With Facebook, Did Pension and Sovereign Funds Miss an Opportunity – or Dodge a Bullet?

A Goldman unit that invests on behalf of asset owners turned down an opportunity to invest capital in social network Facebook, raising questions over whether the bank’s eventual investment is a robust one.

(January 6, 2011) – The New York Times is reporting that a Goldman Sachs group that manages money for pension and sovereign funds turned down an offer to invest in social networking website Facebook before another section of the bank did just that.

The $20 billion Goldman Sachs Capital Partners (GSCP), the internal private corporate equity group led by Richard Friedman, reportedly was offered an investment opportunity in Facebook before the bank used its balance sheet to purchase a $450 million stake, and, in turn, sell shares on to wealthy investors.

For more stories like this, sign up for the CIO Alert newsletter.

Whether this is a good or bad event for pension and sovereign wealth fund clients of the bank has yet to be seen. What is clear, however, is that while Goldman is willing to sell shares in the social networking website to some wealthy clients, the same seems not true for GSCP, which is a fiduciary for its pension and sovereign customers. According to the Times, Friedman, “was concerned about Facebook’s $50 billion valuation and the terms of the deal.” Of course, institutional clients can simple circumvent the GSCP group and its decision by buying a stake via other parts of the bank that are currently offering a limited number of shares for sale.

Concerns have been raised elsewhere about the valuation of Facebook after the Goldman infusion. Facebook’s 2010 revenues were $2 billion, with $400 million in profit, according to reports – significant growth over past years, but still a stretch for many analysts considering the $50 billion implied valuation.

It is well known – and the Times comments on this fact – that the GSCP unit was harmed in the Internet bubble of the late 1990s. According to the Times, a $2.8 billion fund run by the unit invested upward of 70% of its capital in dot-com and technology companies during that time, which harmed its valuation on the other side ofthe bubble.



To contact the <em>aiCIO</em> editor of this story: Kristopher McDaniel at <a href='mailto:kmcdaniel@assetinternational.com'>kmcdaniel@assetinternational.com</a>

Buffett CEO, CIO Succession Questions Flare Again

An upcoming Vanity Fair article further reveals the thinking of Warren Buffett regarding who eventually will take control of his $100 billion portfolio.

(January 5, 2011) – An upcoming Vanity Fair interview with Warren Buffett further reveals how the Oracle of Omaha and the company he controls will split the functions of chief executive and chief investment officer upon his retirement or death – and who is likely to take on each role.

 

Speculation has swirled for years around whom would replace the world’s most legendary investor – and how they’d possibly live up to his reputation and history of returns. Currently, Buffett acts as both CEO and CIO for Berkshire Hathaway; however, in the Vanity Fair article and elsewhere, he makes clear that the roles “will be split between at least two people, and probably more."

 

For more stories like this, sign up for the CIO Alert newsletter.

The choice of his replacements is a point of much speculation. According to the upcoming article, there are four serious candidates for the role of CEO: Ajit Jain, leader of the company’s reinsurance operation; David Sokol, chairman of the company's utility operations; Greg Abel of MidAmerican Energy Holdings; and Matthew Rose of Burlington Northern Santa Fe. Jain and Sokol have been mentioned for a number of years as potential successors to run the business; Rose and Abel are less well known.

 

“Finding a CIO has proven even more challenging,” the article, quoting Buffett, states. “Apart from the issue of skill, there’s the issue of personality. Take all the people with a great track record [in investing] over the past five years. I wouldn’t consider 95 percent of them.” A recent insight into his and Berkshire’s thinking, however, was revealed by his recent choice of Todd Combs, and unknown Connecticut-based hedge fund manager, to manage a sliver of the $100 billion Berkshire portfolio. (For aiCIO’s December cover story on Todd Combs, click here).

 

According to Vanity Fair, Buffett plans to explain his choice of Combs in his upcoming annual letter to Berkshire investors. “Our goal was a two-year-old Secretariat, not a 10-year-old Seabiscuit,” Buffett will reportedly write.



To contact the <em>aiCIO</em> editor of this story: Kristopher McDaniel at <a href='mailto:kmcdaniel@assetinternational.com'>kmcdaniel@assetinternational.com</a>

«

 

You’re viewing the first of three free articles.

 Subscribe to a free PW Newsletter! 

…subscribing gets you free access to PW’s online content!

If you’re a subscriber, please login.