chernevik
Recent Comments
-
Contact Us
Editorial Staff
- Executive Editor
- Bess Levin
- Editor
- Matt Levine
How Can We Help You?
- Send tips to:
tips@dealbreaker.com - For tech issues email:
web@dealbreaker.com - For advertising or events email:
advertising@breakingmedia.com - For research or custom solutions email:
services@breakingmedia.com
- Dealbreaker is published by Breaking Media.
For a full list of our sites, services and staff visit breakingmedia.com
Markets
-
Most Read
- Bonus Watch '12: Barclays 32 comments
- Bonus Watch '12: UBS Investment Bankers Thought Zero Was The Minimum Bonus? They Thought Wrong 8 comments
- Expert: If You Want To Date A Wall Streeter, You'd Better Learn To Read A 10-K ASAP 105 comments
- Bonus Watch '12: UBS Suggests Senior Staff Get Comfortable 9 comments
- And To The Employee He Saw Wearing A Name Tag, Exchanging Business Cards, And Sipping The Free Bottled Water Like Some Kind Of Common Noob: Your Days Are Numbered 26 comments
Topics
AIG Bank of America Barclays Bear Stearns Ben Bernanke bonuses bonus watch Charlie Gasparino Citi Citigroup CNBC David Einhorn Deutsche Bank Dick Bové FOREX Galleon Group Goldman Sachs hedge fund managers Hedge Funds insider-trading Insider Trading Fest(ivus) 2010 Jamie Dimon John Paulson JPMorgan Ken Lewis Lawsuits Layoffs Lehman Brothers Lloyd Blankfein Made-off MBA v CFA Merrill Lynch Morgan Stanley Obama's Economic Superfriends performance Raj Rajaratnam RBS SAC Capital SEC Steve Cohen taxes Tim Geithner UBS Vikram Pandit Warren Buffett-
If interrupting is rude, so it putting words in someone else's mouth. Frank does that constantly. Why should MH, or anyone, put with it? CNBC is full of idiots, but they also have journalists who "take the other" side with a lot of guests. They get informative interviews from Democrats Corzine, Dean, Kanjorski, Romer, Goolsbee, Cummings. They are not the problem. Interviews waste time when guests rewrite questions to reiterate their points. If Frank won't answer questions, CNBC can report his public statements. They lose a prestige guest, but viewers lose little if Frank won't respond to the questions those statements raise.
Dennis Kucinich is batting #2? What the . . . ? Now I get it. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform wants everyone to know they are Players, with power to torment bank CEOs and question Treasury Secretaries and Fed Chairmen. Remember that the next time they call. Maybe they'll try to make Bernanke look bad, to make replacing him with Larry Summers look better, but otherwise nothing is going to happen here.
Barney Frank sounds awfully smart when he gets to write the questions. When he can't -- not so much.
Goolsbee sounds scattered because he is expected to fill in the non-existent details of his boss's promises. He understands the economics well enough. But in politics you can't tell the truth, and decent people can have trouble being truthful and on message. I don't think he understands the politics of shaping and selling policy, or the motives of the real players. He's misread the Bob Rubin experience, and thinks that being smart will be enough. It won't.
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see how the initial Treasury injection can be a DIP financing as the company wasn't in BK at the time. It could be senior without being DIP. Hopefully the dissenting creditors will make better arguments than they did for this business about sealing their names.
