首页 500强 活动 榜单 商业 科技 领导力 专题 品牌中心
杂志订阅

巴菲特经典投资案例:美国运通

伯克希尔·哈撒韦公司(Berkshire Hathaway)首席执行官沃伦·巴菲特(Warren Buffett)发现了遭受重创的美国运通(Amex)的价值。

文本设置
小号
默认
大号
Plus(0条)

以下改编内容节选自斯蒂芬·R·福斯特(Stephen R. Foerster)的著作《开拓者、英雄和骗子:让你成为更睿智的投资者的故事》(Trailblazers, Heroes, and Crooks: Stories to Make You a Smarter Investor》(约翰威立国际出版集团(Wiley)2024年出版)。

这个故事汇集了举报者、恶棍、有远见的人和沃伦·巴菲特(可以说是有史以来最伟大的投资者)。故事还涉及色拉油。

恶棍

蒂诺·德安吉利斯(Tino DeAngelis)很早就开始从事肉类行业。据称他在二战期间参与了黑市交易。他因向南斯拉夫出口不达标烹调用油而被罚款10万美元。在收购了一家公共肉类加工厂后,他又因产品质量问题被要求支付10万美元的赔偿金。随后,他的另一家公司被指控向德国出口劣质猪油,结果“照例”要赔偿10万美元。德安吉利斯后来创立了Allied Crude Vegetable Oil Refining Corporation(Allied)。关于他欺诈和与黑社会有染的指控接踵而至。

有远见的人

美国运通公司在旅游和金融服务领域占据主导地位。1960年,霍华德·克拉克(Howard Clark)成为首席执行官。他的首要任务是解决亏损的美国运通信用卡的盈利问题。随后,他专注于美国运通的四家利润微薄的子公司。其中一个是独立运营的American Express Field Warehousing Company(AEFW)。在过去的19年里,该公司只有10年盈利,累计亏损。在20世纪50年代末,AEFW拥有500个客户账户,但所有利润都来自两家公司,它们的所有者都是同一个人:德安吉利斯。其中一家公司是Allied。

先知的诞生

1956年,时年25岁的沃伦·巴菲特创办了他的第一家投资合伙公司。1962年,他解散了所有合伙企业,共计11家,将其合并为巴菲特合伙有限公司(Buffett Partnership Ltd., BPL),净资产为720万美元。当时巴菲特已经是百万富翁了。巴菲特合伙有限公司业绩强劲。巴菲特延续了本杰明·格雷厄姆(Benjamin Graham)的价值投资风格。巴菲特认为股票投资类似于拥有一家企业,但前提是价格合理。巴菲特1964年对美国运通的投资开启了与众不同的投资方式。

在收购美国运通之前,巴菲特曾争取获得董事会席位或控制权,就像他对登普斯特尔机械制造厂(Dempster Mill Manufacturing Company)的投资一样。巴菲特敦促管理层增加利润,但未能如愿。因此,他任命了一位新管理者来扭转局面,但这让巴菲特声誉受损。新管理团队解雇了镇上唯一一家工厂的100名工人。巴菲特在当地报纸上受到诋毁。从美国运通开始,巴菲特的方法是首先发现那些价值被低估的公司,这些公司本质上是实力雄厚企业,拥有能干的管理者,然后让他们各司其职。

声音

1960年6月,AEFW的首席执行官唐纳德·米勒(Donald Miller)接到了一个自称“声音”的线人打来的电话。他声称在新泽西州贝永的Allied上夜班。他警告米勒:“有史以来最大的骗局正在美国运通上演,因为实际上油罐里装的是水,而我们却把它算作豆油。每当去油罐盘点时,我们都会把砝码扔进这个装满大豆油的金属舱,但油罐连接的天平却溢出了水。”

米勒下令对Allied进行突击检查。检查人员发现,除了测量舱口外,所有油罐的开口都被焊死了。随后,他们在能够检查的五个油罐中发现了水。然而,当他们在周末后返回时,其他油罐并没有任何可疑之处。后来的一份报告将进水归因于“蒸汽管道破裂”。Allied和AEFW之间的业务照常进行。

调查人员不知道的是,德安吉利斯精心设计了一个管道网络,其中有虚假的隔室和特殊的采样管,其中含有真正的豆油。三年后,当欺诈行为最终被发现时,当一个油罐的水龙头终于被打开时,流出的不是价值400万美元的大豆油,而是海水,整整持续了12天。

