There are three ways to get out of a debt crisis. First, you can work off the debt, but this takes a long time. An impatient public and an impatient government will not have the stomach the wait that would be necessary for individuals, families, and businesses to get their balance sheets in order so that a recovery can get started.
The second method is to inflate or reflate yourself out of the nominal debt burden you have created. The Federal Reserve is doing its best to create an inflationary environment so that the real value of the debt will be reduced and individuals, families, and businesses will feel comfortable enough to begin borrowing and spending once again.
The third way to reduce the burden of your debt is to repudiate the debt. That is, declare that you will not pay the debt and that those that issued the credit to you will have to take only a partial payment on the amount of funds that they advanced to you. The partial payment, of course, can be zero.
The latter two methods have an “honorable” history that goes back centuries. (Read almost anything by Niall Ferguson.) Usually, it is the government that can get away with either or both of these efforts, but in the 20th century, the private sector got much better in following the lead established by governments, especially repudiating the debt. Individuals, families, and businesses learned the ropes of debt repudiation and are now taking this knowledge to new extremes.
The case that is before everyone’s eyes these days is that of the automobile industry. Both General Motors and Chrysler argue that bondholders must take a huge cut in the amount of money they are owed by these companies so that the companies can survive and thousands and thousands of jobs can be saved. The bondholders, remarkably, have some reluctance to consent to this offer. As of this date, the aimed for restructuring of these two companies depend upon what is worked out between the companies and the bondholders.
Best guess is that the bondholders will lose. And, who will own the auto companies? Not the existing shareholders. The figure I have heard for General Motors is that existing shareholders will end up with about 1% of the ownership of the company after the restructuring takes place. And, not the existing bondholders. The biggest shareholders? The federal government and the labor unions.
The important thing, however, is that the debt problem being experienced by these automobile companies will be resolved. That is, the companies can move forward, leaner and meaner, without the terrible burden of having to honor the debts they had contracted for.
Furthermore, this is what has been proposed for the banking industry. In the plan to sell off bad assets, aren’t the banks being asked to repudiate a large portion of the debt they have on their balance sheets? The assets will be sold to investors and private equity firms to “manage” and this will get the banks out from under the burden of the “toxic assets” they have accumulated.
And, who will bear the risk of this buyout? The federal government, with the real possibility that it may, depending upon the way things work out, end up owning large portions of some of the larger banks. (An important critique of this program is presented by the economist Joseph Stiglitz in “Obama’s Ersatz Capitalism,” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/opinion/01stiglitz.html?scp=8&sq=jospeh%20stiglitz&st=cse.)
Might this plan work? Well, the people that the federal government wanted to get interested in the plan seemingly smell blood. We read this morning that Wilbur Ross and his firm’s parent company, Invesco, are leading a consortium that is going to bid on some of the assets in the government’s P-PIP. He is joining some other prominent money, like BlackRock, Pimco and Bank of New York Mellon, interested in getting involved in the program.
Do these people think that they might make some money out of this program? Do they believe that the risk-reward tradeoff is skewed in their direction? Damn betcha’.
Here is another case of “watch where the big money players put their money.” My guess for the future is that the evolving banking system is going to be somehow connected with the hedge funds and the private equity funds and will not have the same old “bank on the corner” feel to it that we experience now. And, somehow, this new banking system will be even harder to regulate than the current one. Otherwise, this money will not flow there. (Something to think about for the future.)
With these funds flowing into the P-PIP, one of the things the federal government is going to have to face is the huge profits that these companies will make out of the program. On the one hand, if P-PIP is successful in this way and these funds make huge profits, the banks will be freed up of their “toxic assets” and the tax payer will not be burdened with more taxes. On the other hand, the federal government will have to explain how it catered to all these “Wall Street Interests” and left the poor Main Streeter in his or her poverty.
The essence of the plan, getting back to the story here, is that the banks will have to take the “haircut”, the write down on the value of their assets. This is just another way of repudiating the debt, with the federal government standing behind the banks. Is it fair? Of course not!
A fund that made the wrong bet was Cerberus Capital Management. In a real sense, it hoped to do with Chrysler Corp. what Invesco, BlackRock, Pimco, and others, are hoping to do with the bank assets. It just got in too early when Chrysler was not in bad enough shape for the federal government to attach a “put” to the investment Cerberus made in the company. Too bad for Cerberus.
But, what about all the other debt out there? Mortgages on homes, debt on commercial real estate, consumer credit and credit cards, and small business loans? Why shouldn’t the people that accumulated all this debt get some relief as well? This is, of course, the big question and the big issue in terms of fairness. The basic answer to this is, as usual, size. The banks and the auto companies and others are big, their failures could case systemic problems for the system, and they have expensive lawyers and lobbyists working for them. Is it fair? Of course not!
The fundamental problem that is being faced around the world is a debt problem. There is just too much debt outstanding. And, actually, the amount of debt outstanding in the world is really not shrinking. Especially, as governments increase their debt to cover the debt that has been built up in the private sector. The debt problem is going to be with us for a while and will continue to get in the way, one way or another, of any kind of a robust recovery. How we get through it is going to set the stage for the type of world we have to deal with in the future.
