Economy

GMAC Asking for a Third Bailout From Taxpayers

by Flexo on October 29, 2009

Through today, GMAC has received government bailout funds totaling $12.5 billion. The company is asking the Obama administration for $5.6 billion more. One might say that in a true democracy, GMAC would need to ask permission from each taxpayer whose funds would go towards shoring up the company’s balance sheet, a move that would make GMAC appear more stable on paper. But we have a representative democracy, where Congress makes decisions that occasionally reflect the will of the members’ constituents.

GMAC might receive their third bailout. Industry analysts agree that the failure of GMAC would have a devastating ripple effect throughout the rest of the economy. If GMAC fails, so would the companies who depend on GMAC to offer loans to customers, General Motors and Chrysler. The failure of these companies in turn would result in the failures of suppliers and dealers. The government has already pumped so much taxpayer money into these companies that their failure would signal a broader failure of the entire bailout process. Also, GMAC’s total bailout is still less than the financial injections Citigroup and Bank of America have received.

In personal finance, an additional bailout for a failing company would be similar to throwing good money after bad. For example, if one makes a poor purchasing decision while buying a car, costly repairs might be necessary. Rather than cutting the losses and getting rid of the car, one might continue putting money into the black hole, and after time, the money that you spent on the purchase and repairs could have purchased a nicer car that ran without problems.

There is no guarantee that another bailout will save GMAC in the long run.

GMAC is the parent company of Ally Bank, formerly known as GMAC Bank, an online bank that has drawn in more customers with a savvy advertising campaign and high interest rates. The American Bankers Association forced the FDIC to request Ally Bank to lower its rates because other banks couldn’t compete with Ally’s new strength acquired with the help of taxpayers.

If GMAC were to fail, Ally Bank depositors should be safe as long as they have stayed within FDIC’s coverage limits.

I think it may be time to start allowing companies like GMAC, those who require funding from taxpayers to improve their balance sheets and who have little prospect for paying taxpayers back, to fail. There are signs the economy is recovering. Maybe it is time to let the market and capitalism work itself out. Those companies who remained conservative will survive and those who chased bad loans and complex derivatives without sufficiently considering risk will step aside.

Do you think GMAC should receive another bailout?

Photo credit: jim.greenhill
3rd Rescue Considered for GMAC, Eric Dash, New York Times, October 28, 2009

{ 11 comments }

12 comments

Pay Czar Ordering Bailed Out Companies to Reduce Pay

by Flexo on October 22, 2009

The executives of these companies had to see this coming. When a company is “too big to fail,” it becomes a public institution in senses of the phrase but the most literal. And for a number of banks and other financial companies in the past year, the public has become a partial owner thanks to infusion of cash from the government bailouts.

A company has a responsibility to do what is in the best interest of its stakeholders. For these bailed-out companies, taxpayers hold more of that stake than ever before. Those who own shares of stock in these companies want nothing more than the companies to be self-sustaining and profitable, but taxpayers, all who have lent money to the companies to help prop up their balance sheets and create liquidity, just want these loans paid back regardless of profit.

The government officially represents the taxpayers, not the shareholders, but you can be sure the government wants to see these companies profit, too. The Obama administration’s “pay czar,” Ken Feinberg, is going to determine the compensation for the highest 25 paid individuals in each of the companies that have not yet repaid government funds. The new compensation plans would reduce total pay by an average of 50% per individual and would reduce the cash portion of pay by an average of 90%.

Wall Street This could benefit both taxpayers and shareholders in the short term:

Pay reductions create an incentive for companies to pay back the taxpayers and become fully private.
Lowering pay lowers companies’ expenses so they can report bigger profits in their quarterly an annual financial statements.

The challenge with government-mandated compensation restriction is that executives and boards of directors believe that bailed-out companies will be less appealing to the best and brightest talent. Corporate leaders who find they can only earn $40 million at Company A but could earn $80 million or more by moving to a company not partially controlled by the public might defect for greener pastures.

That sounds like a solid threat, but it’s not likely on a large scale. There are enough talented and qualified senior-level executives out there who would be happy to take the reins of a company partially owned by the government. At least, that is what Ken Feinberg is hoping.

It’s unlikely taxpayers will see bailed-out companies repay all of the money that they received. The government’s job right now is to get back as much of those funds as possible while still, to a point, preventing the companies from failing.

Photo credit: epicharmus
Wall Street Pay Cuts Stoke Debate About Washington’s Reach, Julianna Goldman, Ian Katz and Robert Schmidt, Bloomberg, October 22, 2009

{ 12 comments }

11 comments

How to Prepare for the Demise of the Dollar

by Flexo on October 6, 2009

Since the middle of the twentieth century, the U.S. dollar has been the currency that has dominated the world. Governments have held dollars in reserve, and borrowed dollars when necessary, because this currency can buy just about anything, anywhere. In particular, dollars can easily buy oil, a commodity currently necessary for the progress of developed societies.

