Archives For stimulus

Buyback Backlash: Is the Ban Non-binding?

Eric Fruits —  27 March 2020

[TOTM: The following is part of a blog series by TOTM guests and authors on the law, economics, and policy of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The entire series of posts is available here.

This post is authored by Eric Fruits, (Chief Economist, International Center for Law & Economics).]

The Wall Street Journal reports congressional leaders have agreed to impose limits on stock buybacks and dividend payments for companies receiving aid under the COVID-19 disaster relief package. 

Rather than a flat-out ban, the draft legislation forbids any company taking federal emergency loans or loan guarantees from repurchasing its own stock or paying shareholder dividends. The ban lasts for the term of the loans, plus one year after the aid had ended.

In theory, under a strict set of conditions, there is no difference between dividends and buybacks. Both approaches distribute cash from the corporation to shareholders. In practice, there are big differences between dividends and share repurchases.

  • Dividends are publicly visible actions and require authorization by the board of directors. Shareholders have expectations of regular, stable dividends. Buybacks generally lack such transparency. Firms have flexibility in choosing the timing and the amount of repurchases, subject to the details of their repurchase programs.
  • Cash dividends have no effect on the number of shares outstanding. In contrast, share repurchases reduce the number of shares outstanding. By reducing the number of shares outstanding, buybacks increase earnings per share, all other things being equal. 

Over the past 15 years, buybacks have outpaced dividend payouts. The figure above, from Seeking Alpha, shows that while dividends have grown relatively smoothly over time, the aggregate value of buybacks are volatile and vary with the business cycle. In general, firms increase their repurchases relative to dividends when the economy booms and reduce them when the economy slows or shrinks. 

This observation is consistent with a theory that buybacks are associated with periods of greater-than-expected financial performance. On the other hand, dividends are associated with expectations of long-term profitability. Dividends can decrease, but only when profits are expected to be “permanently” lower. 

During the Great Recession, the figure above shows that dividends declined by about 10%, the amount of share repurchases plummeted by approximately 85%. The flexibility afforded by buybacks provided stability in dividends.

There is some logic to dividend and buyback limits imposed by the COVID-19 disaster relief package. If a firm has enough cash on hand to pay dividends or repurchase shares, then it doesn’t need cash assistance from the federal government. Similarly, if a firm is so desperate for cash that it needs a federal loan or loan guarantee, then it doesn’t have enough cash to provide a payout to shareholders. Surely managers understand this and sophisticated shareholders should too.

Because of this understanding, the dividend and buyback limits may be a non-binding constraint. It’s not a “good look” for a corporation to accept millions of dollars in federal aid, only to turn around and hand out those taxpayer dollars to the company’s shareholders. That’s a sure way to get an unflattering profile in the New York Times and an invitation to attend an uncomfortable hearing at the U.S. Capitol. Even if a distressed firm could repurchase its shares, it’s unlikely that it would.

The logic behind the plus-one-year ban on dividends and buybacks is less clear. The relief package is meant to get the U.S. economy back to normal as fast as possible. That means if a firm repays its financial assistance early, the company’s shareholders should be rewarded with a cash payout rather than waiting a year for some arbitrary clock to run out.

The ban on dividends and buybacks may lead to an unintended consequence of increased merger and acquisition activity. Vox reports an email to Goldman Sachs’ investment banking division says Goldman expects to see an increase in hostile takeovers and shareholder activism as the prices of public companies fall. Cash rich firms who are subject to the ban and cannot get that cash to their existing shareholders may be especially susceptible takeover targets.

Desperate times call for desperate measures and these are desperate times. Buyback backlash has been brewing for sometime and the COVID-19 relief package presents a perfect opportunity to ban buybacks. With the pressures businesses are under right now, it’s unlikely there’ll be many buybacks over the next few months. The concern should be over the unintended consequences facing firms once the economy recovers.

In Banking, Corporate & Securities Law, COVID-19, Financial Regulation, Google, International Center for Law & Economics, Platforms, Regulation, The Law, Economics, and Policy of the COVID-19 Pandemic, Truth on the Market , , , , , , ,
permalink

Base Small Business Support on their Economic Realities

Mark Jamison —  25 March 2020

[TOTM: The following is part of a blog series by TOTM guests and authors on the law, economics, and policy of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The entire series of posts is available here.