#24 / guest@10:15AM As guest@12:32pm notes, your complaint about "speculators" goes back to the government's first days, when it considered compelling holders of Revolutionary War bonds to accept discounted payments. Hamilton explained why this is a bad idea. Obviously, payment at par would allow the country to borrow on better terms in future emergencies. But he further noted that the debt of countries with good credit "answers most of the purposes of money" by serving as a medium of exchange. This expansion in money would in turn improve the cost and availability of credit. Perhaps one consequence of a shortage of money will sound familiar: "The present depreciated state of [real estate] is a serious calamity. The value of cultivated lands, in most of the states, has fallen since the revolution from 25 to 50 per cent. In those farthest south, the decrease is still more considerable. Indeed, if the representations, continually received from that quarter, may be credited, lands there will command no price, which may not be deemed an almost total sacrifice. "This decrease, in the value of lands, ought, in a great measure, to be attributed to the scarcity of money. Consequently whatever produces an augmentation of the monied capital of the country, must have a proportional effect in raising that value. " This exact argument applies today. No, this isn't government debt, but debts like Chrysler's, and others with less security, were rolled into CDOs and sold to investors who funded their purchases with commercial paper. The growth of that process accelerated the movement of cash from savings to business investment, essentially creating money. The deceleration of that shadow banking system starved businesses and consumers of previously expected credit, dramatically slowing their purchases and thus our economy. CP lenders stopped lending, and so stopped the whole system, because they decided the debt in the CDOs was of poor quality, and so lost confidence in their borrowers' ability to repay. The Treasury now proposes to speed the flow of money by lending to equity investors to purchase these CDOs. They'll be bought at a discount to par, so the investors will be "speculators" by definition. The price they pay will depend in part on their ability to predict what they'll get if a credit goes bad. The ability of the shadow banking system to eventually replace the government as a lender also depends on that same predictability. I suppose we could let the President, or Congress, tell "speculators" to accept what is "fair" and how much that might be. The President's ideas of fairness seem politically convenient to me, but maybe that's just cynical. In any case, lenders won't be able to predict their recoveries under the Presidential fairness standard, and will be that much more reluctant to lend if they have to. Likewise investors in Treasury's "public private partnerships." All of the President's economic goals, and his chief proposal for realizing them, are set back by confusing the bankruptcy recovery process. If you or he think that's a price worth paying for your notions of fairness, you ought to at least say so out loud. As a "comment" this is definitely "too long, didn't read". 98% of DB's readers already understand this. It was laid out centuries ago by a guy working with a quill pen and candles. But maybe if you see the details, you'll consider that maybe there is more at stake here than the "unfair" returns to wicked bankers.
I wonder if the stress standards, and the internal documents on their development, could be obtained with a FOIA request? I got to thinking about it wondering how loans to automakers and auto suppliers were handled, but of course the whole thing would be interesting.
Cut the guy a break. He managed to generate a story showing that the UAW is getting a bailout no one else gets, and suggesting that lenders actually have some rights. I don't see those points getting made anywhere else in the Journal/Post/Times. He looks like a tool, but he's an amateur rhetorician going up against professionals.
RecoveryRestructuring3060 Day Bankruptcy (Live)I decide who has and hasn't sacrificed enough. People dependent on me for capital and regulatory forebearance get that. Independent people of me don't, so we're gonna have to make them dependent on me. I mean, regulate them to avoid systemic risk and tax them out of fairness. Also, you're all going to have to buy electric cars once the EPA gets done regulating carbon. Rumors that only Chrysler cars will meet the regulatory standard are just crazy talk. They'll cost $50,000, but I've decided it's a sacrifice you need to make.
Add the credibility of White House press corps to the bonfire. They've been repeating the "we've got a deal!" story for a week now and, oops, no deal. Administration statements of major union concessions ought to get a lot more scrutiny than the press has provided to date.
So many reports they've got a deal, so few announcements of a deal.
If Chrysler's secured creditors don't like the deal, can they force liquidation? Or could a judge cram down their debt to 5-10%, even if they could get more in liquidation?
Why is Cuomo doing this?
Actually, Bess, my concern was the speculative and hasty suggestion of responsibility for one group. You're going to cover the story. I think you can be more careful. EP sometimes engages critics in comments. If you did, I might have clarified earlier. Earlier or later, it's just one man's opinion, worth exactly what you paid for it. The episode certainly _seems_ part of the story of the demonization the financial class. But the man was at the center of Freddie, the housing bubble, the economic crisis. And we still don't know anything. I'd say it is a little early to be emphasizing any of the dozens of possible contributors here.
DB may be morbid and pointless, but at least you're honest about it. I guess that's something.
Shoeshine boy or caddy, take your pick. I love the tough tone with Sununu. Yeah, Timmy, you're a real bad-ass against ex-Senators.
Progressive ideology is fine when you can afford it, but no one is going to let it take down the economy. The "social justice" ideology has defined polite conversation because no one cared enough to have an ugly argument about it. But people will reassess as they see the real costs and benefits.
Short-maturity bondholders might try to string this thing out, thinking the government will pay off to keep GM out of court. They would form a natural no bloc against any restructuring. Now if labor is getting paid and debt is current, all out of government injections, who gains by conceding?
Good idea, the Delphi thing was a major success
You've got your Churchill British, and then you've got your Chamberlain British. Guess which type goes to protests demanding the government increase the size of the hand outs.