Showing posts with label Chrysler. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chrysler. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
A Lesson from AIG for the Bank Bailout Plan
One of the reasons given for the awarding of bonuses at AIG was the need to keep people around that had “expertise.” That is, if we lose the “experts” we are really in trouble!
This, to me, is one of the greatest fallacies in the corporate world.
It is a fallacy for two very important reasons. The first fallacy is that people are irreplaceable. The second fallacy is that the people that performed badly in the past can get you out of the mess they got you into.
In my experience, no one is irreplaceable and the minute that you begin to believe that either you or the people in charge are irreplaceable you are setting yourself up for big problems. We do not need Rick Wagoner of General Motors nor do we need Vikram Pandit of Citigroup. They are not indispensable in any recovery or turnaround of the companies that they are a part of. Neither are the traders, or the quants, or other executives that got these companies where they are.
We are sold a “bill of goods” about how important these people are to the organization, yet it is remarkably surprising that when they are gone things don’t fall apart. In most cases the situation improves and the company performs at a higher level. It just seems as if in a complex and difficult situation that putting “someone new” in authority is the more dangerous path.
Time-after-time we see that replacing these people is not dangerous. In fact, it turns out to be the best thing that could happen.
Obviously, the incumbents want you to believe that they are indispensable. They will do everything that they need to do to convince you of their importance to future success. And, this includes groveling to the government to assure that they will be kept in place when and if the government bails out their organization or takes it over. Rick Wagoner is sure acting different these days when he is desperate to retain his position at General Motors that he did when he arrogantly arrived in Washington, D. C. on his first trip to the “big” city to appear at Congressional hearings.
Let me add here, however, that this is one of the worst things that the government does when it bails out a company. Because government doesn’t know any better, it often buys into the argument that the current leadership should stay on after the bailout because it has the experience and knows the company better than anyone else does. Government assistance tends to entrench existing management. After all, since the government has worked with this management team to create the bailout in which they are now companions rather than adversaries. That is, they are in bed together.
This is a good reason why government needs to let the shareholders or the bankruptcy courts handle most of these situations. If a management change is needed, there needs to be a practiced means of proceeding toward an orderly transition of power rather than have government insert its heavy hand into the process. Even if government appoints new executive leadership, the choice is usually a person who is an “expert” with “experience” in that firm, which, again, limits the possibilities that the firm will move ahead into the future rather than stay mired in the past.
My experience with the second fallacy also leads me to believe that the “experienced” people should be removed. During the savings and loan crisis, I don’t know how many times I heard the executives of failing thrift institutions seeking money in an IPO tell potential investors, “Yes, we were the ones that managed the organization that brought it to the edge of failure, but, we have learned from this experience! You should give us $100 million in our IPO.”
What have these executives learned?
They have learned how to fail, that’s what they have learned!
There was an interesting article in the business section of the Sunday New York Times which discussed investing in start up companies. I remember myself, because I have worked in that space, that one of the old “truths” of investing in young entrepreneurs is that you should look at people who have failed in earlier business attempts and it even was a “badge of honor” to have failed many times. Recent research does not support this conclusion. On average, those that have failed starting businesses tend to continue to fail. This attitude relating to failure was advice given to venture capitalists or angel investors that are looking desperately to place money. The situation arose during “booms” when there was too much money chasing too few deals. Nothing replaces the success of an entrepreneur as a guide to potential future success.
Still one has to be careful here. Two cases come to mind. First, Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his book “Fooled by Randomness” discusses traders that succeed fantastically because they are in the right spot at the right time. Through no skill of their own do they achieve success, and, because they now think that they are geniuses, go on and lose most if not all of what they gained in their one success. Obviously, these people are not geniuses and should not be treated as such. What you want is people that continue to succeed and succeed in ways that are not just lucky successes.
Second, in an “up” market, almost everyone can succeed, sometimes spectacularly. This can happen in overheated housing markets, in firms that are of the dot.com variety, and in growing and running financial institutions. Credit bubbles help. The sad thing about this is that the people that have just benefited from the “bubble” and not from their “skill” are not found out until the “bubble” bursts. Then the true reason for the success of these individuals becomes obvious.
Furthermore, if a chief executive or a management operated in an environment that was “hot” and where increased risk taking and adding additional leverage were the skills needed in order to succeed they are not the chief executive or management to operate within an environment that is “cool” and where reducing risk and de-leveraging are the tools required. Speed racers are not needed on streets where the speed limit is 25 miles per hour.
It should be clear that the people that get you into a mess are not the people you should count on to get you out of the mess. But, again, the government usually does not see this except in cases of fraud or other types of criminal behavior. Therefore, the government will often stick with those people that are experienced in failure.
These comments can be applied to any approach the government takes to resolving issues in the private sector, whether it be in terms of dealing with the toxic assets of financial institutions or bailing out failed managements in the auto industry. The government must be realistic in what it can do. A bank bailout plan that just brings in private investors to relieve institutions of bad debts while leaving bank managements in place is not going to give the financial sector and the economy what it needs.
Yes, something needs to be done about the bad assets banks have on their books. Losses have to be absorbed by the banks and their owners, themselves, or the government must absorb the losses. The insolvent banks, and auto companies, need to be closed or put into bankruptcy. The world needs to move on and the bad decisions of the past must be accounted for. Someone must pay—sometime. Unfortunately, when government gets involved, the solutions to things often only get postponed or delayed. That is not what the financial markets or the economy needs at this time.
