Tag Archives: Business

Supreme Court Agrees With Thoughtbasket

OK, the justices didn’t exactly mention me in their decision, but they did unanimously (according to Scotusblog) rule against the Indiana pension funds who were whining that they hadn’t gotten enough money for their secured debt. The highest court in the country has thus decided that the Obama administration did not violate the rule of law in pushing through the Chrysler bankruptcy. Read here my post saying just that. Of course, some argue that this issue is too political for the Court to be focused just on the law, but if that were the driving issue here, wouldn’t this conservative court be likely to rule against Obama, not for him?

Wall Street Has Gone Too Far

In the wake of the financial meltdown there has been continued tension between Main Street and Wall Street; between the working class (and the politicians who represent them) and the financiers (and the lobbyists who represent them). Despite the commentary from populists such as me who have been railing against Wall Streeters continuing to pay themselves huge bonuses, some of this tension has been between legitimate positions of free markets versus genuine concern about greed and income inequality.

But now the financiers have gone too far. First was an article last week saying that some big banks are looking at participating in the government’s PPIP (Public Private Investment Program) in order to buy their own toxic assets. Wait…so they are going to borrow cheap money from US taxpayers, and then use it to buy their own assets, with US Treasury backstopping on their losses? That is appalling without even considering the obvious conflict of interest regarding what price the assets are sold for. You have got to be kidding me.

Then today’s NY Times reports about the extensive lobbying effort that the big NY banks have launched to limit regulation of derivatives. You remember derivatives – the financial “weapons of mass destruction” that were a huge cause of the meltdown? The big banks make a ton of money on derivatives, and they don’t want that gravy train derailed. And since when they lose money, the taxpayers bail them out, they are clearly in support of the status quo. So they formed a lobbying organization and hired a big-name lawyer to lead the charge, paying him over $400,000 for four months of work. Now they are lobbying Congress to water down any sort of regulation of derivatives.

For banks that received taxpayer bailouts to now be spending money lobbying to avoid regulation on the very products that caused them to require bailouts? No way. It is time for Congress, and for the Obama administration to say “Fuck you, Wall Street.” The big banks make billions in profit on unregulated derivatives? Too damn bad. So maybe some traders will only make $2 million per year instead of $10 million. Tough shit. The Treasury Department-Wall Street axis of greed has to stop, and it has to stop now. President Obama, it’s time you step up to the plate on this.

Added bonus links: 1) Paul Krugman on how Reagan-era decisions on deregulation set the stage for financial catastrophe; and 2) a hilarious piece on Harvard Business School students taking a pledge to serve “the greater good” instead of their “narrow ambitions.” The money paragraph is the last one, with a quote about principles from a woman who is taking a job at Goldman Sachs, one of the leaders of the lobbying effort excoriated above. Oh, HBSers, it’s such a shame that you don’t understand irony.

Is Sub-prime the New Dot-com?

I recently came across an article that I wrote in 2001, right after the dot-com bubble had burst in the San Francisco area, and I was struck by how similar the themes were to articles that are being written now in the wake of the mortgage meltdown. In fact, replace “dot-com” with “sub-prime” and I could nearly publish the article as is. But I would never be so lazy with Thoughtbasket, so instead I’m going to point out some parallels between then and now. I would like to do this in table format, but my friends at WordPress haven’t added that technology yet, so I’m going to use paragraphs (very Gutenberg, I know (no, not Guttenberg)) instead.

The first, and most obvious, parallel is that of income and spending. During the dot-com boom folks in the Bay Area were making tons of money, and spending it freely. Salaries were high, and nobody bothered saving because their options were all going to be worth zillions. Every fancy restaurant in SF was packed, and there were waiting lists at the BMW and Mercedes dealerships. Audi too, but that’s an SF thing. This is remarkably similar to the mortgage and hedge fund frenzy of the past few years, including my paradigmatic example of the Cristal-swilling mortgage-writing meathead.

A second, and much less obvious, parallel is that both bubbles had specious intellectual theories trying to justify what were obviously market failures. The dot-com’s sham theory was the “new economy,” in which economic cycles were banished, cast into the dustbin of history by the ever-increasing productivity that computer technology would drive forevermore. As the recession of 2002 clearly demonstrated, the new economy was a fairy tale. The mortgage meltdown was fueled by the theory that financial firms could, using mathematical models, split up and quantify the risks in a basket of securities and then sell off the pieces to parties who had corresponding risk appetites, as calculated by their own mathematical models. As the recession of now is clearly demonstrating, the efficient market for risk is a fairy tale. Sound familiar?

