April 2009 Archives

Today Bloomberg reported on Obama's reaction to the "Committee of Chrysler Non-Tarp Lenders'" cold and calculated actions regarding Chrysler bankruptcy.


President Barack Obama said Chrysler LLC lenders who turned down his buyout offers are a "small group of speculators" who forced the automaker into bankruptcy.

"A group of investment firms and hedge funds decided to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout," Obama said today in Washington before Chrysler filed for bankruptcy protection.


What do you expect, President?  The American government has made clear their willingness to backstop large failing companies in any politically sensitive industries.  Given this, bondholders should be expected to make rational decisions with the goal of maximizing their returns.  This is how financial markets work; they have always worked this way and always will.  The beauty of these markets is that they are amoral.  Because of this, they will behave in predictable ways.  President Obama's crew should take this into account when they craft plans to alter economic outcomes instead of calling foul on rational investors when their plans don't work out.

Recently I had a conversation with a friend about a group at Case whose purpose was getting the school's endowment fund to divest from companies related to Sudan.  This is a similarly misinformed perspective formed from the idea that financial markets should incorporate morality.  They don't.  Unlike a boycott program which harms the financial health of the target company, these divestment programs only make investor participants lose out to better informed investors.  Divestment drops stock price, and other participants in the market will see that the asset is underpriced relative to its long-term earnings potential.  They will then buy at the lower price until the price has risen to its intrinsic value.  It's a hopeless battle that does no good to further the actual cause.

Financial markets are amoral.  They always will be.  Know this, and work around it.

Salon.com reports that the Obama administration has, despite campaign promises to the opposite effect, continued the Bush-era "state secrets" defense for warantless wiretapping and has expanded that defense to include immunity for all forms of communication interception:

In other words, beyond even the outrageously broad "state secrets" privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and -- even if what they're doing is blatantly illegal and they know it's illegal -- you are barred from suing them unless they "willfully disclose" to the public what they have learned.

Why should the business community care?  Unreviewable eavesdropping is a particularly valuable tool for large corporate interests.  Completely opaque wiretapping policies open the door to corporate espionage aided by government insiders.  A bit of information as simple as finding out before the market does that a company is considering selling to a competitor can be worth millions and millions of dollars.  Without proper review of procedures, and without insuring that warrants are issued before taps begin, this information espionage is likely to occur and without anyone finding out.

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries from April 2009 listed from newest to oldest.

March 2009 is the previous archive.

May 2009 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Pages

Powered by Movable Type 4.21-en