Category Archives: Economics

Battle of the Green Eyeshades

Winston-Salem is home to one large bank, BB&T.  We used to be home to Wachovia but then they went and "merged" with First Union and moved HQ to Charlotte, so we here in Winston have just one major bank that we call our own.  Thus it was with a little bit of hometown pride that I read in today’s paper that the bank’s head honcho sent a letter to the Congress critters detailing why he thinks the bailout stinks.

For John Allison, the high-risk rollers on Wall Street are getting
too much of the ear of Congress and having too much say in resolving
the financial nightmare that they created.

That’s why Allison, the chairman and chief executive of BB&T
Corp., submitted a 14-point letter Tuesday to all 535 members of
Congress with a simple message regarding the proposed $700 billion
bailout.

"There is no panic on Main Street and in sound financial
institutions," he wrote. "The problems are in high-risk financial
institutions and on Wall Street."

He said that it is important that "Congress hear from the well-run
financial institutions, as most of the concerns have been focused on
the problem companies. It is extremely important that the bailout not
damage well-run companies." Allison’s opinion is seconded by local
community-bank officials and community-bank trade groups.

"Community bankers did not create this financial crisis, but our
banks and communities are clearly feeling the impact," the Independent
Community Bankers of America said in a statement. "As the fundamental
drivers of local economies — we could be in a strong position to help
resolve this crisis."

Go get ’em Mr. Allison.

More Wolves

Fec quotes someone who, like me, doesn’t trust the government’s bailout.  I think he does a better job explaining why:

Hat tip to my excellent commenter, RBM.  From the comments at Sic Semper Tyrannis:

The DK writer who claims to know financial markets says there are
estimates of $400 billion in outstanding private offers for these
securities, but the institutions just don’t feel inclined to sell at a
loss right now, thank you very much. If that is true, the Paulson
scheme is just a scam, a pure and simple scam.

Again, we see the perverse incentives created by this completely
unregulated securities market regime. The paper is held by large
corporations that do not want to take a loss. So they use their crony
capitalist buddies in Washington to scare the public into a premature
bail out, before any bankruptcy, before anyone has to deal with any
losses. Nice work if you can get it.

And from what I read, the miserable incompetent and crook, Paulson
does not even feel inclined to discuss reforms right now (dire
sitation, don’t you know). Therefore, as best I can tell, the very
flawed and perversely functioning (IMH economist’s opinion, very
inefficient!) unregulated mortgage securities financiing system will
continue. Forget about whether this will happen again five years down
the road, how do we know this flawed system will not malfunction again
as the real asset values (housing prices) continue to fall towards a
realistic long run equilibrium. It is crazy, crooked and dangerous.
Unless rich crony welfare is the only objective.

I’m telling you, this thing stinks to high heaven.

Wolves Guarding the Hen House

One of the axioms from business that I adhere to most fervently is that when someone tells me I need to buy NOW or face ruinous price hikes I should actually do the reverse and take a deep breath and consider very carefully the deal I’m considering.  That’s exactly what we need our Congress to do now in the face of the Bush administration’s call to push through a massive bailout package for the financial sector NOW.

Here’s why I think we need to take a deep breath and think before we act:

