The U.S. Taxpayer - the loser!!
http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2009/04/23/mean-street-chrysler-crisis-you-lose-taxpayers/
The sad part is that we had to see this coming. Investing billions of dollars of U.S. Taxpayer money into the auto industry looked like a questionable deal. I felt that investing in GM had a potential benefit of saving a large number of jobs (both at GM and all of the suppliers, dealers, etc that feed off GM) and thereby, keeping the U.S. economy a float. But the more that we see, the reality is that the whole auto industry is in a slump, and bad management in this type of environment is going to kill, not just slow an industry down.
Chrysler is essentially bankrupt, I don't know what their cash position is these days, but who is going to buy a vehicle from them now. GM still has some strong brands but there is no way that they are going to remain the number 1 car company in the world. They are going to have to shed huge assets at a steep discount, and the taxpayer is going to foot that bill.
We'll see what Fiat does with these two negotiations, it feels like they are in a position to benefit from the government intervention by low balling these failing companies and getting assets on the cheap, maybe we should have given them the money...
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
House tries to limit executive compensation - Apr. 1, 2009
House tries to limit executive compensation - Apr. 1, 2009
I'm not really sure what to think about this latest piece of legislation. The taxpayer has expressed outrage over the AIG compensation, there is tremendous frustration at how the bail out money is being spent by the banks, and there is a huge sense of nervousness walking into the auto industry bailouts. There is more pressure on the politicians to "govern" businesses then I have ever seen in my lifetime.
Should taxpayer ire determine what the right legislation and the right governance is around those that receive the stimulus and bail out money?
I definitely think that those that abused or skirted laws meant to protect this nation should be penalized for their behavior. Markets can't determine what is morally ethical, they can only determine the right prices and through the Darwinsim process that is capitalism, weed out those that are too weak to survive in cut throat competition. It is the government's role to ensure that businesses do not profit at the expense of the greater good.
Example: if a business were built on sending children into mines that were not fit for adults to enter, and that business made tremendous profits of that labor force without regards to risk and/or proper compensation, that should be regulated. I don't think anyone would argue against this.
Where the water gets murky is the situation we are in today. Things are rarely black and white.
Today, the government is trying to do the right thing. The companies that are being bailed out do not deserve to have inflated incomes; they could not survive on their own. They took on too much risk, or they made very shoddy business decisions, and now, they are failing.
In an unfortunate scenario for the tax payer, these companies are “too big to fail" and the assessment of the experts is that if there were no intervention, the world economy would suffer beyond what we are seeing today. The only recourse was to invest or loan or grant enormous amounts of funds to these organizations in order to protect us, the taxpayers. But at that point, what is done with that money becomes the problem, and there are not any easy answers.
In a normal situation, a VC, a bond holder, or a bank would provide capital and elect a board to manage their investment. That board would need to hold the shareholders and the bond holders’ interests in mind when big decisions are being made. BUT, the key is that they know their role. A wise board may not get involved in the day to day administration of a company if they do not have a strong understanding or expertise in the core functions of the company. They will hire the right CEO, the right executives, who in turn will hire their teams to try to maximize the company’s profits. They will try to incentivize those employees through multiple channels, compensation, opportunities, benefits, perks, community, etc.
In the situation we have today, there were bad seeds that ruined the company’s chances to perform optimally, the business failed on of bad strategy, acceptance of inordinately high risks, and/or a combination of the two. Now, the government steps in to play to role of the VC, the bond holder, or the bank. They are putting their boards together, and then trying to determine what type of governance they need to hold those that are hired into, or remain at the company accountable.
The first reg that was proposed was a 90% tax on all non performance related bonuses; the second is to ban all bonuses that are not performance related.
The problem with all of this is that how do we know that these regs are going to ensure that the company is doing the right thing with the capital that has been infused? Do these regs ensure that the money will be managed in the best manner to ensure that the company does not fail? How do we ensure that these companies wisely manage their businesses when they did such a piss poor job of it the first time around?
I don't have a straight answer, but I am very leery of over regulating businesses. The market does one thing very well, it weeds out the weak. If there is any additional burden placed on a business that allows a competitor to take advantage of the situation, it will happen and failure is much more likely. That is how the system works. You can't legislate those companies that have not taken on government bailouts, if you do, you are essentially building a socialist system. I don't think that is what the U.S. needs.
I don't want bonuses to be paid out for those folks that made a mess out of these companies, but if there are employees much further down the food chain that got a bonus for moving their family from the east coast to the west coast, and might help the company get back on its feet, how do we know that bonus will be allowed, how do we know that this reg prevents the ability from attracting the right talent? Any change in compensation has an impact, you don't know how people will react to these type of situations.
I think there needs to be more discussions on how to manage this situation. We'll see what happens.
