Showing posts with label AR Sorkin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AR Sorkin. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Bondholders probably have the most leverage in the talks. The president gave away his stick

TO BE NOTED: From the NY Times:

"
G.M.’s Bondholders Speak in the Voice of the Aggrieved

President Obama had scarcely outlined his plan to save General Motors and already, the big money was pushing back.

Not three hours after the president spoke on Monday I received an e-mail message from a group representing G.M. bondholders — people who are likely to have an enormous influence over the future of the Detroit carmakers.

The e-mail message, from advisers for an “ad hoc committee” whose members collectively hold G.M.’s $28 billion of debt, started by suggesting that they wanted to be part of the solution.

But by the end of the e-mail message, they were complaining that they were “very disappointed that the government and company have had virtually no real dialogue with bondholders while designing the proposed restructuring plan.”

The e-mail message came from the same group that two weeks ago grumbled that “G.M. bondholders have been asked to make deeper cuts than other stakeholders,” and threatened to send G.M. into bankruptcy. “Unless the framework we suggested is utilized,” the group said, “the restructuring currently contemplated will not achieve the required level of acceptance to succeed on an out-of-court basis.”

During the next 60 days, G.M. and its stakeholder have the last opportunity to save the company — or risk letting a bankruptcy judge do it for them. To do so, G.M. will almost certainly need concessions from two groups: workers and bondholders.

The workers, represented by the United Automobile Workers, have made concessions already. And the president said they need to make even more, as painful as it will be. The workers — despite often appearing recalcitrant — have the most to lose. If G.M. falls into bankruptcy protection, they could lose not only their jobs but also much of their retiree health care plan.

Then there are the bondholders. Their motivation is very different. For them, this is not about keeping their jobs or, frankly, about patriotism. It is about dollars and cents. And, according to some analysts, there is a chance they would actually do better in bankruptcy court than they would negotiating against G.M. or the government, which is seeking to reduce G.M.’s debt by two-thirds.

“If I’m a bondholder, the best forum for me is in front of a judge,” said Daniel Alpert, a founding managing director of Westwood Capital, an investment bank. “Let’s face it: the biggest problem at G.M. is still its cost basis, and that’s chiefly labor,” he added, suggesting a judge would look at the situation dispassionately.

So far, bondholders have been offered 8 cents on the dollar in cash, 16 cents on the dollar in new, unsecured debt, and a 90 percent stake in G.M. G.M.’s bonds closed Monday at 16 cents on the dollar. Hoping to apply some public pressure to the bondholders, Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, said Monday that if G.M.’s bondholders “refuse to work out a deal, they will likely end up empty-handed.” (That is not exactly true.)

Hoping to attract a bit of public sympathy themselves, the ad hoc committee has said, “G.M. bondholders are not a collection of Wall Street banks. Many of these bonds are owned by average citizens, who purchased them to support their own retirement and college expenses and other critical needs.”

That’s a bit of misdirection, however. While it is true that there are some “retail” investors that own G.M., about 80 percent of the bonds are held by large investors and hedge funds, many of which play in distressed debt markets. Some of them would less politely be called “vultures.” Indeed, G.M. bonds have been changing hands rapidly, suggesting that some hedge funds have been plowing into them, gambling that these investments soon will be worth even more.

It seemed unlikely to me that students or grandmothers had formed this ad hoc committee and would hire Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, the law firm, and Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin, the restructuring advisory firm, to advise them. That takes millions of dollars. Whoever these investors are, they must have billions at stake.

So I called Gabe Roth, the spokesman listed at the bottom of the message, and asked if I could speak with some of the bondholders the committee represents. The answer: “No. We’re not making them available.”

I followed up by asking which investors were members of this ad hoc committee. “We’re not making that public,” Mr. Roth said.

I reminded Mr. Roth that government money was at stake, and that we taxpayers might end up bailing out the bondholders. Doesn’t the public have a right to know whom they are negotiating with — or against? He demurred, suggesting that he needed to protect the bondholders’ identities.

But the identities of big G.M. bondholders are not a secret. They are disclosed in regulatory filings. Here are some of them: Capital Research & Management; Loomis, Sayles; and the Pacific Investment Management Company. Those are not exactly the mom-and-pop investors.

To be fair, many bondholders have lost a small fortune on G.M.’s bonds. And they have been frustrated that they have not been part of the dialogue in Washington and are worried the negotiations will be hijacked by the U.A.W., which has said it wants bondholders to make concessions before it does. (Bondholders say they have only had one official meeting with the administration.)