  • Most of the press has focused on this being Treasury Secretary Paulson’s initiative, with nary a mention of President Bush.  There’s lots of speculation that it’s because the President is a lame duck at this point, but personally I think it’s because they don’t want this thing to be associated with the Bush administration, an administration that no one trusts.  Well, Paulson is a Bush appointee and he’s most definitely a part of the administration which means that his actions must be scrutinized very carefully.  Even if his actions are well intentioned (I personally think they are), he is a crony and product of the industry he is asking us, the American taxpayers, to trust him to rescue with our future tax dollars.  I say future tax dollars because this isn’t money we currently have to spend so another part of the rescue package is that we’ll raise our debt ceiling from over $10 trillion to over $11 trillion.  If we’ve learned nothing else I hope that we’ve learned that no one in this administration can be trusted not to let privateers get wealthy in the process of governing our country.  They’ve already done it with the war in Iraq and there’s no reason to think they wouldn’t do it here.
  • A big part of the bailout proposal is that it will empower Paulson, and/or his successor, to contract with private enterprises to manage the assets that the government is going to buy.  According to this article in the New York Times some of the companies lobbying for the job are the very same companies who will be benefiting directly from the proposed buyouts.  Is anyone really surprised?
  • Although I believe that cronyism has gone on in every president’s administration, the Bush bunch has taken it to a whole new level.  While many pundits are quick to point out the Clinton administration’s contributions to this mess, the reality is that we’ve been under the Bush administration for eight years and they’ve been at the helm plenty long enough to bear the brunt of the responsibility for this mess.  Heck, Bush even had a Republican Congress and an incredibly high approval rating the first couple of years.  Unfortunately the Bushies spent the last five years doing everything they can to undermine the public trust, so now when the economic stakes are greater than they’ve been in over two generations and they need the public trust more than ever, they don’t have a chance in hell of getting it.  And rightly so.  Of course Congress hasn’t done much better, so in general I think we need to do whatever is necessary to hold all of these a-holes accountable and make sure they do the right thing.
  • What is the right thing?  I have yet to read or hear anything that clearly outlines the worst case scenario if we don’t do the bailout, versus the worst case scenario if we do pass the bailout. One number I’ve heard is that the bailout will directly cost every man, woman and child in the U.S. over $3,000.  What would the cost be of letting these companies fail?  And why not let them fail and let the competitive, free market establish a replacement?  I don’t think this is a silly question, especially given the fact that AIG’s major shareholders are now looking for a way to not take the government’s proposed $85 billion loan since it will essentially wipe out their holdings. Is it realistic to assume that some other parts of the financial services market might suddenly be motivated to get their own house in order if the alternative is losing everything when the government swoops in to take over?

    Given all these questions it’s kind of hard for us Regular Joe’s to figure out what we think our
    leaders should do, and considering that we have their jobs in our hands
    in less than two months I’d think they’d want to clearly explain to us
    why they’re doing what they’re doing.

  • Oh wait, that last point is so naive of me. They don’t want us to know because either they don’t think we’re capable of understanding, or they don’t want us to figure out how inept they’ve been, or both.

I know this stuff can be kind of boring to most of us, but it’s hard to overstate how important this particular issue is.  It’s absurd that no one is effectively framing the issue for us, the people who ultimately are going to pay the bill.  Will someone please step up and tell us what the hell is going on?

Loving Analogies

I love analogies, especially when it comes to understanding complex things that I just don’t get.  Yesterday I had the pleasure of sitting in on a presentation given by James Anderson, the President of SVB Analytics.  He was giving a presentation on the US economy to a group of fairly senior business executives and he really did give an engaging, at times humorous, and very informative presentation.  Here are two take aways that I enjoyed particular, and please note that I’m paraphrasing him.

America’s role in the world economy: Think of the world economy as a reality show set on an island with five players on a team. One player is tasked with building shelter, another with hunting food, another with starting a fire and the third with providing drinking water.  Those four are countries like China and India.  America is the fifth player and its job is to eat, and it has done its job very well but now the other members are ready to vote it off the island.

Credit default swaps: Think of the market as a $1 million Texas Hold ‘Em game being held in a Vegas casino with a room full of spectators.  All of the spectators start placing side bets on which player will win, and eventually the amount of money in the side betting is $70 million vs. the $1 million that’s at stake in the actual game.  Credit default swaps are the side bets.  Now compare this description to the definition of credit default swaps on Wikipedia:

A credit default swap (CDS) is a credit derivative contract between two counterparties, whereby the "buyer" or "fixed rate payer" pays periodic payments to the "seller" or "floating rate payer" in exchange for the right to a payoff if there is a default[1] or "credit event" in respect of a third party or "reference entity".

If a credit event occurs, the typical contract either settles by delivery by the buyer to the seller of a (usually defaulted) debt obligation of the reference entity against a payment by the seller of the par value ("physical settlement") or the seller pays the buyer the difference between the par value and the market price of a specified debt obligation, typically determined in an auction ("cash settlement").