The last parallel is the aftermath of the bubbles, the hangovers resulting from what were really drunken bacchanalia of faux-mastery of the universe, with the lucky few guzzling goblets of their own press and in their dizzy haze thinking themselves geniuses. Ex post partyo, of course, there is a period of regret and soul-searching (“I’m never going to drink again”), as people are humbled and their bank accounts flushed, and they try to make sense of their sudden fall from grace. In the case of the dot-com, this period lasted a few years. For a while, VCs lived by their stumbling home mantra (“I’ll never again invest in a company without a business model”), until they saw Twitter. Wall Street remains chastened, still debating whether it should stay in bed or go out for a greasy breakfast, but how long will that last? Wall Street spinmeisters are already pumping out stories about how they have to pay fat bonuses to retain good people. My prediction: by the fall of this year, we’ll see Wall Street reaching again for their beloved goblet.

Greed: It’s Not Just For Wall Street

After my last post, full of invective against greed by Wall Street bankers and corporate chiefs, it’s only fair that I mention that we are all guilty of some greed. When President Obama said in his inaugural address that the current financial crisis is a result of “our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age,” he wasn’t just talking about Wall Street. “Collective” means all of us, and we all share some blame. Or if not actually “all,” at least most of us.

Most of us were on a consumption binge of one sort or another. Some were buying things they didn’t need, others were buying things they couldn’t afford. The most obvious, and painful, example, is in the housing market. Folks bought more house than they could afford, and often more than they needed, seduced by low teaser rates, or by the chance to get a big win by selling it later. Others bought houses purely as investments, planning to flip them, only to be squeezed by rising mortgage payments and falling housing prices. Some refinanced with foolish mortgages, so they could “take money out of the house” and use the tax-subsidized proceeds to buy consumer products.

But it wasn’t just houses. We bought giant flat screen TVs, charging them to our credit cards. We drove around in monstrous Ford Excursions (financed by the geniuses on Wall Street), burning a gallon of gas every 15 miles. We drank bottled water instead of tap, we carried Coach purses, we stayed at 4 Seasons hotels when our income was purely Hamptons Inn.

While the Wall Street big shots may have taken huge bonuses with our tax dollars, they weren’t the only ones looking for the big score. We all wanted some goodies, whatever our income level. Those days are over. The goodies are nice, if they haven’t been repossessed, but we can’t afford them anymore. We couldn’t afford them then, which is the whole point. The days of living beyond our means are over. That doesn’t mean we’re going to be in yurts, heated only by burning cow manure. It just means that maybe we don’t need to have the biggest and newest, all the time.

Obama: Greed is “Shameful”

This is the second in a series of posts about the need for Americans to step up and be more responsible. We all knew this need was coming – it has been a theme running through many of my posts – but when President Obama called it out during his inaugural address, I decided to address it more directly. My first entry in this series was about NIMBY attitudes preventing environmental projects from moving forward. Today’s entry is about greed, particularly among corporate executives and Wall Street bankers.

When Obama said during his inauguration that “what is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition on the part of every American that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world,” my guess is that he meant businesspeople too. And yet just three days after the inauguration, the Wall Street Journal ran an article about companies using dicey calculations to boost the value of pension payments they are making to senior executives. I won’t get into the mathematical details, but the basic story is that instead of using IRS rates to discount the value of future pension payments, companies are using their own rates, to generate a higher payment.

For example, one of the executives profiled, John Hammergren of McKesson, is due to receive $84.6 million, rather than the $66.4 million he would be paid using the IRS rate. This man made $38 million in 2008, $25 million in 2007 and over $10 million per year for the last several years. And on top of all this money he gets paid, he is due a pension payment of $66 million. But that isn’t enough…he seems to need even more money, so he monkeys with the numbers to boost that pension by another $20 million.