What is less clear, however, is how many new bondholders stand to make a small fortune if G.M. gets bailed out. (The government has a track record, which deserves scrutiny, of regularly bailing out bondholders and other Wall Street heavies.)

To its credit, the ad hoc committee was right about one thing: G.M.’s own restructuring plan clearly did not go far enough. In its e-mail message two weeks ago, the group said that “we are concerned that the company is putting too much faith in a near-term turnaround in the economy that would enable annual car and truck sales to reach previous levels. We do not know if the plan would, in fact, keep the company out of bankruptcy.”

President Obama concurred, pressing G.M. to come up with a better, more aggressive plan in the next 60 days.

Bondholders probably have the most leverage in the talks. The president gave away his stick — of threatening liquidation — when he said, “we will not let our auto industry simply vanish.”

The outcome for G.M. may still be bankruptcy, a plan that many have advocated. But if there is any chance of keeping the company out of Chapter 11, odds are bondholders — and not just workers — will have to come to the table with an open mind."

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

and I use this term with knowledge of its strength -- criminal organization

From Felix Salmon:

"
AIG Datapoint of the Day

Andrew Ross Sorkin looks at the systemic risk posed by AIG, and comes up with one scary datapoint which I missed when I covered the subject last week:

In the United States, A.I.G. has more than 375 million policies with a face value of $19 trillion. If policyholders lost faith in A.I.G. and rushed to cash in their policies all at once, the entire insurance industry could falter.

Sorkin also quotes AIG's current CEO firing directly at the structure set up by AIG's former CEO, Ace Greenberg:

"You have an insurance company that works really well and on top of it is a holding company and the holding company's biggest asset is this huge hedge fund," Edward M. Liddy, who became A.I.G.'s chief executive last fall, told me.

Sorkin doesn't quote Delaware chancellor Leo Strine on the subject of Greenberg and his "Inner Circle":

The Complaint fairly supports the assertion that AIG's Inner Circle led a -- and I use this term with knowledge of its strength -- criminal organization. The diversity, pervasiveness, and materiality of the alleged financial wrongdoing at AIG is extraordinary.

And he's not even talking about AIG Financial Products and its sales of credit default swaps!

Joe Nocera does a great job of explaining how AIG managed to scam the system to generate enormous amounts of income; unfortunately there seems to be no way that the government can claw that income back. But I do wonder whether we might not see some criminal complaints against former AIG executives at some point. They are, as Nocera says, the people who turned AIG into "ground zero for the practices that led the financial system to ruin".

Me:

We all see this crisis through different causes. I think that the two main causes are:
1) Implicit Government Guarantees to intervene in a financial crisis. I'm saying that the people running AIG,Citi, the B of A, etc., believed this, and made decisions based on it, and are, in fact, being proven correct.
2) Fraud, Collusion, Negligence, and Fiduciary Mismanagement.
As far as I'm concerned, AIG proves both.

Can't we at least investigate these causes?

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Does he really think that Dick Fuld has been "practically exonerated" by this one highly contentious document

Here's Salmon again:

"
Sorkin Exonerates Fuld

Andrew Ross Sorkin today has the most astonishing parenthetical I've seen in a long while:

(By the way, doesn't it seem increasingly hard to vilify Richard S. Fuld Jr., the former chief executive of Lehman Brothers, given what's happened since that firm filed for bankruptcy? If you haven't read it yet, there's a remarkable court filing by Harvey R. Miller, the respected lawyer at Weil, Gotshal & Manges overseeing the bankruptcy, that practically exonerates Mr. Fuld. See nytimes.com/dealbook)

The blog entry is here, and the court filing therein is simply dispatched by Sam Jones:

It is disingenuity of the highest order to suggest that banks like Lehman were passive victims of a stormy market. Their actions created the stormy market in the first place. Dick Fuld's Lehman reaped what it sowed.

In fact, the filing actively celebrates all the risks that were taken by Fuld and Lehman in the years leading up to the collapse, talking about Lehman's "four consecutive years of record-breaking financial results" between 2004 and 2007, and citing with admiration Lehman's soaring share price.

What's more, Miller's filing spends much more time on ad hominem attacks on Fuld's accusers than it does on seriously trying to defend Fuld's disastrous decisions -- something which is always a sign of a very weak case.

