Charlie Munger on Bubbles & Crashes

Paul Arnold, long CORT’s star CEO, and his management team, have devoted much effort over the past two years, expanding and redirecting CORT’s rental relocation services toward the needs of businesses and government agencies who require a skilled and able partner to provide comprehensive and seamless relocation services for the temporary relocation of employees worldwide. CORT’s operating results are subject to economic cycles. When we purchased CORT, its furniture rental business was rapidly growing, reflecting the strong U.S. economy, phenomenal business expansion and explosive growth of IPOs and the high-tech sector. Shortly thereafter, with the burst of the dot-com bubble, followed by the events of September 11 and a protracted slowdown in new business formation, CORT’s operations were hammered, reflecting generally bad results in the “rent-to-rent” segment of the furniture rental business. There followed a far-too-short period of improving business conditions which have more recently given way to increasingly difficult recessionary conditions, perhaps the beginning of the worst economic recession in decades. Under Wesco’s ownership, CORT has continuously undertaken to improve its com- petitive position. With several websites, principally, www.cort.com and www.apartment- search.

CORT is a very long-established company that is the country’s leader in rentals of furniture that lessees have no intention of buying. In the trade, people call CORT’s activity “rent-to-rent” to distinguish it from “lease-to-purchase” businesses that are, in essence, installment sellers of furniture. However, just as Enterprise, as a rent-to-rent auto lessor in short-term arrangements, must be skilled in selling used cars, CORT must be and is skilled in selling used furniture. CORT’s revenues totaled $396 million for calendar 2007, versus $400 million for calendar 2006. Of these amounts, furniture rental revenues were $327 million and $324 million, furniture sales revenues were $62 million and $70 million, and rental relocation revenues were $7 million and $6 million. CORT operated at after-tax profits of $20.3 million for 2007 and $26.9 million for 2006. When we purchased CORT early in 2000, its furniture rental business was rapidly growing, reflecting the strong U.S. economy, phenomenal business expansion and explo- sive growth of IPOs and the high-tech sector. Beginning late in 2000, however, new business coming into CORT began to decline. With the burst of the dot-com bubble, the events of September 11, and a protracted slowdown in new business formation, CORT’s operations were hammered, reflecting generally bad results in the “rent-to-rent” segment of the furniture rental business.

With the burst of the dot-com bubble, the events of September 11, and a protracted slowdown in new business formation, CORT's operations were hammered, reÖecting generally bad results in the ""rent-to-rent'' segment of the furniture rental business. Obviously, when we purchased CORT we were poor predictors of near-term industry-wide prospects of the ""rent-to-rent'' sector of the furniture business. CORT started up a new service during 2001. Originally a subsidiary named Relocation Central, and now its CORTline division, it was conceived mainly to supplement CORT's furniture rental business by providing apartment locator and ancillary services to relocating individuals. Long CORT's star CEO, Paul Arnold is in process of expanding CORTline's operations and redirecting its marketing, with the expectation that it will become a Ñnancial success. CORTline, originally conceived to assist relocating individuals, has recently expanded its services and capabilities and has begun to market itself toward the needs of businesses and governmental agencies who require a skilled and able partner to provide the full gamut of seamless relocation services for the temporary relocation of employees. With several websites, principally, www.cortline.com, www.relocationcentral.com and www.apartmentsearch.

Even through the crash, CORT has operated at a positive cash flow, and the general distress in its field has permitted various small expansions. During the past four years it invested $74 million in business expansion through acquisitions of several small businesses and reduced its line-of-credit and other debt by $33 million. CORT remains the national leader in its market segment and we believe that these acquisi- tions will prove to be satisfactory expansions of a fundamentally sound business. When Wesco paid $386 million for CORT, about 60% of the purchase price was attributable to goodwill, an intangible balance sheet asset. Wesco's consolidated balance sheet now contains about $267 million in goodwill (including $27 million from Wesco's 1996 purchase of KBS). The Financial Account- ing Standards Board adopted a rule which became effective in 2002 that no longer requires automatic amortization of acquired goodwill. (The requirement for such amortization has been replaced by a standard that requires an annual assessment to determine whether the value of goodwill has been impaired, in which event the intangible would be written down or written off, as appropriate.) Earnings we have reported since 2002 more closely reflect microeconomic reality as we appraise it. CORT has long been headed by Paul Arnold, age 58, who is a star executive as is convincingly demonstrated by his long record as CEO of CORT. We are absolutely delighted to have Paul and CORT within Wesco.

