Commentary on the economy, the markets, and business

Will the new GM escape the curse of the old?

There have been two main theories of why things went so wrong at General Motors. One is that the company is run by a bunch of ingrown retreads with no sense of where the automotive business was headed. The other is that the company's management has been so burdened by commitments (to pensions, to retiree health care, to union work rules) made back when the company was gigantic and dominant that it hasn't had time to focus on where the automotive business was headed.

Now we get to find out which explanation was right. GM management will still be heavy on the ingrown retreads. CEO Fritz Henderson is a GM lifer. Bob Lutz, at 77, is back again—in part because, Henderson said at a press conference this morning, "this is the best way to keep Bob from recycling to a fresh set of OEMs." (At least, I think that's what he said. Can anybody tell me what language he was speaking?) And new chairman Ed Whitacre is, while not ingrown, certainly a retread. He's the man who successfully reassembled a good chunk of the old AT&T monopoly. Just the kind of next-generation leader we need. Later, on a conference call with reporters, somebody asked Henderson about the lack of new blood. "As we fill out the key slots, you're gonna see some unusual names in these jobs," he replied. Another reporter wanted to know if that meant unconventional internal promotions, or people from outside. "The former," Henderson said. "I'm not closed to outside blood, but until we know how we pay people we can't hire anybody." Fair enough.

Meanwhile, the burden of past commitments has been lifted, at least partially. GM entered Chapter 11 with what the WSJ says were "$176 billion in liabilities to retirees, warranties and a legion of lenders including the U.S. government." It leaves bankruptcy today with about $48 billion in debts. That still sounds like a lot, given that the new GM is a smaller company with a smaller revenue stream. But when I asked Henderson about it, his response was that fixed obligations (as opposed to accounts payable and such), consisted just of $10.5 billion in debt, $9 billion in preferred shares, and some as-yet-undetermined pension fund contributions that will be due in 2013 or 2014. "I think in terms of the balance sheet it is a world apart from what it was," he said. "The level of indebtness for the company is not excessive."

I've generally leaned toward the too-many-liabilities explanation for GM's troubles, mainly because the company's successes overseas—especially in China—indicated that its managers, however ingrown they might be, were reasonably smart and capable. It's just that in the U.S. their No. 1 priority had to be keeping sales volumes high enough to keep the debt payments and retiree health care flowing, a focus that didn't really lend itself to reinvention or innovation. Now that burden, and excuse, is mostly gone. So I'm betting that GM will now start looking like a much better-run company. The question is whether it's too late.

         

Writes Tom Lauricella in a fascinating article in today's WSJ:

Asset allocation, a bedrock of investing for decades, appeared to fail miserably in 2008. The conviction shared by most investors -- that they should spread their money across myriad asset classes to minimize losses -- was shaken as nearly all markets tumbled in unison.

The main reason asset allocation failed is that it had become so successful. That is, everybody was spreading their money across the same myriad asset classes. So when the market panic came, it came everywhere.

Read More…

         

This is of a piece with Barbara's annoyed Monday post about Dan Ariely and Hershey's kisses. Stephen Laniel, whose entertaining and educational blog I came across because I keep track of online mentions of my book and it's currently on his reading list (see, narcissism has its uses!) muses about what kind of niche he could fill as an author, and concludes:

I should just follow along behind Jonah Lehrer or Malcolm Gladwell or Chris Anderson or whoever, watch what they're writing about, then say exactly the opposite.

Read More…

         

Let's just blame the fat people

I was among friends the other night, listening to a doctor go off about how health care in this country costs so much because Americans are fat. If she had to see one more obese mother feed her already-overweight eight-year-old child Cheetos for breakfast, this doctor said, she was going to scream. Want to know why we're a nation of arthritis- and diabetes-prone heart-attack and stroke victims? she asked. Just think about all that extra weight our bodies were never meant to carry around.

I was attracted to this concept of fat-as-the-problem; I like simple explanations. So I was quite happy—well, maybe happy isn't exactly the right word—to come across some data to back up that doctor's claim.