This post is authored by Mark Jamison, (Director and Gunter Professor, Public Utility Research Center, University of Florida and Visiting Scholar with the American Enterprise Institute.).]

The economic impacts of the coronavirus pandemic, and of the government responses to it, are significant and could be staggering, especially for small businesses. Goldman Sachs estimates a potential 24% drop in US GDP for the second quarter of 2020 and a 4% decline for the year. Its small business survey found that a little over half of small businesses might last for less than three months in this economic downturn. Small business employs nearly 60 million people in the US. How many will be out of work this year is anyone’s guess, but the number will be large.

What should small businesses do? First, focus on staying in business because their customers and employees need them to be healthy when the economy begins to recover. That will certainly mean slowing down business activity and decreasing payroll to manage losses, and managing liquidity.

Second, look for opportunities in the present crisis. Consumers are slowing their spending, but they will spend for things they still need and need now. And there will be new demand for things they didn’t need much before, like more transportation of food, support for health needs, and crisis management. Which business sectors will recover first? Those whose downturns represented delayed demand, such as postponed repairs and business travel, rather than evaporated demand, such as luxury items.

Third, they can watch for and take advantage of government support programs. Many programs simply provide low-cost loans, which do not solve the small-business problem of customers not buying: Borrowing money to meet payroll for idle workers simply delays business closure and makes bankruptcy more likely. But some grants and tax breaks are under discussion (see below).

Fourth, they can renegotiate loans and contracts. One of the mistakes lenders made in the past is holding stressed borrowers’ feet to the fire, which only led to more, and more costly loan defaults. At least some lenders have learned. So lenders and some suppliers might be willing to receive some payments rather than none.

What should government do? Unfortunately, Washington seems to think that so-called stimulus spending is the cure for any economic downturn. This isn’t true. I’ll explain why below, but let me first get to what is more productive. 

The major problem is that customers are unable to buy and businesses are unable to produce because of the responses to the coronavirus. Sometimes transactions are impossible, but there are times where buying and selling is simply made more costly by the pandemic and the government responses. So government support for the economy should address these problems directly.

For buyers, government officials should recognize that buying is hard and costly for them. So policies should include improving their abilities to buy during this time. Sales tax holidays, especially on healthcare, food, and transportation would be helpful. 

Waivers of postal fees would make e-commerce cheaper. And temporary support for fixed costs, such as mortgages, would free money for other things. Tax breaks for the gig economy would lower service costs and provide new employment opportunities. And tax credits for durables like home improvements would lower costs of social distancing.

But the better opportunities for government impact are on the business side because small business affects both the supply of services and the incomes of consumers.

For small business policy, my American Enterprise Institute colleagues Glenn Hubbard and Michael Strain have done the most thoughtful work that I have seen. They note that the problems for small businesses are that they do not have enough business activity to meet payroll and other bills. This means that “(t)he goal should be to replace a large portion of the revenue (not just the payroll expenses) those businesses would have generated in the absence of being shut down due to the coronavirus.” 

They suggest policies to replace 80 percent of the small business revenue loss. How? By providing grants in the form of government-backed commercial loans that are forgiven if the business continues and maintains payroll, subject to workers being allowed to quit if they find better opportunities. 

What else might work? Tax breaks that lower business costs. These can be breaks in payroll taxes, marginal income tax rates, equipment purchases, permitting, etc., including tax holidays. Rollback of current business losses would trigger tax refunds that improve businesses finances. 

One of the least useful ideas for small businesses is interest-free loans. These might be great for large businesses who are largely managing their financial positions. But such loans fail to address the basic small business problem of keeping the doors open when customers aren’t buying.

Finally, why doesn’t traditional stimulus work, even in other times of economic downturn? Traditional spending-based stimulus assumes that the economic problem is that people want to build things, but not buy them. That’s not a very good assumption. Especially today, where the problems are the higher cost of buying, or perhaps the impossibility of buying with social distancing, and the higher costs of doing businesses. Keeping businesses in business is the key to supporting the economy. 

In Corporate & Securities Law, COVID-19, Regulation, Taxes, The Law, Economics, and Policy of the COVID-19 Pandemic, Truth on the Market , , , , , , ,
permalink

Keynes vs. Hayek, Round II

Thom Lambert —  28 April 2011

Another of Russ Roberts’ and John Papola’s brilliant “Keynes vs. Hayek” rap videos is now online.  (If you missed the first one, it’s here.)