And, this includes Cerberus and Chrysler Corp. Cerberus made a wrong deal at the wrong time. They need to move on.
This, to me, is one of the greatest fallacies in the corporate world.
It is a fallacy for two very important reasons. The first fallacy is that people are irreplaceable. The second fallacy is that the people that performed badly in the past can get you out of the mess they got you into.
In my experience, no one is irreplaceable and the minute that you begin to believe that either you or the people in charge are irreplaceable you are setting yourself up for big problems. We do not need Rick Wagoner of General Motors nor do we need Vikram Pandit of Citigroup. They are not indispensable in any recovery or turnaround of the companies that they are a part of. Neither are the traders, or the quants, or other executives that got these companies where they are.
We are sold a “bill of goods” about how important these people are to the organization, yet it is remarkably surprising that when they are gone things don’t fall apart. In most cases the situation improves and the company performs at a higher level. It just seems as if in a complex and difficult situation that putting “someone new” in authority is the more dangerous path.
Time-after-time we see that replacing these people is not dangerous. In fact, it turns out to be the best thing that could happen.
Obviously, the incumbents want you to believe that they are indispensable. They will do everything that they need to do to convince you of their importance to future success. And, this includes groveling to the government to assure that they will be kept in place when and if the government bails out their organization or takes it over. Rick Wagoner is sure acting different these days when he is desperate to retain his position at General Motors that he did when he arrogantly arrived in Washington, D. C. on his first trip to the “big” city to appear at Congressional hearings.
Let me add here, however, that this is one of the worst things that the government does when it bails out a company. Because government doesn’t know any better, it often buys into the argument that the current leadership should stay on after the bailout because it has the experience and knows the company better than anyone else does. Government assistance tends to entrench existing management. After all, since the government has worked with this management team to create the bailout in which they are now companions rather than adversaries. That is, they are in bed together.
This is a good reason why government needs to let the shareholders or the bankruptcy courts handle most of these situations. If a management change is needed, there needs to be a practiced means of proceeding toward an orderly transition of power rather than have government insert its heavy hand into the process. Even if government appoints new executive leadership, the choice is usually a person who is an “expert” with “experience” in that firm, which, again, limits the possibilities that the firm will move ahead into the future rather than stay mired in the past.
My experience with the second fallacy also leads me to believe that the “experienced” people should be removed. During the savings and loan crisis, I don’t know how many times I heard the executives of failing thrift institutions seeking money in an IPO tell potential investors, “Yes, we were the ones that managed the organization that brought it to the edge of failure, but, we have learned from this experience! You should give us $100 million in our IPO.”
What have these executives learned?
They have learned how to fail, that’s what they have learned!
There was an interesting article in the business section of the Sunday New York Times which discussed investing in start up companies. I remember myself, because I have worked in that space, that one of the old “truths” of investing in young entrepreneurs is that you should look at people who have failed in earlier business attempts and it even was a “badge of honor” to have failed many times. Recent research does not support this conclusion. On average, those that have failed starting businesses tend to continue to fail. This attitude relating to failure was advice given to venture capitalists or angel investors that are looking desperately to place money. The situation arose during “booms” when there was too much money chasing too few deals. Nothing replaces the success of an entrepreneur as a guide to potential future success.
Still one has to be careful here. Two cases come to mind. First, Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his book “Fooled by Randomness” discusses traders that succeed fantastically because they are in the right spot at the right time. Through no skill of their own do they achieve success, and, because they now think that they are geniuses, go on and lose most if not all of what they gained in their one success. Obviously, these people are not geniuses and should not be treated as such. What you want is people that continue to succeed and succeed in ways that are not just lucky successes.
Second, in an “up” market, almost everyone can succeed, sometimes spectacularly. This can happen in overheated housing markets, in firms that are of the dot.com variety, and in growing and running financial institutions. Credit bubbles help. The sad thing about this is that the people that have just benefited from the “bubble” and not from their “skill” are not found out until the “bubble” bursts. Then the true reason for the success of these individuals becomes obvious.
Furthermore, if a chief executive or a management operated in an environment that was “hot” and where increased risk taking and adding additional leverage were the skills needed in order to succeed they are not the chief executive or management to operate within an environment that is “cool” and where reducing risk and de-leveraging are the tools required. Speed racers are not needed on streets where the speed limit is 25 miles per hour.
It should be clear that the people that get you into a mess are not the people you should count on to get you out of the mess. But, again, the government usually does not see this except in cases of fraud or other types of criminal behavior. Therefore, the government will often stick with those people that are experienced in failure.
These comments can be applied to any approach the government takes to resolving issues in the private sector, whether it be in terms of dealing with the toxic assets of financial institutions or bailing out failed managements in the auto industry. The government must be realistic in what it can do. A bank bailout plan that just brings in private investors to relieve institutions of bad debts while leaving bank managements in place is not going to give the financial sector and the economy what it needs.
