from the hip

I was stunned by the Citigroup bailout. That is, not by the fact that the US government chose to do it, that was as I expected, even thought I thought and still think it was wrong (see my earlier post on this). But what stunned me was the terms of the bailout. Then, later, I have been stunned by the total lack of critical discussions of the terms of the bailout deal. That, more than anything about the Citigroup story, still amazes me.

My understanding is that the government has agreed to pump 20 billion US dollars into a company that that had a market cap of less than $21b on the Friday before the deal, and then only getting a single digit share of its stocks? That really has to be the worst deal for the taxpayers ever, and a clean gift of tax money to Citigroup’s shareholders? I mean, they could have bought a larger share cheaper on the market? At least 5 times bigger?

Second, for guaranteeing $250 billion of risky assets the government acquired the right to buy C stocks – that is, warranties – for 280 mill dollars at a price of USD 10.64. But the stock price was 4 dollars. Who else would want to buy warranties, linked, as in this case, with the risks associated with 250 billion of bad loans, at a strike price 2.5 times the price of the stocks in the free market? That, to me, seems simply wild. It really means the bad loan insurance if for free, and that the government has acquired some badly priced warranties.

Thirdly, by insuring the bad debt of Citigroup, the government also has created a competitive situation where C can now borrow money at lower rates than its competitors. That is, in competitive terms, the better performing banks have been twice punished – first by not getting the same gift and then by having to compete unfavorably by a bank they outperform every day of the week.

All this seems to me to indicate a level of unprincipled thinking by the government and its negotiators almost beyond my grasp. I totally understand Citigroup. They mucked it up, but then made a good save. Well done boys, I say to them! You rock! But the government, they are harder to understand. Their solution is bad and does not follow the pattern of earlier bailouts. And clearly, this also is a type of operation that can’t be repeated over and over, which means others can’t expect similar treatment in the future. So, we can’t expect this to be a new type solution that will be followed consistently in future cases.

So – lack of principled thinking and consistency in the government’s policies (compare it to the AIG bailout), giving tax money to shareholders, creating a competitive advantage for a bank that frankly has performed among the worst in its class, and giving one bank among the thousands of US banks something others do not get.

Spending tens of billions of taxpayer money and seemingly giving it away, and without any tracy of consistency in the behavior underlying the actions nor any traces or principled thinking. That is a tall order. And yet – there is hardly one – I repeat ONE – critical voice in the media. Not in Wall Street Journal, not in New York Times, not in Washington Post. So what is happening? All they all scared stiff by the recession? They too?

PS (12/04/08): New York Times today  wrote an article entitled Vikram Pandit Scores a Great Deal for Citigroup. They write:

as further details emerge on Citi’s government bailout, Mr. Pandit seems to have pulled off a truly fantastic deal.

Some details still haven’t been disclosed, and some haven’t even been entirely nailed down. So piecing together what is going on is a bit like solving a Rubik’s cube with some squares missing, Breakingviews notes. But judging from what has been made public, Mr. Pandit has shuffled off to Uncle Sam much of the downside in Citigroup’s $306 billion portfolio of riskier assets for what looks to be a low insurance premium, according to the publication.

See the story at The Daily Beast! It is pretty outrageous, actually. A commenter on the NYT article writes:

Inside sources have the value of Citi’s $306 billion portfolio at closer to $230 billion. That means taxpayers are locked in for a transfer of wealth of (306-230) x 90% (Citi takes 10% haircut – $29 (Citi takes first $29bn) = $42.3 billion. Taxpayers because of the incestuous Goldman Sachs relationship between Paulson and Rubin have forked over $42.3bn!!! to Citi shareholders. This is highway robbery and should be investigated at the highest authorities and be ultimately rescinded.

See also: Time Magazine: Why Government Intervention Won’t Last

I am frequently surprised by the ability of American media to explain away or minimize the role of domestic factors in the current recession in the US. Washington Post provide the most recent example of this kind of foolishness. Today it featured the following headline:

Exports Not Hurt by Euro’s Strength, Official Says

BRUSSELS, April 15 — Most European exporters are not yet feeling the pain of the strong euro, a European Union official said Tuesday — even as aircraft maker Airbus, which sells its planes in U.S. dollars, called the level “unbearable.”

