Showing posts with label Financial panic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Financial panic. Show all posts

Monday, 27 October 2008

Bailout for NYT Company?



Don't get me wrong, I'm not expecting the U.S government to bailout the NYT Company.


However I did comment yesterday that a bailout by a consortium of the great and the good of New York is something I wouldn't take off the table. With debts cleared and a slimmed down verion of the Company (probably excluding the Boston Globe but hopefully including the IHT) taken into private ownership by a consortium of VERY rich liberal New Yorkers, the NYT Company would be well positioned to invest, innovate and acquire in a depressed market.


I would say however that the current situation would make the shuttering of the IHT more likely, not less, and the arrival of an InternationalNYT sooner, rather than later, which would be a shame because the IHT has legs on her yet.


I mention the bailout again, prompted by this article in today's International Herald Tribune.




Businesses scramble for a piece of the U.S. bailout
The Associated Press
Sunday, October 26, 2008
WASHINGTON: The U.S. bailout is now the hottest lobbying game in town.
Insurers, automakers and American subsidiaries of foreign banks all want the Treasury Department to cut them a piece of the largest government rescue in U.S. history.
The betting is that many with their hands out will be successful, especially with financial markets in a stomach-churning dive and predictions that the U.S. economy is about to tumble into a deep recession. These groups argue that the credit squeeze is so severe and the risks to the economy so dire that their industries need financial support as well.
The Treasury is considering requests from a variety of industries, but has not decided whether to expand the program, officials said Saturday.
Lobbying efforts are intensifying. The Financial Services Roundtable wrote Treasury officials on Friday requesting that the initiative to buy $250 billion in bank stock grow to cover insurers, auto companies, securities dealers and U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies, including banks. The Treasury's plan is intended to bolster banks' tattered balance sheets and get them to resume making loans.
As the Treasury now interprets it, these additional groups would not participate in the bank stock program. They could receive help from a separate part of the $700 billion rescue that will buy bad assets from financial institutions.
Steve Bartlett, the president of the Roundtable, urged the Treasury to broaden the definition of those eligible for the stock purchase program. "The institutions that are excluded play a vital role in the U.S. economy by providing liquidity to the market," Bartlett wrote Neel Kashkari, the Treasury official running the bailout program.
Referring to U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies, Bartlett said, "This is a global crisis and to not recognize the U.S. firms controlled by foreign banks or companies would create further impediment to the market's recovery."
A financial industry official said Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Jr. had met over the past week with various groups, including hedge fund managers, that were petitioning for assistance. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the Treasury had not made a decision. This official said the discussions with insurance industry executives were being held in advance of what are expected to be disappointing earnings reports by some insurance companies in the coming week.
The official said the insurance industry would like to get government purchases of their stock on a mandatory basis, duplicating the agreement Paulson struck two weeks ago with nine major banks.
Paulson pressured the big banks to go along with the program as a way of removing the stigma that might be attached to the payments if only a few major banks had received them.
Some insurers technically would be eligible for stock purchases now if they own subsidiaries that are savings and loan institutions regulated by the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Last month, American International Group, the largest insurance company in the nation, received an $85 billion loan from the Federal Reserve. Since then, it has gotten further support in an effort to withstand the biggest upheavals on Wall Street since the Great Depression.
Complicating the government's decision-making is that the administration of President George W. Bush will not be in charge after Jan. 20. Paulson, who has said he has no intention of staying on the job, has pledged to consult both campaigns on his bailout actions.
Barack Obama's presidential campaign said Friday that it supported the effort by the auto industry to get money from the $250 billion made available for stock purchases. That would be in addition to $25 billion recently approved by Congress for low-interest loans to help the struggling industry retool and build fuel efficient vehicles.
The debate over expanding the bailout comes as the Treasury is rushing to get money out the door to the primary recipients: banks that sharply curtailed lending after suffering billions of dollars of losses on mortgage-related assets as home foreclosures soared in the housing slump. Lawmakers are pressuring the Treasury to do more in the foreclosure area, as well.
Sheila Bair, head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, told Congress about efforts to provide government-backed loan guarantees for mortgages that are reworked to help homeowners in danger of default. That would give banks an incentive to speed up refinancing efforts because the government would back part of the reworked loan.
The Treasury is also moving ahead to get bank stock purchases approved. It announced on Oct. 14 that it was spending $125 billion to buy stock in nine of the largest financial institutions. An announcement was expected Friday about a second round involving 20 to 22 other banks. But it was decided each bank would announce its own agreements with the Treasury, out of concern that excluded banks could suffer a stock sell-off from disappointed investors.
PNC Financial Services Group announced Friday it was acquiring National City for $5.58 billion, in what was the first instance of a bank using fresh investments from the bailout program to make an acquisition.








READ AN ALTERNATIVE IHT DAILY NARRATIVE AT
A PLACE IN THE AUVERGNE

LOOKING FOR A CHRISTMAS BOOK GIFT TO BUY?
"Books about cosmopolitan urbanites discovering the joys of country life are two a penny, but this one is worth a second glance. Walthew's vivid description of the moral stress induced by his job as a high-flying executive with the International Herald Tribune newspaper is worth the cover price alone…. Highly recommended." The Oxford Times
Amazon.co.uk




Amazon.com

For more reviews visit www.ianwalthew.com

Frantic panic is in the air generally: what should the NYT do?

