Forum

La différence majeure entre la crise actuelle et Pearl Harbour, c’est que dans le dernier evennement il y avait un ennemi bien identifié et lointain, l’idéal pour mobiliser et rassembler.
Pour ce qui est de cette crise, pas évident de trouver une cible, à moins de se ranger à l’avis de Sarkozy et de désigner les patrons à gros bonus, proposition un brin populiste, mais non sans charme

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/09/i-got-75b-but-i.html

Tonight’s Goldman Sachs/Warren Buffett deal is a classic example of our post 2001 news: Looks good as a headline, is godawful underneath

Vote of confidence? Hardly. Doubtful. It is merely an opportunistic deal, and probably a damn good one, for Berkshire Hathaway (BRK). On the other hand, for Goldman Sachs, it is a very expensive deal. If you delve beneath the headlines, you see that Warren is not so much making a vote of confidence as he is extracting pound of flesh (and then some).

Verily, let’s look at the details to figure out just how much GS is paying for this capital:

• Goldman Sachs pays a fat dividend to Berkshire Hathaway of 10% on $5 Billion dollars—that’s $500 million per year. And, since this is a preferred, it gets paid out of net income in after tax dollars dollars. Ouch.

• Goldman gets the right to call the preferred at any time at a 10 percent premium. Ouch again.

• Buffett gets $5 billion worth of warrants with a strike price of $115, or about 43.47 million shares. The warrants are good for only 5 years.

If Buffett were to go to the Street earlier today to buy 44 million calls with a $115 strike price (circa 2010), they would have cost him about $1.5 billion dollars. With GS now trading at $135, Buffett’s $5 billion investment is more like $3.5B, in terms of net cost to him. Hence, the 10% interest is more like 14%.

Doug Kass thinks its an even better deal for Berkshire— goes further than I do, putting an intrinsic value on the warrants of about $2 billion. That makes Buffet’s net cost $3B—so the effective yield is closer to 17%.  (Ouch)

A friend points out that Goldie bought back 1.5 million shares in the quarter ending 8/31, at an average price of $180 a share.  (Nice trade). I’m thinking the buyback program may be on hold for a while here.

~~~

Bottom line: This is a terribly expensive deal, but probably a necessary one. The smart boys at 85 Broad Street did not want to wait until they were too desperate to get even a mediocre deal. They sure as hell did not want to “pull a Fuld.”

This also looks like a steady stream of income for Berkshire Hathaway. And what do you want to bet me that Warren asked for—and got—a very serious promise from Bernanke & Paulson that Goldman would under no circumstances be allowed to tank like Lehman? This might even be a riskless deal for Buffett.

Vote of Confidence my ass . . .

On retrouve le meme chantage que l’on avait vu pour imposer la guerre en Irak. Ca ressemble a un vulgaire rackat mafieux. Notre “protecteur” ne pourra plus nous garantir notre “securite” si l’on ne fait pas ce qu’il nous demande.

Ce chiffre de 700 milliards, et le “plan” qui va avec,  semble être devenu une bouée pour un naufrage en cours. Mais une bouée symbolique et à usage unique. Alire les commentaires sur les sites étasuniens on comprend vite que le besoin réel, à cet instant présent (sans préjuger de ce qu’il pourrait être dans les mois à venir) serait du double, soit 1500 milliards, voire 2000 milliards. C’est donc une bouée déjà crevée. Il faudrait au système financier étasunien une nouvelle bulle.  In extremis…

Et si le chèque en blanc de 700 milliards, car c’est exactement ça que demande l’administration US, un chèque en blanc, sans ni “oversight”, ni “accountability”, n’était pas du tout destiné à sauver la finance ?

Si l’argent était utilisé pour déclencher une nouvelle guerre ? Bush est un idiot ... peut-être mais ceux qui vont signer un chèque pareil sont encore largement plus bêtes ...