Monthly Archives: December 2008

Stop the Bailout Madness

Today’s Wall Street Journal reported that commercial real estate developers are aggressively lobbying for a government bailout, trying to get into a $200 billion program designed to “salvage the market for car loans, student loans and credit-card debt.” Because the developers have a ton of debt coming due next year, and the frozen credit markets will prevent them from refinancing that debt, they want the government to step in. If they cannot refinance the debt, then their lenders will take over the high-rises and malls and hotels that the developers currently own.

This is where the bailout madness must end. Real estate developers are in a completely different league than banks or car companies or consumer debt. The bailouts for those industries could at least be defended, since credit and employment and consumers are essential for the economy to work. But allowing developers to keep the speculative properties they built does nothing for the economy. It doesn’t prop up employment or consumer spending. All it does is shift dollars from taxpayers to a few very wealthy and connected developers. If developers were erecting new buildings, at least they could claim to support construction jobs, but in this economy, not a lot of new buildings are being built.

Here are several of the problems I have with a bailout of developers:

  • As noted above, there is no economic benefit
  • Developers usually finance each project separately, so even if they lose one to the banks, it won’t bring down their whole firm
  • Developers push strongly against government regulation (zoning, height limits, etc.) when they are building, standing on the spurious rubric of “property rights.” So why don’t they rely on their precious freedom now instead of turning to the government?
  • The same issue of the WSJ also had a piece on how some real estate developers saw the crash coming and conservatively boosted their cash reserves, and are now sitting pretty. So why should we bailout the developers who were not so prescient?

Finally, I should note that generally speaking, developers are wealthy and sophisticated individuals or families. They weren’t talked into these investments by shady mortgage brokers, and they already have plenty of resources to deal with their problems. In fact, let’s look at the three named developers in the article. There is William Rudin, whose family “is a large Manhattan office building owner.” If you are a large owner of Manhattan high rises, then you are very very rich. The Related Cos, a major developer has, according to its web site, a $10 billion real estate portfolio, and this privately held company remains under the control of rounder and CEO Stephen Ross. Vornado Realty Trust is a huge landlord, publicly traded, with a market cap of $9 billion. Vornado CEO Steven Roth was paid $1 million last year and exercised options worth $68 million. On December 8 of this year, he exercised more options, with a net gain of $13 million. Do these guys need a bailout?

The government can’t keep giving money to every industry that asks for it. Let’s draw a line, and let’s draw it at the hugely wealthy individuals who don’t need and who won’t help the economy.

Attack on Wall Street Follow Up

And I thought I was was harsh in saying that we should tax Wall Street folks on their bonuses from the last few years. The NY Times is reporting that if anger against big banks continues to grow, the next step will be criminal indictments. Which, by the way, I would support.

Auto Industry Bailout Follow Up

The NY Times is reporting that one of the things that kept the Republicans in the Senate from supporting the bailout was the UAW’s refusal to take any pay cuts until 2011. From the article, it sounds like Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) and UAW President Ron Gettelfinger are both lying, but regardless, if the UAW isn’t willing to make concessions right now, whether pay cuts or benefit cuts or work rule changes, then let the car companies go under and the UAW members find other jobs.

Attack on Wall Street

As the financial crisis continues, seemingly with no end in sight, I’ve noticed an ever increasing willingness to attack Wall Street, and to blame the big investment banks for the difficult times many parties are finding themselves in.

For example, check out this Wall Street Journal article, in which consumers say that Wall Street failed them. The gist: investment firms developed more and more complicated products that pushed onto consumers the responsibility for their investments (eg. IRAs vs. pensions) and now those products are exploding. Or this one, describing how the Pennsylvania state pension fund may have to pay Wall Street firms more than $2.5 billion because of exotic investments that have gone bad.

This anger isn’t exactly surprising, nor is it necessarily misplaced – Wall Street firms seeking short term profits pushed dicey products – but what surprises me is how widespread it is. In those two articles alone, everyone from IT workers to professional investors are blaming Wall Street. And the Wall Street Journal itself is eagerly reporting on these complaints.

I wonder if this anger will spread to pushing for some sort of action. Certainly the Merrill Lynch board heard this anger when they rejected CEO John Thain’s request for a $10 million bonus this year, giving him zero instead. But maybe the anger will drive politicians to dig deeper. As I’ve noted before, the players in the financial house of cards have already taken tons of money off the table. We know all about CEOs and hedge fund titans making obscene amounts of money, but don’t forget that your average fixed income trader or salesman was probably bringing home over $1 million per year during the boom times. Will policy makers go after that money?

A retroactive tax on boom time earnings would feel like justice. It’s difficult to see the fairness of taxing the whole country while bankers keep their Hamptons houses. On the other hand, the precedent of invoking a punitive and backward looking tax seems dicey from a policy perspective. Would we reach back and punish people other times that their decisions turned out to be wrong? Would we separate those who know their bonds were crap from those who were just doing what their boss told them? Again, it’s questionable policy. But it would feel so good.