Now, if the euro was strong, this would be ok. However, if it is the dollar that is weak, then businesses in the EU don’t really have any big problems. Then it is only sales in the US that are affected.

From a business point of view it matters a lot whether it is the dollar that is weak or the euro that is strong – it is only for trade between those two areas that it does not matter which is what. But for all other trade – and an increasing proportion of world trade falls in that category – it matters.

And really, the Euro has strengthened somewhat versus a number of currencies, but the US dollar has weakened by 30-40% against virtually all currencies that count. Therefore it is much more appropriate and correct to speak of a weak dollar than a strong euro!

Competitively speaking, that means raw materials and goods that are imported have become comparatively cheaper for the EU and other countries, while they have become comparatively more expensive for the US.

Thus, the low interest rates in the US and the recession feeds back on the competitive situation of the US in the world economy.

Today there was a big meeting in Stockholm, Sweden, about the bare breast (“Bara Bröst” in Swedish) movement. The topic is why naked female breasts provoke some people so much.

The Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet has an interview with one of the participants, feminist Nour El-Refai says that “I think people should let women’s breasts in peace. We women should be allowed to de-sexualize our breasts if we want to. We are not to blame for the sexualization of breasts. A de-sexualization of breasts would increase my freedom as a woman.”

Nour firmly believes that the bath house protests of the bare breast movement in Sweden represent a good approach for the movement, as they are visible manifestations that attract attention.

She says de-sexualization of breasts is important in order for the sexes to be able to act natural: “I do not get wet by watching the naked breasts of a man, so why should it be that way for men?”

The feminist movement in Scandinavia has been very successful in a large number of areas. Now a growing number of feminists, especially in Sweden and Denmark, want to fight for the right to behave as men do with respect to their bodies. They essentially want to be able to be topless wherever and whenever men are allowed to be topless. In public bath houses, at the beach, and similar places. They also want to be able to take off their shirts on the soccer field after a match, like the men do. And so on.

A short statement of their goals in English can be found on one of their blogs. Also, Washington Post has had an article about this movement. And here is a Wikipedia article (unfortunately in Swedish).

The Bureau of Labor Statistics today reported that 80.000 jobs had been cut in the US in March. While officials and even newspapers in the US seem reluctant to use the word “recession”, more and more indicators show that the US is in a recession, or extremely close to being in one.

In an article in the New York Times, Andrew Stettner called for an increased focus on the job market in the US:

“People have been focused on the housing crisis, and rightly so,” said Andrew Stettner, a policy analyst at the National Employment Law Project, “but now the deterioration in the job market should be demanding much more attention from policy makers.”

The job cuts so far in the US seem to be fairly consistent with the early stages of a period with a reversal of the wealth effect. According to Washington Post the distribution of job cuts was:

The numbers are far worse than economists were forecasting, and they solidify the case that a serious economic downturn is underway.
….

The report shows clearly how the problems in the housing and financial markets are rippling through different sectors, showing the deep interconnections between seemingly separate parts of the economy.

The number of construction jobs, which has been falling steadily for 18 months, continued its rout. That sector shed 51,000 positions, as fewer residences are being built.

Fewer houses mean less construction and building materials; the number of manufacturing jobs fell by 48,000, with some of the steepest losses among makers of lumber, drywall and other materials. Automakers also shed jobs. With their homes less valuable, Americans seem to be holding off on big-ticket purchases.

Consumers pulling back means stores need fewer workers; the number of retail jobs fell by 12,400. The steepest losses were in sellers of building materials and appliances, both of which are highly tied to the housing business.

The branches of the economy, of course, are not seemingly separate. They are visibly interconnected. Job cuts are most severe in construction and associated industries. Then there are wealth effect consequences in the auto industry and consumer retailing. Its logical and as expected.

As to the depth and duration of this crisis, this is what Ian Shepherdson had to say in NYT today:

Many forecasters argue that the economy will rebound by the fourth quarter, a view rejected by Ian Shepherdson, chief domestic economist for High Frequency Economics.

“We are in for a much longer recession than Wall Street thinks,” he said. “This particular downturn is driven by a rare contraction in consumer spending, and that is starting to hurt a broader range of people than those hurt by the mortgage crisis.”