Categories
Articles

Heavy TD Bank Interest in Washington Mutual

Major investors are supporting TD Bank’s (TD) potential bis for Washington Mutual.

TD has been using the unusually strong Canadian dollar to snap up banks assets in the US, the most recent the $8.5-billion acquisition of New Jersey-based Commerce Bancorp.

According to shareholders “The phenomenal pace at which U.S. banks were being pushed to the verge of bankruptcy was creating a “once in a lifetime opportunity” for Canadian buyers.

The main sticking point for any potential buyer is the $300B in mortgages WaMu holds and what portion of them can be sold to the Treasury and at what terms.

WaMu is interesting because it is essentially trading as though it is destined to go under. It is pretty obvious that after those in Congress finish spewing populist venom at Wall St., something is going to get done. That being said, we can assume a large part of the problem with WaMu will be alleviated. When that happens, the stock now trades far below the value of the bank.

Now, the problem here is whether or not the gov’t requires equity interest in the companies it buys securities from. Based on Buffet and Berkshire’s (BRK.A) investment in Goldman Sachs (GS) today, I think Warren feels this option is not likely.

If WaMu can unload these, the stock ought to rocket. If they can only unload a small portion, then they may need to sell branches to raise additional cash. In that case, depending on the details, the stock may be overpriced where it is and if it is forced lower, may not recover for a long time.

If they cannot sell them, then they are forced into a fire sale and all bet are off as to a value, if any, for the current equity.

Which option? My guess is a hybrid of option 1 and 2. With that, I would say that there lies the potential for substantial upside to shares, with the risk being annihilation. It is Vegas time for shareholders. If you like to gamble, keep it small.


Disclosure (“none” means no position):Long GS, none
Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Wednesday’s Links

Einhorn, Congress, Blame, Bespoke

– A good article from the UK

– Ironic….as they rail about Wall St. greed, they exhibit their own

– Looks like the SEC and Congress has more than their share of blame

Short info


Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Goldman Going Shopping?

Did Goldman Sachs (GS) need to raise $7.5 billion for survival? No. It did if it wanted to go shopping for deposits though…

Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A) is buying $5 billion of perpetual preferred stock with a 10% coupon, as well as warrants that give it the right to buy $5 billion of common stock during next five years for $115, 8% below Goldman’s closing stock price Tuesday.

Goldman also announced it will sell sell at least $2.5 billion of common stock to the public. That ought to give Goldman $7.5 billion in fresh capital immediately.

This comes almost immediately after it “Bank Holding Company” status as granted by the Fed.

Why? Debt for an acquisition would be very hard for Goldman to come by so raising funds this way is it best option. With Wells Fargo (WFC), JP Morgan (JPM) and now TD Bank (TD) all rumored to be sniffing around Washington Mutual (WM) and Wachovia (WB) and Morgan Stanley (MS) in perpetual merger status, Goldman must be feeling at risk of losing out on some cheap assets.

Will Goldman go it alone? Doubtful but even as part of group, Goldman needed cash to get a deal done. Now they have it.

Disclosure (“none” means no position):Long GS, WFC, WB, none
Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Text of Dow Chemical CEO Andrew Liveris Speech on US Industry Policy

Here it is. Liveris covers the whole gamut. I though about posting segments but you really need to read the whole text to appreciate the situation we are in. Dow (DOW) is going to be fine as Liveris is moving production overseas. If we want to remain competitive, raising the burden on business is NOT the answer. Unless Congress can get its act together (if you are watching the Paulson/Bernanke testimony today, you can be encouraged) things are going to get worse.

Andrew Liveris spoke in Detroit yesterday… Here are his remarks.

Thank you, Bill (Ford, Jr.) for your kind words and the invitation to be here today.
As Bill mentioned, I was here two years ago. At that time, I shared my concerns about the state of manufacturing and the weak economy. But I am an optimist and in the back of my mind I thought, surely, it can’t get any worse, right?

Instead, we’ve witnessed two years of continual slide capped by the unprecedented meltdown in the financial sector last week. Frankly, we’re just now beginning to see the repercussions of that crisis as markets respond and re-settle themselves.

Wall St. isn’t the only place feeling pain, of course. Main Street USA is feeling it, too. People in every town and city across the country are uneasy these days. And for good reason.

Since I was here last, oil has risen from the mid-$70s a barrel to around $100 today.
Housing starts are at their lowest level since 1991, and there seems to be no bottom in sight. Consumer prices are expanding at the fastest pace in 17 years, affecting every consumer item from fuel to food.