Whereas the first video focused largely on monetary policy, this one looks mainly at fiscal policy.  Both are truly masterful.  I’m amazed that Roberts and Papola were able to incorporate so much of the substance of the debates into such short videos.  I’m also amazed at the resemblance between “John S. Papola, MD” (producer Papola’s father maybe?) and Ben Bernanke.  Uncanny.

In Truth on the Market , ,
permalink

Now, Everyone, Gasp In Surprise

Michael Sykuta —  15 September 2010

Alan Greenspan has been revered in political and media circles since his benevolent reign over times of fortune as the Chair of the US Federal Reserve. Now Mr. Greenspan has acknowledged what many of us have been saying for a long time: fiscal stimulus didn’t work. (insert gasps of surprise here)

Now, to his credit, Mr Greenspan was not an avid proponent of the fiscal stimulus plan (that I have seen) and more often pointed to concerns about the financial markets and the debt (and politics) associated with fiscal spending (for instance, see here).  However, Mr. Greenspan’s newly restated appreciation for normal market forces is welcome, especially given the reverence with which he is typically held by the political masses.  From today’s Wall Street Journal “Real Time Economics” blog (see the full post here):

“We have to find a way to simmer down the extent of activism that is going on” with government stimulus spending “and allow the economy to heal” itself, former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan told a gathering held at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York on Wednesday.

At this point, “we’d probably be better off doing less than more” because “you’d be far better off to allow the normal market forces to operate here,” Greenspan said.

(Again, gasps of surprise, indeed shock: You mean, we should just let the markets work?!)

According to the article, Greenspan claims that “fiscal stimulus efforts have fallen far short of expectations and the government now needs to get out of the way and allow businesses and markets to power the recover.”

I would suggest a different interpretation.  The fiscal stimulus efforts have had no less effect than expected…at least by the expectations of reasonable economic thinkers. For example, see the posts here and here from my pre-TOTM days.  But as to his conclusion that government needs to get out of the way? Preach it, Brother Greenspan!

In Google, Platforms, Truth on the Market
permalink

"Like A Rain Dance That Produces No Clouds"

Josh Wright —  27 March 2010

My colleague Tom Hazlett, along with George Bittlingmayer and Arthur Havenner, provides some economic wisdom on why they don’t call it stimulus anymore:

Counter to the predictions put forward a year ago by the Administration, when it claimed that “more than 90 percent of the jobs created are likely to be in the private sector,” U.S. companies employed 3.9 million fewer workers in January 2010 than they did one year earlier. Public employment bucked the trend, staying constant even as governments contended with sharply reduced tax revenues. While the jobs held by those 22 million public workers helped support many families, the “stimulus” failed to trigger private sector employment growth.

In late 2009, the Congressional Budget office pegged employment gains due to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (A.R.R.A.) of 2009 at 600,000 to 1.6 million, while estimating its full cost at $862 billion.

This implies a price tag, at the median estimate, of about $800,000 per job. These forecast job gains are not permanent, but temporary. The Administration’s January 2009 forecast was that the A.R.R.A. was needed to reduce the path of unemployment for five years, when the unemployment rate – if we did nothing – would decline to the level projected with the “stimulus.” Using this five-year time horizon projects annual costs of approximately $160,000 per job.

That’s a rich bonus payment. The system is borrowing heavily to finance it. Deficits last year and this are running at 10 percent of GDP, easily the largest in post-WWII U.S. history. They are projected by CBO to remain at three percent of GDP in 2020 – when over 3% of GDP will be devoted to simply paying interest on the national debt.

The term “shovel ready” seems to have disappeared from the language just as quickly as it arrived. The idea that greater public borrowing would leverage capital expenditures to put the U.S. back to full employment is now replaced by boasts that Washington has saved Albany, Springfield and Sacramento from laying-off government workers. Whatever the value of that gold-plated jobs program, it is not “stimulus.”

Like a rain dance that produces no clouds, we are now into our fourth round of federal deficit creation – the automatic “stabilizers,” followed by the Bush (2008), Obama I (2009), and Obama II (2010) versions. With each dry day, the deficit dancing intensifies. When the rain finally falls, we will be told that the recovery is a tribute to the Keynesian Gods. But it’s already clear that something has gone wrong: the “stimulus” chant has fallen silent. Our dance on a fiscal cliff has lost its theme music.

In Truth on the Market , ,
permalink

Brad DeLong is an ethics-free partisan ass

Geoffrey Manne —  5 February 2010

Steve Horwitz writes a short, lay piece on crowding out and job creation.

Brad “smacks down” Steve Horowitz.

Russ Roberts amplifies Horwitz with a nice point about the dangers of aggregation.

David Henderson notes that Brad misses what Horwitz is really saying.

Brad DeLong “smacks down” Steve Horwitz again, not acknowledging any of the criticisms.  Brad writes:

Me: I don’t think so. Take

Government can only spend what it takes from the private sector one way or another, either through taxation, borrowing, or the redistribution effects of inflation. For every dollar that government spends, there is one less dollar being spent somewhere else in the economy…

and replace “government” by “Larry and Sergei’s internet company.” It then reads:

Larry and Sergei’s internet company can only spend what it gets from other businesses and consumers one way or another, either through sales or borrowing. For every dollar that Larry and Sergei’s internet company spends, there is one less dollar being spent somewhere else in the economy…

Brad’s claim is that Horwitz wouldn’t make the second claim and thus, he doesn’t really mean to make the first claim because they are equivalent.  So Horwitz is a partisan hack.

Brad, Brad, Brad, Brad.  This is so revealing.  Brad really believes, I guess, that the government randomly spending money digging ditches or the equivalent (without regard to Russ’s well-highlighted concerns about where money is being spent, among many other things) is as productive as Google spending money inventing, making and improving its products for sale in the market.  Brad really believes, I guess, that when Google engages in voluntary exchange with customers that it is offering value exactly equivalent to the value the government offers in exchange for an equivalent amount of involuntary taxation or inflation.  Apparently Brad believes that the two cases are equivalent, so anyone who disagrees with the second must disagree with the first (and is thus being disingenuous in supporting the first claim).  But anyone who would claim that these two cases should be treated equivalently and who would disregard the obvious and essential differences between government action and private exchange is an ethics-free partisan ass and shouldn’t be taken seriously.

In Google, Platforms, Regulation , ,
permalink

Finally, some real help for California!

Geoffrey Manne —  27 January 2010

Oregonians, my fellow residents of the Beaver State (and, by the way, the only state in the Union with a different image on each side of its flag), voted yesterday to increase top marginal income tax rates and corporate tax rates, including minimum corporate tax rates and the addition of a tax on gross receipts.  I’m still waiting for Paul Krugman to decry the anti-stimulus measure, but I doubt it will happen (he’s a partisan hack, you know).  But there is a “bright” side: Capital (human and otherwise) flight from Oregon to its neighbors (including income-tax-free Washington to the North and foundering behemoth California to the South) will help those states with their economic troubles!  <sarcasm>And fewer people and less economic activity in Oregon will be good for spotted owl habitat, after all</sarcasm>.  I just hope the local beer industry survives.  I don’t know what I’d do without the ability to drown my sorrows in a few bottles of Terminal Gravity IPA.

In Truth on the Market ,
permalink

"In the long run, my friend, it's your theory that's dead"

Geoffrey Manne —  25 January 2010

Russ Roberts’ brilliant and eagerly-awaited Keynes vs. Hayek rap video is here.  It’s the best economics pop music since Merle Hazzard.  Here are the lyrics:

We’ve been going back and forth for a century
[Keynes] I want to steer markets,
[Hayek] I want them set free
There’s a boom and bust cycle and good reason to fear it
[Hayek] Blame low interest rates.
[Keynes] No… it’s the animal spirits

[Keynes Sings:]

John Maynard Keynes, wrote the book on modern macro
The man you need when the economy’s off track, [whoa]
Depression, recession now your question’s in session
Have a seat and I’ll school you in one simple lesson

BOOM, 1929 the big crash
We didn’t bounce back—economy’s in the trash
Persistent unemployment, the result of sticky wages
Waiting for recovery? Seriously? That’s outrageous!

I had a real plan any fool can understand
The advice, real simple—boost aggregate demand!
C, I, G, all together gets to Y
Make sure the total’s growing, watch the economy fly

We’ve been going back and forth for a century
[Keynes] I want to steer markets,
[Hayek] I want them set free
There’s a boom and bust cycle and good reason to fear it
[Hayek] Blame low interest rates.
[Keynes] No… it’s the animal spirits

You see it’s all about spending, hear the register cha-ching
Circular flow, the dough is everything
So if that flow is getting low, doesn’t matter the reason
We need more government spending, now it’s stimulus season

So forget about saving, get it straight out of your head
Like I said, in the long run—we’re all dead
Savings is destruction, that’s the paradox of thrift
Don’t keep money in your pocket, or that growth will never lift…

because…

Business is driven by the animal spirits
The bull and the bear, and there’s reason to fear its
Effects on capital investment, income and growth
That’s why the state should fill the gap with stimulus both…

The monetary and the fiscal, they’re equally correct
Public works, digging ditches, war has the same effect
Even a broken window helps the glass man have some wealth
The multiplier driving higher the economy’s health

And if the Central Bank’s interest rate policy tanks
A liquidity trap, that new money’s stuck in the banks!
Deficits could be the cure, you been looking for
Let the spending soar, now that you know the score

My General Theory’s made quite an impression
[a revolution] I transformed the econ profession
You know me, modesty, still I’m taking a bow
Say it loud, say it proud, we’re all Keynesians now

We’ve been goin’ back n forth for a century
[Keynes] I want to steer markets,
[Hayek] I want them set free
There’s a boom and bust cycle and good reason to fear it
[Keynes] I made my case, Freddie H
Listen up , Can you hear it?

Hayek sings:

I’ll begin in broad strokes, just like my friend Keynes
His theory conceals the mechanics of change,
That simple equation, too much aggregation
Ignores human action and motivation

And yet it continues as a justification
For bailouts and payoffs by pols with machinations
You provide them with cover to sell us a free lunch
Then all that we’re left with is debt, and a bunch

If you’re living high on that cheap credit hog
Don’t look for cure from the hair of the dog
Real savings come first if you want to invest
The market coordinates time with interest

Your focus on spending is pushing on thread
In the long run, my friend, it’s your theory that’s dead
So sorry there, buddy, if that sounds like invective
Prepared to get schooled in my Austrian perspective

We’ve been going back and forth for a century
[Keynes] I want to steer markets,
[Hayek] I want them set free
There’s a boom and bust cycle and good reason to fear it
[Hayek] Blame low interest rates.
[Keynes] No… it’s the animal spirits

The place you should study isn’t the bust
It’s the boom that should make you feel leery, that’s the thrust
Of my theory, the capital structure is key.
Malinvestments wreck the economy

The boom gets started with an expansion of credit
The Fed sets rates low, are you starting to get it?
That new money is confused for real loanable funds
But it’s just inflation that’s driving the ones

Who invest in new projects like housing construction
The boom plants the seeds for its future destruction
The savings aren’t real, consumption’s up too
And the grasping for resources reveals there’s too few

So the boom turns to bust as the interest rates rise
With the costs of production, price signals were lies
The boom was a binge that’s a matter of fact
Now its devalued capital that makes up the slack.

Whether it’s the late twenties or two thousand and five
Booming bad investments, seems like they’d thrive
You must save to invest, don’t use the printing press
Or a bust will surely follow, an economy depressed

Your so-called “stimulus” will make things even worse
It’s just more of the same, more incentives perversed
And that credit crunch ain’t a liquidity trap
Just a broke banking system, I’m done, that’s a wrap.

We’ve been goin’ back n forth for a century
[Keynes] I want to steer markets,
[Hayek] I want them set free
There’s a boom and bust cycle and good reason to fear it
[Hayek] Blame low interest rates.
[Keynes] No it’s the animal spirits

In Banking, China, Financial Regulation, International, Regulation , , ,
permalink

Of Broken Windows and Broken Policy

Michael Sykuta —  30 October 2009

Today the Obama administration announced with great pride that its economic stimulus plan created or saved about 650,000 jobs.  “Thank goodness!” reads the subtext.  If not for all those new and protected jobs, the unemployment numbers would be really bad!

It appears no one in the administration’s economic advisory team has heard of Frédéric Bastiat.  He wrote an essay titled Ce qu’on voit et ce qu’on ne voit pas (That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Unseen).  In his essay, for which he has received some notoriety, he explained the parable of the broken window :

Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation—”It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?”

Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.

Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier’s trade—that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs—I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, “Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen.”

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.

Is this some new economic insight? Some innovative wisdom that is too fresh to have influenced our federal policies? Sadly, no. Bastiat published his essay in 1850.

