He's Warren Buffett, and he's here to help.

This morning Buffett revealed on CNBC's Squawk Box that he's extended an offer to tottering bond insurers to provide re-insurance of on up to $800 billion in municipal bonds. The offer does not, of course, cover the more complicated derivative instruments that have been the source of so much profit and trouble for the bond insurers.

Speaking on the phone with CNBC's Ancient Billionaire Correspondent Becky Quick, the Oracle of Omaha, said Berkshire Hathaway a week ago made the reinsurance offer to bond insurers Ambac, MBIA and FGIC. One firm has already rejected his offer to insure the safest part of their business. We're guessing that's MBIA, which is newly flush with Warburg Pincus cash. The other two haven't returned his calls are still considering the offer. The offer is ticking: he gave them 30 days to respond.

Buffett's plan would likely insure ensure that the covered municipal bonds would not be affected by a downgrade in the ratings of MBIA, Ambac or FGIC. According to Buffett, the trouble with the bond insurers is producing strange price discrepancies, with some uninsured bonds trading above insured bonds. "Essentially, they've already lost their triple A. They're trading as if they had lost it," Buffett said. "In the market the triple A has gone away a long time ago."

Shares of these insurance companies will initially spike on the news, although by satisfying some of the concerns of government insurance regulators it could wind up contributing to the demise of a industry-wide bailout plan. In short, this "bailout" could spell the end of the insurers if the CDO situation gets bad enough. Buffett noted that the CDO exposure for these companies would not be covered, adding that "we can't figure it out" when asked about the extent of that exposure. He described the "natural course" of the CDO insurance as "disastrous."

Perhaps still smarting from DealBreaker's "Will Warren Buffett Go To Hell?" feature, the Oracle stressed that he would "not be presenting this deal to Saint Peter" when he shows at the pearly gates. "We're doing this to make money," Buffett said. "I did not dream this up in one of my pro-bono moments."

We thought we should let you know about this development since the odds are your attention was riveted on Fox Business. While Becks was talking to Buffett, FBN's "Money for Breakfast" co-anchor Peter Barnes wasinterviewing an M&M in a Split-Screen from Candyland. Candyland! Who wants a gumdrop!

Backdating. Pretexting. The excuse is always the same-everyone else was doing it. (Or "Larry Sonsini said it was okay.") And it's lame. And Warren Buffett has had enough of it.

The "Sage of Omaha" warns that poor corporate governance cannot be forgiven just because the practice is widespread. "The five most dangerous words in business may be 'everybody else is doing it'," wrote Mr Buffett, who has long been sceptical of stock options as a means of remunerating executives.

Buffett orders crackdown on unethical practices [FT on MSNBC via W$F]

Would you feel good or bad if you bought a used car for several hundred times its blue book value? Of course, when the car you buy belongs to Warren Buffett, you aren't just buying a car. You're buying access to the oracle of Omaha. And what is that access worth? Well, the market value is about sixty grand-the amount Learning Annex chief Bill Zander paid for Warren Buffett's towncar less the value of the car.

And what did Zander get out of the deal? Apparently, he got the chance to pitch to Buffett the opportunity to give a Learning Annex lecture. Even better, Buffett said yes, according to an item on yesterday's New York Post Page Six. The money paid to Buffett for giving the lecture will go to charity, of course. How else is he going to keep it from somehow getting into the hands of pesky tax-collectors and grandchildren?

Buffett Drives A Hard Bargain [New York Post]

Warren Buffett is in Israel now, touring the facilities of Iscar Ltd., the metal-cutting tools company his investment company acquired for $4 billion two-and-a-half months ago. The company is located near the Lebanese border and was briefly shuttered during the recent outbreak of warfare there.

Buffett has reserved the entire King David Hotel in Jerusalem for his entourage. It certainly sounds grand but according to some recent visitors it is less than kingly. As the blog Hotelchatter explains:

Will the King David Hotel be ready to serve an American billionaire and his entourage? Based on the hotel's track record the chances of this are slim to none. The hotel staff has been painted as one horrible picture by many recent past guests. On top of that, many find the hotel in desperate need of renovations and better food. None of this is hard to believe since the royal suite is shamelessly boasting a VCR. Who is Buffet's booking agent anyway?

But this might be unfair. The hotel's "roytal suite" boasts a "VCR and FAX." It doesn't really get much better than that. Oh, wait, it does. He's got a "jacuzzi bath" in his suite.

