Friday, May 29, 2009

Chrysler Bankruptcy and Demagoguery

Some of Chrysler's creditors rightfully objected to bankruptcy plan that gave most of the company to holders of unsecured claims (the UAW) above the secured debt holders. The bankruptcy code calls for absolute priority in any Chapter 11 reorganization. In the case of Chrysler, this means that the senior secured creditors must receive at least what they would have received in liquidation before anyone else is paid. The art and science of valuation plays a key role in determining the estimated liquidation value and the value of the non-cash settlements distributed to claimants.

Politicians have used the Chrysler bankruptcy for demagoguery and seek to bypass the usual legal processes. Michigan Congressman John Dingell stated, "the rogue hedge funds that refused to agree to a fair offer to exchange debt for cash from the U.S. Treasury – firms I label as the “vultures” – will now be dealt with accordingly in court." The governor of Michigan said, "It also came in spite of a few greedy hedge funds that didn't care how much pain the company's failure would have inflicted on families and communities everywhere. Their refusal to share in the sacrifice forced bankruptcy proceedings to begin." Finally, Obama said that they were "a small group of speculators" who "endanger Chrysler's future by refusing to sacrifice like everyone else."

Ultimately, a bankruptcy that violates absolute priority based on political pressure sets a bad precedent on a couple of levels. First, it is damaging to the rule of law. The bankruptcy codes and precedents are well-established. While there are technical issues in valuation, the spirit of absolute priority is the central issue. The dissident claim holders in the form of the non-TARP lenders had every right to demand their fair share. Politicians have no right to demand that secured lenders sacrifice so that the UAW or anyone else could get a better deal. It does not matter at all that these creditors were "rogue" hedge funds or that many did not pay face value for their claims -- the rules of the game are already set for this bankruptcy. To blame "speculators" and hedge funds is nothing less than classic demagoguery. Second, the consequences in the capital markets may be far-reaching. How will debt be priced if security is meaningless in practice and determined by your favor with politicians? It is similar to the cram-downs on mortgages. It sounds like a way fix the housing markets in areas where many are under water on their mortgages, but it would be difficult to expect that mortgage rates in the long-term.

Some defend the "speculators" because of they are pension funds representing ordinary workers.

Far from being speculators, these funds represent retired public employees, including cops and teachers. The funds paid a premium to buy "secured" status, only to discover that they were politically outranked by the United Auto Workers in the White House hierarchy.
WSJ 5/21/09

This is a true statement since the financial markets affect wealth far more than direct holdings indicate. However, this cannot be the major point of the defense. It does not matter whether the claim holder is a "rogue hedge fund" or a fund for widows and orphans--the bankruptcy courts are not a place or charity. To do anything other than follow absolute priority is to ignore rule of law.

Thursday, May 28, 2009

The Yield Curve is Getting Steeper


The term structure of interest rates (the yield curve) has historically been a leading indicator of economic indicator. Over the last few months, the yield curve has become much steeper. The December lows on the 30 year was 2.52% with the 3 month at basically 0. Since then the 3 month has moved up, but not by much while the 30 year has soared to over 4%. A steeper yield curve is a good sign for economy. It indicates that there will be higher interest rates due to more demand for capital. The yield curve has typically been a good indicator, but one has to wonder if the same rules apply in this situation.


Wednesday, May 27, 2009

MSNBC is typically a waste land, but...

Rachel Maddow on MSNBC delivered a scathing critique of a recent Obama speech. Obama criticized Bush policies on detainees, and then in the same speech he claimed the authority to do the same things as Bush. I do not watch her show, and I would probably disagree with most of her policy stands. However, she gains some credibility by applying the same standard to her guy as Bush.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uuWVHT1WUY