RSS Feed
Twitter
Facebook
Email
HomeLet’s Revisit Whether the Market is Being Manipulated
Posted by Larry Doyle on March 22nd, 2010 9:52 AM |
Is the stock market being manipulated?
I can not count the number of times I have been asked that question over the last 9 months. Rather than my offering personal opinions which market pundits may view as sour grapes or worse, I want to revisit a ten-minute segment of my interview last evening with Phil Davis.
The segment runs from 29:45 until 40:00 (audio player provided below). If you do nothing else today, please listen to this dialogue between Phil and myself. Neither of us goes into this conversation with agendas or preconceived notions in an attempt to score points. I will offer an edited version here. I think you will find the information, thoughts, and opinions offered to be enlightening. (more…)
“Cash for Clunkers” Final Grade: F
Posted by Larry Doyle on October 5th, 2009 3:31 PM |
How did that “Cash for Clunkers” program ultimately grade out? While auto dealers were relishing the traffic that overwhelmed their showrooms, the fact is the program was nothing short of a government redistribution charade masked as an economic stimulus. If this type of program is the best we can do, we are in worse shape politically and economically than I thought.
While some pundits would sing the praises of the “Cash for Clunkers” program, fundamentally I have a difficult time understanding how real value is created when current value is destroyed in the process. Additionally, there was never a doubt that this program was merely pulling demand forward. How do we know this?
U.S. auto sales declined 23% for the month of September on a year over year basis. Sales for GM (-45%) and Chrysler (-42%) vehicles declined precipitously while Ford (-5%) declined only marginally. What does that indicate? Car buyers want to purchase a vehicle in which they have confidence in the manufacturer.
The Wall Street Journal sheds further light on this ‘clunker’ in writing, Clunkers In Practice:
Cash for clunkers had two objectives: help the environment by increasing fuel efficiency, and boost car sales to help Detroit and the economy. It achieved neither. According to Hudson Institute economist Irwin Stelzer, at best “the reduction in gasoline consumption will cut our oil consumption by 0.2 percent per year, or less than a single day’s gasoline use.” Burton Abrams and George Parsons of the University of Delaware added up the total benefits from reduced gas consumption, environmental improvements and the benefit to car buyers and companies, minus the overall cost of cash for clunkers, and found a net cost of roughly $2,000 per vehicle. Rather than stimulating the economy, the program made the nation as a whole $1.4 billion poorer.
The basic fallacy of cash for clunkers is that you can somehow create wealth by destroying existing assets that are still productive, in this case cars that still work. Under the program, auto dealers were required to destroy the car engines of trade-ins with a sodium silicate solution, then smash them and send them to the junk yard. As the journalist Henry Hazlitt wrote in his classic, “Economics in One Lesson,” you can’t raise living standards by breaking windows so some people can get jobs repairing them.
In the category of all-time dumb ideas, cash for clunkers rivals the New Deal brainstorm to slaughter pigs to raise pork prices. The people who really belong in the junk yard are the wizards in Washington who peddled this economic malarkey.
I concur. What do you think?
LD
GM: A Question of Trust
Posted by Larry Doyle on June 2nd, 2009 8:00 AM |
“Trust me.”
Have you ever walked away from a discussion with a person–be it a boss, a business associate, a prospective partner–in which you wondered why they felt the need to make that statement?
In regard to trust, I feel much more comfortable when others assert, “you can trust him” rather than an individual asserting, “trust me.” Why? Very simply, trust is a virtue. As such, it is not given like a cheap bauble. Trust is earned. The foundation of our capitalist system is trust. When a basic trust is violated, regulators are compelled to act to rectify that violation.
Let’s enter the Brave New World of the Uncle Sam economy and address the credibility of this virtue known as trust.
CNBC recently aired a fabulous roundtable discussion, “The Future of Capitalism,” which touched on many of the economic issues currently debated. In the midst of the discussion, Mohamed El-Erian of Pimco strongly asserted that capitalism is ultimately a system based upon trust. Without trust, investors will not willingly commit capital to drive future economic growth.
As with any virtue, trust is not a one way street. While trust is earned, it needs to be rewarded so as to promote even greater trust. In so doing, the model of trust is displayed as the shining beacon for personal and professional relationships, whether between two people or amongst three hundred million.
Let’s get more specific. Investors who committed capital to General Motors in the form of equity took the greatest risk. In so doing, they positioned themselves to reap the greatest reward were the company to prosper. The company entered bankruptcy; the shareholders got wiped out. That is the way capitalism works. Or does it?
Investors who committed capital to General Motors in the form of senior debt took lesser risk. In so doing, they positioned themselves to receive a lower fixed return knowing if the company failed they would be first in line. They made this investment based upon trust in longstanding rules of bankruptcy proceedings. These investors include large institutions and thousands of individuals. Their trust was violated in the GM bankruptcy proceedings. They were not first in line. Junior creditors, specifically the UAW, received substantially better treatment. What happened? Uncle Sam rationalized this “violation of trust” as being in the common good of our country. Regrettably, this violation received no real debate in our court system and limited debate within our general media.
Uncle Sam, in the persons of Barack Obama and Tim Geithner, have put forth that the automotive situation is a special case; standard bankruptcy proceedings will continue to be practiced elsewhere. I would counter that we have a responsibility to future generations of investors to challenge Obama and team on this point. The future of capitalism itself rests on this debate.
The true costs of this violation will be borne by future iterations of unionized companies that can not easily access the capital markets. I personally would only commit capital to such an entity at a much higher rate of return knowing full well the risks I am taking are now greater given the precedent set via the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies.
Analysts, government officials, and others will continue to rationalize this violation of trust. In my opinion, this rationalization is akin to “the ends justifying the means.” That is a dangerous weapon.
This “question of trust” will certainly be an ongoing theme as we venture further into the Brave New World of the Uncle Sam economy. In the process of making investment decisions, we now need to more aggressively question just how much we trust our counterparties, especially Uncle Sam.
Please share your insights and thoughts so we can collectively be more diligent in navigating the economic landscape.
LD
Board of Health Condemns Due to Moral Hazards
Posted by Larry Doyle on April 13th, 2009 11:05 AM |
The best organizations are managed not only for today but for tomorrow. What do I mean by that? Great organizations assess risks, develop talent, diversify products, and grow market share. Aside from those basic business tenets, the best organizations respond well in times of crisis.
Every business and organization is ultimately a reflection of its people. To that end, the depth and quality of the people are the single greatest factors in the long term success of the organization.
Any individual or organization would relish developing a system that generates untold success and then automates the process. Neither business nor life works that way. Change is constant. How organizations proactively stay ahead of change and respond to change is paramount in succeeding in business and life.
The best sports organizations have developed a deep bench of talent both on and off the field. When players or executives leave – as they always do – the general manager moves another body in and the team does not miss a beat. The same scenario occurs in the best companies. This transition process is part of the culture of the organization. (more…)