inclined to add to them. Though these enterprises have good prospects, we don't yet believe their shares are undervalued. ""In our view, the same conclusion Ñts stocks generally. Despite three years of falling prices, which have signiÑcantly improved the attractiveness of com- mon stocks, we still Ñnd very few that even mildly interest us. That dismal fact is testimony to the insanity of valuations reached during The Great Bubble. Unfortunately, the hangover may prove to be proportional to the binge. ""The aversion to equities that ®we© exhibit today is far from congenital. We love owning common stocks Ì if they can be purchased at attractive prices. In ®my© 61 years of investing, 50 or so years have offered that kind of opportunity. There will be years like that again. Unless, however, we see a very high probability of at least 10% pre-tax returns (which translates to 61 /2-7% after corporate tax), we will sit on the sidelines. With short-term money returning less than 1% after-tax, sitting it out is no fun. But occasionally successful investing requires inactivity.'' In fact, the one thing that should interest Wesco shareholders most with respect to 2004 is that, as in 2003, 2002 and 2001, Wesco found no new common stocks for our insurance companies to buy.

At the 2003 Berkshire annual meeting, Buffett and Munger issued what Buffett later called a wake-up call on derivatives. The ballooning and thoughtless use of risky derivatives contracts had, in their joint view, become a systemic danger. Munger's phrasing was characteristically blunt: he told the audience that the derivatives market had become a gathering place for weapons of financial mass destruction. The phrase was deliberately inflammatory, and Munger meant it to be. The argument was structural. Derivatives, in Munger's framing, did not just transfer risk - they magnified it, because the counterparty web was opaque and the mark-to-market process was unreliable. A financial system in which large institutions owed each other enormous notional sums, recorded at model prices rather than transactable prices, was a system in which the failure of one node could cascade unpredictably through the rest. The 1998 LTCM collapse had already shown the pattern; Munger and Buffett were telling the room that the pattern would recur at larger scale. The prescription was avoidance. Berkshire itself used derivatives sparingly and only when it could price them honestly - the equity put writtings of later years were a deliberate exception, undertaken only when the premiums and the structural terms were clearly attractive. For most institutions, Munger's view was that the right answer was to stay out of the contracts entirely, to refuse the short-term earnings boost they offered, and to accept that the apparent opportunity was a fee-generation mirage that would, in some future crisis, become a loss-generation machine.

7 million in 2000, but include Relocation Central's after-tax losses, less minority interest, of $9.0 million for 2003, $8.3 million for 2002 and $7.0 million for 2001. Excluding the operating losses of Relocation Central, CORT, at the parent company level, contributed $2.7 million to Wesco's consolidated after-tax operating earnings for 2003, versus $10.7 million for 2002 and $20.1 million for 2001. When we purchased CORT early in 2000, its furniture rental business was rapidly growing, reÖecting the strong U.S. economy, phenomenal business expansion and explosive growth of IPOs and the high-tech sector. Beginning late in 2000, however, new business coming into CORT began to decline. With the burst of the dot-com bubble, the events of September 11, and continued weakness of job growth in the economy, CORT's operations have been hammered. Obviously, when we purchased CORT we were poor predictors of near-term industry-wide prospects of the ""rent-to- rent'' sector of the furniture business. Moreover, CORT started up a new subsidiary during 2001, Relocation Central Corporation, which has developed a virtual call center and carries out an Internet- based furniture and apartment-leads operation (www.relocationcentral.com), and it markets CORT's furniture rental services to real estate investment trusts, owners of many major apartment communities.

