Oct
26
Query on Accounting Principles, from Victor Niederhoffer
October 26, 2010 |
Not being an expert on the current state of accounting principles, the ability to hold stocks like KFT on your balance sheet and not write them down to market value because "you are confident that they will appreciate" would strike one as totally amorphous, spongelike, and grievously misleading if anyone other than the sage were to say it, but in his case would seem like a sanctimonious display of ignorance and epater the bourgeoisie.
Stefan Jovanovich writes:
I am too lazy to do the research, but I suspect the answer is to be found in the reserve accountings required under the various state insurance laws and regulations that Berkshire and its subs have to comply with. Buffett and Charlie (I don't need to show you no stinking compassion) have been playing that flute and harp duo for decades: contingent policy liabilities deductible against present taxes UP, present restricted - i.e. has to be in plain cash with no derivative chasers - reserve contributions DOWN. No wonder they have such instinctive sympathy for the public employee unions and come up with the same policy prescription– namely, the rest of us should pay more taxes.
Comments
4 Comments so far
Archives
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- Older Archives
Resources & Links
- The Letters Prize
- Pre-2007 Victor Niederhoffer Posts
- Vic’s NYC Junto
- Reading List
- Programming in 60 Seconds
- The Objectivist Center
- Foundation for Economic Education
- Tigerchess
- Dick Sears' G.T. Index
- Pre-2007 Daily Speculations
- Laurel & Vics' Worldly Investor Articles
Historically, banks and insurance companies were able to hold investments (primarily fixed income investments) at cost if there was no permanent impairment (the securities were not considered part of a "traded" portfolio)… Also, usually investments not marked were to be used to fund liabilities, in the case of insurance companies, potential future claims, etc…Several years ago, changes to mark to market accounting (FASB 157) changed this, but implementation was "loosened" after the financial crisis….The fact that Berkshire is not marking to market publicly traded EQUITY securities in its investment portfolio to me is quite shocking, there is no real clear case that they would know what price they could liquidate these investments in several years' time (if it was fixed income you could make a better case, as with bonds you are getting your money back at par + interest if the company is money good).There should be nothing less than outrage here, but BRK's PM has the best PR in the world, so I would be surprised if anything happens.However — this is yet one more chip away from the view that the U.S. is nothing more than a banana republic (sovereign risk is under-appreciated !).
[I wrote about this on this blog:]
http://alaricinvestments.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/the-u-s-is-a-banana-republic-part-2/
One more thought: other ways you could argue for not taking the mark are:
1. The P&L difference is not material to the financial statements, as a whole (ie, as a $ of equity, income)…in this case $2.5 billion on $48 billion and income of $1 billion is definitely material)
2. There were offsetting marks or income differences which would offset the downward mark.
Neither of these situations probably apply, but it is possible….Deloitte must be embarrassed
Lastly, it would be great if I (a mere mortal) had the omniscience to predict the profitability of a complex food company such as Kraft, two years out…..in fact, I would lean towards selling Kraft in the face of higher corn, soy, sugar prices as we are seeing now!
If mr. alaric would give a usuable link to his website we all would benefit but I was unable to access the seemingly sagacious insights of the above mentioned . I would like to meet him some day or possibly have him join our spec list directly by talking to linda at 203 840-0777 so that we mite learn from each other and people on this list could have access to his other wisdom which I was able to tap into in part by going to alaric investments on google. vic
Not sure why the website link did not work…here it is…
http://alaricinvestments.wordpress.com/
Chuffed at the comment below….not sure if I have any wisdom, but perhaps observations…