Countries have attempted to reduce their dependence on the dollar. Iraq began pricing its oil in euros rather than dollars in November 2000. It wasn’t long after that the United States invaded the country and took control of oil production, adjusting the pricing back to the dollar. Iran announced it plans to hold its reserve currency in euro, and this might prove to be more successful.

There might be a coalition of countries ready to move away from using the dollar as their reserve currency. I’m not usually drawn into conspiracy theories, but I think, considering the state of the economy in the United States, the strength of the dollar, and the country’s massive governmental debt, there is a strong possibility that several decades in the future the United States will not be the economic superpower it once was.

Here are some details reported by the Independent, but since denied by governments:

Secret meetings have already been held by finance ministers and central bank governors in Russia, China, Japan and Brazil to work on the scheme, which will mean that oil will no longer be priced in dollars… [This] augurs an extraordinary transition from dollar markets within nine years…

This sounds like a dangerous prediction of a future economic war between the US and China over Middle East oil - yet again turning the region’s conflicts into a battle for great power supremacy.

Amplifying the importance of the currencies used for trading oil is the idea that at some point in the future — and there have been many disagreements about when dating back to the 1970s — the earth will no longer provide new sources of oil. Supply will eventually begin to shrink and unless major reforms in energy gain momentum, competition for the commodity and its price will increase.

Prepare for the dollar’s demise

Let’s assume this is true for a moment. If the dollar continues to decline, what are options for individuals who would like their wealth to grow over the course of the next thirty years or more?

Ignore the problem. It is possible that despite these obstacles, the dollar may end up victorious. It would take a lot of political might, and I expect more wars, for this to happen. What would a war with China look like?

There is also a reasonable argument that most of us, confined to little exposure to the world outside of our own country, will continue to build wealth in dollars. The external value of a dollar to other currencies could be irrelevant. I do think that as societies continue to progress, globalization continues and it is more difficult to exist in isolation.

Buy gold. Gold has for a long time been considered “real” currency compared to money issued by governments. In the earlier days of the United States, the government issued paper currency backed by gold reserves, so you could theoretically trade in your dollars for gold. Gold may be used as an interim reserve currency while the world loses confidence in the dollar and governments make other plans.

Gold has already shot up in price compared to the dollar and it probably will continue to do so.

Buy euros. If governments are looking to the euro as the basis for their reserves, perhaps you should as well. One option may be to keep a portion of your savings in CDs denominated in euros. Everbank offers this service but I have not yet tried these products.

Invest in China. Another article from The Independent suggests that for most of the next decade, China’s economy will grow 10 percent a year while the United States’ will grow only 2 percent a year. If true, this might be a good time to invest in China. If you want to take this bet, Vanguard’s best option is their Emerging Markets Stock Index Fund (VEIEX) with an expense ratio of 0.39%. Four of the top ten holdings in this fund are based in China making China the fund’s biggest representative. Over the past year, the China-based holdings increased to account for 18.4% of the entire portfolio from 12.4%.

And since buying the fund in dollars pits the strength of that currency against the others, you’ll benefit from both the dollar’s decline and other currencies’ success.

This is probably one of the riskiest bets of the century, but it may pay off.

Much ado about nothing

Saudi Arabia has denied that there have been “secret meetings” as cited above. The United States might quickly recover from the recession and other countries might relent with a stronger dollar. Recent studies suggest the United States will still be the primary global economic superpower in 2020.

What do you think? Is this the time to start thinking about how you might prepare for an economy decades in the future in which the United States is not the most primary economic superpower in the world? And how do you prepare for this?

The Demise of the Dollar, Robert Fisk, The Independent, October 5, 2009

{ 11 comments }

8 comments

10 Percent of U.S. Post Offices Under Evaluation, 700 to Be Closed

by Flexo on August 4, 2009

The U.S. Postal Service has not been a thriving business for a while, and the recession has worsened its condition. In order to save $7 billion, the government is evaluating about 3,200 offices out of the total of 32,741, and 700 of these are currently marked for closure.

Personally, I am a fan of the U.S. Postal Service. I’ve found their services to be less expensive than other shipping options and just as reliable. The biggest drawback I have experienced is when visiting the facilities. The lines are often too long and the hours are inconvenient. Post office employees, those that I have seen, often seem disgruntled, frustrated and overworked. There are never enough works available to assist customers, and from what I understand, my experiences are not unique.

The U.S. Postal Service is disadvantaged against the capital available for their competitors like UPS and FedEx. They have no competition for the millions of people who first began communicating my phone rather than letter, and later, by email and text messaging. There are many people, possibly even a majority, who would be happy to see the U.S. Postal Service disappear.