This probably makes DealBreaker's infamous inquiry into whether Warren Buffett is going to hell a bit outdated. He may already be there.

Warren Buffet Likes Outdated Hotel Suites [HotelChatter.com]

You already know that we think Nicole Buffett is cute and bright. And you know what we think of old Warren. So you can imagine how totally crushed we were when a spokesperson for Nicole rebuffed our efforts to interview her. So NPR is good enough for her but not DealBreaker? We're heartbroken.

Since we weren't going to get direct access to Nikki Sweetsmiles (that's our office pet name for her), we decided to do some investigation into her art. But since our tastes run more toward the representational side of things, we weren't exactly sure we were qualified to comment on her work. So we turned for commentary to the head of DealBreaker's Art Collection unit and proprietor of Funlap.com, Jennifer Dunlap.

Here's what Miss Dunlap had to say.

Buffet uses bright, intense colors and organic forms to create her own "synthetic" worlds. It's almost as if the paint takes on distinct characters; each color representing a different area or personality.

She throws each one together on her canvas, letting them naturally meld together and interact with one another. Once settled, the frame freezes, and we have a glimpse into the mystic and almost spiritual realm Buffet is hoping to capture. These are paintings you would definitely want to see in person to get a sense of the viscosity and scale.

Nicole Buffett's Offical Site [NicoleBuffett.com]
Jen Dunlap's Art [Funlap.com]

So after our last post we were wondering what Nicole could have done to provoke grandpa Warren's wrath. It's always possible, we thought, that she's some sort of kooky chick with parent/grandparent issues who is dragging her family's name through the mud.

But guess what? She's not. She looks a bit crunchy-but then she's an artist in San Francisco so those dreadlocks are probably some sort of mandatory dress code. We'll even go so far as to admit we find her rather fetching. What's more she sounds intelligent, well-adjusted, down-to-earth and downright sweet.

Here's a link to the Oprah video. And here's one of her talking to an NPR reporter after grandpa announced he was giving away his money.

Warren Buffett may not want to pass his fortune on to his family when he shuffles off his mortal coil and greets whatever fate awaits him in the afterlife, but while he's alive he certainly wants to keep a tight reign on the lives of his family members. At least, that's what his recent declaration disowning his granddaughter seems to imply.

As Page Six reports, in a letter to San Francisco artist Nicole Buffett, Warren wrote, "I have not emotionally or legally adopted you as a grandchild, nor have the rest of my family adopted you as a niece or a cousin."

When asked for comment, a Warren representative went even harsher.

"Nicole is not Mr. Buffett's granddaughter. She is the daughter of a former daughter-in-law of his who was married to his son for only about 10 years."

So what got Nicole voted off Buffett Island? She participated in a follow-up to Jamie Johnson's "Born Rich" about the lives of young people raised in wealthy families, and then went on Oprah to talk about it.

But Warren's wrong, at least legally. Nobody chooses their parents but you also don't get to choose your grandchildren. When your kids adopt, those adoptees become part of your family and potential heirs. When she was quite young, her mother married Warren Buffett's son Peter, and Peter formally adopted her. If Warren, his wife and his immediate children died without a valid will, the estate laws of most states would give her whatever part of his fortune remained.

Buffet to Kin: You're Fired! [Page Six; hattip: WallStFolly]

So it seems that our gift wasn't enough for Warren. Yesterday he decided to make an honest woman of long-time girl friend Astrid Menks. Of course, Warren didn't spring for a nice ceremony-the whole affair took 15 minutes, was held at his daughter's house and apparently no one was invited. Even worse-no honeymoon.

Well done, Astrid. You've just married the world's wealthiest cheapskate. Scrooge McDuck call your office.

Warren Buffett remarries - reports [Reuters]

Despite what many in the business media seem to believe, Warren Buffett did not spring fully formed from the mind of Zeus. He too was born of woman and today the old guy celebrates his 76th birthday. As a gift to him, for the rest of the day we're not going to use phrases like "tax avoidance" or "hypocrisy" or even "going to hell."

Because we know those words make you think of Warren in a bad light.

[DealBreaker's Warren Buffett Archive]

It seems that when Warren Buffett pledged a large part of his fortune to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, he was giving his money away to something more than a charity. Recent reports have revealed that the Gates Foundation is starting to use its money not just to "end poverty" or fight disease in the third world, but to finance media acquisitions by participating in a credit facility.