Last Friday hit everyone hard, and there has been a weekend of reflection.

Read these articles from today's International Herald Tribune, if you don't believe that at least at the NYT editorial desk, there is a growing awareness of something more than a financial meltdown and it's called financial panic.

I'd say we've just had a tipping point weekend.

In Europe, crisis revives old memories

Roger Cohen: Shoot the horses?

But have we learned enough?

The price of optimism

Economic rout seems to take on a life of its own

Economic downturn is expected to get worse



What should any company do, what should the NYT do, in such times?

I'd say it's innovate, acquire, invest or die time. Tom Friedman pretty much sums up my views and I hope the NYT's bankers, commercial paper holders and executives read this carefully: "So let's keep our eyes on the prize."


Thomas L. Friedman: Save the system
By Thomas L. Friedman
Sunday, October 26, 2008
The hardest thing about analyzing the Bush administration is this: Some things are true even if President Bush believes them.
Therefore, sifting through all his steps and missteps, at home and abroad, and trying to sort out what is crazy and what might actually be true - even though Bush believes it - presents an enormous challenge, particularly amid this economic crisis.
I felt that very strongly when listening to Bush and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson announce that the government was going to become a significant shareholder in America's major banks. Both Bush and Paulson were visibly reluctant to be taking this step. It would be easy to scoff at them and say: "What do you expect from a couple of capitalists who hate any kind of government intervention in the market?"
But we should reflect on their reluctance. There may be an important message in their grimaces. The government had to step in and shore up the balance sheets of America's major banks. But the question I am asking myself, and I think Paulson and Bush were asking themselves, is this: "What will this government intervention do to the risk-taking that is at the heart of capitalism?"
There is a fine line between risk-taking and recklessness. Risk-taking drives innovation; recklessness drives over a cliff. In recent years, we Americans had way too much of the latter. We are paying a huge price for that, and we need a correction. But how do we do that without becoming so risk-averse that start-ups and emerging economies can't get capital because banks with the government as a shareholder become exceedingly cautious?
Let's imagine this scene: You are the president of one of these banks in which the government has taken a position. One day two young Stanford grads walk in your door. One is named Larry, and the other is named Sergey. They tell you that they have this thing called a "search engine," and they are naming it - get this - "Google." They tell you to type in any word in this box on a computer screen and - get this - hit a button labeled "I'm Feeling Lucky." Up comes a Web site related to that word. Their start-up has exhausted its venture capital. They need a loan.
What are you going to say to Larry and Sergey as the president of the bank? "Boys, this is very interesting. But I have the U.S. Treasury as my biggest shareholder today, and if you think I'm going to put money into something called 'Google,' with a key called 'I'm Feeling Lucky,' you're fresh outta luck. Can you imagine me explaining that to a congressional committee if you guys go bust?"
And then what happens if the next day the congressman from Palo Alto, who happens to be on the House banking committee, calls you, the bank president, and says: "I understand you turned down my boys, Larry and Sergey. Maybe you haven't been told, but I am one of your shareholders - and right now, I'm not feeling very lucky. You get my drift?"
Maybe nothing like this will ever happen. Maybe it's just my imagination. But maybe not ...
"Government bailouts and guarantees, while at times needed, always come with unintended consequences," notes the financial strategist David Smick. "The winners: the strong, the big, the established, the domestic and the safe - the folks who, relatively speaking, don't need the money. The losers: the new, the small, the foreign and the risky - emerging markets, entrepreneurs and small businesses not politically connected. After all, what banker in a Capitol Hill hearing now would want to defend a loan to an emerging market? Yet emerging economies are the big markets for American exports."
I am not criticizing the decision to shore up the banks. And we must prevent a repeat of the reckless bundling and securitizing of mortgages, and excessive leveraging, that started this mess. We need better regulation. But most of all, we need better management.
The banks that are surviving the best today, the ones that are buying others and not being bought - like JPMorgan Chase or Banco Santander, based in Spain - are not surviving because they were better regulated than the banks across the street but because they were better run. Their leaders were more vigilant about their risk exposure than any regulator required them to be.
Bottom line: We must not overshoot in regulating the markets just because they overshot in their risk-taking. That's what markets do. We need to fix capitalism, not install socialism. Because, ultimately, we can't bail our way out of this crisis. We can only grow our way out - with more innovation and entrepreneurship.
So let's keep our eyes on the prize. Save the system, install smart regulations and get the government out of the banking business as soon as possible so that the surviving banks can freely and unabashedly get back into their business: risk-taking without recklessness.








READ AN ALTERNATIVE IHT DAILY NARRATIVE AT
A PLACE IN THE AUVERGNE


LOOKING FOR A CHRISTMAS BOOK GIFT TO BUY?
"Books about cosmopolitan urbanites discovering the joys of country life are two a penny, but this one is worth a second glance. Walthew's vivid description of the moral stress induced by his job as a high-flying executive with the International Herald Tribune newspaper is worth the cover price alone…. Highly recommended." The Oxford Times
Amazon.co.uk

Amazon.com


For more reviews visit www.ianwalthew.com