SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: geode00 who wrote (52363)3/20/2009 6:27:39 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 149317
 
GM and Chrysler May Need Additional Aid, Rattner Says (Update3)

By John Hughes

March 20 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC, which have requested as much as $21.6 billion in additional government aid, may need “considerably” more than that, said Steven Rattner, the Treasury’s chief auto adviser.

“It could be considerably higher, I won’t deny that,” Rattner said, when asked whether U.S. aid sought could rise. Rattner spoke in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” scheduled to air today.

Rattner and President Barack Obama’s auto task force are assessing proposals from GM and Chrysler and deciding whether to recommend additional aid or tip the car companies into bankruptcy. Rattner said the task force will give its “sense of direction” before March 31. Chrysler and GM have received $17.4 billion since December and requested more last month.

“What they’ve asked for depends on them achieving plans that are somewhat ambitious,” Rattner said. “Like all management teams they tend to take a reasonably, slightly perhaps, optimistic, view of their business. So it could be more, I can’t rule that out.”

Greg Martin, a GM spokesman, said today its restructuring plan has “a conservative outlook.” The company will continue working with the task force “and we’ll keep them informed of our liquidity needs,” Martin said in an e-mail.

Chrysler said in a statement its plan is “realistic” and “conservative.”

“With the remaining $5 billion loan request, Chrysler is viable,” the company said.

GM rose 31 cents, or 11 percent, to $3.18 at 4 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. Chrysler is closely held.

GM, Chrysler Requests

Ford Motor Co., the second-largest U.S. automaker, hasn’t requested assistance. GM, the biggest, received $13.4 billion in aid so far and has requested as much as $16.6 billion more. Chrysler got $4 billion and wants $5 billion more. To keep the aid, the automakers must reach cost-cutting agreements.

Rick Wagoner, GM’s chief executive officer, said in an interview yesterday the automaker hasn’t completed talks with the United Auto Workers and bondholders about cutting debt by $28.5 billion. The failure of those talks could drag Detroit- based GM into bankruptcy and possible liquidation, Wagoner said.

Rattner said he may set a deadline for parties including the UAW and GM bondholders to reach a deal.

“Part of why there’s a lack of appearance of movement is nobody wants to go first,” he said. “You say here’s the deadline, everybody has to get there by this date or we’re going to do something else.”

Protecting Interests

Rattner said the panel’s goal of avoiding automaker bankruptcy if possible wouldn’t conflict with efforts to get concessions from bondholders.

GM’s bondholders “were difficult before we started talking about whether bankruptcy was or wasn’t an option. Like all bondholders, like all creditors -- and I’m not being critical -- they have a right to protect their interest.”

The bondholders “are looking to the government to help them solve their problem,” Rattner said. “The government cannot solve everybody’s problems, and we need for the bondholders to become part of this in a constructive way.”

There is no deadline now for bondholders to reach an agreement, Rattner said. “In the course of what we say over the next 10 days, we will make very clear what the timetable is, by when it has to happen by, and also what we expect from them.”

Advisers to the ad hoc committee of GM bondholders said in a statement today that “there needs to be some level of shared sacrifice” from all stakeholders.

“We would be willing to work around the clock -- lock us in a room with all the parties if you need to -- so we can work toward a solution that’s best for GM, the taxpayers and the company’s workers,” the group said in the statement.

Rattner’s Background

Rattner, 56, is the co-founder of private-equity firm Quadrangle Group LLC and a former New York Times reporter. He started Morgan Stanley’s media acquisitions group in 1984 and moved to what was then Lazard Freres & Co. in 1989. He was named Treasury’s adviser on the auto industry last month.

Rattner said in the interview that Chrysler’s proposal to give Italian carmaker Fiat SpA a 35 percent stake is “a worthy idea to consider.” Chrysler’s numbers show the company “just kind of barely making it” as a stand-alone entity and managing to “just kind of inch along.”

“There’s no real uptick, no real sense that the company would generate meaningful amounts of cash flow on a stand-alone basis,” Rattner said of Auburn Hills, Michigan-based Chrysler. “We have not made a determination on whether they could exist on a stand-alone basis, but we do find their idea of partnership with Fiat a worthy idea to consider.”

Company Management

Rattner said any decision about GM and Chrysler management would be tied to the ultimate configuration of the companies “and I’m not in a position to comment on that today.”

Wagoner and Chrysler Chief Executive Officer Robert Nardelli have been “exceptionally cooperative,” “thoughtful,” and “energetic,” Rattner said.

“They’re good guys really trying hard to run those companies,” Rattner said. “I have nothing bad to say about them.”

GM and Chrysler must be “on a path” to bring wage rates in line with foreign automakers based in the U.S. rather than have those pay rates take effect immediately, he said.

The Treasury Department announced yesterday that U.S. auto suppliers will get as much as $5 billion in aid to avoid a collapse that might cripple the domestic car industry.

To contact the reporter on this story: John Hughes in Washington at jhughes5@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: March 20, 2009 17:30 EDT



To: geode00 who wrote (52363)3/20/2009 6:58:04 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 149317
 
Congress Curses Its AIG Frankenstein:

Commentary by Ann Woolner

March 20 (Bloomberg) -- For all the righteous indignation at American International Group Inc. spewing from Capitol Hill this week, you would think Congress had played no role in creating this mess.

All the screaming this week at AIG’s Chief Executive Officer Edward Liddy diverts attention from the role Congress played. It helped build the mammoth firms taxpayers are bailing out and the risky, unregulated derivatives business that made them so vulnerable.