Yes, something needs to be done about the bad assets banks have on their books. Losses have to be absorbed by the banks and their owners, themselves, or the government must absorb the losses. The insolvent banks, and auto companies, need to be closed or put into bankruptcy. The world needs to move on and the bad decisions of the past must be accounted for. Someone must pay—sometime. Unfortunately, when government gets involved, the solutions to things often only get postponed or delayed. That is not what the financial markets or the economy needs at this time.
And, this includes Cerberus and Chrysler Corp. Cerberus made a wrong deal at the wrong time. They need to move on.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
AIG, an example of a bailout!
“If there is a single episode in this entire 18 months that has made me more angry, I can’t think of one other than AIG. AIG exploited a huge gap in the regulatory system.”
These words were spoken by Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in testimony on Tuesday, March 3, 2009 before the Senate Banking Committee. Bernanke expressed further anguish at the behavior of AIG on Sixty Minutes Sunday evening.
Professor, welcome to the real world!
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner echoed some of the same feelings in testimony on the same day before the House Ways and Means Committee when he stated that some areas of AIG were not under “adult supervision.”
Come on, Timmy, I try and stop people from making the same claim about the bank bailout plans of the Treasury Department.
Is the Obama team becoming so defensive about their program that they are beginning to resort to name calling to deflect criticism?
Did AIG exploit a huge gap in the regulatory system? Yes, they did. And that is what people do over and over again in the real world. It is called “responding to incentives.” The world is full of incentives…some positive incentives…some negative incentives…and so on. That is what the study of economics is all about! Give the people in the Obama administration a copy of “Freakonomics”!
I have been in the Federal Reserve System…I have worked for a cabinet Secretary in Washington, D. C….and I have run publically traded financial institutions…and one thing is especially clear…people respond to incentives.
Some of those incentives are to innovate in products and markets. And, what do economists tell potential innovators to look for? Missing markets. Incomplete Markets. Places that are not being served or regulated.
Why do you look in these areas? Well, because that is where a person…or a business…can find a place to achieve a competitive advantage. Being a “first-mover” or a “second-mover” into a market is a way to achieve exceptional returns…at least for a short time period. And, this is plenty of incentive to draw people into the effort.
It is a highly risky effort and a lot of people and businesses fail because it is so risky. But, the incentives are substantial enough that people are continually drawn into the exercise.
A competitive advantage may not last for a very long time. People that find opportunities to arbitrage markets…traders…may find segments in a market place to exploit for a period of time…but, over time competitive advantage does not seem to last for specific trading schemes…see Enron and Long Term Capital Management. In such cases, you need to keep coming up with something new. That is what businesses producing Information Goods do.
One of the games played in the financial services area…and I have experienced this in my professional life beginning in the 1960s…is to find the hole in the regulatory structure. It is a game that the regulators are always behind in. The private sector does something…the regulators close the gap with new regulations…the private sector finds a way around this…and the regulators have to close the gap again. And, the game goes on and on because the incentives are such that it is still worthwhile to the private sector to continue to innovate.
Furthermore, anything the government does sets up incentives. And that is why the Obama “recovery plan” is so important…it changes a lot of the incentives that exist within the economy…for better or for worse. Notice the long, long lines of governors, mayors, and other officials that have gathered with their hands out for funds from the “recovery plan”. I am not going to comment any further on the “recovery plan” at this time other than to just highlight the fact that this plan changes incentives…regardless of how much stimulus it provides.
But, to be an equal-opportunity critic, I must mention that the previous administration created incentives that resulted in the present financial crisis. Maintaining negative real rates of interest for at least 18 months created plenty of incentive to leverage and innovate in financial structures and instruments. This period of innovation has created a massive crisis with respect to asset values. (For more on this see my blog post “AIG and Our Core Economic Issue: Unknown Asset Values” http://seekingalpha.com/article/123867-aig-and-our-core-economic-issue-unknown-asset-values.) In my mind, there is going to have to be a resolution to the asset value problem before any stimulus package is going to have much of an effect on the economy.
Anytime the government attempts to impose its hand on the private sector “things happen.” The government is just not attuned to enter the very complex tangled web of the real world with simplistic plans to “set things straight.” Even within the government public officials have started pointing fingers at each other when events don’t go as desired. Last night I saw Barney Frank interviewed by Rachael Maddow. Frank made it very clear that we got into the AIG mess because “the Fed”, without coming to Congress, gave AIG $85 billion last September and this started off all the mess. And, the reason why this bonus thing and other events have occurred is that “the Fed” without the advice or consultation of Congress gave AIG the $85 billion with “no strings attached”!
Wow! Go figur’ that, will ya!
Now, the Wall Street Journal has the headline this morning…”Obama to Avoid Auto Bankruptcies.” The “experts” in the government, we are told, are going to restructure General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC outside of the bankruptcy courts. This, we are expected to believe, will give the taxpayers a better and more protected solution than will a court solution. We wait the conclusion…
The real world is tough. People don’t always do what you want them to do. Incentives matter. We must be careful about the incentives we are creating for the future, for one other fact from the field of economics is very clear: sometimes it takes a long time for the full effect of incentives to work their way through an economy. As a consequence, we can often lose sight of the cause of a problem because the incentives that created the problem are embedded somewhere in the distant past.
These words were spoken by Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in testimony on Tuesday, March 3, 2009 before the Senate Banking Committee. Bernanke expressed further anguish at the behavior of AIG on Sixty Minutes Sunday evening.