So why does Sorkin seem so inclined to take the filing at face value? Does he really think that Dick Fuld has been "practically exonerated" by this one highly contentious document, in the face of overwhelming evidence that Fuld levered up Lehman irresponsibly, refused to sell out when he could, and generally did nothing to save his bank until it was far too late?

Could this just be part of a campaign by Sorkin to get Fuld to talk to him? Sorkin doesn't just have his newspaper column: he also has TV and book projects going, and access to Fuld would be very valuable in what has become an extremely crowded meltdown-media marketplace. Alternatively, of course, Sorkin genuinely wants us to think that one overheated court filing is really sufficient to make him change his mind on the question of Fuld's basic culpability. So which is it?"

My reply:

From Bloomberg:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aMQJV3iJ5M8c&refer=home

"Meanwhile, worried that his lieutenants wouldn't be able to fetch a fair price from an investor, Fuld was pursuing another strategy. The plan his associates devised would offload Lehman's toxic commercial-mortgage portfolio to an independent company, codenamed Spinco. The new company's stock would be owned by Lehman shareholders, and its startup capital would be provided by the firm. While Lehman would have to raise fresh capital to replace what it transferred to Spinco, investors would be buying into an investment bank with a scrubbed balance sheet. "

Actually, he sounds prescient. Maybe we should call the Aggregator, Bad Bank "Spinco" in his honor. Why not let him run it?

And here I thought that Spinco was another one of the Marx brothers.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

"but it seems to be the best of many bad solutions"

Andrew Ross Sorkin in the NY Times:

"Dealbook:Obama’s Bailout Challenge

Another week, another bailout.

Governments in several countries are suddenly scrambling to deliver a second round of financial support to their teetering banking systems, after a first wave handed out at the height of the financial crisis failed miserably in its mission of getting credit flowing again( TRUE ).

Britain on Monday set the stage for a full takeover of its banking system. And now, Barack Obama is trying to figure out how to shore up this nation’s banking industry as its crisis snowballs.

Mr. Obama is going to have one heck of a first day on the job. Already, his aides have a bevy of ideas to sift through, ranging from having government buy banks’ troubled assets, to creating a “bad bank” to soak them up.( YIKES )

And it doesn’t stop there. Others say he should follow the model of Sweden and flat-out nationalize the American banking system( NOT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM. COME ON. ). Or he should inject more money into the banks and force them to lend it( THEY'RE SO GOOD AT IT. ). Another view says he should take a page from Henry M. Paulson Jr., the Treasury secretary, and try to “ring fence” the entire system with the equivalent of government insurance for banks.

Lawrence H. Summers, Mr. Obama’s chief economic adviser, hinted Sunday that he’d been developing a new plan, and seemed to suggest he was leaning toward finding a way to press banks to lend more money. “The focus isn’t going to be on the needs of banks,” he said. “It’s going to be on the needs of the economy for credit.”

Prime Minister Gordon Brown made similar noises on Monday, when he outlined a new £100 billion plan in which the government wrests a promise from banks to raise lending in exchange for having the taxpayer limit the banks’ losses from troubled assets.

“That will be legally binding,” Mr. Brown declared.

But let’s stop for a moment. This has been a popular — and populist — view that has emerged over recent months: those greedy bankers are hoarding our tax dollars instead of lending the money the way they were supposed to do. And it needs to stop.

This view, however, may be misplaced. As Citigroup and Bank of America have sadly demonstrated, if they had lent the money they were given last fall as part of the Treasury Department’s $700 billion bailout plan, they would be in even more trouble than they are now. And we, the taxpayers, would be even worse off.

Why? Because the government bought preferred shares with its first round of capital injections, banks, whose capital cushions have already thinned drastically, must keep the capital on their books if they are eventually to repay the loans.( THAT'S TRUE )

Yet if the banks directly lent the money being pumped into them, many could go bankrupt, requiring the government to step in again( YEP ). At the end of the day, as Mr. Obama and others have acknowledged, the nation must have a viable financial system.

Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, whose bank received TARP funds, took the issue seriously last week on a conference call with investors. “There have been a lot of questions out there on whether banks are making loans,” he said. “We are making loans all the time, but we are trying to follow the intent and spirit of TARP, which is to help the economy of the United States recover and make sure we’re financing people.”

Mr. Dimon, however, represents just one bank, and it may be the only bulge bracket bank in the nation that is healthy.

Which leads us to the much-heralded idea of following Sweden’s model of nationalizing our banking system. This approach worked quite well for the Swedes in 1992, when their banking industry was teetering much the way ours is now after a real estate bubble and lax lending led to a realization that the banking system was insolvent.