I'm not really sure what to think about this latest piece of legislation. The taxpayer has expressed outrage over the AIG compensation, there is tremendous frustration at how the bail out money is being spent by the banks, and there is a huge sense of nervousness walking into the auto industry bailouts. There is more pressure on the politicians to "govern" businesses then I have ever seen in my lifetime.
Should taxpayer ire determine what the right legislation and the right governance is around those that receive the stimulus and bail out money?
I definitely think that those that abused or skirted laws meant to protect this nation should be penalized for their behavior. Markets can't determine what is morally ethical, they can only determine the right prices and through the Darwinsim process that is capitalism, weed out those that are too weak to survive in cut throat competition. It is the government's role to ensure that businesses do not profit at the expense of the greater good.
Example: if a business were built on sending children into mines that were not fit for adults to enter, and that business made tremendous profits of that labor force without regards to risk and/or proper compensation, that should be regulated. I don't think anyone would argue against this.
Where the water gets murky is the situation we are in today. Things are rarely black and white.
Today, the government is trying to do the right thing. The companies that are being bailed out do not deserve to have inflated incomes; they could not survive on their own. They took on too much risk, or they made very shoddy business decisions, and now, they are failing.
In an unfortunate scenario for the tax payer, these companies are “too big to fail" and the assessment of the experts is that if there were no intervention, the world economy would suffer beyond what we are seeing today. The only recourse was to invest or loan or grant enormous amounts of funds to these organizations in order to protect us, the taxpayers. But at that point, what is done with that money becomes the problem, and there are not any easy answers.
In a normal situation, a VC, a bond holder, or a bank would provide capital and elect a board to manage their investment. That board would need to hold the shareholders and the bond holders’ interests in mind when big decisions are being made. BUT, the key is that they know their role. A wise board may not get involved in the day to day administration of a company if they do not have a strong understanding or expertise in the core functions of the company. They will hire the right CEO, the right executives, who in turn will hire their teams to try to maximize the company’s profits. They will try to incentivize those employees through multiple channels, compensation, opportunities, benefits, perks, community, etc.
In the situation we have today, there were bad seeds that ruined the company’s chances to perform optimally, the business failed on of bad strategy, acceptance of inordinately high risks, and/or a combination of the two. Now, the government steps in to play to role of the VC, the bond holder, or the bank. They are putting their boards together, and then trying to determine what type of governance they need to hold those that are hired into, or remain at the company accountable.
The first reg that was proposed was a 90% tax on all non performance related bonuses; the second is to ban all bonuses that are not performance related.
The problem with all of this is that how do we know that these regs are going to ensure that the company is doing the right thing with the capital that has been infused? Do these regs ensure that the money will be managed in the best manner to ensure that the company does not fail? How do we ensure that these companies wisely manage their businesses when they did such a piss poor job of it the first time around?
I don't have a straight answer, but I am very leery of over regulating businesses. The market does one thing very well, it weeds out the weak. If there is any additional burden placed on a business that allows a competitor to take advantage of the situation, it will happen and failure is much more likely. That is how the system works. You can't legislate those companies that have not taken on government bailouts, if you do, you are essentially building a socialist system. I don't think that is what the U.S. needs.
I don't want bonuses to be paid out for those folks that made a mess out of these companies, but if there are employees much further down the food chain that got a bonus for moving their family from the east coast to the west coast, and might help the company get back on its feet, how do we know that bonus will be allowed, how do we know that this reg prevents the ability from attracting the right talent? Any change in compensation has an impact, you don't know how people will react to these type of situations.
I think there needs to be more discussions on how to manage this situation. We'll see what happens.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Web 3.0 Conference: Profit and gain insight by organizing information with semantic web and linked data technologies, May 19-20, 2009 New York City
Web 3.0 Conference: Profit and gain insight by organizing information with semantic web and linked data technologies, May 19-20, 2009 New York City
The great pontificators of the web are going to arrive in New York to discuss what's next. I think at a time when our economy is bottoming out and people are struggling to find answers, these type of conferences can really help the U.S. start to climb out of the rut. Don't get me wrong, thinking about the future and actually realizing the benefits are not the same thing, execution is definitely the key to success. But disruptive technologies and radical breakthroughs need to be top of the mind.
Many of you have probably heard of the semantic web, I like to think of it as artificial intelligence on the web. The key to a semantic web is intelligence. All of this data that we are putting out on google, facebook, twitter, blogs, email, SMS, smart phones is very meaningful. However, it is not meaningful when it is in silo.
What would happen if there was a way to connect all of these disparate systems? What if there was a means to help a system understand what all of the data you are putting out there means and then help you live your life?
I think the immediate fear is one of "Big Brother" or HAL 9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey, and there is definitely a risk that if this data is not secured and that the right regulations are not in place, there could really be some danger associated with integrating all of this data. At the same time, think of the possibilities that could come from connecting your information?
Below is a vision presented by Microsoft, much of it is very UI focused and the way we interact with computer systems stands out, but take a look at something deeper. Your data can help you live your life, become a stronger employer, a better customer, retailer, teacher, ...
