home

When Debtholders Ask For Shared Sacrifice

Why can there not be shared sacrifice from Wall Street regarding the financial bailout when GM bondholders are calling for it regarding the automaker bailout?

With a March 31 deadline for General Motors’s restructuring approaching, the ailing car maker’s bondholders are continuing to press their case to the public. In a letter to the Obama administration’s autos task force, the unofficial bondholders committee reiterated its argument that the pain in any restructuring of G.M. be shared by all of the company’s constituencies — or risk bankruptcy. . . . “It is unclear why it was decided that GM’s bondholders should bear the greatest risk here,” the letter reads. “Consequently, it is not surprising that others may be ready to accept a deal that severely disadvantages bondholders who had no role in crafting it.”

(Emphasis supplied.) I do not know enough about the particulars of the GM situation to say whether this is a fair complaint, but what bothers me is that the counterparties to the Big Sh*tpile are NOT complaining in the same way. You wonder why they aren't whining like this? Because Tim Geithner has their back. He should have the country's back. Therein lies the problem.

Speaking for me only

< Glib | President Obama on "60 Minutes" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    They're BSing you (none / 0) (#1)
    by steviez314 on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 05:24:16 PM EST
    The GM bondholders are the largest bond funds in the country (Pimco, etc) along with hedge funds at this point.

    They have wanted to take NO haircut since the beginning of time and want the unions and equity holders and gov't to take the hit.

    The reason they're crying in public is because unlike the banks, GM is insolvent both cash flow and balance sheet wise TODAY under anyone's math, so their game of Chapter 11 chicken is more focused.

    I imagine so (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 05:26:18 PM EST
    But my point is different. Why is there no whining from the bondholders and CDO counterparties regarding Geithner's plan?

    Because Geithner has their back. And that is wrong.

    Parent

    Why do you keep repeating (none / 0) (#4)
    by NYShooter on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 05:39:41 PM EST
    "Geithner has their back.?"

    Isn't that accepted fact now?

    The debate is over.

    Parent

    Is it? (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 05:41:27 PM EST
    I hope so. And I hope that sparks anger. He should have OUR backs.

    Parent
    Well, I think (none / 0) (#11)
    by NYShooter on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 06:08:49 PM EST
    it is accepted fact by all, except the blind believers.

    And I also think, like Watergate, this isn't going to go away.

    Articles like "The Bailouts, Obama's Katrina," and more and more editorials (former Obomabots) are turning skeptical.

    And why are there still 14 senior Treasury posts vacant four months after Geithner's comfirmation?

    Parent

    Was Gietner confirmed 4 months ago (none / 0) (#12)
    by D Jessup on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 06:31:25 PM EST
    I thought he was confirmed 1/26/09, must have lost over 2 months of my life or mabybe it seems like it was that long.

    Parent
    Confirmatio (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by NYShooter on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 07:55:44 PM EST
    Thank you.

    I should have said "chosen," as I believe Obama had decided on him about four months ago.

    Once becoming a potential nominee, I would think he/she would be well on their way compiling a list of possible deputies.

    Parent

    I don't know if Gaithner has (none / 0) (#19)
    by Green26 on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 09:50:32 PM EST
    the bondholders' backs, but I don't think we're yet at a point with the banks where it's necessary to negotiate with the banks.

    If the current plans work, that won't be necessary. In fact, if the current plans work, most of the money used for the banking crisis will be recouped by the US.

    Parent

    BTW (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 05:26:58 PM EST
    Are you saying TARP was unnecessary? Really? Puhleeaze.

    Parent
    Well, to this day, I'm still not sure what TARP 1 (none / 0) (#6)
    by steviez314 on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 05:43:09 PM EST
    did.

    Did it instill confidence in the banks?  Nope.

    Did it increase lending?  Nope.

    I guess it DID improve the banks' capital ratios (or at least keep them from getting much worse with the new write-offs).  But looser capital requirements would have done that (capital requirements should be counter-cyclical anyway).

    I guess the TARP money gave the debt holders a somewhat bigger cushion in case there ws a liquidation, but otherwise, those capital injections into the banks were useless.

    The more important things the gov't did at that time was to guarantee new bank debt, money market funds and increase deposit insurance (they shouls have gone further and made FDIC insurance to cover large deposits $1MM+ from businesses for a fee.)

    Parent

    So why do we need TARP II? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 05:44:44 PM EST
    Otherwise known as the Geithner Plan?

    Parent
    The thinking is that with $1T of underperforming (none / 0) (#8)
    by steviez314 on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 05:52:04 PM EST
    assets removed from their balance sheets, the banks can use their existing capital base to make a new $1T of (better) loans, which you would think they would want to do, given 0% deposit costs and a very positive yield curve.

    Perhaps with these assets removed, the banks might get new capital investment too, and be able to lever that up into new loans.

    Human nature being what it is, I'm not sure the banks will follow through and I'm not sure anyone currently knows what a good loan would be (cue economy and stimulus plans here).