Merrill Lynch is a steady source of greed. First you have John Thain (am I the only one who thinks he’s a dead ringer for Mitt Romney?)

romn

spending $1 million to redecorate his office. His excuse: the redecoration was done during better times. Dude, if you’re spending $1 million of shareholder money on office decorations, you are being greedy, no matter how well your company is doing. Then there is Thomas Montag, who Thain recruited to Merrill from Goldman Sachs with a guaranteed pay package of $39 million for 2008. Mr. Montag’s debt unit lost $16 billion in Q4 of 2008. Because of those losses, taxpayers have had to invest over $20 billion in Bank of America to support its acquisition of Merrill, and agree to share losses on $118 billion in assets. But has Montag (who, let’s not forget, after 20 years at Goldman is already rich) offered to take less of his bonus? No way. Why? Because he is greedy.

Of course, the ultimate symbol of greed was the recent news that Wall Street bankers paid themselves $18 billion in bonuses while taxpayers bailed out all their companies. It was this act of greed that President Obama called “shameful.” And he was right. For bankers to insist on getting their multi-million dollar performance bonuses, when their companies clearly had not performed, and were taking taxpayer money to survive, is the apex of greed. Companies claimed that they had to pay bonuses to retain employees. Where were those employees going to go? Bear Stearns? Lehman? I don’t think so.

Look, I understand people wanting to make money. I understand the desire to be rich. But rich people grubbing for the last dollar…I have to ask: have you no sense of decency? Responsibility and duty – to the nation, to our neighbors – means sometimes leaving a little money on the table. If we are to “begin again the work of remaking America,” as President Obama encourages us to do, reducing greed is a good place to start. How can we expect to solve problems like Social Security, health care, or global warming if everyone is grabbing as much money as they can? Whether the sacrifice is flying commercial instead of private, or buying a 30″ flat screen instead of 50″, if we are going to build America back up we must all change our attitude from “I want it all now” to “I’d like most of it, but I’m willing to share.” Let’s show a little restraint and try to come together to solve some really difficult challenges.

J.S. Mill and Financial Regulation

I was recently on vacation, which gave me a chance to reread John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty. This is a classic of the individual liberty movement, and I thought this might be an apt time to revisit it, what with the government nationalizing some financial institutions and making major investments in others, and almost certainly about to heavily reregulate the financial markets.

My expectation was that Mill would provide ammunition for those arguing against government involvement, but I was wrong. In fact, Mill clearly supports a government that is active in many affairs of its citizens, as long as there are definite and specific limits to that activity. As Mill says, “the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct toward the rest.” (p 70, all quotes from the Norton edition)

But let me take a step back. The money quote that summarizes all of On Liberty is this: “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” (p. 10) Mill’s basic position is that people should be allowed to do and say as they please, as long as they don’t harm anybody else. If left at this, Mill could easily be read to support a fully Libertarian position.

But Mill doesn’t leave it at that. Instead, he teases out a pretty broad definition of “harm,” and thereby a broad set of circumstances under which government can interfere in individual affairs. Continuing the quote from above, Mill notes “this conduct consists, first, in not injuring the interests of one another.” (p. 70) This sentence alone seems to support regulation of Wall Street, since virtually every trade has a counterparty whose interests are affected. Mill goes even further, claiming that the state can compel certain behavior from individuals: “to bear his fair share in the common defence, or in any other joint work necessary to the interest of the society of which he enjoys the protection.” (p. 12)

For Mill, the default position is to give people freedom, but he recognizes that a civil society involves so many interactions that the default may be infrequent, and thus there is significant warrant for government action. So while there are plenty of reasons to disagree with government policy on the financial bailout, John Stuart Mill is not one of them.

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

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.

Republican Tax Policy

Republican tax policy is so big a target it’s almost hard to know where to begin. But I’ll start with the most basic fact: Republic policy is to cut taxes. In general, Republicans will always push for lower taxes. Income taxes? Lower. Capital gains? Lower. Corporate taxes? Lower. Got yourself a financial crisis? Lower taxes will solve your problem!

The Republican quest for lower taxes is driven by three major impulses, one philosophical, one economic, and one greedy. I’ll discuss each impulse in turn.

The philosophical impulse is, broadly speaking, that the government shouldn’t take what you earn. As the current GOP platform puts it, not only should you “keep more of what you earn,” but “government should tax only to raise money for its essential functions.” But this too has multiple components. Saying “essential functions” relates to the Republican emphasis on small government. I already dealt with that ridiculous canard here, so I shall discuss it no further.

