Bailout Bust

The bailout failed, and I’m not sure if that’s a good thing or a terrible thing.  To be honest, nobody is sure.  As I mentioned previously in my post about Thoughts on the Bailout, I hated this plan.  It contained no new regulation, and there was nothing to prevent the Return of the Bubble (the Echo Bubble?).

That said, we need something.  We need it now.  Here’s what’s going to happen without a plan in place.

There are lots of ways for companies to finance projects, but the biggest two are debt and equity.  Debt is just what it sounds like: a company takes out a loan and uses the cash to buy stuff.  Equity means that a company sells shares and uses the cash to buy stuff.  The problem is, without any kind of intervention, the debt option is essentially gone for all but those with the very best credit.  Equity is also pretty tough to pull off because most companies are loath to sell shares in this market, especially if it means accepting a lousy valuation and taking unfavorable terms.  Goldman Sachs just got equity financing from Warren Buffett, and he was able to get an insanely good deal.  Quite a few companies won’t be able to get money for equity anyway, because nobody else can afford to buy their shares.

So what does this mean?  We can expect rapid slowing of the economy and a long recession.  Unemployment will jump, probably to double digits.  Market returns will be abysmal.  Retirement funds will shrink.  Our position as a global economic leader will be in peril.

Why is that?  Because there’s no money for new growth and development.  Companies built on the principles of easy debt will be the worst off – and we’re not talking about shady subprime lenders here.  Think of companies like Boeing: their airplanes cost millions of dollars to build, and then they’re sold to buyers like airlines and leasing companies.  What powers these transactions?  Debt.  The buyers borrow money to buy the airplanes, and then repay their debt using cash they earn over time.  Without debt, nobody can buy an airplane that costs $200 million up front.

The end result is that companies will need to finance their projects using other sources or accept incredibly challenging terms from lenders.  They can spend their existing cash, although few companies have large enough cash piles to make that a viable reality for big projects.  They can also seek private cash, but cash is pretty hard to find regardless of the source right now.

Hence, I find it frustrating when I read that this is all about rewarding dumb Wall Street fat cats with our hard earned tax dollars.  Sure, without government intervention, those bankers will likely end up in the bread lines.  But then again, so will you.

Thoughts on the Bailout

I think most people have heard about the $700 billion bailout proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chariman Ben Bernanke.  It has caused a lot of controversy, and I have to admit I’m a little torn about the whole thing.  Up until this event, I’ve been mostly in favor of the Paulson/Bernanke handling of the Wall Street meltdown.  Now, I’m not so sure.

Let me simplify this whole problem into a simple analogy (one that’s very cliché, I might add).  The economy is like a car engine.  Wall Street is the fuel pump.  Money is the fuel.  At the moment, the fuel pump has failed, meaning that pumping money into the engine has pretty much slowed to a trickle.

So here’s our choice.  We do nothing and enter a period of low liquidity, low economic growth, and possible deflation.  Or we choose a $700 billion bailout of the financial markets and get the fuel pump moving again.

Personally, I hate the bailout.  I hate it not because it’s socialism, or because it will cost every taxpayer a lot of money, or because it gives huge unchecked powers to the Treasury.  I hate it because I don’t think it will work.  Don’t get me wrong, if the bailout passes we can expect the stock market will go crazy, Wall Street will be much better off, and the economy will keep moving.  Letting banks write off $700 billion in bad debt will do that for you.

Yet in the end, I can’t help but think that nothing will change.  We’ll restart the bubble cycle all over again, and in 5-10 years we’ll be back in this terrible spot looking for another $700 billion, or $1.5 trillion, or however much it will be – just like the $125 billion S&L bailout in the 1980s.  Something needs to change, and I think it’s time to start thinking about what that change should be.

I don’t like the idea of 1990s style Japanese deflation, but I also don’t like the idea of 1990s style American bubbles.  Both are unhealthy.

AIG’s Meltdown Put

The AIG bailout is another example of what I’ve started calling a Meltdown Put.  Their capacity for shredding the global financial markets has earned their shareholders $2 a share instead of $0 because of the government bailout.

What makes this bailout so interesting is the government taking 80% ownership of AIG in exchange for extending their $85 loan.  Essentially the shareholders are almost wiped out, but not quite.  Plus their shares could still recover their value at some point in the future.

I think that AIG recovering to their former state is unlikely.  The government will most likely begin splitting AIG into pieces that it can sell to raise needed funding.  This is probably a good thing because AIG’s present size makes it far too dangerous to the global financial markets.  Plus, AIG is not out of the woods yet, and even with government support they could still collapse.  However, if they manage to recover, the government stands to actually make money on this deal.  It’s not often that actually happens.

AIG has always been an interesting company.  Their AAA debt rating has long been a point of pride for them, but it’s now incredibly clear that this was probably inappropriately high.  (In fact, the whole debt rating business has been problematic and deserves some of the blame for the current failures.)  They’ve also faced some strange troubles in the past when their former CEO Maurice R. Greenberg was ousted for fraud concerns in 2005.  Even still, he held a 12% ownership stake in AIG along with his company C.V. Starr (after today, not anymore!).

This was a clever move by the government and probably the correct one.  Only time will tell, but I can’t think of any other steps that would have been more appropriate given the circumstances.

How Big is Lehman’s Failure? Big!

Lehman Brothers had $639 billion in assets and $613 billion in liabilities when it declared bankruptcy – the largest bankruptcy in US history.  Most of those assets will be unwound, revalued, and sold to cover the liabilities.  By the time this is over, shareholders will most likely receive nothing.

How much is $639 billion?  Well, here are some comparisons.

$639 billion would buy you:

That’s a lot of money!