骗局和垮台

1961年,Allied开始在豆油期货市场大举买入。到1963年,德安吉利斯一直在推高豆油期货价格,原因是他预计外国会有大量需求。有传言称,俄罗斯的农作物歉收,俄罗斯将很快购买美国的植物油。事实上,外国农作物大丰收,因此高昂的期货价格难以为继。

随着油价的每一次下跌,Allied都需要在保证金账户中提供更多资金。到1963年11月,交易所和政府大宗商品机构终于意识到,Allied正在抬高期货价格。当一名商品交易所调查员要求查看Allied的记录时,事情败露了。Allied申请破产,期货价格暴跌。AEFW仓库收据上的植物油总量是全美植物油总量的两倍

品牌

美国运通是一家股份公司,是美国最后一家拥有无限责任的大型上市公司。到1963年,美国运通正在考虑合并,成为一家有限责任公司,就像几乎所有其他上市公司一样。

在Allied破产后不久,AEFW遭到的索赔超过了1.5亿美元,接近美国运通公司1.62亿美元的年终股票价值。由于AEFW是一家独立运营的子公司,美国运通可能无需对其债务负责。但有一些法律规则可能会推翻这种分离。这给美国运通的潜在责任带来了不确定性。

无论如何,克拉克都在考虑美国运通是否应该赔偿AEFW的损失。他从不同的角度考虑重要的利益相关者。如果美国运通拒绝承担AEFW的责任,银行将蒙受损失。鉴于银行在美国运通的旅行支票业务中发挥着巨大作用,这可能会扼杀银行给美国运通带来的所有业务。

相反,让银行家满意可能会让股东感到沮丧。克拉克还必须考虑骗局对客户的影响。他们会停止使用美国运通的产品吗?经董事会同意,1963年11月27日,克拉克公开宣布:“如果我们的子公司需要对超出其保险范围和其他资产的金额承担责任,美国运通认为在道义上有义务尽其所能,与其总体责任相一致,确保这些超额债务得到清偿。”

沃伦·巴菲特投资

1963年11月20日,这场骗局开始见诸报端,但几乎没报道什么细节。两天后,约翰·肯尼迪(John F. Kennedy)总统被暗杀。在纽约证券交易所紧急关闭前的半小时内,股东价值蒸发了110亿美元。肯尼迪的离世使“色拉油大骗局”退居次要地位。巴菲特对购买该公司廉价股票的可能性很感兴趣,于是跟踪了美国运通的股价。即使在市场重新开盘后,该股也没有反弹,而是继续下跌。根据市场的反应,美国运通的生存前景堪忧。从11月20日到12月2日,其股价从61.81美元跌至40美元,并在1964年6月2日跌至35.31美元的谷底,在丑闻爆发后不到8个月的时间里下跌了43%。

巴菲特想知道这桩丑闻会对美国运通的声誉造成什么影响。对于旅行支票和信用卡而言,信任至关重要。巴菲特需要事实依据。因此,他和一位熟人走访了接受美国运通卡和支票的餐馆和其他场所。他们与银行出纳员、银行职员、信用卡用户、酒店员工和餐馆工作人员进行了交谈,以了解使用率是否有所下降。根据这项研究,巴菲特得出的结论是,虽然华尔街通过打压美国运通的股价来惩罚该公司,但美国运通在典型的美国中产阶级中的声誉并没有受到损害。

到1964年初,巴菲特合伙有限公司从利润和新资金中获得了充足的现金,资本达到1750万美元。在一只股票上冒险投入巨额资金,既需要坚定的信念,也需要钢铁般的意志。但巴菲特就是这么做的。到1964年6月,他在巴菲特合伙有限公司持有的最大一只股票美国运通上投资了300万美元,持股比例为17%。

股东对股东

在与债权人达成最终解决方案之前,一些股东对该公司采取了行动,认为美国运通没有法律义务解决AEFW的债务问题。他们认为,任何和解都将损害美国运通的股东价值。他们尤其担心德安吉利斯许多伪造的仓库收据的持有者会得到赔偿。

巴菲特认为管理层的做法是正确的,并担心任何试图破坏和解的行动都会损害品牌。巴菲特给克拉克写了一封信,赞扬了管理层,并恳求他们为了声誉达成和解。巴菲特将这种情况比作一场台风,很快就会过境。他甚至愿意自费出庭作证,支持管理层的行为。这是巴菲特的另一个关键时刻,他着眼于长远,愿意牺牲短期利润。巴菲特对美国运通未来的评估是准确的。近60年后,巴菲特仍持有美国运通的股票。

