TPMCafe
« Debates within the family | Home | Quarterbacks, Financial Planners, and School Teachers »

A Hybrid Vehicle (One Third Bailout, Two-Thirds Chapter 11) for Automakers, But No More TARP for Wall Street

user-pic

The Big Three need a hybrid vehicle, if you will -- a combination of chapter 11 bankruptcy and a bailout. For every taxpayer dollar they receive, the automakers should be required to come up with $2 from their stakeholders (creditors, shareholders, executives, white and blue collar employees), just as stakeholders would have to sacrifice under Chapter 11.

This is the only way GM, Ford, and Chrysler can possibly accumulate enough money to survive and restructure. It's also the way to avoid favoring the Big Three over foreign automakers in the US (if they want to make the same $2 for every $1 sacrifice, they can do so, too.) And it's a way to avoiding the "moral hazard" of every other big company that gets into trouble during this downturn expecting Washington to bail it out as well.

The only reason for taxpayers to put up even one dollar for every two that the automakers put up is the significant social cost that would occur if any one of the Big Three were to rapidly shrink -- including unemployment insurance, increased liabilities for the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, lost tax revenues, and costs associated with large numbers of people suffering losses of wages and employment.

Wall Street is a different story entirely. There's no good reason for taxpayers to continue bailing out the Street. TARP hasn't worked. Some $350 billion later, credit markets are still quite frozen. The only obvious beneficiaries of TARP have been the executives, creditors, and shareholders of the big Wall Street banks, who have come out better than they would have had there been no Wall Street bailout.

From here on, Wall Street banks that can't pay their creditors should have to resourt to Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code, which allows a firm to pay off its creditors -- say, 30 cents on the dollar -- and then wipe the slate clean.

Chapter 11 is ideally suited to the Wall Street credit crisis because it creates a forum in which creditors are forced to negotiate and ultimately accept a "market" price for the securities they hold -- thereby accomplishing what the Treasury first tried to do under TARP: create market valuations for these otherwise unmarketable securities. And by allowing the big banks to clean up their balance sheets and get rid of their "toxic" securities, Chapter 11 clears the way for the banks to attract new investors now scared off by the unknown dimensions of potential losses.

There's no reason to suppose Chapter 11 would be especially difficult for a big bank, nor are there likely to be significant social costs. Two months ago the Treasury warned of "contagion" if Wall Street weren't bailed out. But the real contagion involves the continued fears and uncertainties surrounding mortgage-backed securities -- and Chapter 11 provides a way to reduce these.

Prior to 1978, a company could seek Chapter 11 protection only if it was insolvent or was unable to pay maturing debt, and Chapter 11 normally meant that a company's managers would have to relinquish control. But in 1978 Congress amended Chapter 11 to delete the insolvency test, and also to allow managers to keep control of a company unless a bankruptcy judge explicitly finds them to be incompetent or untrustworthy. Since then, instead of presiding over meetings of creditors where claims are bargained out, judges have left most decisions -- even major ones -- to existing managers.

Naysayers point to Lehman Brothers as evidence that Chapter 11 won't work. But it wasn't tried, mainly because the Treasury was by then signaling that it would bail out troubled banks. Lehman apparently chose to play a game of chicken with the Treasury, hoping and expecting the Treasury would bail it out. When the Treasury finally refused, Lehman was pushed into liquidation because it hadn't prepared the way for Chapter 11. Chapter 11 also should have been used by Citigroup. Taxpayers took a bath on that one, for no good reason.

Bottom line: Detroit should get a hybrid vehicle, one third bailout and two-thirds Chapter 11 -- $1 of taxpayer investment for every $2 of sacrifice by Big Three stakeholders. But Wall Street should not get the second $350 billion tranche of the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Wall Street deserves -- and the public can do better if Wall Street utilizes -- Chapter 11.


18 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

I like the hybrid bailout idea but... I don't think its right for a former Labor Secretary to ask the workers to shell out for this. They're the victims here.

user-pic

That caught me up too. Reich calls the $1.00 from the tax payer an investment while the $2.00 from stakeholders is called a sacrifice. Wonder why the $2.00 couldn't also be an investment. Maybe Reich can explain.

user-pic

Most of the people I hear objecting to the bankruptcy or managed bankruptcy idea are doing so on the claim that nobody will buy a car from a company that's in bankruptcy, even if it's something fairly innocuous like chapter 11 bankruptcy. The word "bankruptcy" itself is magic, nobody wants to buy a car and then find out they can't get the warranty serviced or parts replaced three years later. At least, this is the claim.

user-pic

I think that's a valid claim. A car is a long term investment where you will need servicing under your warranty, parts, etc. I wouldn't buy a car from a company that had declared bankruptcy. Very different from buying a flat screen TV at Circuit City.

user-pic

It seems to me to be more a "warranty" problem than a "parts supply" problem.

Solution: Create a separate company (GMWC) as an insurer of the warranty contracts. Regulate that company as any other insurer is regulated and require the company to reserve fully against anticipated warranty claims.

I know I, for one, would be willing to accept a "bankrupt's" warranties under that solution.

user-pic

But Ellen, you are analytical, intelligent and dispassionate: dare I say, a little icy in a caculated, but good sort of way. The rest of the population buys things out of emotion, and a bankrupt automaker is bad juju.

user-pic

Most parts are made by third party vendors. None of the big 3, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Benz, BMW or any other North American manufacurer makes brake pads for example.