    Parent

    Hmm (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 05:57:40 PM EST
    So if the government formed its own bank with that 1 trillion dollars, why would that not serve the same purpose?

    Parent
    Yes. What should have been done with TARP (none / 0) (#10)
    by steviez314 on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 06:06:12 PM EST
    is that the government should have taken the $350B, leveraged it up 10-1 like a bank, and had a $3.5T new bank.

    Or at least figured out a way to seed new banks.

    The old banks could have gone bad bank/good bank model and liquidated over time.

    I have no clue who would have run the gov't bank, and how politics could be kept out of financial decisions though.

    Parent

    There are no "better loans' to be made. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ben Masel on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 11:03:44 PM EST
    Anyone who needs/wants one for aq mortgage is subject to too much risk of layoff, medical, etc.

    What rate of return would you want for a fresh loan to GM?

    Parent

    Just a question (none / 0) (#13)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 06:49:40 PM EST
    re TARP I.  Were we not in a rather sudden emergency situation?  TARP I for sure loosened the credit freeze-up, no?  (A look at the Ted spread chart from mid-September tells that story, doens't it?)

    OK, my assumption is that TARP I was a pretty frantic attempt to fix a very urgent problem, made worse by the two-week delay in Congressional approval.

    Yes, coulda, shoulda, woulda, but that's the situation we were in mid-September.  Is it utterly inexecusable that the government (ie Paulson plus Bernanke) didn't stop to argue through all the alternatives but just literally threw money at the it as fast as possible to try to solve the immediate problem?

    Just askin', hindsight being 20/20 and all that.

    Parent

    It wasn't really TARP I that undid the freeze (none / 0) (#14)
    by steviez314 on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 07:01:38 PM EST
    as re TED spreads. It was the other actions, the money market guarantee, new bank debt guarantee, and of course the massive amount of money injected by the Fed, the UK, etc.

    I guess maybe in the psychological effect it did somewhat, as if the gov't was investing $350B, they just wouldn't let the banks fail.  But as to the actual money put into the banks, it just was used to raise capital ratios.

    Parent

    How Much of What Treasury and... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by santarita on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 07:22:05 PM EST
    the Fed are doing is for the benefit of shoring up the confidence of foreign investors?

    Parent
    92% (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ben Masel on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 11:05:13 PM EST
    Some lending has been increased (none / 0) (#20)
    by Green26 on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 09:52:08 PM EST
    and things like the commerical paper market for large entities improved considerably.

    Parent
    As was stated, the situation of GM is (none / 0) (#18)
    by Green26 on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 09:47:07 PM EST
    very different than the situation of the banks.

    GM's balance sheet and long-term outlook is worse than the banks.

    GM does not have toxic assets on its balance sheet, which, ultimately, will likely be worth much more than what they are currently valued at.

    Neither GM nor the other US car companies, while important, are as important to the US and the US economy as the big banks.

    GM has union contracts, including both pay and healthcare, that are dragging them down--and will continue to drag them down.

    Banks have compensation system and regualatory systems that will likely be dealt with in the future.

    Parent

    bondholders are us (none / 0) (#15)
    by diogenes on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 07:20:22 PM EST
    A lot of bondholders are pension funds and mutual funds which hold the people's pension money.  Why should we take a bath because the UAW is unwilling to even accept a Ford deal? If GM stock is so worthless that the union doesn't want it to fund retiree health, then maybe the company should be liquidated and we should be spending billions on Ford instead since it is the better horse in this race.  It speaks volumes that Cerberus won't put any more of its money into Chrysler--another toilet in which to flush your own money away, but fine to put "government money" into.  

    How about the Swedish model for auto makers? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Green26 on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:20:40 AM EST
    The Swedish government is so far willling to let Saub fail.

    See today's NY Times article.

    Old thinking (none / 0) (#24)
    by koshembos on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 02:30:04 AM EST
    GM is seen through the lenses of rich worker. Society is outraged by blue color workers who make a decent living who are seen as the enemies of everyone less. We really got to the deepest of lows.

    Big banks can fail and failed in the past; it's our narrow mindedness that believe that the world of today is godly ordained and will stay with us forever. Taking Citibank over would have been cheaper and more constructive than buying its worthless toxic assets at full price

    Merrill Lynch is gone; no one is crying fowl. Why do we have to live with the megalomaniacs of Bank of America.

    We are, somehow convinced that we can live without our industrial base (GM) but must live with a bunch of financial criminal (Citibank).

    ha (none / 0) (#25)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 05:02:02 PM EST
    It's always funny when the automakers tout the need for the community to help them.  For decades theyve made it clear that they arent interested in the United States or loyalty to Detroit or Flint.  They are pursuing profit as global corporations and have said as much.

    Yet now we are one big happy family because they need money.  It's like the drug addicted uncle turning up at thanksgiving and hoping to score another fifty bucks by making nice.

    Then again, its funny to see the knee-jerk talking point spewers on FOX whine about union pay while they defend bonuses at AIG.

    Too much irony.