巴菲特买入美国运通股票的时间是1964年4月中旬至6月。其平均价格为41.22美元。两年半后,美国运通的股价涨到了92.50美元,涨幅达124%。道琼斯指数在此期间下跌了6%。考虑到所冒的资金风险,巴菲特在接近谷底时买入的能力,以及在如此短的时间内获得的巨大收益,可以说这是有史以来最好的投资之一,对巴菲特和他的合伙公司来说无疑是如此。

贪婪与恐惧

到1967年,美国运通与债权人达成了6000万美元的和解协议。税后为3160万美元。从丑闻爆发到和解期间的利润超过了这一数额。到1964年底,美国运通已将丑闻抛之脑后。

美国运通高管后来意识到,这起骗局是该公司历史上最大的公关事件。媒体的报道是正面的,公众也看到美国运通履行了自己的义务。1964年旅行支票的销售额增长了12%。后来克拉克被问及每隔几年就发生一次色拉油骗局是否是个好主意。他回答说:“我认为自己没有足够的大好年华浪费在另一个骗局上。”

这桩丑闻说明了为什么品格和声誉很重要。德安吉利斯长期以来肆无忌惮,从未真正改过。缴纳罚款只是做生意的成本。然而,这并没有阻止其他公司与他打交道,直到他的帝国垮台。

为什么银行和大宗商品出口商越来越多地贷款给德安吉利斯的企业?在他倒台之前,多年来一直有传言称Allied正在进行欺诈。部分原因是“隧道视野”。一位贷款人评论道:“我们没有和这个叫蒂诺的人打交道,而是和美国运通打交道。”你自己的分析是无可替代的。巴菲特在投资美国运通之前做了大量的外出搜集情况工作。他并不是仅仅依靠直觉。

克拉克做出了一个大胆的决定,宣布运通“在道义上有义务”承担AEFW的责任。他认识到了品牌声誉的重要性。他也没有让一场能够完美应对的危机付之东流。克拉克和巴菲特都认识到,长期价值高于短期利润。

丑闻的根源是什么?激励和动机很重要。为了生存,AEFW需要持续盈利。这可能导致唐纳德·米勒忽视了德安吉利斯的性格缺陷,因为他与Allied的交易是有利可图的。正如作者诺曼·梅勒(Norman Miller)总结的那样:“蒂诺之所以成功是因为银行家、经纪人和商界人士,尽管有明显的迹象表明他们是在与一个骗子打交道,但他们还是无法抵挡巨额利润的诱惑......他们之所以相信蒂诺的交易是好的,原因可以用一个词来概括——贪婪。”

那些银行家、经纪人和商界人士都很贪婪,直到他们担心自己会失去一切。巴菲特颠覆了这一前提,他宣布了自己著名的投资目标:“就是当别人贪婪的时候我们感到恐惧,别人恐惧的时候我们会变得贪婪。”当人人都想投资股票时,股票可能会被高估;当无人问津时,股票可能被低估。(财富中文网)

斯蒂芬·R·福斯特,作家兼加拿大安大略省伦敦市韦仕敦大学毅伟商学院(Ivey Business School at Western University in London)金融学教授。他拥有宾夕法尼亚大学沃顿商学院(Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania)博士学位和特许金融分析师称号。

经出版商威利许可,改编自斯蒂芬·R·福斯特的《开拓者、英雄和骗子:让你成为更睿智的投资者的故事》。版权所有©2024斯蒂芬·R·福斯特。保留所有权利。

译者:中慧言-王芳

以下改编内容节选自斯蒂芬·R·福斯特(Stephen R. Foerster)的著作《开拓者、英雄和骗子:让你成为更睿智的投资者的故事》(Trailblazers, Heroes, and Crooks: Stories to Make You a Smarter Investor》(约翰威立国际出版集团(Wiley)2024年出版)。

这个故事汇集了举报者、恶棍、有远见的人和沃伦·巴菲特(可以说是有史以来最伟大的投资者)。故事还涉及色拉油。

恶棍

蒂诺·德安吉利斯(Tino DeAngelis)很早就开始从事肉类行业。据称他在二战期间参与了黑市交易。他因向南斯拉夫出口不达标烹调用油而被罚款10万美元。在收购了一家公共肉类加工厂后,他又因产品质量问题被要求支付10万美元的赔偿金。随后,他的另一家公司被指控向德国出口劣质猪油,结果“照例”要赔偿10万美元。德安吉利斯后来创立了Allied Crude Vegetable Oil Refining Corporation(Allied)。关于他欺诈和与黑社会有染的指控接踵而至。