A credit default swap resembles an insurance policy, as it can be used by a debt holder to hedge, or insure against a default under the debt instrument. However, because there is no requirement to actually hold any asset or suffer a loss, a credit default swap can also be used for speculative purposes and is not generally considered insurance for regulatory purposes.

See what I mean?

Lenders, Meet the Law of Unintended Consequences

Remember when the banks were so hot to trot on toughening the bankruptcy laws?  This BusinessWeek article looks at why they might now be regretting those tougher rules.

The latest lesson for lenders from the housing crisis: Be careful what
you wish for. Banks and other financial outfits spent eight years and
$40 million lobbying for sweeping new bankruptcy rules that would limit
their losses from deadbeat debtors. But it turns out those changes,
enacted in 2005, are forcing more troubled borrowers to walk away from
their homes—even those who didn’t take on risky mortgages in the first
place. And that’s bad news for lenders, which suffer financially every
time they have to take a troubled property on their books.

Before the new rules kicked in, many consumers could find debt
relief—and keep their homes—by filing for bankruptcy protection. Now
the process is much more onerous and expensive and the benefits more
limited, making foreclosure seem appealing by comparison. A July paper
by David Bernstein, a researcher at the U.S. Treasury, found that
800,000 fewer homeowners have filed for bankruptcy since the rules
kicked in. A quarter of those people, says the report, have likely had
to give up their homes as a result—boosting foreclosures nationwide at
least 4%. "[The rules] are directly responsible for the rising
foreclosure rate," notes another report by investment bank Credit
Suisse (CSR). Counters Philip Corwin, counsel at the trade group American Bankers Assn.: "These studies don’t stand up to scrutiny."

The article doesn’t make clear how the studies might not stand up to scrutiny, so I don’t know if the ABA shill offered any details of their scrutiny, but I tend to believe that the tougher qualifications for bankruptcy had to increase the rate of foreclosures over what they would have been had the laws remained the same.  I don’t believe for a second that the tougher standards are solely responsible for the increase in foreclosures, but they certainly contributed.

And the Hits Just Keep Coming

Reynolds American is laying off 570 people and proving that its executives can mumbly-speak with the best of them:

“As we invest in growth to expand the business base of our operating
companies to innovative new tobacco products, we continually review our
plans to support that strategy and to strengthen performance in a
changing marketplace,” said Susan M. Ivey, RAI’s chairman, president
and chief executive officer."

and

“Continued success demands that we fully align our plans, programs and
people behind the things that matter most to our future performance,”
said Daniel M. Delen, chairman, president and chief executive officer
of R.J. Reynolds. “The steps we are taking support R.J. Reynolds’
ongoing evolution to a ‘total tobacco’ business model that includes
both cigarettes and innovative smokeless tobacco products."

I don’t know squat about what’s going on day-to-day in Reynolds, and maybe they absolutely have no choice but to cut jobs, but for once I’d like to hear an American executive say that they realize that 570 of their people, the people who helped put them in their big house and nice car, are now scrambling to find a way to pay the bills, and it is at least in some part due to the executives’ job performance that these people are being put on street.

What really disturbs me about this is that I don’t get the sense that this is a "survival" move by Reynolds, but more a "we need to keep our profits up to satisfy shareholders" move.  I mean this is a company that reported the following net income over the last four years:

  • 2004 – $688 million
  • 2005 – $1.04 billion
  • 2006 – $1.21 billion
  • 2007 – $1.31 billion

Reynolds is no different than almost every other public company out there.  The number one priority is doing whatever it takes to please the shareholders, and executives are compensated based on how well they do that.  Still, it would be nice to see at least one Fortune 500 company put its people first and take a short term financial hit in an effort to build long term health for the company and its people.  And if that’s not possible then it would be really refreshing to see an executive take a personal hit in acknowledgment of the fact that they are directly responsible for some of their people losing their livelihoods. 