People living in the areas served by the 700 offices slated for closing might be the first to experience life without USPS. If not, they will have to travel farther to the post office, make use of more expensive mailing options, and possibly receive mail less often. But the complete disappearance of the U.S. Postal Service would have a devastating effect. Households receive mail every day. Much of it is unwanted marketing, but it’s unlikely that will stop. Without the Postal Services, other companies will have to fill the void with standard daily mail delivery. And the great pricing that the U.S. Postal Service offers customers for this mail — and the even better pricing offered for bulk mail and non-profit organizations (and religious organizations) — would disappear as well.

If the website is available, you should be able to download the list of the 700 stations to be closed here. More information is available at the Postal Regulatory Commission’s website.

{ 8 comments }

3 comments

New Consumer Financial Regulation

by Flexo on June 18, 2009

The White House is proposing a realignment of the financial regulation that failed to prevent the latest recession, but will the proposals help protect consumers? There is a long way to go between the President’s proposal and the enactment of a law, but here are the highlights as the plan stands today.

The Financial Services Oversight Council, run by the Treasury, will “help fill gaps in regulation, facilitate coordination of policy and resolution of disputes, and identify emerging risks in firms and market activities.” They will have the power to gather information from any financial firm to identify risks. The Council will be composed of one leader from each of the federal financial regulators.

Not only banks will be regulated. Any company whose size allows its instability to threaten the stability of the economy will be within the scope of the increased regulation.

There will be no more federal thrifts.

Hedge funds and other private pools of capital will be required to registers with the SEC.

The government will create the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). This agency stands to be one of the strongest in terms of ability to create and enforce regulations throughout the financial industry. The organization will focus on transparency, simplicity, fairness, accountability, and access.

Along with the elimination of federal thrifts, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) will also disappear or be incorporated into other regulatory agencies. Interestingly, this is the one regulator bankers like. In the current environment, financial companies can often shop around for their favorite regulator, and the OTS has often been chosen thanks to their hands-off approach. OTS was the supervisor of choice for the failed companies IndyMac, Countrywide, Washington Mutual, and AIG. Other regulators were not immune, however.

Just like the FDIC helps banks fail in an organized manner rather than allowing the failure to spur chaos, the new regulatory system would do the same for all other large financial companies.

Penelope Wang from CNN explains how these regulations might affect consumers.

Consumers will have access to “plain-vanilla” mortgages with simple terms and pricing. In my opinion, these are almost guaranteed to be more expensive thanks to the simplicity premium.
Brokers will not be encouraged to “suggest” customers choose unaffordable mortgages.
Some overdraft loan changes will require customers to opt in to overdraft protection.
Regulators would enforce fair lending laws so more low-income families would have access to financial services.

New Foundation, New Stability, Jesse Lee, The White House, June 17, 2009
How Obama’s Financial Watchdog Could Protect You, Penelope Wang, CNN, June 17, 2009

{ 3 comments }

6 comments

President Obama Proposes Executive Pay Legislation

by Flexo on June 11, 2009

Yesterday, the White House announced new plans for letting investors have a say in executive compensation. With this proposal, shareholders of all public companies will be able to vote on the pay levels of the companies’ highest paid senior management. This sounds like a better plan than allowing the government to set absolute compensation limits, but while the shareholders would have a vote, they would have no power to enforce the results of the vote. The companies can decide to ignore the shareholders’ wishes, effectively saying, “Thanks for the suggestion; we will get back to you on that. Don’t call us, we’ll call you.”

Additionally, the executive branch named Kenneth Feinberg as “pay czar.” Feinberg will oversee major expenses for companies that received money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).

Will the new legislation giving shareholders votes on executive compensation, if passed by Congress, have any effect?

{ 6 comments }

17 comments

10 Banks Allowed to Repay TARP Bailout Money

by Flexo on June 9, 2009

Ten banks have now been approved by the government to being repaying taxpayers for a portion of the more than $700 billion the industry has received from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in total. The stated purpose of the TARP was to provide banks with the capital to boost their balance sheets and ease the tightening in lending, boosting the financial industry from its slump.

TARP funds have become a liability, though, at least in terms of public relations. A number of insurance companies were approved for an offshoot of the TARP, but many of these companies ended up refusing the extra capital and government involvement, a thorn in the side of executives who have seen their compensation regulated.

Now companies cannot leave the TARP program fast enough. According to the Wall Street Journal, these are banks that are satisfied with the benefits they received from the government so far and are now eager to repay taxpayers a total of $68 billion:

American Express
Bank of New York Mellon
BB&T Corporation
Capital One Financial
Goldman Sachs
JPMorgan Chase
Morgan Stanley
Northern Trust
State Street Corporation
US Bancorp

By accpeting the repayments, the government is giving up almost $2 billion in annual interest payments that would have come from these banks. The move, however, may be a sign that the financial industry is rebounding.

{ 17 comments }

8 comments