I'd love to see the day that I can jump in my car and see the top 5 things that I need to get done on the windshield. From there, quick access to help me get through those tasks while reminding me to get some exercise and to make sure that I call my kids to wish them good luck on their school presentation. Your data knows all of that about you, but today, you need to look for it, you have to make decisions, review the data, and plan your events. But on any given day, how different are those decisions, or those plans? We are creatures of habit, if your data can be mined and analyzed, very strong trends would stand out that could then be presented back to you to help you with your life.
Taking another leap, advertisers would actually be in a position to help you make the best purchases for your needs. It would be the ultimate sales scenario, your data can help present you with options that you really need, not spam that fires at you because you used a key search word that might mean that you want to buy something. If you just left to go on a trip to New York for a big presentation like the Web 3.0 conference, and your data knows that you like to eat Italian, prefer to take taxis over the train, and that you like staying at the Marriott, how about getting all of that setup for you by clicking one button on your phone?
I don't think we are that far away from this day, the key is, who will make this a possibility? Let’s push for the innovators to keep making the U.S. great. There are always opportunities to make life better for all of us.
The great pontificators of the web are going to arrive in New York to discuss what's next. I think at a time when our economy is bottoming out and people are struggling to find answers, these type of conferences can really help the U.S. start to climb out of the rut. Don't get me wrong, thinking about the future and actually realizing the benefits are not the same thing, execution is definitely the key to success. But disruptive technologies and radical breakthroughs need to be top of the mind.
Many of you have probably heard of the semantic web, I like to think of it as artificial intelligence on the web. The key to a semantic web is intelligence. All of this data that we are putting out on google, facebook, twitter, blogs, email, SMS, smart phones is very meaningful. However, it is not meaningful when it is in silo.
What would happen if there was a way to connect all of these disparate systems? What if there was a means to help a system understand what all of the data you are putting out there means and then help you live your life?
I think the immediate fear is one of "Big Brother" or HAL 9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey, and there is definitely a risk that if this data is not secured and that the right regulations are not in place, there could really be some danger associated with integrating all of this data. At the same time, think of the possibilities that could come from connecting your information?
Below is a vision presented by Microsoft, much of it is very UI focused and the way we interact with computer systems stands out, but take a look at something deeper. Your data can help you live your life, become a stronger employer, a better customer, retailer, teacher, ...
I'd love to see the day that I can jump in my car and see the top 5 things that I need to get done on the windshield. From there, quick access to help me get through those tasks while reminding me to get some exercise and to make sure that I call my kids to wish them good luck on their school presentation. Your data knows all of that about you, but today, you need to look for it, you have to make decisions, review the data, and plan your events. But on any given day, how different are those decisions, or those plans? We are creatures of habit, if your data can be mined and analyzed, very strong trends would stand out that could then be presented back to you to help you with your life.
Taking another leap, advertisers would actually be in a position to help you make the best purchases for your needs. It would be the ultimate sales scenario, your data can help present you with options that you really need, not spam that fires at you because you used a key search word that might mean that you want to buy something. If you just left to go on a trip to New York for a big presentation like the Web 3.0 conference, and your data knows that you like to eat Italian, prefer to take taxis over the train, and that you like staying at the Marriott, how about getting all of that setup for you by clicking one button on your phone?
I don't think we are that far away from this day, the key is, who will make this a possibility? Let’s push for the innovators to keep making the U.S. great. There are always opportunities to make life better for all of us.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner Details His Toxic-Asset Strategy, the Public-Private Investment Program - WSJ.com
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner Details His Toxic-Asset Strategy, the Public-Private Investment Program - WSJ.com
Here are some snippets from today's announcement of the Treasury's plan.
"Now all Mr. Geithner has to do is find private investors willing to "partner" with the feds (Congress!) to bid for those rotten assets, coax the banks to sell them at a loss, and hope that the economy doesn't keep falling lest taxpayers lose big on their new loan guarantees."
"Don't be fooled because Treasury isn't going to Capitol Hill for more cash. The Obama Administration is instead leveraging the balance sheets of the Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which will lend to the new public-private entities to buy the toxic assets.
In the case of the FDIC, it will lend at a debt-to-equity ratio of 6-to-l to the buyers. This means, according to the Treasury example, that the FDIC would guarantee 72 cents in funding for an asset purchased for 84 cents on the dollar. The feds and private investors would each put up six cents in capital. If the asset rises in value over time, the taxpayer and investors share the upside. If it falls further, then the taxpayers would absorb by far the biggest chunk of the losses. Better hope the recovery really is, as the White House says, just around the corner."
Doesn't leave you jumping for joy does it, but the market reacted in a tremendous way to this announcement (I'm sure some of the upside also had to do with the fact that the Feb housing numbers looked much better than expected).