At a mid-week House hearing focused on AIG, New York Democrat Gary Ackerman ridiculed credit default swaps as insurance dressed up as something else to avoid regulation and full collateralization. And yet, in just a few years swaps became a multitrillion-dollar market, one so toxic that it lies at the very heart of AIG’s near-collapse, spreading economic chaos around the world.

“How is this suddenly an industry?” an outraged Ackerman demanded, wondering aloud how it all happened.

Ackerman and other longstanding members of the House Financial Services Committee should know full well how it happened.

Lawmakers made the monsters they have reluctantly been trying to rescue in recent months and which they’re now bludgeoning by popular demand. They did it with laws passed in 1999 and 2000.

What ignited the firestorm this week was news that AIG, the beneficiary of a $173 billion government bailout, had set aside a $165 million pool of retention bonuses for people in the very unit whose reckless trading threatened to bring down the firm and wreaked havoc on the economy.

Eve of Destruction

“They’re getting paid for the destruction they’ve caused to our communities,” House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel said yesterday. “They’re getting away with murder.”

House members traded partisan blame yesterday over who’s to blame for mishandling AIG’s bailout. But no rescue would have been needed if it hadn’t been for earlier legislation that opened the door to the current meltdown.

First with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999, Congress tore down a 66-year-old wall that kept investment and consumer banks separate from each other and from insurance companies, securities firms and any other outfit with a financial service to sell.

That allowed the creation of “behemoths” that “would would become too big to fail or, more importantly, too big to manage,” says James Cox, who teaches securities and corporate law at Duke University.

Bigness Is In

Next came the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which exempted credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations from government regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

President Bill Clinton signed both bills into law.

So to answer Ackerman’s question, that’s how this industry was born. The 1999 law was Republican-driven in Congress and pushed by the powerful financial services lobby. Sanford Weill had already merged the Travelers Group with Citicorp in 1998 on a bet that Congress would legalize the move.

Next, both parties in Congress gave Wall Street a Christmas present at the end of 2000, allowing credit default markets to grow in the dark, away from the spotlight of government scrutiny.

“The credit default market has grown to gargantuan proportion in a very sort period of time,” Cox says. “It’s a classic illustration how private enterprise not closely monitored by government can change the face of the Earth,” he says.

$1 Trillion Collapse

Lawmakers can’t claim they weren’t warned against the danger of letting credit default swaps avoid government scrutiny.

When the hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management with more than $1 trillion in derivative contracts almost collapsed in 1998, it should have set off alarms.

Yet when Brooksley Born, then-acting chairwoman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission warned that an unmonitored market in private derivative contracts would pose “grave dangers to our economy,” she went unheeded.

Working against her was the powerful financial services lobby as well as then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Arthur Levitt, then chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Levitt is a director of Bloomberg LP, parent of Bloomberg News.

They argued Born was trying to stretch the CFTC’s reach beyond congressional intent. So no agency was put in charge of monitoring the derivative contracts.

Now there are more calls for regulating the derivatives market. Back in September SEC Chairman Christopher Cox called on Congress to do it “immediately.”

We’re still waiting for that.

But don’t we feel better that Congress is so quickly acting to recoup a few million dollars in bonuses?

(Ann Woolner is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Ann Woolner in Atlanta at awoolner@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: March 20, 2009 10:43 EDT



To: geode00 who wrote (52363)3/20/2009 8:57:43 PM
From: ChinuSFO  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 149317
 
I agree with the POV that I have bolded
=====================
Rage at AIG bonus pay-out is no excuse
Published: March 20 2009 20:22
Last updated: March 20 2009 20:22

Politicians acting in haste rarely act wisely, least of all when guided by rage. In response to outrage over retention bonuses paid to employees of AIG – the failed insurer, now mostly owned by the government, which has received tens of billions in public support – the US House of Representatives rushed to pass a punitive tax aiming to claw the bonuses back. It would apply to all groups receiving help under the government’s financial stability plan, not just AIG. A similar measure is before the Senate.

The outcry over these bonuses is entirely understandable, though less than fully thought through. Understandable or otherwise, the response smacks more of banana republic than good government.

The country is furious at the idea of rewarding the very people, in AIG’s now notorious financial products arm, who helped sink both their company and the wider economy. Yet these bonuses were paid not as a reward for past performance, which would indeed be absurd, but to retain people deemed necessary to the unwinding of its mistakes. That reasoning offends against the principle of fairness, but if one is more interested in stabilising the economy than striking back at supposed culprits, it should not be dismissed out of hand.

In AIG’s case, the US government is now the de facto owner. As such it has rights and responsibilities, and it should attend more conscientiously to both. The Treasury should decide whether the bonuses are necessary to retain people essential to the success of its stabilisation plan. If they are, much as one may recoil at the idea, the bonuses should be paid: the cost pales in comparison to the vastly larger sums at stake. If not, the people who received them – those who have not already left, that is – should be told to return them or be fired. The government is within its rights as a new owner to set new terms for its employees.

The legislative blunderbuss about to be discharged by Congress, on the other hand, is likely to blow up in taxpayers’ faces. It forbids the case-by-case judgments on pay which are necessary to ensure that the stabilisation plan succeeds. And it expresses the tyrannical principle that Congress can use the tax code to void contracts that the executive branch has consented to, after the fact and with retrospective force. The measure is constitutionally dubious, as Congress well knows. All these considerations have been set aside for the purpose of venting the country’s anger. It is an abdication of responsibility.

Barack Obama, asked whether he approves of this law, has declined to answer. It would have been better if things had not come to this pass, he says. Quite so, and indeed there are lessons here about the conditions that must be attached to future assistance. But things have come to this pass – and the administration must resist this bad new law.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009

ft.com