The Swedes spent $11.7 billion at the time, taking huge stakes in their banks. It took years, but eventually, they sold these stakes successfully. And while the gamble at the time was huge — the bill was about 4 percent of its gross domestic product — some observers say Sweden has since been whole. So intriguing was the idea, the Swedes sent a delegation to Washington in September to talk about their experience.

But the Swedish model, as attractive as it appears at first blush, would be a challenge to pull off here in the United States. Aside from the fact that America isn’t about widespread nationalization( JUST WIDESPREAD AND FOOLISH BAILOUTS ), the biggest problem with the Swedish model is that when it is applied here, it costs more — much more.( DID YOU HEAR THAT IT WORKED? )

America has already spent $1.5 trillion trying to solve our problem. To pull off a response similar to Sweden’s, we’d probably have to double, if not triple, that number. The chances we’d recover the money are even slimmer, given how much time it will take a larger economy like ours to come back from such a severe recession.( AND BUYING TOXIC ASSETS? )

More important, the values of our financial garbage — subprime mortgages, C.D.O.’s and derivatives — may eventually prove ethereal. Sweden’s banks had at least backed real tangible assets.

With options narrowing, Mr. Obama is also being pressed to consider the Paulson “ring fence” plan, adopted by Mr. Brown of Britain on Monday. And while it may work there, it would be difficult to make it work here in a systemwide way. So far, it’s been used in an ad hoc manner, customized for each bank.

So we’ve been left with a plan pushed by Sheila C. Bair, the chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, that calls for the government to buy up toxic assets from the banks, similar to the original plan for the TARP money.

But that plan was abandoned for all the right reasons: it would mean government would either have to buy the assets at inflated prices from banks — and therefore lose even more money on them — or risk forcing such massive write-downs that the banks would be insolvent all over again.( THAT'S IT )

I know what you’re saying: it’s easy to to knock down others’ ideas — what’s your idea?

Well, how about just following the current system of injecting money into banks to recapitalize them when they need it and “ring-fencing” bad assets when we can? It may not be popular, and it may take a while to work, but it’s one of the few viable alternatives. Perhaps we’ll have to pony up even more money — and maybe we should take an even bigger slice of equity — but it seems to be the best of many bad solutions."

Not quite.

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

"Andrew Ross Sorkin seems to have caught Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke out in a bit of a fib"

Given that I believe that the Lehman Decision introduced investors and markets to the notion that the bailouts would be selective and uncertain, and caused an upsurge in queasiness about the competence of the government's ability to handle this crisis, which, given that it was the Bush Administration, was probably not rock solid to begin with, I find this Felix Salmon post disturbing:

"Andrew Ross Sorkin seems to have caught Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke out in a bit of a fib. They couldn't bailout Lehman, said first Paulson and then Bernanke, because Lehman didn't have the collateral needed to put up against a Fed loan.

But it turns out that the Fed did lend Lehman money: a whopping $87 billion, to be precise, on the Monday it collapsed. And the official (if anonymously-sourced) explanation makes almost zero sense:

People involved in the process said that the Fed only lent the money as part of "an orderly wind-down," which would have been different from lending money to an ongoing, or in this case, insolvent concern.

What seems to have happened is that while Lehman Brothers Holdings, the listed company, declared bankruptcy, its brokerage subsidiary, LBI New York, did not. The Fed lent some emergency money to LBI New York, and then that liability was transferred to Barclays when it bought the brokerage.

But the our-hands-were-tied argument, which was never very convincing to begin with, now looks completely shot to pieces. Paulson and Bernanke made a decision to let Lehman fail; if they really wanted to, they could have rescued it."

Good for Andrew Ross Sorkin and Felix Salmon for fisking these stories. Anyone can be wrong, and I certainly understand that people could have believed and still do that letting Lehman blow up was the correct decision. But the truth about the decisions needs to come out. I believe, as I've already said when I read one of Bernanke's talks, that he actually believes that it was a poor decision. I believe that he will someday say so. In the meantime, I understand the hesistancy to seem even more clueless than you already appear to be. I, however, believe that admitting the Lehman Blunder would help inspire confidence. No one despises a rising learning curve, it's the descending ones that make the knees buckle and stomach churn.

To be honest, as I've said, considering it's the Bush Administration, Paulson and Bernanke are Godel and Einstein.