On top of that, we have the sobering news that the economy lost some half a million manufacturing jobs since the end of 2006. And I’m sure you all saw the jobs report last month for the entire nation: 84,000 jobs lost in August alone.
September, it appears, won’t look any better.

And the rank and file employees who are still working? They earned three percent less last month than they had a year earlier simply because of inflation.

Even the small things are more expensive. I saw a report in the New York Times recently that the price for the common paper clip – this small item holding my talk together – is up 40 percent.

As that great American philosopher, Will Rogers, once said, we seem intent on showing the entire world we’re prosperous … even if we have to go broke to do it.

Given all the doom and gloom, it really is hard to remain an optimist. But I am reminded of the advice that I’ve given others so many times – that often the difference between success and failure is nothing more than pure persistence and hard work.

So here we are, talking again about a difficult economy and what to do with it.
Talking … again … about a real energy crisis that will have no quick or painless solution.

Talking once more about how to return this country to a position of strength and vigor.

As Bill said, on my last visit before you I did state that the United States was THE indispensable nation in the world. As a foreign citizen who has benefited enormously from the American freedom and enterprise model, I stand by that statement today more than ever.

The world would be a much poorer – and a much more dangerous – place were it not for the United States and its global influence.

But as I travel around the world and I see other countries putting together comprehensive and well thought-out plans for energy, manufacturing and sustainable economic development – I have concerns.

I’m concerned that our economic dependence on others is continuing to increase every day. I’m concerned that we’re in the midst of the greatest wealth transfer out of this country in history … $500 billion plus spent annually for foreign oil … and too few in Washington seem alarmed.

And I’m concerned – most concerned – that the U.S. is forfeiting its dominant position as THE indispensable nation because it has lost sight of what first made it strong: a vibrant industrial and manufacturing base that drives innovation, technology – and creates jobs – from the shop floor, to the engineering centers, to the R&D labs and to the white collar offices.

Ladies and gentlemen, let us never forget that the very life force and strength of this great country begins here – in America’s heartland. A country can’t be strong abroad if it’s not strong at home. It can’t be strong in China or Chile if it’s not strong in places like Cleveland and Canton. It can’t be strong in Dubai if it’s not strong first in Detroit.

Somehow, our government has lost sight of that. Instead of implementing policies that make our industrial heartland stronger, government has made it weaker. And we’ve allowed bad economic policies to drive good jobs out of the country.

In fact, between the bankers in New York, the lawyers in Washington, and the actors and entertainers from Hollywood, we have allowed people who know nothing of the might and intellect of our manufacturing base to make laws and decisions on our behalf.

We’ve allowed them to create an industrial crisis in this country that is undermining our nation’s strength … and they don’t even know it.

If you want to do something enlightening, go to the Internet and Google for the phrase “energy crisis.” You’ll get over 4,000 stories.

Then search for “economic crisis.” You’ll get more than 5,000 hits.

Then search for the phrase “industrial crisis,” something that is just as real and felt just as deeply by everyday Americans. You’ll get fewer than 10 stories – and none will be about the United States.

So, yes. I am still an optimist. But I’m an impatient optimist because at Dow we know there is a better way.

So what I’d like to do today is lay out for you the broad components of a new industrial policy. Not one characterized by central planning and the picking of winners and losers. We know that approach doesn’t work.

What I’m talking about is a pro-industrial policy crafted and developed by manufacturers for manufacturers, a policy that rejuvenates our economic base.

Consider it a new strategy, if you will, to make American industry competitive again, re-establish our economic and energy independence and re-grow jobs in America.
What are the components of this plan? There are two.

First, we must look with fresh eyes at the structural costs that have weakened the very foundation of our manufacturing enterprises and remove the obstacles hurting our competitiveness.

And second, we must develop a comprehensive energy policy.

Now, I will admit that some people, like the ones I referenced before, don’t like the words “industrial policy.” I understand.

But the truth is that in this country today we already have an industrial policy – except, in reality, it’s mostly an ANTI-industrial policy – a set of contradictory, ill-planned and ultimately self-defeating laws and regulations that are creating havoc at the manufacturing base.

Consider this alarming fact: Thirty years ago, manufacturing made up nearly 22 percent of the U.S. economy. Today, it’s less than 12 percent and falling.

This will be no surprise to anyone in Michigan but the number of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. has fallen by 3.7 million over the past 10 years. We’re projected to lose another 1.5 million over the next eight years.

That’s 5.2 million jobs – 5.2 million jobs that today pay more than $17 an hour plus benefits. To put it another way, that’s $190 billion in wages and $76 billion in benefits.