有远见的人

美国运通公司在旅游和金融服务领域占据主导地位。1960年,霍华德·克拉克(Howard Clark)成为首席执行官。他的首要任务是解决亏损的美国运通信用卡的盈利问题。随后,他专注于美国运通的四家利润微薄的子公司。其中一个是独立运营的American Express Field Warehousing Company(AEFW)。在过去的19年里,该公司只有10年盈利,累计亏损。在20世纪50年代末,AEFW拥有500个客户账户,但所有利润都来自两家公司,它们的所有者都是同一个人:德安吉利斯。其中一家公司是Allied。

先知的诞生

1956年,时年25岁的沃伦·巴菲特创办了他的第一家投资合伙公司。1962年,他解散了所有合伙企业,共计11家,将其合并为巴菲特合伙有限公司(Buffett Partnership Ltd., BPL),净资产为720万美元。当时巴菲特已经是百万富翁了。巴菲特合伙有限公司业绩强劲。巴菲特延续了本杰明·格雷厄姆(Benjamin Graham)的价值投资风格。巴菲特认为股票投资类似于拥有一家企业,但前提是价格合理。巴菲特1964年对美国运通的投资开启了与众不同的投资方式。

在收购美国运通之前,巴菲特曾争取获得董事会席位或控制权,就像他对登普斯特尔机械制造厂(Dempster Mill Manufacturing Company)的投资一样。巴菲特敦促管理层增加利润,但未能如愿。因此,他任命了一位新管理者来扭转局面,但这让巴菲特声誉受损。新管理团队解雇了镇上唯一一家工厂的100名工人。巴菲特在当地报纸上受到诋毁。从美国运通开始,巴菲特的方法是首先发现那些价值被低估的公司,这些公司本质上是实力雄厚企业,拥有能干的管理者,然后让他们各司其职。

声音

1960年6月,AEFW的首席执行官唐纳德·米勒(Donald Miller)接到了一个自称“声音”的线人打来的电话。他声称在新泽西州贝永的Allied上夜班。他警告米勒:“有史以来最大的骗局正在美国运通上演,因为实际上油罐里装的是水,而我们却把它算作豆油。每当去油罐盘点时,我们都会把砝码扔进这个装满大豆油的金属舱,但油罐连接的天平却溢出了水。”

米勒下令对Allied进行突击检查。检查人员发现,除了测量舱口外,所有油罐的开口都被焊死了。随后,他们在能够检查的五个油罐中发现了水。然而,当他们在周末后返回时,其他油罐并没有任何可疑之处。后来的一份报告将进水归因于“蒸汽管道破裂”。Allied和AEFW之间的业务照常进行。

调查人员不知道的是,德安吉利斯精心设计了一个管道网络,其中有虚假的隔室和特殊的采样管,其中含有真正的豆油。三年后,当欺诈行为最终被发现时,当一个油罐的水龙头终于被打开时,流出的不是价值400万美元的大豆油,而是海水,整整持续了12天。

骗局和垮台

1961年,Allied开始在豆油期货市场大举买入。到1963年,德安吉利斯一直在推高豆油期货价格,原因是他预计外国会有大量需求。有传言称,俄罗斯的农作物歉收,俄罗斯将很快购买美国的植物油。事实上,外国农作物大丰收,因此高昂的期货价格难以为继。

随着油价的每一次下跌,Allied都需要在保证金账户中提供更多资金。到1963年11月,交易所和政府大宗商品机构终于意识到,Allied正在抬高期货价格。当一名商品交易所调查员要求查看Allied的记录时,事情败露了。Allied申请破产,期货价格暴跌。AEFW仓库收据上的植物油总量是全美植物油总量的两倍

品牌

美国运通是一家股份公司,是美国最后一家拥有无限责任的大型上市公司。到1963年,美国运通正在考虑合并,成为一家有限责任公司,就像几乎所有其他上市公司一样。

在Allied破产后不久,AEFW遭到的索赔超过了1.5亿美元,接近美国运通公司1.62亿美元的年终股票价值。由于AEFW是一家独立运营的子公司,美国运通可能无需对其债务负责。但有一些法律规则可能会推翻这种分离。这给美国运通的潜在责任带来了不确定性。