Professor, welcome to the real world!
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner echoed some of the same feelings in testimony on the same day before the House Ways and Means Committee when he stated that some areas of AIG were not under “adult supervision.”
Come on, Timmy, I try and stop people from making the same claim about the bank bailout plans of the Treasury Department.
Is the Obama team becoming so defensive about their program that they are beginning to resort to name calling to deflect criticism?
Did AIG exploit a huge gap in the regulatory system? Yes, they did. And that is what people do over and over again in the real world. It is called “responding to incentives.” The world is full of incentives…some positive incentives…some negative incentives…and so on. That is what the study of economics is all about! Give the people in the Obama administration a copy of “Freakonomics”!
I have been in the Federal Reserve System…I have worked for a cabinet Secretary in Washington, D. C….and I have run publically traded financial institutions…and one thing is especially clear…people respond to incentives.
Some of those incentives are to innovate in products and markets. And, what do economists tell potential innovators to look for? Missing markets. Incomplete Markets. Places that are not being served or regulated.
Why do you look in these areas? Well, because that is where a person…or a business…can find a place to achieve a competitive advantage. Being a “first-mover” or a “second-mover” into a market is a way to achieve exceptional returns…at least for a short time period. And, this is plenty of incentive to draw people into the effort.
It is a highly risky effort and a lot of people and businesses fail because it is so risky. But, the incentives are substantial enough that people are continually drawn into the exercise.
A competitive advantage may not last for a very long time. People that find opportunities to arbitrage markets…traders…may find segments in a market place to exploit for a period of time…but, over time competitive advantage does not seem to last for specific trading schemes…see Enron and Long Term Capital Management. In such cases, you need to keep coming up with something new. That is what businesses producing Information Goods do.
One of the games played in the financial services area…and I have experienced this in my professional life beginning in the 1960s…is to find the hole in the regulatory structure. It is a game that the regulators are always behind in. The private sector does something…the regulators close the gap with new regulations…the private sector finds a way around this…and the regulators have to close the gap again. And, the game goes on and on because the incentives are such that it is still worthwhile to the private sector to continue to innovate.
Furthermore, anything the government does sets up incentives. And that is why the Obama “recovery plan” is so important…it changes a lot of the incentives that exist within the economy…for better or for worse. Notice the long, long lines of governors, mayors, and other officials that have gathered with their hands out for funds from the “recovery plan”. I am not going to comment any further on the “recovery plan” at this time other than to just highlight the fact that this plan changes incentives…regardless of how much stimulus it provides.
But, to be an equal-opportunity critic, I must mention that the previous administration created incentives that resulted in the present financial crisis. Maintaining negative real rates of interest for at least 18 months created plenty of incentive to leverage and innovate in financial structures and instruments. This period of innovation has created a massive crisis with respect to asset values. (For more on this see my blog post “AIG and Our Core Economic Issue: Unknown Asset Values” http://seekingalpha.com/article/123867-aig-and-our-core-economic-issue-unknown-asset-values.) In my mind, there is going to have to be a resolution to the asset value problem before any stimulus package is going to have much of an effect on the economy.
Anytime the government attempts to impose its hand on the private sector “things happen.” The government is just not attuned to enter the very complex tangled web of the real world with simplistic plans to “set things straight.” Even within the government public officials have started pointing fingers at each other when events don’t go as desired. Last night I saw Barney Frank interviewed by Rachael Maddow. Frank made it very clear that we got into the AIG mess because “the Fed”, without coming to Congress, gave AIG $85 billion last September and this started off all the mess. And, the reason why this bonus thing and other events have occurred is that “the Fed” without the advice or consultation of Congress gave AIG the $85 billion with “no strings attached”!
Wow! Go figur’ that, will ya!
Now, the Wall Street Journal has the headline this morning…”Obama to Avoid Auto Bankruptcies.” The “experts” in the government, we are told, are going to restructure General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC outside of the bankruptcy courts. This, we are expected to believe, will give the taxpayers a better and more protected solution than will a court solution. We wait the conclusion…
The real world is tough. People don’t always do what you want them to do. Incentives matter. We must be careful about the incentives we are creating for the future, for one other fact from the field of economics is very clear: sometimes it takes a long time for the full effect of incentives to work their way through an economy. As a consequence, we can often lose sight of the cause of a problem because the incentives that created the problem are embedded somewhere in the distant past.
Monday, February 23, 2009
It's All A Matter Of Incentives
Cerberus Capital Management has asked for a bailout! Who would have thought that a private equity fund would be seeking the help of the Federal Government to provide it with bailout funds?
The United States government is the largest creator of incentives in the world. Whatever it does it sets up incentives that people respond to in order to gain whatever edge they can obtain. And, the competition can sometimes become extremely fierce.
Incentives can either be positive or negative. They can either encourage us to do something…like pursue an education…or they can discourage us from doing something…like quitting smoking. They can work to make the society better…like improving the environment…or they can cause criminal behavior…like prohibition resulted in an underground business boom.
Whatever it is that the government does…it sets up incentives that people respond to. And, making lots and lots of funds available to people creates a huge incentive for those individuals to line up…with their hands out.