Now charities and non-profits have long felt the need to invest their money while looking for new ways to employ it toward their charitable goals. But direct investment in an M&A credit facility is unusual. What's more, it shows why the completely uncritical attention paid to Buffett's donation was particularly silly. As billions are piled upon billions into centralized charities it is worth noting that what is created is not just a huge fund for doing good in the world but a gigantic financial institution that will influence the financial markets.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation extended its charity work, in a sense, to the MediaNews Group in helping finance its recent purchase of several California newspapers.

MediaNews obtained a financing package from a group of lenders that enabled the newspaper company to borrow up to $597 million to help finance its acquisitions of the San Jose Mercury News and others papers, according to a MediaNews filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The syndicate of lenders included the Gates Foundation, General Electric Capital Corp. and several financial and other organizations.

The filing also disclosed that Hearst Corp., owner of the San Francisco Chronicle, made a $299 million equity investment in MediaNews in the complicated deal.

MediaNews Buying in California Boosted by Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [Editor & Publisher]

We're returning to all the classic DealBreaker themes today-Plotkin, Cuban, Ken Lay, horny traders-so might as well bring our old friend Warren Buffett back into the mix.

The occasion? Last Saturday Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway announced giant first quarter earnings. And what's wrong with that? We'll get to that in a minute. But we just want to note how agile DealBreaker is-not only can we bash him for being charitable, we can bash Buffett for being profitable too. Moving along, here's JerryBower on how Buffett profits from his hypocrisy:

Last Saturday, when Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway company revealed that its boffo first quarter was due partly to high returns from its investment in corporate jets, the cycle of irony was finally complete. Buffett, a well known critic of executive perks, has been particularly hard on CEOs who use private jets - that is, until he had his company buy one. At least he had the good humor to name it "The Indefensible."
More where that came from through the link below.

The Warren Buffett Paradox [National Review]

Here in New York CIty, we have friends who were praying for a blackout yesterday just so they could get out of work. The Israelis are made of tougher stuff.

Workers at Iscar, the Galilee company recently purchased by American investor Warren Buffet, are angry for being locked out of work because of the war, despite promises that the factory would not be closed. Management shut down the plant after Katyusha rockets hit nearby areas last week.

Ever beat something so hard your arm starts to hurt? We're starting to feel that way about Warren Buffett. Once you've already condemned somebody to Hell, what else can possibly be left? We could prominently link to Daniel Henninger's philanthropy-bashing essay on today's Wall Street Journal editorial page but seems like overkill.

So, instead, we've decided to let Warren speak for himself. His three part interview with Charlie Rose is up on Google Video now. Go ahead and watch. Even we have to admit he's a charming little rascal.

Charlie Rose - Warren Buffett: The Man - Part One in a Three Part Series [Google Video]

Fortune reports:

On July 3, Warren Buffett drove himself downtown, walked into the cavernous and nearly deserted central branch of U.S. Bank in Omaha, descended a flight of steps, and opened his large safe-deposit box.

He took out a 1979-dated certificate for 121,737 shares of Berkshire Hathaway A stock, on that day worth about $11 billion - roughly one-quarter of his Berkshire fortune.

Driving back to his office, he pondered the next step: getting that certificate and a few others (worth only tens of millions) to Wells Fargo in Minneapolis for conversion at a 30-to-1 ratio into around 3.75 million shares of Berkshire B stock. He considered FedEx and elected instead to turn one of the 16 people working at Berkshire headquarters into a courier.

So who did Buffett entrust this $11 billion piece of paper? Send your best guesses to Tips (at) DealBreaker (dot) com or leave them in the comments section below.

Would you like that $11 billion in twenties, Mr. Buffett?[Fortune on CNNMoney]

Warren Buffett's pledge to donate Berkshire shares worth close to $37 billion to a charitable foundation run by Bill Gates and four other Buffett family charities has sparked renewed speculation about who will succeed Buffett as head of Berkshire Hathaway when he retires or dies. In March, Buffett said the company's board of directors had settled on three potential successors. Many assume that Ajit Jain (pictured left) is one of the three, and perhaps the leading candidate.

Jain came to Berkshire Hathaway's reinsurance business with little experience in the field but lots of confidence. By all accounts that seems to have worked out well for him. The business he runs for Berkshire Hathaway has amassed an averaged of $1.7 billion a year since 1998.

Interestingly, Jain also shares Buffett's habit of speaking in the vocabulary of religion when discussing business. According to this online newsletter, Jain describes the reinsurance business as being something less than heavenly.