I'm trying to absorb what type of bet Geithner is making and then handicap this bet by understanding the risks that we the taxpayers will be taking on.
I like this guy's explanation of what went south over the last ten years or so with the housing bubble and then the collapse over the last two years or so.
Now that we have an understanding of what kind of mess we are in, the Treasury is planning on helping those banks that are holding these toxic assets that may never get payment. So Geithner's plan does the following:
Under a typical transaction, for every $100 in soured mortgages being purchased from banks, the private sector would put up $7 and that would be matched by $7 from the government. The remaining $86 would be covered by a government loan. So we the tax payer's essentially loan the government and the private investor's money, not sure at what rate the loan is given, but its given at a 6:1 debt/capital ratio. This loan helps them purchase these bad assets off the banks for a given price. Right now, there is going to be some mechanism to determine the price of these assets. I think this is going to occur under the FDIC watch, and then fund managers will be elected to manage these funds to ensure that we are buying the assets at a good price with hopes of a strong return.
The pros I see:
1. By providing up to a Trillion dollars (how the heck did we start thinking that a trillion dollars can be thrown around so easily) to the banks, it should really start incentiving these banks to start lending and making money on their loans.
2. Then as the loans start to go out, people may start buying homes again pushing up demand for homes and pushing up prices.
3. Hopefully, the economy starts to pick up as people's confidence comes back and jobs start to increase with the other TARP programs and with more capital available in the market.
4. Then the private investors and the treasury start to make profits in their investments into these toxic assets and the FDIC starts to get their loan back so the US Taxpayer gets money back with their profits and whatever the loan rate was.
The risks I see are:
1. We don't know what the banks are going to sell, with AIG, I think all private industries are very wary of working with the government because then the public essentially can react in a very negative way if anything looks unpleasant. Let's say that the housing market turns around, the bad assets all of the sudden become very strong house values and these private investors start making billions of dollars off the tax payer's money. Should they keep all of these huge gains or give some back?
2. How are the prices of these assets going to be determined, its not like there are thousands of people trying to gauge the risk of these assets, the FDIC will be doing that analysis, and its not a free market, so there seems to be a lot of unknowns around how much money the bad assets are going to be need to be purchased for. If the price is too high, then any failure puts the tax payer money at a huge risk, if its too low, then the banks are not going to take them off their balance sheets and try to wait out the storm in hopes that the underlying assets will return to higher prices.
3. Will the economy turn around anytime soon. What happens if all of this doesn't work and the economy turns south, the job losses continue, the house values continue to drop, and investments from foreign entities dry up? Then the U.S treasury has no money and the underlying assets that were invested into are worthless. Its back to the printing press and China is really starting to put some strong pressure saying that they are not very happy with their investments being put at risk with all of this mess.
At this point, I don't know what alternatives there are out there, let's hope that we have bottomed out and the economy starts to really pick up with these banks starting to lend money again. Its time for the innovators to come out and start building strong businesses that will hire more US employees, and start reving up the engine again.
Here are some snippets from today's announcement of the Treasury's plan.
"Now all Mr. Geithner has to do is find private investors willing to "partner" with the feds (Congress!) to bid for those rotten assets, coax the banks to sell them at a loss, and hope that the economy doesn't keep falling lest taxpayers lose big on their new loan guarantees."
"Don't be fooled because Treasury isn't going to Capitol Hill for more cash. The Obama Administration is instead leveraging the balance sheets of the Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which will lend to the new public-private entities to buy the toxic assets.
In the case of the FDIC, it will lend at a debt-to-equity ratio of 6-to-l to the buyers. This means, according to the Treasury example, that the FDIC would guarantee 72 cents in funding for an asset purchased for 84 cents on the dollar. The feds and private investors would each put up six cents in capital. If the asset rises in value over time, the taxpayer and investors share the upside. If it falls further, then the taxpayers would absorb by far the biggest chunk of the losses. Better hope the recovery really is, as the White House says, just around the corner."
Doesn't leave you jumping for joy does it, but the market reacted in a tremendous way to this announcement (I'm sure some of the upside also had to do with the fact that the Feb housing numbers looked much better than expected).
I'm trying to absorb what type of bet Geithner is making and then handicap this bet by understanding the risks that we the taxpayers will be taking on.
I like this guy's explanation of what went south over the last ten years or so with the housing bubble and then the collapse over the last two years or so.
Now that we have an understanding of what kind of mess we are in, the Treasury is planning on helping those banks that are holding these toxic assets that may never get payment. So Geithner's plan does the following:
Under a typical transaction, for every $100 in soured mortgages being purchased from banks, the private sector would put up $7 and that would be matched by $7 from the government. The remaining $86 would be covered by a government loan. So we the tax payer's essentially loan the government and the private investor's money, not sure at what rate the loan is given, but its given at a 6:1 debt/capital ratio. This loan helps them purchase these bad assets off the banks for a given price. Right now, there is going to be some mechanism to determine the price of these assets. I think this is going to occur under the FDIC watch, and then fund managers will be elected to manage these funds to ensure that we are buying the assets at a good price with hopes of a strong return.