We saw this earlier with TARP. I thought that this effort supposedly had something to do with the “toxic assets” that were on the balance sheets of banks. But, as soon as it was passed…all of a sudden mayors and governors had their hands out for some of the money. Somewhere I missed their inclusion in the bill passed by Congress.
The major criteria now for getting money from the Obama stimulus plan just passed by Congress is “shovel ready.” Wow…I didn’t know that so many governmental bodies in the United States had so many proposals ready to begin putting the shovel into the ground next Monday!
Most incentives in an economy evolve out of the workings of the economic and social system that exists within a country. One could say these incentives are “endogenous” to the system…that is, they are created through the normal functioning of daily life. One could say that these incentives arise naturally.
Governments and some large organizations can create incentives “exogenously”…that is, they can impose incentives on a society from outside the system…say, because they think that certain incentives create “right” behavior. A church, for example, is one such system. A government can create incentives that will raise the nation to fight a war…and the incentives must be strong enough to get the nation to pay for that war by paying taxes to support the war.
One of the problems with these “exogenous” incentives is that they may ultimately be harmful to the people that they were trying to help. This problem is observed quite often in economics because most changes in incentives take a substantial time period to work themselves out. Consequently it is difficult to attach the “consequence” of a government policy with the underlying “cause” of the result. Especially since modern society and its sources of information…television, newspapers, and radio…tend to focus on the current and the dramatic “consequences” without any recognition of what might have started off the whole chain of events leading to this end.
This leaves us with an uncomfortable situation in which we must deal with the existing problem and with the emotions and psychology of current events isolated from what got us into the mess we are in.
Last Friday, we saw an announcer on public television ranting and raving about how the people that have followed the rules and responsibly sheparded their resources now have to dig into their pockets and cover those that have not behaved in such a sensible manner and now are experiencing financial and economic difficulties. And, this tirade has gained national attention by both sides of the argument.
The auto industry “big-guys” are down on their knees begging for some “bread and water” so as to keep their positions of power and control. Yet, these are the people that have been protected for years by the same state and national politicians they are now seeking mercy from.
And, the bankers…what a bad lot they are…those greedy “b……s”! Of course, bankers are always an easy bunch to pick on…and this picking goes back centuries. The auto-guys are just wimps in comparison to bankers when it comes to taking criticism.
The question that goes unanswered is “What was the environment created by government that set up the incentives that resulted in the results just described?” I have already answered this for the auto industry. But, who wouldn’t go to the government and get protection of their industry when it was so possible to do so?
Who wouldn’t support the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates so low for an extended period of time…of course, real interest costs were negative…so that business could be continued at a furious pace? Who wouldn’t be in favor of substantial tax cuts for the wealthy…especially if you happen to be wealthy? Who wouldn’t support going after that bad dictator who had those…what was it now? Oh, yes…weapons of mass destruction.
The obvious point to this discussion is that government got us into the mess we are in through the incentives it created eight or so years ago…and now we are faced with a situation in which it appears that government must set up a new set of incentives in order to make up for the mess that resulted from the incentives set up from an earlier time.
Yes, we have to take some money from those that did not over play their fiscal hand and transfer it to some that did. Yes, we have to help those financial institutions that responded in too extreme a form to the perceived opportunities that existed for them. Yes, we may need to do more for the auto industry…and for other industries.
But, where does it stop? Is everyone entitled to a bailout? (Well, as a matter of fact…I think I need a billion or two to get me through the next several years! I’m sure you are deserving of a bailout as well!) And, what are the consequences down-the-road a piece for the people and the society that are getting the bailouts?
Does Cerberus Capital Management really deserve a bailout? I thought private equity firms were risk takers and that is why they got the big bucks? Maybe Cerberus should face a "stress test" like the commercial banks.
What kind of a society are we creating through the incentives that are being developed today? What mess is the government going to have to bail us out of in two or three, or, five or six years from now…the mess that we are now creating…but we don’t know what mess that will be?
Of course, the final question is…how are you going to respond to the incentives now being created? Is it wise for certain Republican governors to turn down the bailout money because of…what was that…because of their principles?
The United States government is the largest creator of incentives in the world. Whatever it does it sets up incentives that people respond to in order to gain whatever edge they can obtain. And, the competition can sometimes become extremely fierce.
Incentives can either be positive or negative. They can either encourage us to do something…like pursue an education…or they can discourage us from doing something…like quitting smoking. They can work to make the society better…like improving the environment…or they can cause criminal behavior…like prohibition resulted in an underground business boom.
Whatever it is that the government does…it sets up incentives that people respond to. And, making lots and lots of funds available to people creates a huge incentive for those individuals to line up…with their hands out.
We saw this earlier with TARP. I thought that this effort supposedly had something to do with the “toxic assets” that were on the balance sheets of banks. But, as soon as it was passed…all of a sudden mayors and governors had their hands out for some of the money. Somewhere I missed their inclusion in the bill passed by Congress.
The major criteria now for getting money from the Obama stimulus plan just passed by Congress is “shovel ready.” Wow…I didn’t know that so many governmental bodies in the United States had so many proposals ready to begin putting the shovel into the ground next Monday!