无论如何,克拉克都在考虑美国运通是否应该赔偿AEFW的损失。他从不同的角度考虑重要的利益相关者。如果美国运通拒绝承担AEFW的责任,银行将蒙受损失。鉴于银行在美国运通的旅行支票业务中发挥着巨大作用,这可能会扼杀银行给美国运通带来的所有业务。

相反,让银行家满意可能会让股东感到沮丧。克拉克还必须考虑骗局对客户的影响。他们会停止使用美国运通的产品吗?经董事会同意,1963年11月27日,克拉克公开宣布:“如果我们的子公司需要对超出其保险范围和其他资产的金额承担责任,美国运通认为在道义上有义务尽其所能,与其总体责任相一致,确保这些超额债务得到清偿。”

沃伦·巴菲特投资

1963年11月20日,这场骗局开始见诸报端,但几乎没报道什么细节。两天后,约翰·肯尼迪(John F. Kennedy)总统被暗杀。在纽约证券交易所紧急关闭前的半小时内,股东价值蒸发了110亿美元。肯尼迪的离世使“色拉油大骗局”退居次要地位。巴菲特对购买该公司廉价股票的可能性很感兴趣,于是跟踪了美国运通的股价。即使在市场重新开盘后,该股也没有反弹,而是继续下跌。根据市场的反应,美国运通的生存前景堪忧。从11月20日到12月2日,其股价从61.81美元跌至40美元,并在1964年6月2日跌至35.31美元的谷底,在丑闻爆发后不到8个月的时间里下跌了43%。

巴菲特想知道这桩丑闻会对美国运通的声誉造成什么影响。对于旅行支票和信用卡而言,信任至关重要。巴菲特需要事实依据。因此,他和一位熟人走访了接受美国运通卡和支票的餐馆和其他场所。他们与银行出纳员、银行职员、信用卡用户、酒店员工和餐馆工作人员进行了交谈,以了解使用率是否有所下降。根据这项研究,巴菲特得出的结论是,虽然华尔街通过打压美国运通的股价来惩罚该公司,但美国运通在典型的美国中产阶级中的声誉并没有受到损害。

到1964年初,巴菲特合伙有限公司从利润和新资金中获得了充足的现金,资本达到1750万美元。在一只股票上冒险投入巨额资金,既需要坚定的信念,也需要钢铁般的意志。但巴菲特就是这么做的。到1964年6月,他在巴菲特合伙有限公司持有的最大一只股票美国运通上投资了300万美元,持股比例为17%。

股东对股东

在与债权人达成最终解决方案之前,一些股东对该公司采取了行动,认为美国运通没有法律义务解决AEFW的债务问题。他们认为,任何和解都将损害美国运通的股东价值。他们尤其担心德安吉利斯许多伪造的仓库收据的持有者会得到赔偿。

巴菲特认为管理层的做法是正确的,并担心任何试图破坏和解的行动都会损害品牌。巴菲特给克拉克写了一封信,赞扬了管理层,并恳求他们为了声誉达成和解。巴菲特将这种情况比作一场台风,很快就会过境。他甚至愿意自费出庭作证,支持管理层的行为。这是巴菲特的另一个关键时刻,他着眼于长远,愿意牺牲短期利润。巴菲特对美国运通未来的评估是准确的。近60年后,巴菲特仍持有美国运通的股票。

巴菲特买入美国运通股票的时间是1964年4月中旬至6月。其平均价格为41.22美元。两年半后,美国运通的股价涨到了92.50美元,涨幅达124%。道琼斯指数在此期间下跌了6%。考虑到所冒的资金风险,巴菲特在接近谷底时买入的能力,以及在如此短的时间内获得的巨大收益,可以说这是有史以来最好的投资之一,对巴菲特和他的合伙公司来说无疑是如此。

贪婪与恐惧

到1967年,美国运通与债权人达成了6000万美元的和解协议。税后为3160万美元。从丑闻爆发到和解期间的利润超过了这一数额。到1964年底,美国运通已将丑闻抛之脑后。

美国运通高管后来意识到,这起骗局是该公司历史上最大的公关事件。媒体的报道是正面的,公众也看到美国运通履行了自己的义务。1964年旅行支票的销售额增长了12%。后来克拉克被问及每隔几年就发生一次色拉油骗局是否是个好主意。他回答说:“我认为自己没有足够的大好年华浪费在另一个骗局上。”