I ask you this: What elected official in his right mind would develop an industrial policy that destroys $190 billion in annual wages? Which politician would want to tell the American voters they just lost $76 billion in benefits?

The sad fact is that nobody intentionally sought to do this. But it’s happening right under our noses. Anti-industrial policy is hurting a lot of good people.

If it were just the U.S. and nobody else, it wouldn’t matter. But there ARE countries around the world that DO see the uplifting power of manufacturing. I spent much of my career at Dow working in Asia. I saw first hand how the “Asian tigers” used manufacturing and trade to go from grinding poverty to growing prosperity.

Today the emerging economic powers like China and India understand that when you build an economy from the ground up – make a strong manufacturing base as its foundation – benefits flow to everyone.

Those nations are our competitors and many of them are beating us at our own game.
Do we have to change? Well … no. As the quality guru Edward Deming put it: Change isn’t necessary. No one said survival was mandatory.

History is replete with once-great countries that have dissolved into obscurity precisely because they didn’t change.

If we want to keep the economic lead we’ve had for a century, however, we have to re-tool a few things. If we want to keep the many benefits that accrue from a strong economy, we must change course.

Times change, and strategies have to change with them.

And we have to start, first and foremost, with the structural costs that are suffocating industry in this country. We must level the playing field by removing the artificial, ANTI-industrial policy costs that disadvantage American businesses against the rest of the world.

Think about this. The 14 million men and women who work in U.S. manufacturing created about $1.6 trillion of wealth in 2007.

That’s a huge, almost mind-blowing number. But the sad fact is it could be so much larger, and we could be so much more competitive.

We’re burying our manufacturers under red-tape, weighing them down with structural burdens that push our production costs a staggering 32% higher than our major trading partners.

Understand: I’m not talking about top-down economic planning in any way, shape or form. I’m talking taking into account Tom Friedman’s “flat world” and using a little forethought about the policies that affect business.

I’m talking about little more coordination with policies in place already, and a lot more coordination with reality.

And I’m talking about resolving the conflicts in law and regulation that hamper our abilities to do business efficiently and effectively.

I propose work in four areas to bring our costs in line with our competitors.

1- Lowering the corporate tax rate.
2- Re-inventing regulation.
3- Reforming our civil justice system.
4- And finding a solution to the crisis known as healthcare in America.

Each one of these puts U.S. industry at a competitive disadvantage above and beyond the cost of labor. And each one of these burdens could be lightened or eliminated by our own government.

I won’t go into each of these for the sake of time. Besides, most of you already know, for example, that America has the second highest corporate tax rates in the world.

But did you also know that of the 30 members who comprise the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, nine dropped their corporate tax rates last year to attract more investments.

Germany dropped its tax rate. So did Canada and the UK. Even the Czech Republic!

Not the U.S. Why should that be?

As one great leader said, some in this country regard private enterprise as if it were a predatory tiger to be shot. Or they look upon it as a cow they can milk. Only a handful see it for what it really is: the strong horse that pulls the whole cart.

That was Winston Churchill who fought his own battles a half century ago to keep Britain’s economy unencumbered and vibrant. He was unsuccessful, if you hadn’t noticed.

If you want a cautionary tale about what this economy could look like if we continue to push manufacturing out of the country, look across the great pond. The service-based economy of the U.K. rises and falls at the mercy of others.

This point is really being brought home right now as the financial crisis in the US has been felt in full force in the UK, which has no other sector available to buttress this effect.

We can’t afford to follow down a path of economic malaise like U.K. by destroying our manufacturing sector.

Making things – real, tangible things – still matters.

The leaders of this country should remember that the word “industry” created this great country’s might by opening up the West … by fighting two World Wars … by putting a man on the moon … and by improving our lives and the lives of our children by creating high paying jobs and rewarding careers.

They should remember … but they don’t.

Instead, they’ve saddled it with huge corporate taxes … AND a crisis in health care costs … AND an out-of-control civil justice system that adds a huge cost burden to American enterprise … AND an inefficient regulatory system that costs us as much as $10,000 per employee in the manufacturing sector.

Don’t we owe it to America’s families, and especially to the next generation, to put back in place a Pro-Industrial Policy that stimulates investments and jobs by removing the structural costs that are holding us back?

This brings me to the second key component of an Industrial Policy for the 21st Century – the need for a comprehensive Energy Plan.

I don’t need to tell those of you here today that energy is the life-blood of our modern economy. But I do want to point out that the current energy crisis goes far deeper than the price of gasoline at the pump and those high heating bills on the way this winter.