Most incentives in an economy evolve out of the workings of the economic and social system that exists within a country. One could say these incentives are “endogenous” to the system…that is, they are created through the normal functioning of daily life. One could say that these incentives arise naturally.
Governments and some large organizations can create incentives “exogenously”…that is, they can impose incentives on a society from outside the system…say, because they think that certain incentives create “right” behavior. A church, for example, is one such system. A government can create incentives that will raise the nation to fight a war…and the incentives must be strong enough to get the nation to pay for that war by paying taxes to support the war.
One of the problems with these “exogenous” incentives is that they may ultimately be harmful to the people that they were trying to help. This problem is observed quite often in economics because most changes in incentives take a substantial time period to work themselves out. Consequently it is difficult to attach the “consequence” of a government policy with the underlying “cause” of the result. Especially since modern society and its sources of information…television, newspapers, and radio…tend to focus on the current and the dramatic “consequences” without any recognition of what might have started off the whole chain of events leading to this end.
This leaves us with an uncomfortable situation in which we must deal with the existing problem and with the emotions and psychology of current events isolated from what got us into the mess we are in.
Last Friday, we saw an announcer on public television ranting and raving about how the people that have followed the rules and responsibly sheparded their resources now have to dig into their pockets and cover those that have not behaved in such a sensible manner and now are experiencing financial and economic difficulties. And, this tirade has gained national attention by both sides of the argument.
The auto industry “big-guys” are down on their knees begging for some “bread and water” so as to keep their positions of power and control. Yet, these are the people that have been protected for years by the same state and national politicians they are now seeking mercy from.
And, the bankers…what a bad lot they are…those greedy “b……s”! Of course, bankers are always an easy bunch to pick on…and this picking goes back centuries. The auto-guys are just wimps in comparison to bankers when it comes to taking criticism.
The question that goes unanswered is “What was the environment created by government that set up the incentives that resulted in the results just described?” I have already answered this for the auto industry. But, who wouldn’t go to the government and get protection of their industry when it was so possible to do so?
Who wouldn’t support the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates so low for an extended period of time…of course, real interest costs were negative…so that business could be continued at a furious pace? Who wouldn’t be in favor of substantial tax cuts for the wealthy…especially if you happen to be wealthy? Who wouldn’t support going after that bad dictator who had those…what was it now? Oh, yes…weapons of mass destruction.
The obvious point to this discussion is that government got us into the mess we are in through the incentives it created eight or so years ago…and now we are faced with a situation in which it appears that government must set up a new set of incentives in order to make up for the mess that resulted from the incentives set up from an earlier time.
Yes, we have to take some money from those that did not over play their fiscal hand and transfer it to some that did. Yes, we have to help those financial institutions that responded in too extreme a form to the perceived opportunities that existed for them. Yes, we may need to do more for the auto industry…and for other industries.
But, where does it stop? Is everyone entitled to a bailout? (Well, as a matter of fact…I think I need a billion or two to get me through the next several years! I’m sure you are deserving of a bailout as well!) And, what are the consequences down-the-road a piece for the people and the society that are getting the bailouts?
Does Cerberus Capital Management really deserve a bailout? I thought private equity firms were risk takers and that is why they got the big bucks? Maybe Cerberus should face a "stress test" like the commercial banks.
What kind of a society are we creating through the incentives that are being developed today? What mess is the government going to have to bail us out of in two or three, or, five or six years from now…the mess that we are now creating…but we don’t know what mess that will be?
Of course, the final question is…how are you going to respond to the incentives now being created? Is it wise for certain Republican governors to turn down the bailout money because of…what was that…because of their principles?
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Auto Bailouts and Other Things
I have tried to stay out of the auto-bailout thing but I find that I need to add my two cents to the issue. I have done three successful turnarounds in my professional career and have consulted on quite a few more. It is from this perspective that I am making my comments. So hear goes.
First, Ford says that it can make it through the near-term without any assistance from the Federal Government. Good. Let them go for it!
Second, Chrysler…is owned by Cerberus Capital Management, LP…a private investment firm who boasts, “strong corporate governance is the cornerstone of our business.” This is a private investment firm that recently took a risk, made a big investment, has access to billions of dollars of capital…and is coming, hat-in-hand, to the Federal Government asking for money to carry Chrysler through this mess.
Come on…
Sounds like we have a new model for private equity investment!
Third, General Motors…”What’s good for General Motors is good for the United States,” as a former CEO of General Motors put it.
We bailout General Motors and then we bailout the United States? Hmmmmmmmmmmm…I don’t think that is what was meant.
General Motors is a turnaround situation!!!
In a turnaround situation you get rid of the existing management and you bring in new management!!!
Robert (Bob) Lutz says GM should stick with “Rick” Wagoner, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, because he knows the business and knows what the current situation is and doesn’t have to be brought “up-to-speed” with the situation at GM.
I remember taking a thrift institution public during “the S & L crises” and going to numerous “dog-and-pony” shows of other companies taking their institutions public. I was especially taken aback by managements that would say…”Sure we were the management of this institution for the last 10 years in which the performance of this company got worse and worse…BUT, we have learned our lessons…we can make this bank work going forward!!!” And then they raised quite a few million dollars from people who were willing to bet on this story.
Guess what? Most of them didn’t make it!
