Category Archives: $700,000,000,000 Bailout

A Silicon Valley/Venture Capital Solution to the Housing Crisis

(Follow Me on Twitter at watchingmarcitz) 

(Having problems with your Toyota.  Learn how to get more for your troubles)

So President Obama  has finally decided to do ”cram-downs” with taxpayer money.  This is the idea that one should reduce (cram-down) the amount owed on  a house to put it more in line with the new (reduced) value of that house so a person can refinance or won’t just abandon the property.

I am totally opposed to cram-downs (especially for those that are underwater because they chewed up their equity on cash-out refis for frivolous spending) but if Obama is going to do it let’s at least do it in a way that protects taxpayers, encourages the right kind of behavior going forward and isn’t just a handout to the unfortunate or financially ignorant or profligate.  That lesson comes from the way venture capitalists invest in Silicon Valley startups and the answer is “cash for equity.”

Yes cash for equity has already been done with the money going to the banks but the valuation method has all been wrong.  For housing cram-downs its very simple and it aligns everyones goals (at least the ones we want to support)

Take for example you have a house that has $600,000 in loans against it but it is now worth $500,000 .  The owner is seeking to refinance it but can only do so for $500,000 so they need a $100,000 “cram down”. 

If the government (or the bank ) provides it they should get a percentage of equity in the house equal to the cram down amount divided by the new appraised value of the house.

In this case that would be $100,000/$500,000 = 20%

Now when the owner goes to sell the house 20% of the proceeds immediately go to the entity providing the cram-down (government, bank, etc..).

Why is this fair?  Well if you are going into foreclosure you have effectively lost the asset.  Refinancing is a way to buy it back but to buy it back you need a partner to provide some of the financing.  So, in this example, you are effectively asking someone for $100,000 to buy a $500,000 asset (remember $600,000 is irrelevent at this point in the game).  They are putting up 20% of the money so effectively they own 20% of the equity.

Here’s why you do it this way:

  • Supposedly preventing foreclosures will “save the market” so the taxpayer/bank investor should get to partake in the upside (and share the risk on the downside).
  • If the goal is to keep people in their homes with our money then those people better damn well stay in those homes.  This will make that likely because they’ll have to wait it out until either they have paid down the principal on their loan by the equity percent  or the home has risen in value enough so they can sell the home and pay off the cram-down equity holder and the mortgage lender.
  • This should also separate the real homeowner from the “flipper”.  The “flipper” won’t want this “long term commitment” and will just give up the house.  The real homeowner who is committed to staying will be much more agreeable because they truly plan on riding this thing out.

Administering this program is simply done by the IRS which is informed of all major income events and can act as a collection mechanism for this.

So PLEASE don’t do cram-downs but if we must lets do them right.  It works for Silicon Valley to take cash for equity so why not let it work for the rest of the country.

Oh and don’t forget to email Timothy Geithner to tell him what a horrible plan this is.

(Follow Me on Twitter at watchingmarcitz)

(Having problems with your Toyota.  Learn how to get more for your troubles)

I Couldn’t Have Said It Better Myself

I recently stumbled upon this excellent response to a misguided New York Times editorial that argued that GM needed to be protected from bankruptcy.  The response, posted by Mr. Lancelot Fletcher, argued that, in fact, bankruptcy was exactly the remedy that is needed, is not all that bad and is the best course for GM and the economy.  While these were the exact points I wanted to make Mr. Fletcher beat me to it and I like to give credit where credit is due.  To that end I have reproduced Mr. Fletcher’s comments below:

Isn’t this — the current plight of the big auto makers — exactly what Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code was designed for? Chapter 11 is not the “drop dead” option. (That would be Chapter 7.) A Chapter 11 debtor normally proposes a plan of reorganization to keep the business alive, pay creditors over time, and ultimately return to profitability. Many large companies have entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy without ceasing operations and some (e.g. Delta Airlines) have subsequently emerged as profitable enterprises.

I don’t think the opponents of a Washington bailout for the auto industry are proposing that the Big Three should be simply liquidated under Chapter 7. Hence talk about the millions of jobs that would be lost if bailout legislation is not enacted is misleading and exaggerated.

If the opposing sides on this issue would listen to each other, they might discover that they are not that far apart. The advocates of the bailout are not proposing to have the government simply lend money to the auto companies with no strings attached. They are proposing to require, as a condition of the loan, that the industry agree to a far-reaching reorganization of the industry. On the other hand, reorganization is precisely what is required in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. It’s true that in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy the US Congress does not normally get to dictate the terms of the reorganization. But most Americans would probably agree that having the government specify the terms of business organization is not a good idea. So the argument of the opponents of the bailout might be that we should not enact new laws to do what the existing laws are already capable of accomplishing.

Thank you Mr. Fletcher!

How to vote NO on the GM, Ford and Chrysler Bailout

GM is mounting a campaign to save itself after years of self-neglect.  Even Thomas Friedman of the New York Times thinks protecting the current company and management is a bad idea.