这桩丑闻说明了为什么品格和声誉很重要。德安吉利斯长期以来肆无忌惮,从未真正改过。缴纳罚款只是做生意的成本。然而,这并没有阻止其他公司与他打交道,直到他的帝国垮台。

为什么银行和大宗商品出口商越来越多地贷款给德安吉利斯的企业?在他倒台之前,多年来一直有传言称Allied正在进行欺诈。部分原因是“隧道视野”。一位贷款人评论道:“我们没有和这个叫蒂诺的人打交道,而是和美国运通打交道。”你自己的分析是无可替代的。巴菲特在投资美国运通之前做了大量的外出搜集情况工作。他并不是仅仅依靠直觉。

克拉克做出了一个大胆的决定,宣布运通“在道义上有义务”承担AEFW的责任。他认识到了品牌声誉的重要性。他也没有让一场能够完美应对的危机付之东流。克拉克和巴菲特都认识到,长期价值高于短期利润。

丑闻的根源是什么?激励和动机很重要。为了生存,AEFW需要持续盈利。这可能导致唐纳德·米勒忽视了德安吉利斯的性格缺陷,因为他与Allied的交易是有利可图的。正如作者诺曼·梅勒(Norman Miller)总结的那样:“蒂诺之所以成功是因为银行家、经纪人和商界人士,尽管有明显的迹象表明他们是在与一个骗子打交道,但他们还是无法抵挡巨额利润的诱惑......他们之所以相信蒂诺的交易是好的,原因可以用一个词来概括——贪婪。”

那些银行家、经纪人和商界人士都很贪婪,直到他们担心自己会失去一切。巴菲特颠覆了这一前提,他宣布了自己著名的投资目标:“就是当别人贪婪的时候我们感到恐惧,别人恐惧的时候我们会变得贪婪。”当人人都想投资股票时,股票可能会被高估;当无人问津时,股票可能被低估。(财富中文网)

斯蒂芬·R·福斯特,作家兼加拿大安大略省伦敦市韦仕敦大学毅伟商学院(Ivey Business School at Western University in London)金融学教授。他拥有宾夕法尼亚大学沃顿商学院(Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania)博士学位和特许金融分析师称号。

经出版商威利许可,改编自斯蒂芬·R·福斯特的《开拓者、英雄和骗子:让你成为更睿智的投资者的故事》。版权所有©2024斯蒂芬·R·福斯特。保留所有权利。

译者:中慧言-王芳

The following is an adapted excerpt from Stephen R. Foerster’s book Trailblazers, Heroes, and Crooks: Stories to Make You a Smarter Investor (Wiley 2024).

This story brings together a tipster, a villain, a visionary, and Warrren Buffett, arguably the greatest investor of all time. And it’s mixed with salad oil.

The villain

Tino DeAngelis had an early business start in the meat industry. He was allegedly involved in black market sales during World War II. He paid $100,000 in damages for exporting substandard cooking fat to Yugoslavia. After acquiring control of a public meatpacker, he was required to pay new damages of $100,000 because of inferior products. Then another one of his companies was accused of exporting inferior lard to Germany, resulting in “the usual” $100,000 in damages. DeAngelis later created Allied Crude Vegetable Oil Refining Corporation (Allied). Allegations of fraud and underworld connections followed him.

The visionary

American Express Company (Amex) was dominant in travel and financial services. In 1960, Howard Clark became chief executive. His priority was focusing on the viability of the money-losing American Express credit card. He then focused on four marginally-profitable Amex subsidiaries. One was the separately incorporated American Express Field Warehousing Company (AEFW). It had made money in only 10 of the past 19 years and had a cumulative loss. In the late 1950s, AEFW had 500 client accounts, but all the profits were from two companies, with the same owner: DeAngelis. One company was Allied.

Birth of the Oracle

In 1956, Warren Buffett, age 25, started his first investment partnership. In 1962, He dissolved all eleven partnerships and brought them into Buffett Partnership Ltd. (BPL). Net assets were $7.2 million. Buffett was already a millionaire. BPL had strong performance. Buffett inherited his value-investing style from Benjamin Graham. Buffett viewed stock investing akin to owning a business, but only at a reasonable price. Buffett’s 1964 investment in Amex would begin a different investing approach.

