20:05 // 1 year ago
» “I just couldn’t make the deal … We couldn’t come to an agreement.”: Buffett, known as a shrewd investor even when the stakes are insanely high, spoke about his almost-deal Saturday on Bloomberg TV. He wouldn’t say who it was, but considering the value, it must’ve been a massive company with a sizable legacy. Why’d he pass on the deal? Simple. Too expensive. The deal would’ve forced him to sell securities he wanted to keep. Buffett, who recently announced he was suffering from cancer, is still looking for the right deals to help add value to his $37.8 billion in cash. ”If we can make a good deal tomorrow, whether it’s big or small, we’ll make it,” he said.
» Giving it to the needy: Our boy Warren Buffett, who recently took the U.S. government to task for not raising taxes on the rich, is giving a big cash infusion to a company that’s struggling build confidence in investors. It’s taken a hit on the stock market — its shares are down nearly 30 percent since the beginning of August and it just announced some huge job cuts — and it owns a couple of properties, Countrywide and Merrill Lynch, noted for their spectacular combustions during the financial crisis. Buffett’s deal is pretty sweet — a 6 percent annual dividend and a 5 percent premium if he buys back the stock — but he nonetheless sounds like he’s doing it out of respect for the company. “I am impressed with the profit-generating abilities of this franchise, and that they are acting aggressively to put their challenges behind them,” Buffett said in a statement. “Bank of America is focused on their customers and on serving them well. That’s what customers want, and that’s the company’s strategy.”
Record levels of cash are piling up in corporate treasuries, idling. The only way to break this cycle of fear is to break it.Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz • Following the lead of Warren Buffett and pushing for more responsibility from those that can afford it. While Buffett went after super-rich taxpayers; Schultz instead is going after corporations that are sitting on piles of cash, yet are staying on the sidelines and choosing not to hire more people — or worse, putting that money into political campaigns in hopes of putting business-friendly leadership in power in 2012. While Starbucks has had union issues and gay rights issues crop up recently, the company does have a reputation for treating its employees better than most corporations of its size. Kudos, Howard. source (via • follow)
If they can’t give shareholders value, then they have to give cash.Ralph Nader • Playing activist investor in the wake of frustration with Cisco’s stock. Nader, an investor in the company (he has 18,000 shares), wrote a letter a while back complaining about the company’s low dividends, despite the fact that their stock performance has been week and they have tons of cash in the bank, and the “powerlessness of owner shareholders” that resulted from this. It’s pretty weird that the consumer advocate, of all people, is taking on this role, but hey, maybe he just thinks their shares are unsafe at any speed. source (via • follow)