenable. He then moved over to ST and became all but invisible.

David Lim's history was even more interesting: he was a civil servant and want sent to manage the Suzhou Industrial Park (you might like to read my short story

http://sinazen.com/singaporemythwriter

that covers the topic peripherally); since the project was  praised as a great success, he was due for a high reward, and became a cabinet minister; after few years he left politics and became CEO of Neptune Oriental Lines, but stayed only for a couple of years, after which he became less than invisible.

So what went wrong? Maybe this is not the right question to ask; maybe the question was what went right before that...

Partial indexes:     Singapore               Social社会               Life文化              历史History   

  

content search - click here http://www.google.com.sg/webhp?hl=en&tab=iw&q=site:sinazen.com?  then add search words to google window

 

 

Contact: yuenchungkwong@yahoo.com

 

观音能救世,佛祖多慈悲,割肉饲饿虎,化雨洒晶泪

 

万字半日写,千丝一手挥,独怜杜秋娘,曲尽人憔悴

    

Favorite quotes:
"History repeats, first time as tragedy, second time as farce" - Marx
历史重复,一次悲剧,一次闹剧 - 马克思
"Those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it" - Santayana 忘记历史注定重复历史 - 山塔亚那
"Those who remember their history are also condemned to repeat it" - Yuen 记得历史也注定重复历史 - 阮宗光
"Oscar Wilde was wrong about cynics knowing price not value; cynics know value is always less than price" - Yuen

         foundation new-ybsampler.blogspot.com     王尔德说错了;愤世的人不是知价不知值,而是知道价高值低 - 阮宗光

................................
sinazen.com
equitylogs.com
varsitylog.com

ph: enblocsale.com
alt: yuenco.com