The Meltdown Put – Wall Street’s New Moral Hazard

The Bear Stearns failure followed by the Lehman failure have created a new kind of moral hazard for Wall Street, something I’ve started calling The Meltdown Put.

A “put” is a kind of option that works very simply.  Two people form a contract, a seller and a buyer.  The seller writes the contract and agrees that if a stock or security drops below a certain price, they will buy that security from the buyer at that price.  So if I buy a put option for a stock at $10 and the stock drops to $9, then I can still sell my stock at $10.

When Bear Stearns failed, the government stepped in and arranged a bailout that eventually valued Bear at $10 per share.  Had the government not appeared, then Bear would likely have filed for bankruptcy just like Lehman.  Shareholders would have received $0 per share.

Like Bear Stearns, Lehman sits on a lot of messy banking contracts, repos, and all kinds of other stuff.  But unlike Bear, Lehman lacks the kind of complexity and depth of Bear’s arrangements for a variety of reasons (including the Fed’s new lending window for banks).  A failure of Bear would have been awful. A failure at Lehman is bad, but not the end of the world.  The Federal Government, tired of bailing out banks, has conspicuously ignored all pleas to help Lehman.

This is what I am now calling a Meltdown Put.  It works like this: if you’re doing something risky, do it in such a way that a failure of your project results in complete financial Armageddon.  While counter intuitive, you will actually protect shareholder value and backstop their losses by forcing the Federal Government to bail you out.  On the other hand, a more conservative approach will give the government less reason to care, and your shareholders end up absorbing your losses.

Essentially, the government now has an implied put contract on all banks.  If a bank risks ending the world, they’ll get bailed out.  If not, they’ll get ignored.  It’s not completely like a real put, but close enough.

The market rewards risk, and the Meltdown Put is the ultimate reward and the ultimate moral hazard.  The shareholders of any company with their finger on a financial nuclear bomb will be better off than those of a more conservative company.  The outcome from this can’t possibly be good.

Bad Day on Wall Street, Good Day for Yahoo?

Yahoo! Finance is remarkably slow today, making me wonder if they’re not getting slammed with traffic.  Just now I actually got a connection error.

Could today be a great day for Yahoo’s numbers?  Will down-on-their-luck finacial types be more or less likely to click on ads?  What about “outside observers” like me?

Financial Meltdown

Months back, I wrote about the Bear Stearns collapse and why the government bailout was so important.  Now the meltdown continues, and this time it involves more people.

Here’s a quick rundown of the players and what’s involved.

Lehman Brothers – A very old and respected bank, Lehman has long been the “next bank to go” after Bear Stearns. As a bank, they were far more conservative than Bear, but they were still able to amass enormous losses from mortgage exposure.  They had previously been trying to find a buyer, but after a deal with the Korea Development Bank failed, Lehman’s stock has plunged in value.  This is the second time Lehman has been “on the brink” – the previous time was 1984 when the bank was bought by American Express after a massive internal power struggle left them in a precarious position (AMEX divested it in 1994). This time, possible deals with Bank of America and Barclays have failed.  Lehman will likely file for bankruptcy in the next 24 hours and be liquidated over the coming months.

Merrill Lynch – Another well respected bank that, like Lehman, has amassed enormous losses despite being relatively conservative.  They were frequently brought up in the same breath with Lehman as a bank on the verge of failing.  Tonight, to the surprise of most people, Bank of America announced they were buying Merrill instead of Lehman.  The reported price is around $44 – $50 billion.

Fannie and Freddy – Technically last week’s news, these are the government sponsored mortgage lending programs designed to maximize home ownership. Last weekend, the government announced a sweeping program to take over these two programs and put them under full government control.

AIG – The next to go.  AIG is a global insurance company with tremendous exposure to the mortgage industry.  They have long held a AAA debt rating, allowing them to borrow very cheaply, invest in higher returning assets, and make tremendous profits.  At this point, AIG basically needs cash, but it’s not clear if they’ll be able to find it.  What’s worse is that their debt rating may be downgraded, unleashing even more misery on their balance sheet.

All in all, it’s an interesting weekend.  Here are some links for articles:

Nation’s Financial Industry Gripped by Fear

AIG looking at “options” for businesses, capital

Frantic day on Wall Street as banks teeter

A.I.G. Seeks $40 Billion in Fed Aid to Survive

Lehman bankrupt, Merrill bought, AIG collapsing: Where does it all end?

Ike: Best Wishes to Houstonians

Best of luck to all you Houstonians about to face Ike.  I have friends and family in Houston (including my sister), and I’m worried about you all.  Stay safe and dry.  Write when the power comes back on.

Here are some Ike links:

Ask 500 People a Question

I just ran across an interesting new site: Ask500People.  The idea is extremely simple: ask a question and up to 500 people will answer it.  You can also vote which questions should appear on their homepage.

Here’s a question I just created myself:

If you can’t see the poll, you can also vote here.

If Candidates were Cars

Over on Twitter, Jeremiah Owyang (@jowyang) asked people what kind of car each candidate would be.  You can follow the action by watching the #association tag on Summize.  I thought I would repost my answers here for everyone’s amusement:

  • Obama = Mercedes. The car is amazing, but past experience says it will break down and end up costing you more later.
  • McCain = Land Rover. Fun to drive, but guzzles gas. Due to bad planning, we end up getting sold to foreign nationals.
  • Palin = Caparo T1. It looks great in the garage, but when you actually try to drive the car, it explodes.
  • Biden = Honda Accord. It’s a solid reliable choice when you’re too afraid to pick anything more interesting.

All tongue in cheek, of course.  What are your answers?  If you’re on Twitter, also Tweet them with the #association tag to join the fun.