The pros I see:
1. By providing up to a Trillion dollars (how the heck did we start thinking that a trillion dollars can be thrown around so easily) to the banks, it should really start incentiving these banks to start lending and making money on their loans.
2. Then as the loans start to go out, people may start buying homes again pushing up demand for homes and pushing up prices.
3. Hopefully, the economy starts to pick up as people's confidence comes back and jobs start to increase with the other TARP programs and with more capital available in the market.
4. Then the private investors and the treasury start to make profits in their investments into these toxic assets and the FDIC starts to get their loan back so the US Taxpayer gets money back with their profits and whatever the loan rate was.
The risks I see are:
1. We don't know what the banks are going to sell, with AIG, I think all private industries are very wary of working with the government because then the public essentially can react in a very negative way if anything looks unpleasant. Let's say that the housing market turns around, the bad assets all of the sudden become very strong house values and these private investors start making billions of dollars off the tax payer's money. Should they keep all of these huge gains or give some back?
2. How are the prices of these assets going to be determined, its not like there are thousands of people trying to gauge the risk of these assets, the FDIC will be doing that analysis, and its not a free market, so there seems to be a lot of unknowns around how much money the bad assets are going to be need to be purchased for. If the price is too high, then any failure puts the tax payer money at a huge risk, if its too low, then the banks are not going to take them off their balance sheets and try to wait out the storm in hopes that the underlying assets will return to higher prices.
3. Will the economy turn around anytime soon. What happens if all of this doesn't work and the economy turns south, the job losses continue, the house values continue to drop, and investments from foreign entities dry up? Then the U.S treasury has no money and the underlying assets that were invested into are worthless. Its back to the printing press and China is really starting to put some strong pressure saying that they are not very happy with their investments being put at risk with all of this mess.
At this point, I don't know what alternatives there are out there, let's hope that we have bottomed out and the economy starts to really pick up with these banks starting to lend money again. Its time for the innovators to come out and start building strong businesses that will hire more US employees, and start reving up the engine again.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Citigroup CEO protests efforts to tax bonuses - International Business - Business - The Times of India
Citigroup CEO protests efforts to tax bonuses - International Business - Business - The Times of India
I agree, I don't want to see our tax payer money given to the rich as much as the next guy, but the reality is, if you want to invest in getting these companies back around, I'd rather invest in top talent, then force these companies to work with less than the best.It would be similar to you taking over a basketball team who was caught cheating, you fire the coach who cheated, but then you decide that you are going to cut all the player's salary, and one of your player's is named Jordan. if Jordan walks, there goes any chance of you being successful.
I agree, I don't want to see our tax payer money given to the rich as much as the next guy, but the reality is, if you want to invest in getting these companies back around, I'd rather invest in top talent, then force these companies to work with less than the best.It would be similar to you taking over a basketball team who was caught cheating, you fire the coach who cheated, but then you decide that you are going to cut all the player's salary, and one of your player's is named Jordan. if Jordan walks, there goes any chance of you being successful.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
FRONTLINE: editors' notes: in the news: cramer v. stewart | PBS
FRONTLINE: editors' notes: in the news: cramer v. stewart PBS
A bit of history from our friends at PBS about Jim Cramer and his days as a fund manager.
A bit of history from our friends at PBS about Jim Cramer and his days as a fund manager.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
The real scandal at AIG is the not the bonuses. It's the payments to counterparties. - By Eliot Spitzer - Slate Magazine
The real scandal at AIG is the not the bonuses. It's the payments to counterparties. - By Eliot Spitzer - Slate Magazine
I hate to start shouting conspiracy, but there is a lot that I don't fully understand behind this bail out.
There are some assumptions that Slate really points out that need to be answered. Let's step back and review the timeline.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/economy/timeline-financial-crisis/
Based on the seizure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, did political insiders get the gravity of how bad the housing market was? If so, did they start realizing the parties that were at system risk? The treasury bought mortgage backed securities so they new that those involved in the credit swaps and the collaterlization of mortgages were going to take a hit.
- Sept. 7: Government Seizes Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Government takes control of the mortgage giants, putting the liability of more than $5 trillion of mortgages onto the backs of U.S. taxpayers.
Bank of America buys Merill for a huge discount but doesn't buy Lehman's, what role did the goverment play in negotiating the BofA deal? The deals were conducted at the NY Fed, where wall street chiefs work with Geitner , Paulson, and Bernanke probably playing a big part. Sources say that Geitner put a lot of pressure on BofA to make this deal occur. Did this pressure come at a cost where the government owed something for this move? Why was the decision made to broker a deal with Meril but not Lehman's. It appears that letting Lehman fail did not have the catastropic impact that may have been expected.
- Sept. 11: Lehman Brothers Says it’s Actively Looking to be SoldShares of the investment bank plunge 45% as traders feared it was having a difficult time finding a suitor.
- Sept. 14: Bank of America Says it Will Buy Merrill Lynch for $29 a ShareAfter walking away from Lehman Brothers, the bank said it would pay $50 billion for the brokerage house.
- Sept. 15: Lehman Brothers Files for BankruptcyThis is the largest bankruptcy filing in the history of the United States, at $639 billion. After a weekend of feverish negotiations, potential buyers such as Bank of America (BAC: 6.23, n.a., n.a.%) and Barclays (BCS: 5.3, 0, 0%) walk away, leaving Lehman and its CEO, Dick Fuld, with basically no other options.
At this point, in a span of less than a week, there are massive deals being brokered, and the Fed actually bails out AIG. That is where the deal gets hairy, where does this 85billion go? Who is getting the tax payer money?
- Sept. 16: Government Announces $85 Billion Emergency Loan to Rescue AIGFeds say a failure of the company could be devastating to the financial markets as well as the economy. This is in exchange for a nearly 80% equity stake in the company.
Seems like a smart deal by Barclays, don't bail out Lehman, but pick up their assets after the bankruptcy for fractions on the dollar. Who took the brunt of the losses that Lehman made? During the bankruptcy hearings, there were probably a lot of creditor's that demanded their money. So the buyer's of Lehman's got a great deal and creditor's paid for those gains.
- Sept. 17: Barclays Makes Deal With Lehman to Buy North American Banking DivisionThe British bank, which had passed on buying Lehman before it filed for bankruptcy, picks up the failed firm's North American investment banking and trading operations for $250 million.
This is when it gets very interesting. the bail out plans start coming out where the taxpayer now starts buying out the so called "toxic" assets. Those mortgages that were based on subprime lending, that have no chance of being paid off and are insured to multiple banks who have swapped them around like hot potatoes. The "too big to fail" concept starts to show its self that unless these assets are bought by the government, there could be a complete collapse of the financial system and credit could completely stop flowing and the panic could spread further. But based on the events leading up to this decision, the question is who are the players that are going to get this money? Are they the executives and the board members of the banks that purchased these bad products, are they the so called strong banks that are coming into save the day? Are they international banks that are going to get US tax dollars? The fear of God was presented to Congress and there is not really a chance to delibrate due to the urgency.
- Sept. 19: Bush Administration Announces Bailout Plan to Confront CrisisCongress is asked to give the administration new powers to execute a plan that could cost taxpayers billions to buy toxic debt and bad mortgages. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Paulson hold meetings with lawmakers over weekend to convince them to approve the measures.
Goldman and Morgan Stanley become the gate keepers for the Fed to put US taxpayer money into buying bad assets. Why do these banks get the safety net of the government, while the auto industry, the retail industry, the tax payer not get any saftey against risk? It makes sense that the financial system posses the biggest risk, but that is due to an unregulated environment, now the element of riks doesn't exist for banks.
- Sept. 21: Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley to Become Bank Holding CompaniesThe Federal Reserve approves transformation of Morgan Stanley (MS: 23.88, n.a., n.a.%) and Goldman Sachs (GS: 98.9348, n.a., n.a.%) into bank holding companies from investment banks in order to increase oversight and allow them to access the Fed's discount window.
- Sept. 23: Bernanke and Paulson Testify on Capital Hill on BailoutThe Fed Chairman says, “If financial conditions fail to improve for a protracted period, the implications for the broader economy could be quite adverse.”
- Sept. 24-27 and Maybe Beyond: Bush Works With Legislators on Bailout PlanThe President asks Barack Obama, John McCain, and Congressional leaders to meet and discuss rescue legislation. Congress works to hammer out legislation that's acceptable to enough interested parties to pass and, hopefully, be successful.
- Sept. 26: Washington Mutual Becomes Largest Thrift Failure With $307 Billion in AssetsJPMorgan (JPM: 25.13, n.a., n.a.%) agrees to pay $1.9 billion for the banking operations, but doesn't take ownership of the holding company.
- Sept. 29: Citigroup Acquires Wachovia's Banking OperationsThe FDIC helps broker a deal allowing Citigroup (C: 2.53, n.a., n.a.%) to buy the bulk of Wachovia's (WB: undefined, undefined, undefined%) banking operations for $2.1 billion in stock. At the same time, several European banks are nationalized or infused with huge amounts of cash to keep them running.
At this point, the enormous bail out bill needs to be enacted to ensure that the financial system does not cause a Depression. All the money that has been spent to this point, where is the accountability for that expenditure? It feels like very rich Wall Street insiders ensured that they did not bear the risk of having their fortunes taken away from them, but did not necessarily bear the burdent that they caused by taking the very aggressive risks in managing the mortgage backed securitys and credit swaps. New regulation needs to be put in place, and those that took these risks and took the government bail outs should be responsible for paying them back or lose their assets for making those monumental bad bets.
Bailout Package Put Up for House Vote Is Rejected 228-205The $700 billion rescue bill is defeated in the House of Representatives, despite of warnings from the president, as well as leaders in both parties, that the legislation is necessary to stave off a meltdown.
Dow Falls 777.68 Points; Largest One-Day Point Drop in HistoryThe index sees its largest one-day point loss ever after the House votes down the rescue plan. The S&P 500 has its largest point drop ever and second-largest percentage drop in history.
I hate to start shouting conspiracy, but there is a lot that I don't fully understand behind this bail out.
There are some assumptions that Slate really points out that need to be answered. Let's step back and review the timeline.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/economy/timeline-financial-crisis/
Based on the seizure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, did political insiders get the gravity of how bad the housing market was? If so, did they start realizing the parties that were at system risk? The treasury bought mortgage backed securities so they new that those involved in the credit swaps and the collaterlization of mortgages were going to take a hit.
- Sept. 7: Government Seizes Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Government takes control of the mortgage giants, putting the liability of more than $5 trillion of mortgages onto the backs of U.S. taxpayers.
Bank of America buys Merill for a huge discount but doesn't buy Lehman's, what role did the goverment play in negotiating the BofA deal? The deals were conducted at the NY Fed, where wall street chiefs work with Geitner , Paulson, and Bernanke probably playing a big part. Sources say that Geitner put a lot of pressure on BofA to make this deal occur. Did this pressure come at a cost where the government owed something for this move? Why was the decision made to broker a deal with Meril but not Lehman's. It appears that letting Lehman fail did not have the catastropic impact that may have been expected.
- Sept. 11: Lehman Brothers Says it’s Actively Looking to be SoldShares of the investment bank plunge 45% as traders feared it was having a difficult time finding a suitor.
- Sept. 14: Bank of America Says it Will Buy Merrill Lynch for $29 a ShareAfter walking away from Lehman Brothers, the bank said it would pay $50 billion for the brokerage house.
- Sept. 15: Lehman Brothers Files for BankruptcyThis is the largest bankruptcy filing in the history of the United States, at $639 billion. After a weekend of feverish negotiations, potential buyers such as Bank of America (BAC: 6.23, n.a., n.a.%) and Barclays (BCS: 5.3, 0, 0%) walk away, leaving Lehman and its CEO, Dick Fuld, with basically no other options.
At this point, in a span of less than a week, there are massive deals being brokered, and the Fed actually bails out AIG. That is where the deal gets hairy, where does this 85billion go? Who is getting the tax payer money?
- Sept. 16: Government Announces $85 Billion Emergency Loan to Rescue AIGFeds say a failure of the company could be devastating to the financial markets as well as the economy. This is in exchange for a nearly 80% equity stake in the company.
Seems like a smart deal by Barclays, don't bail out Lehman, but pick up their assets after the bankruptcy for fractions on the dollar. Who took the brunt of the losses that Lehman made? During the bankruptcy hearings, there were probably a lot of creditor's that demanded their money. So the buyer's of Lehman's got a great deal and creditor's paid for those gains.
- Sept. 17: Barclays Makes Deal With Lehman to Buy North American Banking DivisionThe British bank, which had passed on buying Lehman before it filed for bankruptcy, picks up the failed firm's North American investment banking and trading operations for $250 million.
This is when it gets very interesting. the bail out plans start coming out where the taxpayer now starts buying out the so called "toxic" assets. Those mortgages that were based on subprime lending, that have no chance of being paid off and are insured to multiple banks who have swapped them around like hot potatoes. The "too big to fail" concept starts to show its self that unless these assets are bought by the government, there could be a complete collapse of the financial system and credit could completely stop flowing and the panic could spread further. But based on the events leading up to this decision, the question is who are the players that are going to get this money? Are they the executives and the board members of the banks that purchased these bad products, are they the so called strong banks that are coming into save the day? Are they international banks that are going to get US tax dollars? The fear of God was presented to Congress and there is not really a chance to delibrate due to the urgency.
- Sept. 19: Bush Administration Announces Bailout Plan to Confront CrisisCongress is asked to give the administration new powers to execute a plan that could cost taxpayers billions to buy toxic debt and bad mortgages. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Paulson hold meetings with lawmakers over weekend to convince them to approve the measures.
Goldman and Morgan Stanley become the gate keepers for the Fed to put US taxpayer money into buying bad assets. Why do these banks get the safety net of the government, while the auto industry, the retail industry, the tax payer not get any saftey against risk? It makes sense that the financial system posses the biggest risk, but that is due to an unregulated environment, now the element of riks doesn't exist for banks.
- Sept. 21: Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley to Become Bank Holding CompaniesThe Federal Reserve approves transformation of Morgan Stanley (MS: 23.88, n.a., n.a.%) and Goldman Sachs (GS: 98.9348, n.a., n.a.%) into bank holding companies from investment banks in order to increase oversight and allow them to access the Fed's discount window.
- Sept. 23: Bernanke and Paulson Testify on Capital Hill on BailoutThe Fed Chairman says, “If financial conditions fail to improve for a protracted period, the implications for the broader economy could be quite adverse.”
- Sept. 24-27 and Maybe Beyond: Bush Works With Legislators on Bailout PlanThe President asks Barack Obama, John McCain, and Congressional leaders to meet and discuss rescue legislation. Congress works to hammer out legislation that's acceptable to enough interested parties to pass and, hopefully, be successful.
- Sept. 26: Washington Mutual Becomes Largest Thrift Failure With $307 Billion in AssetsJPMorgan (JPM: 25.13, n.a., n.a.%) agrees to pay $1.9 billion for the banking operations, but doesn't take ownership of the holding company.
- Sept. 29: Citigroup Acquires Wachovia's Banking OperationsThe FDIC helps broker a deal allowing Citigroup (C: 2.53, n.a., n.a.%) to buy the bulk of Wachovia's (WB: undefined, undefined, undefined%) banking operations for $2.1 billion in stock. At the same time, several European banks are nationalized or infused with huge amounts of cash to keep them running.
At this point, the enormous bail out bill needs to be enacted to ensure that the financial system does not cause a Depression. All the money that has been spent to this point, where is the accountability for that expenditure? It feels like very rich Wall Street insiders ensured that they did not bear the risk of having their fortunes taken away from them, but did not necessarily bear the burdent that they caused by taking the very aggressive risks in managing the mortgage backed securitys and credit swaps. New regulation needs to be put in place, and those that took these risks and took the government bail outs should be responsible for paying them back or lose their assets for making those monumental bad bets.
Bailout Package Put Up for House Vote Is Rejected 228-205The $700 billion rescue bill is defeated in the House of Representatives, despite of warnings from the president, as well as leaders in both parties, that the legislation is necessary to stave off a meltdown.
Dow Falls 777.68 Points; Largest One-Day Point Drop in HistoryThe index sees its largest one-day point loss ever after the House votes down the rescue plan. The S&P 500 has its largest point drop ever and second-largest percentage drop in history.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Fed Chief Bernanke Grants Rare Interview - CBS News
Fed Chief Bernanke Grants Rare Interview - CBS News
This should be a very interesting interview. This could be the chance to really bring confidence into the market, and make the public feel like the Fed has a plan, and has started executing a strong strategy to curtail this recession.
On the other hand, if the interview heads south, and there doesn't seem to be a coherent strategy that is laid out, this could be a very slippery slope. I am a fan of Bernanke. I think he has a great grasp of the technical fundamentals of the US financial system. He is able to gauge risk and understands the number of complexities that our financial system has baked in. However, he doesn't always come off as a polished speaker. If the average public doesn't fully understand what is going on, or worse, the media portrays a very negative connatation of what is stated, I think we could be in for a rough next week.
This should be a very interesting interview. This could be the chance to really bring confidence into the market, and make the public feel like the Fed has a plan, and has started executing a strong strategy to curtail this recession.
On the other hand, if the interview heads south, and there doesn't seem to be a coherent strategy that is laid out, this could be a very slippery slope. I am a fan of Bernanke. I think he has a great grasp of the technical fundamentals of the US financial system. He is able to gauge risk and understands the number of complexities that our financial system has baked in. However, he doesn't always come off as a polished speaker. If the average public doesn't fully understand what is going on, or worse, the media portrays a very negative connatation of what is stated, I think we could be in for a rough next week.
Stewart vs. Cramer
http://www.hulu.com/watch/62203/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-thu-mar-12-2009
I have to admit, I'm impressed that Cramer came on the show. He had to know that he was going to get raked over the coals. I respect him from coming on the show... that being said, he's an idiot.
Stewart really shows us what we all suspect about the back room dealings that go on in Wall Street, that the "good old boy" network still rules. There are segments of people with a great deal of money will take advantage of their privlidges. Manipulating the media to sucker the general population on very sophisticated schemes has been going on forever, but doing it on broad daylight and with the fervor that has gone on over the last ten years is insane.
Great job Stewart, thanks for taking CNBC out to the shed and wailing on them.
I have to admit, I'm impressed that Cramer came on the show. He had to know that he was going to get raked over the coals. I respect him from coming on the show... that being said, he's an idiot.
Stewart really shows us what we all suspect about the back room dealings that go on in Wall Street, that the "good old boy" network still rules. There are segments of people with a great deal of money will take advantage of their privlidges. Manipulating the media to sucker the general population on very sophisticated schemes has been going on forever, but doing it on broad daylight and with the fervor that has gone on over the last ten years is insane.
Great job Stewart, thanks for taking CNBC out to the shed and wailing on them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)