Buffett Mixes Business With Politics

Published in Investing on 1 February 2012

The Sage of Omaha gets dragged into the US election battle.

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty and besides, the pig likes it" -- George Bernard Shaw (probably)

Whenever Warren Buffett, the boss of Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK-B.US), talks about the stockmarket, investors tend to pay attention. Sometimes he says something which attracts a different audience, and he did this recently with his remark that his secretary pays a higher rate of federal income tax than he does.

President Barack Obama has picked up this comment and run with it, going as far as to propose the "Buffett rule" whereby a 30% minimum tax rate would be levied upon incomes above $1 million a year.

Since we are in a US Presidential election year, Obama's Republican opponents have opposed this, even though their main contender pays a similarly low rate of tax, and as a result Buffett and his secretary have become a campaign issue. Some shareholders are questioning whether this affair could now be damaging Berkshire's businesses.

RBS loses hundreds of millions due to politics

When politics and business mix the results can be painful for investors. Stephen Hester, Chief Executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland (LSE: RBS), has been slated in the media this week for receiving his £963,000 bonus. Some of the loudest complainers have been members of the last government who approved his bonus scheme in the first place!

Investors have started to worry about political interference in RBS and several hundred million pounds have been wiped off its market value as a result. The problem is that RBS will find that it is far harder to recruit senior staff because of the intense scrutiny and political interference that they will be subjected to.

A sometimes cosy relationship

Big business often cosies up to politicians because they have the power to pass laws which can damage or favour their interests. So it's no surprise that some of Obama's opponents have accused Buffett of engaging in "crony capitalism", the most influential of which is America's top-rated talk radio host Rush Limbaugh.

One suggestion is that Buffett got Obama to block the proposed Keystone pipeline, which was intended to move oil from Canada to the USA, in order to help Berkshire's railroad subsidiary Burlington Northern Santa Fe. The impact that the ban will have on Berkshire's bottom line is going to be trivial and, in my view, the main reason for the ban is that Obama is playing to wealthy environmentalists in order to raise more money for his campaign. But since that doesn't fit the critics' narrative, they ignore it. 

As Mark Twain said, "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes."

We've been here before

Buffett has been attacked before by politically motivated campaigners, most notably in 2002-2003 when anti-abortionists claimed that Berkshire was paying for abortions.

Back then Berkshire operated a charitable donation programme where shareholders said where they would like the money to go and the company then allocated the money by weight of votes. Amongst the many groups that received money was Planned Parenthood, a family planning advisory service. Since the furore was damaging some of Berkshire's businesses, Buffett cancelled the programme in July 2003.

Plenty of traction

However, the Buffett tax story is going to run and run because we're in an election year, and it just happens to combine the worlds of politics and finance.

Early this morning, I checked the level of interest by typing "Warren Buffett" into Google to see what its auto-complete feature suggested. The top suggestion was "taxes" and "secretary's salary" came in third. People are clearly very interested in this topic.

Personally I think that that it's a storm in a teacup. Does anyone seriously choose where they buy electricity, home furnishings, insurance or rail freight transportation because of political considerations? I believe that it will all be forgotten by December, whoever occupies the White House, so I'm not selling any of my shares!

> Here's your free Essential Investor Kit. Over the next few weeks, you'll get share ideas, a sector report and much, much more. Don't miss out!

> Tony owns shares in Berkshire Hathaway

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

vinchainsaw 01 Feb 2012 , 12:23pm

Im still confused as to what Hester gets out of his arrangement with RBS, and why he took the job in the first place. There seems to be no upside for him whatsoever.

mackeson29 01 Feb 2012 , 1:16pm

'Im still confused as to what Hester gets out of his arrangement with RBS'

Approx £40,000 delivered to his current account every month ?

vinchainsaw 01 Feb 2012 , 1:49pm

mackeson,

While a very decent salary, thats change compared to what he could earn as a regular board member at virtually any other ftse company. Wihtout the publicity and the hassle of being in the media.

It just seems like a one-way bet for me. If he outperforms he still gets bad publciity and doesnt get paid.
If he underperforms his reputation is in tatters.

Hes become a bit of a lightning rod for public fury at bankers and the only one that politicians can control.

vinchainsaw 01 Feb 2012 , 2:45pm

And, just to add to the above. Hester only joined RBS after the mess was created!

LateDeveloper 02 Feb 2012 , 1:20pm

Whilst we are on the point of bonuses and removed knighthoods, Why is it the perception of people both on the awards committee and the general public think that the execs actually run the bank by themselves. The buck stops here can surely only be used in instances of an owner of a company. Buffet is pro active and working for the company he owns, RBS chiefs are paid very well to do a job, and you don't see any staff lower down getting massive bonuses to do their jobs. They are actually lucky to still have a job, even if they do the work they are assigned to do.
Hester was paid to turn RBS around, it is his assigned job function, so why give him a massive bonus for doing his job. Likewise why remove a knighthood where I am sure the decision to buy was not Fred Goodwins alone.
Public sector companies should be scrutinised tbh, no matter what sector of industry they are in. The banks do well in the good years, and yet when things go sour, due to incompetence and greed they turn to Government to bail them out, what other company gets that consideration.?

mackeson29 02 Feb 2012 , 1:32pm

'While a very decent salary, thats change compared to what he could earn as a regular board member at virtually any other ftse company. Wihtout the publicity and the hassle of being in the media.'

So why didn't he ? Did someone point a gun to his head ?

'And, just to add to the above. Hester only joined RBS after the mess was created!'

So he knew exactly what he was getting himself into then.

As Latedeveloper points out - he's doing the job, he's getting paid for doing it. Nothing more.

jestpassing 02 Feb 2012 , 2:58pm

LateDeveloper -

You ask "Why is it the perception of people both on the awards committee and the general public think that the execs actually run the bank by themselves. "

Perhaps because they are paid as if they do.

Lower down the scale staff are paid as if they have proportionately almost nothing to do with anything.

EdSwippet 02 Feb 2012 , 4:18pm

Am I the only person here who is utterly, completely, totally sick of hearing about Buffett's flaming secretary?!

abrahamisaacs 03 Feb 2012 , 1:51am

Buffett actually made that comment about his secretary paying a higher rate of tax than he does in a BBC documentary in 2009 (Evan Davis interview 'The world's greatest money-maker').

It is only now in the presidential campaign that it has been picked up and debated.

RetiredAt37 03 Feb 2012 , 10:25am

Google personalize that so you cannot infer a general interest amongst the population based on what google thinks your personal interest is.

TonyTwoTimes 03 Feb 2012 , 12:09pm

Hi RetiredAt37,

I did the Google test via my netbook PC which I don't normally use to search for stuff online and which is setup to reject all cookies in any event.

Cheers,

TonyL

Join the conversation

Please take note - some tags have changed.

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: [b]bolded text[/b], [i]italicised text[/i]. All other tags will be removed from your post.

If you want to add a link, please ensure you type it as http://www.fool.co.uk as opposed to www.fool.co.uk.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.