But keeping more of what you earn, to Republicans that’s just part of liberty and freedom, Mom and apple pie. As the Club for Growth puts it, they believe that “opportunity come(s) through economic freedom.” I get that; part of the American foundational myth is freedom from the heavy hand of government – no taxation without representation and all that. But notice that the famous phrase does NOT say “no taxation,” it just demands fair representation. In fact, Section 2 of the Constitution, the fifth paragraph in the entire document, condones taxation. The Founders didn’t equate freedom with reduced taxation.

The pairing of freedom and low taxes is merely a Republican shibboleth, one that we are all supposed to believe because they have repeated it so often. Yet why must society accept their definition of freedom? After all, cannot freedom also mean living in a safe, just and ordered society? That society requires government, and government requires taxes. Or, as Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “taxes are the price of civilization.”

The second Republican impulse to lower taxes is economic. The theory is that lowering taxes stimulates growth.  Again, from the GOP platform: “Republicans lowered taxes in 2001 and 2003 in order to encourage economic growth.” Yes, under standard Keynesian economics, a tax cut will put more money into the economy and thereby stimulate consumption. But the Republican view is based more on the theory that tax cuts fuel productive investment. That theory is based primarily on the Laffer Curve. Dr. Laffer himself: “The higher tax rates are, the greater will be the economic (supply-side) impact of a given percentage reduction in tax rates.”

Famous for being sketched on a cocktail napkin in a Washington DC restaurant, the Laffer Curve states that at 100% taxation the government will make no money, since all activity will cease. Sure, and when the sun explodes, all activity will also cease. Duh. But that doesn’t mean that lowering taxes inevitably leads to more activity, which is how Republican supply-siders generally interpret Laffer. Simple common sense rejects that implication of Laffer; does anyone really believe that investor X or entrepreneur Y will refuse to build a company because their gains will be taxed at 60% instead of 30%? That’s ridiculous. And all empirical studies agree. No study supports Laffer effects at any tax rate below 90%.

Here are just a few links to various studies and summaries:

But Harvard economist Jeff Frankel put it best: “The Laffer Proposition, while theoretically possible under certain conditions, does not apply to US income tax rates:  a cut in those rates reduces revenue, precisely as common sense would indicate.”

Bottom line: this Republican concept that lowering tax rates will unleash torrents of investment and innovation is rubbish. It defies common sense, and every academic study proves it to be wrong.

The third and last Republican impulse driving taxes lower is pure greed. Quite simply, they want to keep more of the money they make. And again, I understand that; nobody really likes giving money away, especially to a government that may spend your money on things you don’t support.  But the Republicans driving this policy aren’t exactly Joe Sixpack, working class stiffs hoping to keep more of their hourly wages. Instead, they are folks like Stephen Moore and Grover Norquist, white middle-class intellectuals who have never had to worry about money or needed the support that tax dollars provide to the less fortunate. Or, even more pointedly, they are Wall Street titans like Henry Kravis and Steve Schwarzman, of KKR and Blackstone Group, who are worth billions and really don’t need the extra money. An article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal noted that these and other Wall Street bigwigs were finally supporting McCain because “ ‘Reality set in,’ one fund-raiser said. ‘Donors realized they could face an Obama administration next month.’ They are petrified they will face steep increases in personal and corporate tax rates, this person said.” Schwarzman took home over $700 million when Blackstone went public. Does he really need a lower tax rate on his future income?

$25 Billion in Car Company Loans

Lost in all the press over the $700 billion bailout and the ongoing financial crisis, we all managed to lose track of the little matter of $25 billion in low-cost loans that the government is making to the big three auto companies. These loans are ostensibly to help retool old factories so that they can manufacture new fuel efficient cars.

This is, to put it mildly, offensive. In fact, I have a big long post that I am working on, one that ties Detroit to Washington DC, and that discusses the metaphysical phenomenon of current actions sowing the seeds of one’s eventual destruction. But that post isn’t finished, so in the meantime, I would just like to point out that the need for fuel efficient cars didn’t come on suddenly, like the financial crisis. And while prescient commentators over the last few years were pointing at a financial meltdown, the growing market for fuel efficient cars has been obvious to everyone for decades. After all, that’s how Toyota became bigger than Ford: by selling small cars.

Detroit reminds me of this guy: