SPONSORED BY:
MONEY CULTURE

Obama's Road Map for Detroit

Can the auto bailout really work?

 
GALLERY
The Most Fuel Efficient Cars

Ten small and stylish rides that save gas and money

 
 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

SPONSORED BY
 

The Obama administration's new program to encourage the purchase of troubled mortgage assets last week offered what seemed to be a nice wet kiss to the private-equity/hedge-fund complex. But on Monday, with his announcement about the future of the U.S. auto industry, President Obama delivered a slap to the same folks.

In addition to pushing out General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner, Obama also sent unwelcome tidings to other stakeholders of both GM and Chrysler. Given that Obama is being advised on these efforts by Steve Rattner, a veteran private-equity manager and investment banker, it's not too hard to divine the unpleasant message he was delivering to Wall Street hotshots.

At GM, the action is all about the company's debt, not its equity. GM's market capitalization was about $2.23 billion before trading opened yesterday and was less than $2 billion by Monday afternoon. By contrast, the company has loads of debt. (Here's a list of outstanding bonds.) The most recent quarterly results indicate long-term debt of more than $29 billion. And since the firm's credit ratings have been pushed deep into junk territory, that means most of the holders of this debt are hedge funds, private-equity firms, and other investment vehicles. (Many mutual funds and institutional investors like pensions or insurance companies eschew junk debt.) GM's debt is trading at what is euphemistically called "distressed levels." As indicated here, bonds due in less than two years are trading at 20 cents on the dollar. Many of those who bought GM's bonds did so because they hoped to 1) convert the debt into ownership in the case of bankruptcy filing or 2) see the bonds rise in value should the government step in and formally guarantee GM's corporate debt. Obama made clear yesterday what they suspected: No such guarantee would be forthcoming. While GM had tried to restructure, Obama noted, it hasn't yet done enough. "I'm absolutely confident that GM can rise again, providing that it undergoes a fundamental restructuring. Have they cleaned up their balance sheets, or are they still saddled with so much debt that they can't make future investments?" (If you answered this double question with a no and a yes, you're right!) The upshot: Holders of GM's debt, like other entities to whom GM has made financial commitments—dealers, the auto unions—are going to have to cut a deal, sooner rather than later, and accept less than they think they're entitled to. None of that AIG-creditor treatment for you.
 
Obama's message to Chrysler was harsher. The company's equity—its stock—is owned not by public shareholders but by the private-equity firm Cerberus, which paid $7.4 billion to buy an 80 percent stake in the company. Cerberus sold off big chunks of its equity to other professional investors, which reduces the amount of capital it has at risk. But last year it agreed to lend $2 billion to the struggling firm. According to the viability plan Chrysler submitted to Washington, the company has about $24 billion in debt outstanding. Effectively, Obama told Chrysler that the government wouldn't be providing much, if any, new cash and that he didn't foresee much of a future for the company as an independent firm. He heavily recommended it pursue a deal in the works with Fiat, in which the Italian company would get a 35 percent stake in Fiat in exchange for contributing know-how. The equity that Cerberus and other investors have put in was already severely impaired. Now it's worth even less. Obama gave Cerberus 30 days to cut a deal with Fiat. (How do you say negotiating leverage in Italian?) Should Fiat and Chrysler cut a deal—which would dilute Cerberus' impaired equity even further—"we will consider lending up to $6 billion to help their plan succeed," Obama says. If not, "and in the absence of any other viable partnership, we will not be able to justify investing additional tax dollars to keep Chrysler in business." In other words, big haircuts all around—for owners, bondholders, and creditors—even if Chrysler survives.

Obama also used the B-word, bankruptcy, which would be particularly disastrous for Cerberus. Under any circumstances, it seems, many of the Wall Streeters who celebrated Obama's toxic-assets plan won't profit from his auto bailout.

© 2009

Label

Newsweek Top Stories
Gone Rogue
Gone Rogue

How Sarah Palin hurts the GOP … and America.

The Decade's Best Quotes
The Decade's Best Quotes

NEWSWEEK's 20/10 Project recalls the lines we'll never forget.

Best Celebrity Mugshots
Best Celebrity Mugshots

10 unforgettable arrest photos from the 2000s.

An Evolutionary Edge
An Evolutionary Edge

How grandmas may play favorites.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Daphne Kenward @ 04/12/2009 1:05:43 PM

    Obama's bailout, is a FRAUD, and any one with basic common sense knows it's stupid, and the people who is advising him is operating for an outside force not the interest of America. You can build what ever you like, if no one has the money to buy them, it stays on the forecourt, no one who is not sure about their job is going out to run up debts, and people who are unemployed cant get loans.

    If Obama has money to give away give it to the people it's after all their TAXES.

  • Posted By: Dredd @ 04/06/2009 3:14:53 PM

    There is something about too big to fail that doesn't ring true: http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/04/too-big-to-flail.html

    An honest solution to GM and other problems does not start with who is biggest.

  • Posted By: misterharban @ 04/01/2009 12:06:58 PM

    It is only fair to remember that the Democrats who pushed for tougher CAFE standards also included provisions, at the insistence of John Dingell, forbade the Big 3 from including automobiles manufactured outside the United States toward meeting the CAFE standards. And at Mr. Dingell's insistence included provisions which "deemed" behemoths which were capable of running on E85 alcohol blends to be part of a compliant fleet -- in spite of the fact that everyone clearly understood "wink,wink, nod, nod" that almost none of these cars would ever consume a single drop of E85. So if you were a big and stupid car company like GM who could not manufacture efficient cars in the U.S. and you could continue to manufacture gas guzzling behemoths that your elected officials were willing to call efficient, even if they were not, why wouldn't you?

    However much truth there is in your argument that Republicans are on the wrong side of history, it would appear that the Democrat's ouster of Dingell represents a concession that they too were on the wrong side of history.

    I can only hope that your paranoia about Republican cupidity will fade as the Democrats now own it all -- literally. They certainly have no excuse for not giving us the change we can live with. Hopefully we will get that change. More likely we will discover "what it is with Republicans" as the Democrats and their newly owned car companies find new and imaginative ways to continue to screw up the things that the Republicans were previously responsible for screwing up.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

My Take

Customize the NEWSWEEK homepage
to feature your favorite columnists.

Customize Now
 
PHOTOS
What About Us?
Wall Street's problems have captured the attention of Congress, the White House and the media. But on the country's Main Streets ordinary folks are wondering if anyone is paying attention to them. A look at how Americans are coping with the economic crisis.