When is the last time you heard of an executive of a public company taking a pay cut in order to help save jobs?  I sure hope someone can give me an example that I just haven’t heard of, but in my mind I’m thinking of the execs at Citi and Merrill Lynch who steered their companies from incredible profitability to massive losses and parachuted out with severance packages that Midas would envy.  I’m also thinking about Delphi’s executives feathering their nest while also saying that they could save the employees’ pension plan if the union members would agree to working for about a third of their old pay. I could go on, but then this post would be interminably long.

I love business and I love free markets, but I also think that just because markets are free doesn’t mean that businesses and the people who run them are relieved of a moral obligation to their people and communities.  The standard line from executives during layoffs is that their job is to look out for the best interest of the company, and by extension its stakeholders.  While layoffs might be bad news for some it is better news for everyone else because the company will prosper and take better care of the majority.  My response is that in cases where the company is about to go belly up and you have to drop 50 in order to save 100, then maybe so.  But when a company is profitable and the only gain in dumping the employees is becoming more profitable, well then that is simply immoral.  It shows a lack of leadership, a lack of ability to find a way to help employees adjust to the new strategic direction, an inclination to take the easy road.  In short it shows executives to be short-sighted, self interested yellow bellies.

I can only hope that when the executives who make these decisions sit down to dinner with their families,  they will think about those people whose sweat helped put that dinner in front of them and who now face a struggle to put their own dinner on the table.  And if they do think about that then maybe they’ll think about foregoing a raise or a performance bonus, or maybe they will redirect that money to a program that will help place those lost employees with another company.

I’m not holding my breath.

If Mortgages Were Wine

Here’s the first sentence from a Wall Street Journal article on the seemingly never-ending mortgage meltdown:

Mortgages issued in the first part of 2007 are going bad at a pace that far outstrips the 2006 vintage, suggesting that the blow to the financial system from U.S. housing woes will be deeper than many people earlier estimated.

To paraphrase The Godfather: Just when we think we’re out they pull us right back in.

If you’re sitting on some cash you should be seeing some once-in-a-lifetime real estate deals in the next couple of years.

Guaranty This

Now is not the time to be in the guaranty business, especially here in the NC Piedmont.  First, Triad Guaranty said they were throwing in the towel and more recently posted a nasty loss for the second quarter, and now AIG’s underwriter United Guaranty has declared a $564 million underwriting loss for the 2nd quarter of this year.  United also said that 4.9% of policies were over 60 days past due.

Oy.

links for 2008-07-23

Not a Good Time to Be in the Restaurant Biz

Two weeks ago I posted a rumor I’d heard about South by Southwest, closing its doors (I had a VERY reliable source) and that post was picked up by Smitty who confirmed that the restaurant had indeed closed.  Today I read in a post by Laura Giovanelli on the Journal’s food blog that in addition to South by Southwest the Cotton Mill had also shut down. I never made it to the Cotton Mill, but based on Laura’s opinion of it I’m truly sorry I missed it.

The restaurant business is brutal any time, but during tough economic times restaurants, particularly higher end restaurants, struggle even more. When money is tight the first place most people will cut their expenditures is eating out, and when you have the combination of higher food prices and higher gas prices like we have now a restaurateur has to work very hard to get people through the door.  As Laura says in her post:

Sometimes, I try to brush off all the economic gloom and doom. Maybe
I’ve listening to too much NPR, I’ll think. But it’s been obvious for
months now that local restaurants are struggling, particularly the
higher end ones, the ones with white tablecloths and the like.

I’m fairly certain we’re going to see quite a few more "white tablecloth" restaurants close their doors in the next year or two.  Of course others will eventually replace them, but that doesn’t help the many owners who have worked so hard to build their businesses and develop a loyal fan base.  From a selfish point of view it also doesn’t help the customers who lose their favorite dishes, or the places that house so many cherished memories like anniversary dinners, graduation celebrations, etc.

To end on a positive note I recommend that you check out the Journal’s food blog Dishing it Out.   It’s coauthored by Michael Hastings and Laura and they do a great job of keeping it fresh. Personally I think it’s the paper’s best blog now (sorry Ken).