GM has set up a number to have your voice heard.  Granted they want you to call and profess support but you can also call this number to say “NO!” to bailing out inefficent companies that have had ample time to fix it themselves (35 years since this problem happened once before). 

Simply call 1-866-927-2233, enter your zip code and you will be able to connect with your representatives (Senate and House).  When you are connected say:

“I DO NOT support any bailout of General Motors (or Ford or Chrysler) and feel that, in the long run, the country will be better positioned if the current companies are left to make the hard-choices that will make them competitive in the future.”

In addition you can also send a personalized email to the President, Vice President and your members of congress though FreedomWorks.org.

If you need more reasons just ask the New York Times or The Wall Street Journal.

A “Division” Problem for General Motors

So lets do some quick math. 

In the 1970s when General Motors had 50% US market share they had 5 consumer divisions (we’ll leave GMC as a “business” division).

That meant that each division, could, on average, have 10% market share.  That’s an OK-sized business.

Now GM has 7 divisions (again leaving GMC aside) and has 25% market share.

That means that each division could, on average, have less than 4% market share (3.57% to be precise).  That is not a very healthy nor sustainable business model (given the marketing and infrastructure costs to keep these divsions alive – as it were)

This division is the heart of GM’s division problem.  Before they can ever even hope to get better they need to benefit from a concept that made them successful in the past, namely “economies of scale”.   Right now there is no chance to take advantage of that because they have NO SCALE.

This is why there should not be a bail-out of GM and at most a “bail-down”.  They should pare down to 3 divisions at most (Cadillac, Chevy, Saab)

Until they scale-down they can never hope to scale-up.

How Foreign is an “American” Car?

We keep talking about the bailout of the American auto industry but for years now the domestic content (the amount of American materials and labor used to make that car) of the Big Three has been falling while the domestic content of the “foreign” companies has been growing. 

Here’s an interesting stat.  The Toyota Camry (one of the most popular cars, by sales volume, in the United States) is produced in Lexington Kentucky and consists of 80% American content, the Honda Accord (another one of the most popular) has 70%.  The all-American muscle car, the Ford Mustang, consists of 65% American content. Surprised?  Well then check out this study by The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (one could argue a “pro-American” organization).

One noteworthy quote from that study is:

“Today the distinction between “American” and “foreign” vehicles is not so clear:  Some models produced by the American-owned Detroit Three carmakers have a smaller share of domestic parts than models produced by foreign-owned carmakers.”

So ask yourself is a bailout of the Big Three truly a bailout of the American automobile industry or just a bailout of the worst American auto industry players?  Also ask, does Toyota get a bail-out as well so they can retool their American factories to build more fuel-efficient cars?  Oh, that’s right they already have, my Camry Hybrid came from that Lexington Kentucky plant OVER TWO YEARS AGO.

Its Time to Demote the General

Should we bail-out General Motors?  NO!

How about, at most, we bail-down General Motors. 

Let’s face reality.  General Motors has had cancer for over 35 years that just reached all the major organs.  Back in the early 1970s they first encountered a surprising spike in high-priced gas during a time when they sold fabulously large and gas-guzzling vehicles (deja vu?).  At that time Toyota was not even a viable competitor but because they made smaller  cars they had a more fuel efficient fleet (and, believe it or not, lower quality) and they were able to grab an increasing share of the market.  Dumb luck played into their hands but they seized the opportunity.

At the same time of Toyota’s ascendancy GM, however, took an entirely different tack (I know I worked there from 1988-1992 and yes worked on the Saturn EV-1 doing all the initial market research).   They continued to lose market share by ignoring the market or, even when they got it right, building poor quality product, or even when they got that right doing a poor job of pricing or marketing them.  They even had the world’s first alternative fuel vehicle (Saturn EV-1) and gave up on it when California  law no longer required it.  Toyota, on the other hand, stood by the Prius for 11 years and now look at it.

The sad truth is that the weakness of the GM business model means that, at best, GM can survive (no matter how much help they receive) as a much smaller entity.  It is fruitless to provide a “bail-out” and any assistance should be in the form of a bail-down.  It should be designed to allow a smooth downward transition of GM, maybe not to oblivion but to a much smaller company with AT MOST 3 domestic divisions (I vote for Cadillac, Chevy and Saab) as opposed to the 8 they have today (more than they had when they had 50% market share then as opposed to 25% now).  No matter what is done jobs will be lost as GM cannot continue to survive in its present form or present size (and there is 30 years of trend data to back that up). 