Here’s what I mean by way of an example. Dow is currently on track to spend $32 billion – yes, I said billion with “B” – $32 billion this year on energy and feedstock costs. That’s more than the entire U.S. chemical industry spent just a few years ago.

That’s just one way to measure the impact of rising energy costs. The race for affordable energy also affects where we invest and where we build plants.

Keep in mind that every dollar of energy consumed creates 20 dollars of GDP value-add. That dollar also creates five of the kind of high-paying manufacturing jobs Michigan and every other state needs so badly.

It seems like common sense to keep those kinds of investments inside our borders.

Instead, most of those investments are now occurring outside the U.S.

Dollars are flowing – in unprecedented amounts – to places like China, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and many other countries that want the value-add to their economy that manufacturers bring.

What I don’t understand is why our political leaders don’t see that.

Maybe it’s because they hear TV commentators say the price of oil has “dropped” to $100 a barrel! Or that gas has “dropped” below $4 a gallon! This type of irresponsible reporting is creating a false sense of security.

It does, however, confirm what James Schlesinger, the first Secretary of Energy in the U.S., first noticed decades ago: When it comes to energy policy, he said, America has only two modes: panic and complacency.

A slight, temporary moderation in price is no excuse for complacency. $100 oil brings me no comfort. Gas at $3.70 is no cause for celebration.

Frankly, this country needs a little panic because the truth hasn’t sunk in yet. We have entered a new era in energy – one driven by a new global fact of life: less supply and more and more demand.

Even with greater conservation, energy consumption is soaring. It’s forecast to rise 53 percent between now and 2030. Earlier this year the International Monetary Fund put out a report projecting the number of automobiles by themselves increasing 2.3 billion by 2050.

The good news for Detroit is that somebody will have to manufacture all those cars. The bad news is that we’ll still have to power them and they’ll still add to our growing energy consumption.

And despite the exponential increases in the amount of wind, solar and renewable energy coming on line, the fact is that these sources won’t be able to keep up with overall demand.

So the energy of tomorrow – like today – will depend predominantly on fossil fuels: oil, natural gas and coal.

Everyone in Washington knows this. So where’s the policy to deal with this new reality? This country doesn’t have one.

I say “this country” has no strategy. But what I really mean is that Washington has no coherent strategy. Americans everywhere else already know the solutions.

Ninety-two percent of Americans believe that developing alternative energy sources is a step in the right direction. 88 percent want cars that are more fuel efficient. 67 percent believe we need more oil refineries and 73 percent believe off-shore drilling is a good idea. And, I’m heartened to say, 82 percent believe that conservation is important to our overall energy policy.

Even in Santa Barbara – the city where 200,000 gallons of oil spilled offshore some 40 years ago and where the movement to ban off-shore drilling began – even Santa Barbara gets it. The County Board of Supervisors there voted just last month in support of new drilling off its shore.

When it comes to energy, there’s no ideology among the American consumer. Almost everyone wants more conservation, alternative energy, greater fuel efficiency, and environmentally responsible offshore drilling to help us right now.

And, yet, here we are … constrained by the old politics, separated by silos of thinking and ill-served by politicians intent on fighting the last war instead of the one in front of us.

And what is most worrisome to me – what is most vexing – is that Washington doesn’t understand that the energy crisis isn’t just about energy. The energy crisis is also about jobs … about manufacturing competitiveness. And at its base, the energy crisis is an industrial crisis that is threatening America’s strength and standing in the world.

Four years ago we at Dow proposed a way out of this. We proposed an Energy Plan with three key components.

The first is to pass comprehensive federal goals on energy efficiency and conservation. To me, this is common sense.

Now, I realize I’m in Detroit and energy efficiency goals sound like code words for new fuel standards. It’s heartening to see all the Big Auto’s developing new models to consume less fuel. But what I’m mostly talking about here is improving the efficiency of buildings.

Consider this: buildings are responsible for 40 percent of our total energy use, 70 percent of our electricity use and 38 percent of our CO2 emissions. A combination of federal incentives and local energy efficiency building codes could lower all of those numbers and significantly improve this country’s energy security.

A very achievable 25-percent improvement in the energy efficiency of our economy would save this country the equivalent of all of its oil purchases from the Middle East and be the foundation for a secure energy future. It’s the first and easiest step to implement.

The second component is to increase and diversify our domestic energy supplies. This is simple logic.

We have the oil deposits here. We have natural gas deposits. And we certainly have the coal reserves.

We should be accessing – responsibly and safely – every source we have to produce as much energy as we can at home.