inclined to add to them. Though these enterprises have good prospects, we don't yet believe their shares are undervalued. ""In our view, the same conclusion Ñts stocks generally. Despite three years of falling prices, which have signiÑcantly improved the attractiveness of com- mon stocks, we still Ñnd very few that even mildly interest us. That dismal fact is testimony to the insanity of valuations reached during The Great Bubble. Unfortunately, the hangover may prove to be proportional to the binge. ""The aversion to equities that ®we© exhibit today is far from congenital. We love owning common stocks Ì if they can be purchased at attractive prices. In ®my© 61 years of investing, 50 or so years have oÅered that kind of opportunity. There will be years like that again. Unless, however, we see a very high probability of at least 10% pre-tax returns (which translates to 6 1 /2-7% after corporate tax), we will sit on the sidelines. With short-term money returning less than 1% after-tax, sitting it out is no fun. But occasionally successful investing requires inactivity.'' In fact, the one thing that should interest Wesco shareholders most with respect to 2003 is that, as in 2002 and 2001, Wesco found no new common stocks for our insurance companies to buy. The Board of Directors recently increased Wesco's regular dividend from 331 /2 cents per share to 341 /2 cents per share, payable March 3, 2004, to shareholders of record as of the close of business on February 4, 2004.

CORT's revenues totaled $389 million for calendar 2002, versus $395 million for calendar 2001. Of these amounts, furniture rental revenues were $316 million and $329 million, and furniture sales revenues were $73 million and $66 million. CORT contributed $2.4 million and $13.1 million to Wesco's consolidated operating income for 2002 and 2001, versus $29.0 million for the ten months that we owned it in 2000. These Ñgures are before (1) goodwill amortization of zero for 2002 (see discussion above), $6.0 million for 2001 and $5.1 million for 2000, and (2) realized securities losses of $.7 million in 2000. CORT's after-tax operating income (before goodwill amortization) for the entire calendar year 2000 was $33.4 million compared to only $2.4 million for 2002 and $13.1 million for 2001. 2002 was a terrible year in the ""rent-to-rent'' segment of the furniture rental business. When we purchased CORT early in 2000, its furniture rental business was rapidly growing, reÖecting the strong U.S. economy, phenomenal business expansion and explosive growth of IPOs and the high-tech sector. Beginning late in 2000, however, new business coming into CORT began to decline. With the burst of the dot-com bubble, the events of September 11, and continued weakness in the economy, CORT's operations have been hammered. Obviously, when we purchased CORT we were poor predictors of near-term industry-wide prospects of the ""rent-to- rent'' sector of the furniture business.

Our views regarding the general prospects for investment in common stocks are contained in the following excerpt from Warren BuÅett's recent letter to shareholders of our parent company: ""We continue to do little in equities. ®We© are increasingly comfortable with our holdings in ®our© major investees because most of them have in- creased their earnings while their valuations have decreased. But we are not inclined to add to them. Though these enterprises have good prospects, we don't yet believe their shares are undervalued. ""In our view, the same conclusion Ñts stocks generally. Despite three years of falling prices, which have signiÑcantly improved the attractiveness of com- mon stocks, we still Ñnd very few that even mildly interest us. That dismal fact is testimony to the insanity of valuations reached during The Great Bubble. Unfortunately, the hangover may prove to be proportional to the binge. ""The aversion to equities that ®we© exhibit today is far from congenital. We love owning common stocks Ì if they can be purchased at attractive prices. In ®(Warren states:) my© 61 years of investing, 50 or so years have oÅered that kind of opportunity. There will be years like that again. Unless, however, we see a very high probability of at least 10% pre-tax returns (which translates to /2-7% after corporate tax), we will sit on the sidelines. With short-term money returning less than 1% after-tax, sitting it out is no fun.

When we purchased CORT early in 2000, its furniture rental business was rapidly growing, reÖecting the strong U.S. economy, phenomenal business expansion and explosive growth of IPOs and the high-tech sector. Beginning late in 2000, however, new business coming into CORT began to decline. With the burst of the dot-com bubble, continued weakness in the economy and the events of Septem- ber 11, CORT's operations were hammered in 2001. Moreover, CORT started up a new subsidiary during the year, Relocation Central Corporation, whose $12 million in expenses far exceeded its $1 million in revenues. The results of its operations have been consolidated with those reported for CORT, shown above. Relocation Central has developed a virtual call center which carries out an internet-based furniture and apartment leads operation (www.relocationcentral.com), and it has begun marketing CORT's furniture rental services to real estate investment trusts, owners of many major apartment communi- ties. CORT is hopeful that, through Relocation Central, it will ultimately become the principal source of rental furniture to the apartment industry. We hope to report in due course that all CORT operations have become more satisfactory, but prospects for 2002 do not thrill us. However, there is good news along with bad. CORT operates at a positive cash Öow.