Skip to main content

Rogers and Buffett disagree on bailouts

On the bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, investors Jim Rogers and Warren Buffett cannot agree.

Rogers feels the US government takeover of Fannie and Freddie is a disaster that signals the US' shift to socialism, while Buffett has called it a "sensible deal" and the best option available at the time.

Excerpts from the Money Morning piece, "Jim Rogers and Warren Buffett at odds on Fannie/Freddie bailout":

" Few analysts have abstained from voicing an opinion about the U.S. government’s plan to seize control of Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE), the nation’s embattled mortgage behemoths, and that include such eminent investors as Jim Rogers and Warren Buffett. Of course, two of the world’s greatest financial analysts have very two very different perspectives.

"It is socialism for the rich," Rogers said yesterday (Monday) during an interview with CNBC Europe, "It’s just bailing out financial institutions."...

...Of course, the Oracle of Omaha sees things differently. He praised the plan as a wise move for Treasury Secretary Paulson, who Buffett said "did exactly the right thing."

"I wouldn’t change anything in the plan myself," Buffett said in his own interview with CNBC. "It’s the best deal and the most sensible deal available now." "

Warren Buffett told CNBC that Secretary Paulson did "exactly the right thing" in structuring this bailout deal, and that he basically agreed with the deal terms which gave the Treasury an 80 percent warrant on Fannie and Freddie's common shares.

At the same time, he noted that the Treasury was on the hook for losses that would arise from the preferred and common shares being wiped out. Still, he stressed that the Treasury's takeover was the best option to avoid "greater losses down the road".

Jim Rogers told CNBC Europe that the bailout was an outrage that showed America to be "more communist than China is right now". Unfortunately, this seems to be the way the US is leaning now, and the politicians we have voted in generally support these kind of policies.

Rogers responded to the CNBC anchor's ridiculous assertion that bank failures and crises have always ended in nationalization or state takeover by reminding him that this was not the case historically, as most financial panics and bank failures were solved through bankruptcy in the private markets, rather than taxpayer-funded bailouts and nationalization schemes.

He also noted that the nationalization is likely to fail, and that Hank Paulson knows this to be true, as they have merely "papered over" the problem until the next administration inherits it.

Bottom line: While I have great respect for Jim Rogers and Warren Buffett as investors, on this matter I am in full agreement with Jim Rogers.

In fact, I've come to realize that Rogers usually trumps most commentators and famous investors when it comes to spelling out reality and understanding the ethical questions that arise from these situations.

I believe this is due to his blunt personality, his critical thinking skills, and his knowledge of history and sound economic principles.

Popular posts from this blog

Jesse Livermore: How to Trade in Stocks (1940 Ed. E-book)

If you've been around markets for any length of time, you've probably heard of 20th century supertrader, Jesse Livermore . Today we're highlighting his rare 1940 work, How to Trade in Stocks (ebook, pdf). But first, a brief overview of Livermore's life and trading career (bio from Jesse Livermore's Wikipedia entry). "During his lifetime, Livermore gained and lost several multi-million dollar fortunes. Most notably, he was worth $3 million and $100 million after the 1907 and 1929 market crashes, respectively. He subsequently lost both fortunes. Apart from his success as a securities speculator, Livermore left traders a working philosophy for trading securities that emphasizes increasing the size of one's position as it goes in the right direction and cutting losses quickly. Ironically, Livermore sometimes did not follow his rules strictly. He claimed that lack of adherence to his own rules was the main reason for his losses after making his 1907 and

New! Finance Trends now at FinanceTrendsLetter.com

Update for our readers: Finance Trends has a new URL!  Please bookmark our new web address at Financetrendsletter.com Readers sticking with RSS updates should point your feed readers to our new Finance Trends feedburner .   Thank you to all of our loyal readers who have been with us since the early days. Exciting stuff to come in the weeks ahead! As a quick reminder, you can subscribe to our free email list to receive the Finance Trends Newsletter . You'll receive email updates about once every 4-8 weeks (about 2-3 times per quarter).  Stay up to date with our real-time insights and updates on Twitter .

Moneyball: How the Red Sox Win Championships

Welcome, readers . T o get the first look at brand new posts (like the following piece) and to receive our exclusive email list updates, please subscribe to the Finance Trends Newsletter .   The Boston Red Sox won their fourth World Series title of t he 21st century this we ek. Having won their first Se ries in 86 years back in 200 4, the last decade-plus has marked a very strong return to form for one of baseball's oldest big league clubs. So how did they do it? Quick background: in late 2002, team own er and hedge fund manager, John W. Henry (with his partners ) bought the Boston Red Sox and its historic Fenway Park for a reported sum of $ 695 million. Henry and Co. quickly set out to find their ideal General Manager (GM) to help turn around their newly acquired, ailing ship. This brings us to one of my fav orite scenes from the 2011 film , Moneyball , in which John W. Henry (played by Ar liss Howard) attempts to woo Oakland A's GM Billy Beane (Brad Pi