We also have the best technology in the world. Why not use that to build new, safe nuclear power facilities? Why not begin – today – an Apollo-like R&D project to solve the carbon capture and sequestration question so we can use – safely and responsibly – that 200-year supply of coal beneath our feet?

The third component of our plan is to accelerate the development of all alternative energy sources – including renewables – and provide the financial support on research and development to get us there.

Given the situation we’re in today, it’s amazing to me that this Congress can’t even seem to pass an extension of the Renewable Energy Tax Credits and, as a result, is putting this country’s renewable energy industry – along with 100,000 jobs and $20 billion in investments – at risk.

Congress should also live up to its commitment and fund the direct loan program it created last year to help lower the cost of capital so the auto industry can retool to make more fuel-efficient vehicles.

The fact is we don’t need to limit our possibilities by limiting our choices. Solar. Wind. Biomass and other renewable and alternative supplies. We need them all. And we
need them now.

Will these give us energy independence? No.

Energy independence is a pipe dream for the U.S. But these steps will help us achieve the more realistic goal of energy security.

And, while I’m at it, let me remind you we have to do all of this within the context of reducing our carbon footprint. That’s why Dow – along with the Big Three automakers, other large and diversified companies and leading environmental groups – are members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership and are committed to driving the Federal government to adopt measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

So there are three steps to Dow’s Energy Plan for America. Improve efficiency and conservation. Diversify domestic supplies. Find new alternatives and renewables.

If we take these steps – in concert with one another – we can literally provide the fuel that will restore the power to American industry.

Do these sound familiar? They should.

They are now being talked about more and more … by more and more politicians, companies, CEOs, and yes, even the President of the United States and the two candidates that want to succeed him.

I suppose we should be pleased that this plan is finally being talked about. But it’s hard to take pleasure when all we hear is talk.

We have yet to see any significant action by Congress. We have yet to see a bipartisan approach to getting it ALL put in place. And I mean ALL.

Not what partisanship brings us, but what common sense demands we do.

The right path forward is not one of “divide-and-conquer.” That’s what got us into this mess to begin with.

The right path forward – the only path forward – is one of collaboration and coordination: public and private sectors, Republicans and Democrats, industry and environmentalists, working together with the goal of finding and removing obstacles.

And we need to start where the major challenges of our day intersect: on manufacturing … on jobs … on energy … and the environment.

That’s what we call the Dow Energy Plan for America – a workable plan and a real solution to rebuild the industrial base in this country and put Americans back to work.

One of the things I love about democracies – like America – like my native Australia – is that every few years we get to elect new leaders and chart a new course.

This country is entering an historic era. It will elect either its first African-

American President or its first female Vice President.

And this new leadership must marshal the courage to re-establish America’s place in the world as THE indispensable nation.

If this nation is going to live up to its legacy – if it’s going to fulfill its potential of independent influence – our leaders must remember that its strength comes not necessarily from strong politicians … but from a strong economy. Not from strong words … but from strong, practical policies that rebuild the industrial heartland and create new jobs for Americans in every part of this great country.

We do that by removing the artificial anti-industrial policy costs that disadvantage American manufacturers.

And we do it by insisting – at every turn – on an energy policy that promotes efficiency … alternatives and renewables … AND new domestic supplies.

We at Dow are committed to this defining idea and plan. We are committed to this state and to this great country.

And I look forward to working with all of you – in the private AND public sectors – as we build this new future together and re-establish America’s preeminence in the world.


Disclosure (“none” means no position):Long DOW
Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

John Bogle at Interview at Mass School of Law

This interview in Jan. 2007, 60 minute long is interesting as it talks about his then new book “Corporate America Run Amok: The Battle for the Soul of Capitalism”. Given recent events, it may just be reading for today.


Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Wilbur Ross Comments on Short Sellers (video)

Ross says short selling “got excessive”. He also comments on current gov’t plan.


Disclosure (“none” means no position):
Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Bernake’s Testimony

Here is Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s testimony (his prepared remarks) to be delivered later this morning.

Chairman Ben S. Bernanke
U.S. financial markets
Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate
September 23, 2008

Chairman Dodd, Senator Shelby, and members of the Committee, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss recent developments in financial markets and the economy. As you know, the U.S. economy continues to confront substantial challenges, including a weakening labor market and elevated inflation. Notably, stresses in financial markets have been high and have recently intensified significantly. If financial conditions fail to improve for a protracted period, the implications for the broader economy could be quite adverse.