Looking at any help for GM as a bail-down as opposed to a bail-out also helps to make better decisions that have a longer term positive impact.  A bail-out pours money into an archaic “blue” AND “white” collar management structure that cannot operate efficiently and will only continue to decline  (throwing good money after bad).   A bail-down shifts those funds to the innocent victims, namely the individual employees (in the form of unemployment benefits, retraining, relocation) currently trapped in that archaic structure and provides a transition out and the ability to reorganize for more efficient use of their labor in growing companies.  It seems to be an overlooked fact that there is actually an American automotive company that is hiring and even building a new plant.  Its called Tesla and its here in Silicon Valley.  Lets get some of those employees some plane tickets (to save on additional fees at the gate leave the union baggage behind).    Not to mention they could buy some of those foreclosed houses in Gilroy and Vallejo we need to get rid of thereby solving two problems at once.

A lesson to learn from the AIG is that those initial bailouts never work and only get larger as time goes on so that is why a much more metered and purposeful response is in order that benefits the individuals and not the companies.

Oh and President-Elect Obama I have good news for you.  You have a vision of one day being able to buy a hybrid or alternative-fuel vehicle made right here in the United States.  I applaud that vision and am happy to tell you that two years ago today I traded-in my old gas-guzzling Pontiac for a beautiful mid-sized HYBRID family car made right in Lexington Kentucky that gets 35 MPG OVERALL and has more domestic automobile content than the Ford Mustang.  Its called a Toyota Camry.

Long live Lieutenant Motors!!!

Financially Responsible? Protect Your Money and Email the Treasury Department

Are you financially responsible and upset that your money is going to BRIBE people to stay in their homes EVEN THOUGH they can make the payments.  Well if you are you can write to the new Chief of Homeownership Preservation Donna Gambrell at Donna.Gambrell@do.treas.gov and let her know that the Treasury Department should NOT do this.

She (or at least her office) has already been kind enough to respond to me so she is receiving email.

You can also reach out to her boss Neel Kashkari at Neel.Kashkari@do.treas.gov or higher up to Secretary Henry Paulson at Henry.Paulson@do.treas.gov.

Please feel free to write your own letter or you can copy from the letter I sent.

Happy writing and let’s stand up for the financially responsible.

Check Out My New YouTube Videos

So I decided to try my hand at YouTube this weekend and created the following videos for your satirical enjoyment.

What Would Jesu…Uh, I Mean, Warren Do?

So I have a very simple question, why don’t we get our bailout ideas from someone who knows how to pick a market as opposed to a former Wall Street CEO, failed President and 535 desperate and economically naive, attention/vote hungry lawyers?  Its not elegant but why not just take a page from Warren Buffet?

So he recently gave a cash infusion to Goldman Sachs (see the Wall Street Journal article) in a way meant to maximize his shareholder(s’) value.  The plan basically provided money with a fat interest rate that gave him priority over the exisiting shareholders.  Simply put he got protection and payout while the normal Goldman shareholders assumed most of the risk.   Isn’t that what would make for a very palatable bailout (in the eyes of the taxpayer/investor) for the rest of the banking industry?

True, Goldman is a going concern and the “cream of the crop” in terms of banks.  That is different then the cream-of-the-crap that we (the US taxpayer/investor) would be investing in but we would be the preferred shareholders.  If anything that is much better than purchasing, by design, self-described “toxic assests”. 

This plan has all the benefits of the equity portions of the bailout plan with much less of a downside, namely:

  1. No valuation issues so its quick to accomplish.  Here’s $5 billion, give us a check for $500 million every year and we’ll call it square. 
  2. First in line for payback so we get the upside
  3. Last in line for risk so we don’t get, for the most part, the downside

In short when all else fails, plagiarise

Don’t Sellout with the Bailout

In reviewing the draft of the current bailout plan I noticed these two little chestnuts:

 

Sec. 4. Reports to Congress.

Within three months of the first exercise of the authority granted in section 2(a), and semiannually thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the Committees on the Budget, Financial Services, and Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committees on the Budget, Finance, and Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate with respect to the authorities exercised under this Act and the considerations required by section 3.

 

Sec. 8. Review.

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

 

Here are the 3 major problems with this current plan:

 

NO ACCOUNTABILITY

First, what does presentation matter if they can’t be reviewed?  Is congress willing to just hand over $700 billion in taxpayer money without any checks-or-balances?

 

UNKNOWN SECRETARY OF TREASURY (post election)

Second, not only are you about to hand $700,000,000,000 without the ability to review but you are giving it to an unknown person.  Can you tell me who the Secretary of the Treasury will be in late January ’09?  Oh you can’t?  Well at least tell me what their political party affiliation is?  Oh don’t know that either?  OK I guess you should just make this check out to cash

 

EXTREMELY WEAK REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Third, this unknown and unchecked Secretary of the Treasury only has to present to congressional committees once every 6 months.  As this is the largest and most public of public corporations why are they NOT held to the same level of regulation as all other public companies including quarterly reporting requirements, financial GAAP accounting rules and, most importantly, Sarbanes-Oxley?  We may disagree about whether there is too much or too little corporate regulation but a least the current regulations should be applied the same way to all public corporations.

 

Please don’t sell out reason, the US system of checks-and-balances and $700,000,000,000 of taxpayer money in a fit of panic and political positioning this week.