Prior to Buffett’s Amex acquisition, he pushed for board representation or control, like with his Dempster Mill Manufacturing Company investment. Buffett pushed management to increase profits but was unsuccessful. So, he installed a new manager who turned things around, but at a reputational cost to Buffett. The new management team laid off one hundred workers from the only town factory. Buffett was vilified in the local newspaper. Starting with Amex, Buffett’s approach was to first uncover undervalued firms that were fundamentally good businesses with capable managers, then let them do their jobs.

The voice

In June 1960, Donald Miller, chief executive of AEFW, received a phone call from a tipster, “the Voice.” He claimed to work the night shift at Allied in Bayonne, New Jersey. He warned Miller, “The biggest hoax ever pulled is being pulled on American Express because there is in fact water in the tanks, and we are counting it as oil. Whenever we went to take inventory at the tank, we would be dropping the weight into this metal chamber, which was filled with soybean oil, but the balance of the tank had water in it.”

Miller ordered a surprise inspection at Allied. Inspectors found all the tank openings were welded shut except for the measuring hatch. They then found water in the five tanks they were able to check. However, when they returned after the weekend, there was nothing suspicious in the other tanks. A report later attributed water to “broken steam pipes.” Business between Allied and AEFW continued as usual.

Unbeknownst to investigators, DeAngelis had created an elaborate network of pipes with false compartments and special sampling tubes that held actual oil. Three years later, when the fraud was finally detected, when the tap on one tank was finally opened, instead of $4 million of soybean oil, seawater poured out for 12 days.

Scams and the downfall

In 1961, Allied started buying heavily in the oil futures market. By 1963, DeAngelis was pushing up the prices of oil futures in anticipation of heavy demand by foreign countries. Rumors swirled that Russia’s crops had failed, and Russia would soon be buying U.S. vegetable oil. Actually, there were bumper foreign crops, so high futures prices weren’t sustainable.

With each subsequent oil price decline, Allied needed to provide more money in margin accounts. By November 1963, the exchanges and government commodities agencies finally realized that Allied was driving up futures prices. When a commodities exchange investigator demanded to see Allied’s records, the gig was up. Allied filed for bankruptcy. Futures prices plummeted. AEFW’s warehouse receipts had totaled twice as much vegetable oil as all the oil in the U.S.

The brand

Amex was a joint stock company, the last large U.S. public company with unlimited liability. By 1963, Amex was considering incorporating, becoming a limited liability company like almost all other public companies.

Soon after Allied went bankrupt, claims against AEFW were more than $150 million, close to the year-end value of Amex’s stock of $162 million. Since AEFW was a separately incorporated subsidiary, Amex probably wasn’t responsible for its liabilities. But there were legal rules that might have overridden the separation. This created uncertainty about Amex’s potential liability.

Regardless, Clark pondered whether Amex should compensate losses at AEFW. He considered important stakeholders with different perspectives. If Amex denied liability for AEFW, banks would suffer losses. Given the huge role banks played in Amex’s travelers cheques business, that might kill all the business banks brought to Amex.

Conversely, satisfying bankers might upset shareholders. Clark also had to consider how the swindle would affect customers. Would they stop using Amex products? With permission of the board, on November 27, 1963, Clark publicly announced: “If our subsidiary should be liable for amounts in excess of its insurance coverage and other assets, American Express Company feels morally bound to do everything it can, consistent with its overall responsibilities, to see that such excess liabilities are satisfied.”

Warren Buffett invests

The swindle started featuring in the press on November 20, 1963, with few details. Two days later, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. $11 billion in shareholder value was destroyed in the half hour before an emergency closure of the NYSE. Kennedy’s death relegated the Great Salad Oil Swindle to the back pages. Intrigued by the possibility of buying the stock cheaply, Buffett tracked Amex’s stock price. Even after markets reopened, the stock never recovered and continued to drop. Based on the market’s reaction, the survival of Amex was in doubt. Between November 20 to December 2, its price dropped from $61.81 to $40.00 and would bottom on June 2, 1964, at $35.31, a drop of 43 percent in less than eight months since the scandal broke.

Buffett wondered what impact the scandal would have on Amex’s reputation. With travelers cheques and credit cards, trust mattered. Buffett needed facts. So he and an acquaintance visited restaurants and other places that accepted Amex cards and cheques. They talked to bank tellers, bank officers, credit-card users, hotels employees, and restaurants workers to get a feel for whether usage had fallen off. Based on that research, Buffett concluded that while Wall Street had punished Amex by battering the stock price, Amex’s reputation hadn’t been tarnished on Main Street.

