Well, the US Government has not been know to be the best fiscal operator and they have proven the same in the world of investing by claiming the world’s worst investment last year, which is about to get worse (possibly). Barry Ritholtz summarized the losses and status of the investment to date, check it out below:
Losers double down.
That’s the classic trading rule which the USA is about to violate in an enormous way. According to trading maven Dennis Gartman, one should “never, ever, ever, under any circumstance, add to a losing position.”
And yet that is what we are about to do.
To review: Former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson made a terrible investment on behalf of the taxpayers by purchasing a 7.8% stake in Citigroup (C) for an initial $25 billion dollars. He further put the US on the hook by guaranteeing against 90% of future losses on $301 billion in assets. Subsequently, we (the taxpayers) injected another $20 billion dollars.
At the time, Citigroup had a market cap of about ~$50 billion dollars. Today, its worth ~$13 billion.
So for about 100% of the market value of Citi, plus insurance guarantees worth of as much as 500% of its value (~$275 billion), we got less than 1/10 of a company that in total was worth 1/5 of our investment.
Pretty good deal, eh?
That $45 billion dollar stake now has a market value of just over a billion.
And, its about to get even worse.
Rather than do what is the FDIC-mandated-by-law thing, we will instead convert the nearly worthless common into preferred shares. The taxpayers stake will rise to near 40% of Citigroup.
NYT:
“Under the terms of the deal, the Treasury Department has agreed to convert up to $25 billion of its preferred stock investment in Citigroup into common stock. It will convert its stake to the extent that Citigroup can persuade private investors, including several big foreign government investment funds, to do so alongside the government, two people close to the deal said.”
What does this do for us? Well, the higher investment stake creates an enormous incentive for John Q. Public to continue to pour money into Citi, regardless of valuation. The inept banking giant then has access to infinite amount of capital, courtesy of you, the 1040 filers.
Its just another example of why these insolvent banks should be nationalized, or for you squeemish free marketers, FDIC mandated, pre-packaged Chapter 11, government funded reorganization.
If Obama continues to listen to the god-awful advice of Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, he will doom his presidency, and finsh marginally ahead of George W. Bush on the list of worst presidents.
This is not change we an believe in . . .
—————————–
Sources:
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/02/worlds-worst-investment-to-get-worse/
Read Full Post »
Should We Nationalize Banks? Sorry, already happened…
Posted in Economic Commentary, Resources, tagged bailout, banks on February 27, 2009| Leave a Comment »
The big debate right now is whether or not we should “nationalize” banks…but, in my opinion it has already happened. A quick look at bailout numbers over the past 7 or 8 months courtesy of New York Times running tally:
These numbers do not even include the $500B+ in note guarantees to keep US banks solvent. There truly is a lot of money on the line and without it, our banking system would have collapsed already. The fact that the government had to step in and invest money in non-performing assets to to keep them solvent pretty much defines “nationalization” to me. I am not making a judgment on whether this is the right or wrong decision, because I am not an economist, but I do believe we should label things as they are.
Instead of calling what has been done up to this point in time “nationalization”, it is called something different by the US Government (credit Barry Ritholtz):
…why don’t we call it by a more accurate, precise, and less scary name: FDIC mandated, pre-packaged Chapter 11, government funded reorganization.
That is an accurate description of what occurred with Washington Mutual (WAMU) now part of JPM Chase, and Wachovia, now part of Wells Fargo. The Feds step in, seamlessly transfer control of the assets to a new owner, while simultaneously wiping out the debt, the shareholders, and giving a huge haircut to the bondholders.
Let’s look at each of these in turn:
What emerges is a clean bank, no debt, well capitalized, and free of deadly toxic assets. You can see why so many people would find this state of affairs utterly objectionable.
In all seriousness, I understand the objection by shareholders — already down 90% — who would be wiped out by this. I fail to see the merit in the save-the-banks-at-any-cost arguments so many are proferring and preferring.
————————–
Sources:
http://projects.nytimes.com/creditcrisis/recipients/table
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/02/nationalization-the-new-n-word/
Read Full Post »