I saw the CNBC interview with Mr Buffett.<p>Diamond called out of the blue at a bad time seeking insurance. This insurance was to cover BARCLAYS CAPITAL whilst it manouvred in purchasing negotiations.<p>Diamond wanted insurance because the British Government had refused to allow Barclays to purchase Lehman without a lengthy consultation process. Buffett or not, the takeover sounded very unlikely.<p>Nothing here has to do with Buffet himself. From the gist of the interview he was just commenting on how quick the collapse was. The interviewer asked him as The Guest, if he had any interesting stories from that time.
I imagine that if Warren Buffett had really been interested in taking the deal, he would have chased it up. If someone offers me what I think is a good deal on a many-billion-dollar asset, I'll find the time to make a followup phone call "Hey Bob, what happened to that fax you were gonna send me?"
Unlikely. Buffett's intuition that the deal for Barclays to buy ALL of Lehman is fishy, was probably spot on. And more information would not have changed his mind, and the insurance he might have offered to Barclays would probably have been to expensive for them to go ahead with the deal.
Actual article:<p><a href="http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/09/15/warren-buffett-could-have-saved-lehma/" rel="nofollow">http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/09/15/warren-buffett-co...</a>
Buffet has gone on the record as supporting Democrats and tax hikes for the rich - is this an attempt to smear him and paint him as both out of touch AND somehow responsible for the collapse?