The downturn in the housing market has been a key factor underlying both the strained condition of financial markets and the slowdown of the broader economy. In the financial sphere, falling home prices and rising mortgage delinquencies have led to major losses at many financial institutions, losses only partially replaced by the raising of new capital. Investor concerns about financial institutions increased over the summer, as mortgage-related assets deteriorated further and economic activity weakened. Among the firms under the greatest pressure were Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE), Lehman Brothers, and, more recently, American International Group (AIG). As investors lost confidence in them, these companies saw their access to liquidity and capital markets increasingly impaired and their stock prices drop sharply.

The Federal Reserve believes that, whenever possible, such difficulties should be addressed through private-sector arrangements–for example, by raising new equity capital, by negotiations leading to a merger or acquisition, or by an orderly wind-down. Government assistance should be given with the greatest of reluctance and only when the stability of the financial system, and, consequently, the health of the broader economy, is at risk. In the cases of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, however, capital raises of sufficient size appeared infeasible and the size and government-sponsored status of the two companies precluded a merger with or acquisition by another company. To avoid unacceptably large dislocations in the financial sector, the housing market, and the economy as a whole, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship, and the Treasury used its authority, granted by the Congress in July, to make available financial support to the two firms. The Federal Reserve, with which FHFA consulted on the conservatorship decision as specified in the July legislation, supported these steps as necessary and appropriate. We have seen benefits of this action in the form of lower mortgage rates, which should help the housing market.

The Federal Reserve and the Treasury attempted to identify private-sector approaches to avoid the imminent failures of AIG and Lehman Brothers, but none was forthcoming. In the case of AIG, the Federal Reserve, with the support of the Treasury, provided an emergency credit line to facilitate an orderly resolution. The Federal Reserve took this action because it judged that, in light of the prevailing market conditions and the size and composition of AIG’s obligations, a disorderly failure of AIG would have severely threatened global financial stability and, consequently, the performance of the U.S. economy. To mitigate concerns that this action would exacerbate moral hazard and encourage inappropriate risk-taking in the future, the Federal Reserve ensured that the terms of the credit extended to AIG imposed significant costs and constraints on the firm’s owners, managers, and creditors. The chief executive officer has been replaced. The collateral for the loan is the company itself, together with its subsidiaries.1 (Insurance policyholders and holders of AIG investment products are, however, fully protected.) Interest will accrue on the outstanding balance of the loan at a rate of three-month Libor plus 850 basis points, implying a current interest rate over 11 percent. In addition, the U.S. government will receive equity participation rights corresponding to a 79.9 percent equity interest in AIG and has the right to veto the payment of dividends to common and preferred shareholders, among other things.

In the case of Lehman Brothers (LEH), a major investment bank, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury declined to commit public funds to support the institution. The failure of Lehman posed risks. But the troubles at Lehman had been well known for some time, and investors clearly recognized–as evidenced, for example, by the high cost of insuring Lehman’s debt in the market for credit default swaps–that the failure of the firm was a significant possibility. Thus, we judged that investors and counterparties had had time to take precautionary measures.

While perhaps manageable in itself, Lehman’s default was combined with the unexpectedly rapid collapse of AIG (AIG), which together contributed to the development last week of extraordinarily turbulent conditions in global financial markets. These conditions caused equity prices to fall sharply, the cost of short-term credit–where available–to spike upward, and liquidity to dry up in many markets. Losses at a large money market mutual fund sparked extensive withdrawals from a number of such funds. A marked increase in the demand for safe assets–a flight to quality–sent the yield on Treasury bills down to a few hundredths of a percent. By further reducing asset values and potentially restricting the flow of credit to households and businesses, these developments pose a direct threat to economic growth.

The Federal Reserve took a number of actions to increase liquidity and stabilize markets. Notably, to address dollar funding pressures worldwide, we announced a significant expansion of reciprocal currency arrangements with foreign central banks, including an approximate doubling of the existing swap lines with the European Central Bank and the Swiss National Bank and the authorization of new swap facilities with the Bank of Japan, the Bank of England, and the Bank of Canada. We will continue to work closely with colleagues at other central banks to address ongoing liquidity pressures. The Federal Reserve also announced initiatives to assist money market mutual funds facing heavy redemptions and to increase liquidity in short-term credit markets.

Despite the efforts of the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and other agencies, global financial markets remain under extraordinary stress. Action by the Congress is urgently required to stabilize the situation and avert what otherwise could be very serious consequences for our financial markets and for our economy. In this regard, the Federal Reserve supports the Treasury’s proposal to buy illiquid assets from financial institutions. Purchasing impaired assets will create liquidity and promote price discovery in the markets for these assets, while reducing investor uncertainty about the current value and prospects of financial institutions. More generally, removing these assets from institutions’ balance sheets will help to restore confidence in our financial markets and enable banks and other institutions to raise capital and to expand credit to support economic growth.