By early 1964, BPL was flush with cash from both profits and new money, with capital of $17.5 million. It takes both strong conviction and nerves of steel for to risk huge amounts of capital on one stock. But that’s what Buffett did. By June 1964, he had invested $3 million in Amex, BPL’s largest single holding, at 17 percent.

Shareholder versus shareholders

Before an eventual resolution with creditors, some shareholders took action against the firm, arguing Amex had no legal obligation to settle liabilities of AEFW. They felt any settlement would hurt Amex’s shareholder value. They were particularly concerned that holders of many forged warehouse receipts that DeAngelis invented would be compensated.

Buffett felt management was doing the right thing and was concerned that trying to derail any settlement would damage the brand. Buffett sent a letter to Clark, praising management, and imploring them to settle for the sake of reputation. Buffett likened the situation to a typhoon that would soon pass. He even offered to testify, at his own expense, supporting management’s actions. This was another pivotal moment for Buffett, taking a long-term perspective, willing to sacrifice short-term profitability. Buffett’s assessment of Amex’s future was accurate. Almost six decades later, Buffett still owned Amex stock.

The period when Buffett was buying Amex’s stock was mid-April to June 1964. Its average price was $41.22. Two-and-a-half years later, Amex’s stock was $92.50, a gain of 124 percent. The Dow lost 6 percent over that period. Given the amount of capital risked, Buffett’s ability to buy near the bottom, and the huge gains in such a brief period, arguably this was one of the best investments ever, certainly for Buffett and his partnership.

Greed and fear

By 1967, Amex negotiated a $60 million settlement with creditors. After-tax, that was $31.6 million. Profits between the time the scandal broke and the settlement exceeded that amount. Amex was able to put the scandal behind it by late 1964.

Amex executives later realized the swindle was the greatest public-relations event in its history. Press coverage was favorable, and the public saw that Amex stood behind its obligations. In 1964 travelers cheques sales increased by 12 percent. Later Clark was asked if a salad oil swindle every few years might be a clever idea. He replied: “I don’t think I have enough good years of my life to give away for another swindle.”

The scandal showed why character and reputation matter. DeAngelis had a long record of unscrupulous behavior and never really changed. Paying fines was just a cost of doing business. Yet it didn’t deter other companies from dealing with him, until his empire came crashing down.

Why did banks and commodity exporters increasingly lend to DeAngelis’s businesses? Before his downfall, rumors had swirled for years that a swindle was happening at Allied. Partly, it was tunnel vision. One lender commented, “We didn’t deal with this Tino character. We dealt with American Express.” There’s no substitute for your own analysis. Buffett did a lot of legwork before investing in Amex. He didn’t simply rely on a hunch.

Clark made a bold decision by pronouncing that Amex was “morally bound” to cover AEFW’s liability. He recognized the importance of a brand’s reputation. He also didn’t let a good crisis go to waste. Both Clark and Buffett recognized that long-term value trumped short-term profit.

What was the root cause of the scandal? Incentives and motives matter. To survive, AEFW needed to show consistent profits. This may have caused Donald Miller to overlook DeAngelis’s character flaws, since his dealings with Allied were profitable. As author Norman Miller concluded, “Tino succeeded because bankers, brokers and business[people], despite the glaring indications that they were dealing with a crook, could not resist the bait of big profits…The reason they were convinced that Tino’s deals were good can be stated in one word—greed.”

Those bankers, brokers, and businesspeople were all greedy until they feared they would lose it all. Buffett turned that premise on its head when he famously proclaimed his investing goal: “We simply attempt to be fearful when others are greedy and to be greedy only when others are fearful.” Stocks may become overvalued when everyone wants to invest in them, and undervalued when no one wants them.

Stephen R. Foerster is an author and finance professor at the Ivey Business School at Western University in London, Ontario, Canada. He has a PhD from the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania and a Chartered Financial Analyst designation.

Adapted with permission from the publisher, Wiley, from Trailblazers, Heroes, and Crooks: Stories to Make You a Smarter Investor by Stephen R. Foerster. Copyright © 2024 by Stephen R. Foerster. All rights reserved.

财富中文网所刊载内容之知识产权为财富媒体知识产权有限公司及/或相关权利人专属所有或持有。未经许可,禁止进行转载、摘编、复制及建立镜像等任何使用。
0条Plus
精彩评论
评论

撰写或查看更多评论

请打开财富Plus APP

前往打开