Buffett's American Express Bet After the Salad Oil Scandal

In 1963, Buffett’s American Express bet represented a bold contrarian move. After American Express suffered a massive fraud scandal involving salad oil, its stock collapsed. Buffett saw past the reputational damage, recognizing that the core business remained intact and the market had overreacted. He invested heavily at depressed prices, and American Express recovered, delivering substantial gains. This trade exemplified his willingness to buy assets when panic destroyed their value.

The Salad Oil Scandal

In 1963, American Express became entangled in one of Wall Street’s most embarrassing frauds: the Salad Oil scandal. A trader and company employee named Anthony De Angelis had been using American Express warehouse receipts as collateral for loans and speculative positions. The receipts allegedly backed enormous quantities of vegetable oil held in tanks.

The problem: the tanks contained far less oil than the receipts claimed. De Angelis had fabricated inventory, and American Express—which had issued the receipts and guaranteed their authenticity—was left holding the liability. When the fraud was uncovered, American Express faced litigation, losses, and a devastating blow to its reputation. Customers and trading partners questioned whether they could trust the company’s guarantees.

The stock market reacted with panic. American Express shares fell roughly 50% from their pre-scandal levels. The fear was existential: if American Express could be defrauded this badly, could the entire business survive? Would customers abandon the company’s traveler’s checks, credit products, and other services?

Why Buffett Saw Opportunity

Warren Buffett, then running Berkshire Hathaway as a small textile operation with investment capital, saw a different picture. He recognized that American Express’s core business—a trusted financial intermediary with a valuable brand, extensive customer relationships, and reliable cash flows—had not changed. The scandal was a catastrophe, but it was not a permanent destruction of value.

Buffett’s reasoning was that the market had conflated two separate risks: the immediate financial loss from the salad oil fraud and the existential risk to the business model. The first was real and quantifiable; the second had been overstated by panic selling. American Express would pay damages and recover. The brand would survive because it had survived other crises, and customers would gradually return as trust was restored.

This was a bet on mean reversion in reputation. Buffett believed the true intrinsic value of American Express was far above the panic-driven stock price. By buying at depressed levels, he was purchasing a dollar’s worth of value for 50 cents—the classic margin of safety.

The Investment

Buffett invested a substantial portion of Berkshire Hathaway’s capital into American Express shares during 1963–1964. At the time, this was a significant and controversial decision within Berkshire’s investment partnership. Some partners questioned why he was betting so heavily on a company burdened by scandal and legal exposure.

The investment reflected Buffett’s philosophy of separating emotion from analysis. He was not trying to predict the exact timing of recovery; he was simply buying quality assets at prices that offered a sufficient margin of safety. If the business survived—which he believed it would—the stock would eventually trade at a price reflecting the underlying business value.

The Outcome and Lessons

Buffett’s judgment proved correct. American Express settled the fraud claims, took its losses, and continued operating. The brand recovered over time as customers saw that the company had managed the crisis responsibly. The stock rebounded, and by the late 1960s, American Express was trading well above the depressed prices Buffett had paid. His investment delivered significant returns.

This trade illustrates several enduring principles of value-investing:

Reputational crises create opportunities. When a company’s reputation is damaged by fraud, scandal, or public embarrassment, the stock often overshoots to the downside. If the underlying business is durable and the management response is sound, the panic creates a buying opportunity for patient investors.

Separate permanent impairment from temporary setback. The key is to distinguish between a temporary reputational wound and a permanent business impairment. American Express’s warehouse receipt business was damaged, but its traveler’s checks and credit products—the engines of profit—remained intact and valuable.

Scale allows conviction to compound. Buffett did not merely nibble at American Express; he made it a large position. This conviction bet meant that when the stock recovered, the gains were substantial relative to his portfolio.

The margin of safety. By buying at 50-cent-on-the-dollar valuations, Buffett ensured that even if the recovery took longer than expected or was only partial, the investment would likely deliver acceptable returns. The discount provided a cushion.

Why It Worked (And Why Contrarian Bets Fail)

Buffett succeeded with American Express partly through skill and partly through the randomness inherent in crisis situations. A few factors aligned in his favor:

The company had a strong enough balance sheet and cash generation to absorb the losses without bankruptcy. Had American Express been financially fragile before the scandal, recovery would have been impossible.

Management was competent and committed to rehabilitation. Buffett’s bet was also a bet on leadership, and American Express had both.

Regulatory response was manageable. The government did not revoke American Express’s licenses or impose crippling new restrictions. In other scenarios, a scandal can trigger regulatory backlash that genuinely impairs the business.

The broader market did not remain depressed forever. Sentiment shifted as memories faded and the company demonstrated its resilience.

These factors were not guaranteed. Contrarian bets on companies in crisis are inherently risky. Many companies that look “cheap” after a scandal do fail or take decades to recover. Buffett’s success with American Express was validated by fundamental analysis and execution, but it was never a sure thing.

See also