At this juncture, in light of the fast-moving developments in financial markets, it is essential to deal with the crisis at hand. Certainly, the shortcomings and weaknesses of our financial markets and regulatory system must be addressed if we are to avoid a repetition of what has transpired in our financial markets over the past year. However, the development of a comprehensive proposal for reform would require careful and extensive analysis that would be difficult to compress into a short legislative timeframe now available. Looking forward, the Federal Reserve is committed to working closely with the Congress, the Administration, other federal regulators, and other stakeholders in developing a stronger, more resilient, and better regulated financial system.

When this is all said and done and history looks back at the current conditions, it is my opinion that Bernanke will be credited with avoiding a 100 year event.


Disclosure (“none” means no position):none
Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

FINALLY……Schoonover Gone….FINALLY

If Circuit city (CC) shareholders (what few there are left) aren’t dancing around like it is Mardi Gras’, there isn’t anything that will make them do it. After almost a year of my pleading, CEO Phillip “Phil The Shill” Schoonover has finally been asked to “pursue other opportunities”.

Schoonover, who served as chairman, president and chief executive officer, was brought in from Best Buy (BBY) four years ago to turn around Circuit City. Instead, the 48-year-old executive, who was named CEO two years ago, presided over a further deterioration in the company.

The latest blunder was when Blockbuster (BBI) offered to buy Circuit City for $1 billion, or about $6 to $8 a share (it currently trades under $2). It ended in July when the Blockbuster rescinded its offer after Circuit City inexplicably would not open its books. That gaffe followed the replacing (firing) of 10% of the highest-paid, most-seasoned staff in the company’s stores, in an effort to reduce costs. It turned out those “high paid” people were the only ones who actually knew how to sell the products in the stores. This was evident when only months later the begged them to return.

All these of course follow buyout offers of $17 and $23 a share that Schoonover and his merry band of shareholder wealth destroyers dismissed as “too low” and “inadequate”. Uh huh.

What is still disappointing here is that it took this long to finally pull the plug. It is a lesson in giving too much power to a person who has not earned it through results. Circuit city has been in a free fall for two years now and every move Schoonover made only increased the downward velocity. It is one thing to have a deteriorating operating environment, it is another entirely to have management mistake time after time cause conditions to worsen…..for two years!!

Now that this chapter is finally done. we can look at Circuit City. I believe it has a valuable brand, quality real estate in good locations and a valuable franchise in their “Fire Dog” operations. They have just been abysmally run…

I just need to find out more about the current “acting” CEO and wait for the replacement.


Disclosure (“none” means no position):none
Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

1st Place

nothing to do with investing, but, its been a long time coming for my Buffalo Bills, New York’s ONLY team by the way.


Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Tuesday’s Links

Race, Berkowitz, Whitman, Coaching

– This is at least the 3rd time Obama has used race-baiting

Good article on Berkowitz, Winters and Whitman. Hat tip Vlado for the heads up

– Marty Whitman’s half full glass. Again, thanks Vlado

– Anyone need a “Career Transition” coach? Talk to someone who has done it


Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

S&P Puts AutoNation on "Credit Watch"

Let’s look at this because it really is……well…..odd at best/

First the details:
Standard & Poor’s put AutoNation (AN) on credit watch, citing the U.S. economy and falling auto sales. AutoNation ranks No. 1 on the Automotive News list of top 125 U.S. dealership groups selling over 325,000 new vehicles last year.

Currently AutoNation has a BBB- investment grade from S&P, one step above a junk. The credit watch status, issued Friday by New York analyst Nancy Messer, reflects “conditions that could pressure already weak credit measures well into 2009” and “increased uncertainty” about the length of the auto industry’s downturn and U.S. economic woes.

AutoNation’s corporate credit rating dropped to BBB- in April 2006. S&P changed the company’s outlook last November , from “stable” to “negative,” which indicates a one in three chance S&P will lower the credit rating in the future and the decision to put the company on “credit watch” indicates a 50-50 chance S&P will decrease the credit rating after credit rating officials meet with AutoNation executives in the next 90 days to discuss financial plans.

As of June 30, AutoNation had total balance sheet debt of $1.5 billion, not including floorplan debt, the memo said. In the second quarter of 2008, AutoNation reported the number of new vehicles sold in individual dealerships dropped 12.8 percent from the same quarter in 2007, to 73,545 units.