"The problem with the re-insurance business," Ajit said, "is that it is a little like Hell. It is very easy to get into, but all but impossible to get out of."

Jain, Buffett Pupil, Boosts Berkshire Cash as Succession Looms [Bloomberg]

This afternoon brings with it a somewhat unlikely entrant to the Warren-Buffett-Ain't-All-That camp: Deepak Chopra. Says Chopra:

Frankly, I think common citizens can solve problems that rich people can't. Rich people didn't bring down the Berlin Wall, and we need to remember that. Rich people didn't found Solidarity in Poland. They didn't bring Nelson Mandela to power. They didn't set up a foundation to give money to Gandhi or Martin Luther King...I think there's a better way to give right now. We can all participate, and it doesn't cost a dime. Each of us could begin to solve the world's problems by giving our good will.

A Better Way to Give Than Buffett [Huffington Post]

Friday morning we got a particularly relevant response to our "Is Warren Buffett Going to Hell?" investigative report from, well,... Warren Buffett. It's technically addressed to Fordham theology professor Richard Dillon, who commented on the piece, but was sent to us. (Click to view a larger image of the letter.)

Now we just need Ken Lay to write in and confirm that he faked his own death and smuggled himself out of the country.

[Ed.Note to Ad Sales: If Warren Buffet's reading DealBreaker, doesn't that make the new mean income of DealBreaker readers something like $1.8 million? Just a suggestion!]

It seems that the last shots in the war over Warren Buffett's charitable donation have not yet been fired. This time General Richard Posner brings in his heavy guns.

The foundation is an inherently inefficient allocative institution because, much like the government, it is not subject to market tests. There is no way to assess the value of the Gates foundation's expenditures because the foundation is not competing in any product or capital market. (Colleges and most other recipients of charitable gifts, in contrast, compete in product markets.) Gates and Buffett are extremely able businessmen but the Gates foundation is engaged in activities, such as fighting Third World diseases, that are remote from their business experience.

Well the war might go on but we're leaving the field of battle for now. It seems like a good time to declare victory and come home. So we're pretty much through with our obsession with contrarian takes on Warren Buffett's donation to the Gates foundation. Really. Or probably.

The Gates Foundation and the Estate Tax--Posner's Comment [The Becker-Posner Blog]

Warren Buffett has had great success in the business world and more recently been lionized by the press and public for his charitable donations to a foundation run by Bill Gates. Still, DealBreaker was a bit surprised when our suggestions that Buffett was less than a saint met with such vituperative reactions. (Examples: here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.)

Warren Buffett himself was convinced we were wrong, telling a crowd at the New York Public Library that his gift had secured him a cushy place in the afterlife. "There is more than one way to get to heaven, but this is a great way," Buffett said, according to news reports.

So we contacted some religious leaders to ask who was right: Warren Buffett or DealBreaker? More concretely, we wanted to know: is Warren Buffett going to hell?*

[Warren Buffett's fate after the jump]

There's no end to the hurrahs some folks are willing to give Warren Buffet's record-breaking donation to Bill Gates charity. It was a lot of money! He gave it away! It must be good!

The corollary of this seems to be that scorn and bile must issue forth upon anyone who questions the conventional wisdom. Check out this graph from CJR Daily's The Audit on a mildly critical story in the Wall Street Journal's "Heard on the Street" column.

Is it because the Journal's sources actually stand to profit from the very fluctuations they claim to fear (and profit even more if they can whip up some market hysteria with an article in a prominent business newspaper)? We can only speculate, but there is no doubt that there is a deeply cynical strain of business reporting that has come to reduce everything to numbers, seemingly blind to the reality that business affects people -- real lives that are either trampled or uplifted depending on the decisions of market players like Buffett.

Is it unfair of us to point out that what has outraged The Audit is a story indicating some possible negative effects of Buffett's gifts? Effects on people who lead real lives, even if some of them are lived in Greenwich, Connecticut. What's more, since Buffett's giving hasn't yet actually helped one person-not counting Buffett or Gates-it's the Audit which is reducing everything to numbers, the very large numbers involved with Buffett's charitable donations. If what matters results and effects on people's lives, maybe we should wait until seeing how many "real lives‚... are either trampled or uplifted" by Buffett's gifts before crowning Buffett with a halo or burning the heretics at the stake.

The Journal Reports That Good Deeds Are Bad [The Audit]