Economists of any merit have long rejected the sort of cheap “analysis” fronted by the White House. Opportunity cost (that which is hidden) is one of the most fundamental concepts in economics. Unfortunately, our national leaders and their economic advisers have little care for (or benefit from) taking that most fundamental concept into account when attempting to justify their broken policies.

But if you’re not convinced and wish to further stimulate the economy, follow the Obama administration’s lead (and Bastiat’s foil): Take a brick and throw it through your front window.  Pay someone to fix the window.  You just created a new job!

In Copyright, Intellectual Property, Truth on the Market
permalink

Capitalism is Good

Josh Wright —  22 March 2009

A friendly reminder from Becker and Murphy:

Consider the following extraordinary statistics about the performance of the world economy since 1980. World real gross domestic product grew by about 145 per cent from 1980 to 2007, or by an average of roughly 3.4 per cent a year. The so-called capitalist greed that motivated business people and ambitious workers helped hundreds of millions to climb out of grinding poverty. The role of capitalism in creating wealth is seen in the sharp rise in Chinese and Indian incomes after they introduced market-based reforms (China in the late 1970s and India in 1991). Global health, as measured by life expectancy at different ages, has also risen rapidly, especially in lower-income countries.

Of course, the performance of capitalism must include this recession and other recessions along with the glory decades. Even if the recession is entirely blamed on capitalism, and it deserves a good share of the blame, the recession-induced losses pale in comparison with the great accomplishments of prior decades. Suppose, for example, that the recession turns into a depression, where world GDP falls in 2008-10 by 10 per cent, a pessimistic assumption. Then the net growth in world GDP from 1980 to 2010 would amount to 120 per cent, or about 2.7 per cent a year over this 30-year period. This allowed real per capita incomes to rise by almost 40 per cent even though world population grew by roughly 1.6 per cent a year over the same period

….

The policies of the Bush and Obama administrations violate the “do no harm” principle. Interventions by the US Treasury in financial markets have added to the uncertainty and slowed market responses that would help stabilise and recapitalise the system. The government has overridden contracts and rewarded many of those whose poor decisions helped create the mess. It proposes to override even more contracts. As a result of the Treasury’s actions, we face further distorted decision-making as government ownership of big financial institutions threatens to substitute political agendas for business judgments in running these companies. While such dramatic measures may be expedient, they are likely to have serious adverse consequences.

These problems are symptomatic of three basic flaws in the current approach to the crisis. They are an overly broad diagnosis of the problem, a misconception that market failures are readily overcome by government solutions and a failure to focus on the long-run costs of current actions.

Definitely read the whole thing.

In China, International, Regulation
permalink

AIG Isn't Too Big Too Fail

Josh Wright —  20 March 2009

So says Lucian Bebchuk in the WSJ:

While AIG has thus far been able to cover derivative losses using government funds, the possibility of large additional losses must be recognized. AIG recently stated that it still has about $1.6 trillion in “notional derivatives exposure.” Suppose, for example, that AIG ends up with losses equal to, say, 20% of this exposure — that is, $320 billion. Suppose also that the value of AIG’s current assets, including the shares in its insurance subsidiaries, is $160 billion. In this scenario, the government’s fully backing AIG’s obligations would produce an additional loss of $160 billion for taxpayers. Should the government be prepared to do so?

The alternative would be to put AIG into Chapter 11. In this case, AIG’s creditors, including its derivative counterparties, would obtain the company’s assets. They would end up with a 50% recovery on their claims, bearing those $160 billion of losses themselves.

…

It is important to understand that the government can also employ intermediate approaches between fully backing AIG’s derivative obligations and no backing. For example, the government could place AIG in Chapter 11, but commit to provide supplemental coverage that would make up any difference between the value that creditors would get from AIG’S reorganization and, say, an 80% recovery. Such an approach could allow setting different haircuts for different classes of creditors. The government, for example, might elect not to provide such supplemental coverage to executives owed money by AIG.

At a minimum, the government should conduct “stress tests,” estimating potential losses in alternative scenarios, and formulate a policy on the magnitude and fraction of derivative losses it would be willing to cover. A policy that doesn’t fully back AIG’s obligations should be seriously considered.

Read the whole thing.

In Corporate & Securities Law, Regulation , , ,
permalink

Some Links

Josh Wright —  10 March 2009
In Amazon, Antitrust & Competition, Federal Trade Commission, Intellectual Property, Law & Economics, Mergers & Acquisitions, Patent, Platforms, Regulation
permalink