Now, let’s look sat it. AutoNation has, by far, the industry’s nest numbers and is solidly profitable. Sure profits has deteriorated (they would be expected to) but this company is by no means at risk of losing money.

This is in the face large dealerships across the country closing their doors, which, will increase AutoNations markets share. In the face of this they are opening Mercedes dealerships in Las Vegas, Orlando and a BMW dealership in_______.

Why wasn’t this action done in May? In May CEO Mike Jackson said the auto industry had been “turned upside down” by both high gas and contracting credit conditions, yet S&P was silent.

Now, for the first time in over a year we have some clarity out there that credit conditions may begin to relax as a result of the Treasury’s plan.

What is the worst happens? What if the S&P does take action and downgrade AutoNation to junk? Does it effect any debt covenants that could cause a liquidity issue? No. None of AutoNation’s debt covenants are tied to their debt rating.

Wouldn’t it have made more sense for S&P to have taken this action in May, and now that their is a bit of clarity in credit conditions (In May there was absolutely none) upgrade them from “negative” to “stable”? It seems that S$P is about 6 months behind the curve here. Although, if you have been alive the last year, this ought not be a surprise to anyone.

The bottom line here is the credit agencies are scrambling. They are publicly taking a fair amount of the blame for the current situation were are in and are now going into full “CYA” mode. Rather than looking at company’s individually, they are just painting entire industries with the same brush. This action follows similar ones at Ford(F) and GM(GM) and an expected one at Toyota (TM). This is a bit like saying Wells Fargo (WFC) and Washington Mutual (WM) are in the same boat. They clearly aren’t. If on looks at Berkshire (BRK.a) Buffett investment #2 CarMax’s (KMX) recent results, AutoNation’s are still superior.

Aren’t we talking about “risk of default” with the ratings anyway? How can they say a company like AutoNation is at a higher risk of default now? The company is very profitable and very cash flow positive. It is without question the cream of the crop in its industry. Think about it this way. If the #1 retailer is at risk of being “junk” then every automaker and every other retailer ought to already be. You can’t have #1 rated below those who trail it.


Disclosure (“none” means no position):Long AN, none
Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Goldman & Morgan "May Proceed Immediately"

After announcing yesterday that Goldman Sachs (GS) and Morgan Stanley (MS) would need to wait five days, the Fed just rescinded that and said “the transactions may be consummated immediately”.

Says the Fed:

Based on consultation with the Department of Justice regarding the applications of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley to become bank holding companies, the Federal Reserve Board announced on Monday that the transactions may be consummated immediately without the application of the five-day antitrust waiting period.

\
Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

SEC Changes the Rules it Changed Friday

How are people supposed to invest in an environment like this? The rules are changing every day? Memo to Chris Cox…get it together.

The SEC issued “Amended Rules” to the rules it changed Friday without notice. Couldn’t we take a day or two and issue a order that did not need to be altered twice in 48 hours after it was issued? Too much to ask?

Washington, D.C., Sept. 21, 2008 — The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission today approved amendments to its emergency order of September 18 (Release No. 58591) requiring that certain institutional money managers report their new short sales of certain publicly traded securities.
Additional Materials

* Amended Order Requiring Institutional Money Managers to Report New Short Sales
* Form SH (revised)
* Form SH Instructions (revised)

In addition to making technical amendments, the revised order also provides that the information disclosed by investment managers on new Form SH will be nonpublic initially, but will be made available to the public via the Commission’s EDGAR website two weeks after it is electronically filed with the Commission.

The amended order will take effect at 12:01 a.m. EDT on Monday, Sept. 22, 2008.

Under the order, covered institutional money managers will be required to report any new short selling in all equity securities, except options, that are admitted for trading on a national securities exchange or quoted on the automated quotation system of a registered securities association. If any new short sales are effected on September 22 through September 27, the managers are required to submit a report on new Form SH to the Commission on Sept. 29, 2008. These managers are already required to report their long positions in these securities on Form 13F.

The Commission may extend the emergency order beyond its current effective period of 10 business days if it deems an extension necessary in the public interest and for the protection of investors, but will not extend the order for more than 30 calendar days in total duration.

Disclosure (“none” means no position):Disdain for Chris Cox
Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Wilbur Ross Talk About Treasury Plan

Am I the only one who just cannot envision Wilbur getting upset?


Disclosure (“none” means no position):Wish I had the $$ to give to Wilbur
Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

Categories
Articles

Hank Paulson (video)

The former Goldman Sachs (GS) head in two hour long interviews.

At Harvard in 2004

May, 2007


Disclosure (“none” means no position):Long GS
Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books