Chapter 11 is the solotion. GM has almost the same market share as Toyota but about five times as many distributors. That means that the average GM distributor is 20% the size of the average Toyota distributor. The GM distributors are at a huge disadvantage at local advertising, and variety of selection. Trimming the distributor network needs chapter 11 to get the job done.

user-pic

Blood on the walls and death in the streets?
I just wonder how much collateral damage would occur if Wall Street were left to own its financial darwinist ideals. How would this affect all the mortgage holders? What would this do to the rest of economy both in terms of measurable consequences and the psychological impact, which seems to be loaded with even more potential danger? You may be right, Robert Reich, and I hope you are, but I need to get my head around the ripple effects of cutting off TARP.


user-pic
I just wonder how much collateral damage would occur if Wall Street were left to own its financial darwinist ideals.

You mean no CRA channeling credit to shakey bowers?

You mean the government sponsored enterprises, Fred and Fan, creating a market for no money down mortgages?

No money down mortgages!

user-pic

No, that wasn't what I was talking about, but I guess you got to say what you wanted to. Congratulations.

user-pic

What about the US Government under Obama buying a majority share of GM, and maybe others too? At least taxpayers would GET something for our money, and areas from efficiency to a flatter pyramid of payment to meeting workers' needs, to good credit for the auto industry to ESPECIALLY ENVIRONMENTAL/CLIMATE CHAOS CONCERNS could be addressed frontally.

Then the "four million" jobs dependent on the auto industry would have better protection than from any other way, it seems to me (but then again, I'm one of those tiny minority of Americans who are socialists). I'd rather have lemon Socialism than Lemon-Bailout-Meringue-Capitalism, any day. (Other than the notion that it's politically unfeasible, when politically it would be a good solution to raise and see what folk think, what are the ECONOMIC arguments for its unfeasibility?)

A discussion of at least ONE such version of a buyout is at:
http://theragblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/heres-plan-nationalize-general-motors.html

user-pic

A question and an idea:
Since "Some $350 billion later, credit markets are still quite frozen," shouldn't we really start to think of the problem as an 'investment strike', a political act to undercut the incoming administration? The methods to deal with that should be political as well as technical economic measures and the key question is 'who benefits' -- "The only obvious beneficiaries of TARP have been the executives, creditors, and shareholders of the big Wall Street banks, who have come out better than they would have had there been no Wall Street bailout."
On the auto industry, a modest proposal and a bit of leverage for healthcare reform. Since the costs of health benefits are frequently cited as one of the challenges facing the US Automakers, and since most current proposals for expanding health insurance call for the creation of a 'public pool', why not move all autoworkers and pensioners into that pool. There should be some significant savings to be negotiated with a larger pool, and adding the autoworkers will give the pool a good start at building volume, efficiencies, and leverage to get the best possible terms of insurance.

user-pic

"Who will buy a car from a company that might not exist" is a canard as far as practicality goes. The money required to fund a parts-and-service successor is pocket change compared to a bailout of the rest of the business.

Where it is an issue, it's because no one buying a car wants to face the ridicule of coworkers laughing at the bellyupmobile in the parking lot.

user-pic

TARP hasn't worked. Robert Reich

Could that be because it (TARP) hasn't been tried, yet?

Note: The TARP was intended, initially, to effect the purchase of "troubled" or "toxic" assets from banks thereby freeing their balance sheets of impossible-to-value assets. The result was supposed to be bank balance sheets which would be believable and could be relied upon -- what Reich apparently seeks. Rather than carry out its advertised purpose Paulson converted TARP into an equity investment program.

So -- don't blame a program that was never initiated.

user-pic

"TARP doesn't work is a political slogan, not a statement of fact. That slogan is quickly becoming wallpaper at TMPCafe.

user-pic

You have the metaphor right, Mr. Reich, but the message wrong.

We could BUY GM for 3B$ - why should we put up with their shenanigans? If we do invest in them (and I think we should), the terms HAVE to be making the kind of cars America needs - hybrid, electric, and CNG/LNG.

Chapter 11 is nothing more than union busting, and there will be just as many UAW workers as PATCO (air traffic controller union) workers in the future, plus an irrevocable rift in the party.

Bridge loans are OK for today. Anything that gets us to a more reasonable Congress in January is good. But mark my words - Bush wants GM to fail and to take the UAW with it. Five million unemployed by Christmas. Worst President EVER.

user-pic

Reich is close on the bank bail out, but his liberalism (as in scratch a liberal, find a neoliberal) gets in the way. His free market prejudices preclude him from imagining a really visionary way to resolve the auto crisis. Convert the auto industry in part to a replay of the WWII "Arsenal of Democracy," when automakers built planes, tanks, railcars, locomotives, and bombshells. This time they can build wind turbines and light rail, as well as more fuel efficient cars. As for calling for autoworker sacrifice: bullshit. They have been making concessions for decades and it is the falling incomes and union membership that has been a major factor in the economic downturn. To learn what it's like to work on the assembly line (with a class analysis), see www.autoplant.info.

Facebook

Bottom line: Detroit should get a hybrid vehicle, one third bailout and two-thirds Chapter 11 -- $1 of taxpayer investment for every $2 of sacrifice by Big Three stakeholders. auto transport

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address