Read More…

         

A TARP chronology:

Sept. 17, 2008: Lehman Brothers has just gone under, the financial world seems to be collapsing under our ears, and Nick Brady, Gene Ludwig and Paul Volcker propose in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that the only thing that can save us is a "mechanism in place to remove" toxic real estate assets from the financial system. Sort of like the Resolution Trust Corp. that cleaned up after the S&L crisis.

Sept. 18, 2008: Charlie Gasparino breaks the news on CNBC that the Treasury Department is drawing up plans to spend hundreds of billions of dollars buying up toxic mortgage securities.

Sept. 20, 2008: The price tag is revealed, and it's $700 billion.

Read More…

         

The news yesterday that John Meriwether had shut down his latest hedge fund, JWM Partners, wasn't exactly news. Word got out back in February that the man behind legendary blowup Long-Term Capital Management was again in trouble, albeit of a less spectacular sort than 11 years ago (JWM's main fund was down 44% from September 2007 through February). But don't worry, you could have another chance to lose money with Meriwether soon. Reports the WSJ:

Mr. Meriwether has kept largely -- and characteristically -- mum about what he will do next, even in conversations with people close to him, but he talked in recent months about possibly forming a new trading partnership, people who know him say. They say he is unlikely to ease into retirement any time soon.

Read More…

         

The return of Freur (thanks to the Palm Pre)

So this ad for the Palm Pre comes on TV, and a strangely familiar tune comes on in the background. I think about it for a few minutes, and then suddenly, out of nowhere, it comes to me: Doot Doot.

Read More…

         

Watching Congressional hearings on important topics always seems beforehand like it's going to be a good idea. You know: Our elected representatives, asking the experts (or the culprits) the questions that need to be asked. Every once in a while it does work out this way: I thought the Senate Banking Committee's hearings on the banking and auto bailouts last year were riveting.

But then there's this morning's hearing by the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection on the administration's proposal for a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency. We were 75 minutes into it before the first witness got to speak. And I'm quickly realizing from the opening statements that this subcommittee's main concern is going to be how the legislation would affect the Federal Trade Commission. Why's that? It's because this subcommittee is responsible for overseeing the FTC. And subcommittees and committees that oversee agencies tend to be very protective of them.

Read More…

         

Microlending was one of the biggest parties in finance in recent years—an era of many parties. A new report out from the Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation (CSFI) details how things have changed over the past year-and-a-half. The report is based on a survey of 430 institututions in 82 countries and reveals that what's happened in high finance has trickled down to the level of $50 cow loans in a major way. This was not entirely expected—part of the mythology around microfinance was that it would be sheltered from shocks to the mainstream world economy.

When the CSFI last did this survey, in early 2008, microfinance institutions (MFIs) tended to worry most about things like staffing, regulation and corporate governance. Now the top-three hand-wringers at MFIs are credit risk, macro-economic trends and liquidity. Sounds familiar. The report notes:

There is also concern that recession will expose “naked swimmers”: weak MFIs with poor funding and inefficient management who were being buoyed by good economic conditions and overabundant funding. The risk of institutional failure is seen to be high.

Although is that really a reason for concern?

Read More…

         

The indispensable Epicurean Dealmaker—whom I would surely hire if (a) I were in need of an investment banker and (2) I could figure out who he is—makes a rare defense of his kind:

I stick by my assertion that we did not create the huge global demand for riskless returns that is at the root of our current predicament. Investment bankers did not force anyone to buy toxic securities or execute stupid M&A deals. They did not have fiduciary duties to the shareholders and stakeholders of the pension funds, hedge funds, and corporations who did do those deals: the management of those entities did. And, as fiduciaries, these are the people with whom the buck stops. These are the people who have to say, “Wait a minute, gravity hasn't been repealed; return cannot be earned without risk. No thank you, Mr. Investment Banker. Piss off.” Many–way too many–did not. Piggy, piggy, piggy.