We have also heard that the top engineers and other top management want Wagoner to stay. “He can do it!” they say.
Sure these employees want Wagoner to stay! He is the safest thing for them and their positions. A turnaround specialist would take a long, hard look at these people and what they have done and are doing and that is exactly what the top engineers and other top management don’t want!
General Motors is a turnaround situation! If anyone (the Government) is going to invest money in this organization they need to demand the appropriate leadership…and the existing CEO and his top management IS NOT the leadership that is needed.
The bailout of the auto industry is not just about thousands or millions of workers being employed. I, personally, hope that these workers do not have to experience a great deal of suffering.
The question is about whether or not any effort made by the government will have a fair probability of success. Thinking of these efforts as a bailout is not helpful when the situation calls for a turnaround. The issue, in my mind, is not being framed correctly.
OTHER THINGS
Information is starting to come out concerning the efforts to restructure mortgage debt…and the results are not encouraging.
Let me just say one thing about restructuring mortgages…or, for that matter, any debt in the present environment.
Generally, when the restructuring of debt takes place, the situation of the borrower and the situation in the economy are relatively stable. That is, any restructuring that takes place can count on income, employment, prices, sales, and so forth to remain relatively constant in the future. That way, the debt can be restructured in a way that presents the borrower with some likelihood that he or she will be able to pay off the debt.
In an environment that is not stable the situation of the borrower and the situation within the economy is constantly ‘going South.’ And, there is no certainty about ‘how far South’ these things will go. Consequently, any debt restructured in this environment has a relatively low probability of being paid off. Those restructuring the debt are just postponing the day of reckoning and continuing to put these borrowers in a position of almost assured failure.
In essence, within the current environment, those that have been foreclosed upon have gone from borrowing using a sub-prime loan to borrowing using a sub-sub-prime loan.
As I have said in many other posts…once discipline is lost…there are no good solutions to the problems created by the loss of discipline.
First, Ford says that it can make it through the near-term without any assistance from the Federal Government. Good. Let them go for it!
Second, Chrysler…is owned by Cerberus Capital Management, LP…a private investment firm who boasts, “strong corporate governance is the cornerstone of our business.” This is a private investment firm that recently took a risk, made a big investment, has access to billions of dollars of capital…and is coming, hat-in-hand, to the Federal Government asking for money to carry Chrysler through this mess.
Come on…
Sounds like we have a new model for private equity investment!
Third, General Motors…”What’s good for General Motors is good for the United States,” as a former CEO of General Motors put it.
We bailout General Motors and then we bailout the United States? Hmmmmmmmmmmm…I don’t think that is what was meant.
General Motors is a turnaround situation!!!
In a turnaround situation you get rid of the existing management and you bring in new management!!!
Robert (Bob) Lutz says GM should stick with “Rick” Wagoner, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, because he knows the business and knows what the current situation is and doesn’t have to be brought “up-to-speed” with the situation at GM.
I remember taking a thrift institution public during “the S & L crises” and going to numerous “dog-and-pony” shows of other companies taking their institutions public. I was especially taken aback by managements that would say…”Sure we were the management of this institution for the last 10 years in which the performance of this company got worse and worse…BUT, we have learned our lessons…we can make this bank work going forward!!!” And then they raised quite a few million dollars from people who were willing to bet on this story.
Guess what? Most of them didn’t make it!
We have also heard that the top engineers and other top management want Wagoner to stay. “He can do it!” they say.
Sure these employees want Wagoner to stay! He is the safest thing for them and their positions. A turnaround specialist would take a long, hard look at these people and what they have done and are doing and that is exactly what the top engineers and other top management don’t want!
General Motors is a turnaround situation! If anyone (the Government) is going to invest money in this organization they need to demand the appropriate leadership…and the existing CEO and his top management IS NOT the leadership that is needed.
The bailout of the auto industry is not just about thousands or millions of workers being employed. I, personally, hope that these workers do not have to experience a great deal of suffering.
The question is about whether or not any effort made by the government will have a fair probability of success. Thinking of these efforts as a bailout is not helpful when the situation calls for a turnaround. The issue, in my mind, is not being framed correctly.
OTHER THINGS
Information is starting to come out concerning the efforts to restructure mortgage debt…and the results are not encouraging.
Let me just say one thing about restructuring mortgages…or, for that matter, any debt in the present environment.
Generally, when the restructuring of debt takes place, the situation of the borrower and the situation in the economy are relatively stable. That is, any restructuring that takes place can count on income, employment, prices, sales, and so forth to remain relatively constant in the future. That way, the debt can be restructured in a way that presents the borrower with some likelihood that he or she will be able to pay off the debt.
In an environment that is not stable the situation of the borrower and the situation within the economy is constantly ‘going South.’ And, there is no certainty about ‘how far South’ these things will go. Consequently, any debt restructured in this environment has a relatively low probability of being paid off. Those restructuring the debt are just postponing the day of reckoning and continuing to put these borrowers in a position of almost assured failure.
In essence, within the current environment, those that have been foreclosed upon have gone from borrowing using a sub-prime loan to borrowing using a sub-sub-prime loan.
As I have said in many other posts…once discipline is lost…there are no good solutions to the problems created by the loss of discipline.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
