Bankruptcy and the Financial Crisis

On June 30, 2009 New York University held an excellent seminar on “Bankruptcy and the Financial Crisis".

The link to view NYU's webcast of the seminar is included below.

The subjects discussed included:

1. Federal government policy on large financial institutions and managing too-big-to-fail firms.

2. Creditor’s rights particularly reconciling Chapter 11 filings with section 363 of the federal bankruptcy code. Has anything changed in the distressed trading markets based on the handling of the Chrysler and General Motors bankruptcies?

3. Will a large bank fail? Actions the federal government will take if there are failures. Is capitalism affected and sacrificed to expediency?

4. Bankruptcy trends and risks – increase in distressed businesses.

The “Creditor’s Rights” panel:

• Moderator: Thomas Cooley, Dean, NYU Stern School of Business
• Barry Adler, Professor, NYU School of Law
• Edward Altman, Professor, NYU Stern School of Business
• Gerald Rosenfeld, Deputy Chairman, Rothschild North America

The keynote speaker: Thomas M. Hoenig, President, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City:

1. Mr. Hoenig rejected the notion that some firms are too-big-to-fail. He laid out a three-step plan to address troubled, large institutions and the need to avoid ad-hoc approaches.

2. He suggested that large firms be held accountable including replacing management.

The “What if a Large Bank is Failing?” panel:

• Moderator: Matthew Richardson, Professor, NYU Stern School of Business
• William Ackman, Pershing Square Capital Management LP
• Edward Altman, Professor, NYU Stern School of Business
• Micheal Krimminger, Special Advisor, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
• Nouriel Roubini, Professor, NYU Stern School of Business
• Myron Scholes, Chairman, Platinum Grove Asset Management

Click here to access the webcast link to NYU’s seminar.

Where Is China Heading?

Mark Leonard's book “What Does China Think?” presents a number of China's modern beliefs and challenges.  Mr. Leonard discusses China's current struggles and the new priorities the Chinese State has determined are essential to address contemporary problems.

It is interesting, for the first time in China’s history, the State's 11th five-year plan does not list economic growth as the top focus. The plan includes mantras, such as: “put people first”…“respecting the natural environment”… and introduces a model which resembles some Scandinavian attempts in Social Welfare to address existing concerns.

The Book suggests China’s most pressing problems are:

1. The rise in protests,
2. The gap between rich and poor,
3. The near bankruptcy of the rural economy,
4. The lack of domestic consumption,
5. The pervasive corruption of the political elite,
6. The environment.

Official records cite 87,000 protest demonstrations in 2005, which is a ten times the amount of such displays since 1993.  It is most likely, the actual number of organized public protestations is much higher.

Mr. Leonard maintains the theory, modern China hopes to develop into an “Asymmetric Superpower”.  This conception believes the USA has an unhealthy obsession with military production, and this is the United States' greatest weakness, blinding policy-makers to the wider picture of military strategy.  Mr. Leonard's offering suggests the current Leadership of China, must include the use of economic, legal, and political tools as well, which is referenced: “non-military warfare”.  This modern version of China's “Economic Warfare” includes investing billions of dollars in “Special Economic Zones” within foreign Nations.

However, today China invests billions to improve it's military might, as Chinese Leaders correctly believe economic power without a strong Military, in context to the rest of the World, will reduce China as an overall power.  They prefer to obtain a Military Force which will become equal to the United States.

“China is attractive to other nations because of its economic power but this attractiveness will not last. It will need to change its political system to become a ‘Hyper-Power’ equal to the USA”.

But for China to achieve this status, the State will need to eliminate its incongruous and obsessive policy on a number of issues, it has mistakenly elevated to threats to its survival: Taiwanese and Tibetan freedom, the relationship with the Dalai Lama, the rise of Falun Gong, and various radical Muslim Enclaves.

The GM & Chrysler Bankruptcies

“The General Motors Corp. Chapter 11 bankruptcy marks the humbling of an American icon that once dominated the global car industry and sets up a high-stakes gamble for USA taxpayers.”

Reportedly both General Motors and Chrysler will exit from Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Court in 60 to 90 days. This sounds like wishful thinking and may involve some public relations imagery. To “correctly” restructure a significantly less complex and smaller manufacturing company, would require at least one year. The rush may produce more problems for all involved.

Regardless, one of GM’s and Chrysler’s most significant problems is that hourly labor costs are reportedly $20 to $30 per hour higher than their USA based Japanese competitors. It doesn’t appear that this most fundamental weakness has been addressed in a serious manner.

Most of the Japanese competitors have non-union hourly labor in their USA manufacturing operations. As such, their labor costs will not significantly increase over time. In addition, for the past few years, the Japanese Automakers have made higher capital investments to improve productivity. The cash strapped Big Three have not been able to match its competition.

Recent GM and Chrysler plant closings and operational restructurings have reduced their overall costs by billions of dollars, as well as their hourly headcounts by the thousands. However, the overall impact is misleading. The hourly cost for direct labor employees has not been reduced. And will continue to prove to be a vivid Achilles’ heel for the legendary USA manufacturers.

While the total of manufactured GM and Chrysler automobiles have declined significantly, the actual cost of each automobile continues to be higher than its Japanese competition. The Automakers will continue to prove unable to compete with this inherit weakness. Besides overt Labor commitments, another higher cost factor to consider is unabsorbed manufacturing overhead, since production is lower in existing plants. This is not a healthy sign.

However, the most important factor remains, has the UAW agreed to reduce the total cost for hourly direct labor employees?

Regretfully, there is no evidence of a reduction in hourly labor rates...

It is doubtful any labor cost concession will be meaningful if this is true:
"The fear at the UAW was that ownership in GM could eventually be worth very little.”

Thus, as it stands, GM and Chrysler will continue to lose money and will probably be forced to return to bankruptcy protection. We will have to wait to see what structure the FIAT buyout of Chrysler will produce. But, if there is a next time for GM in bankruptcy, it may have to execute liquidation under the Chapter 7 bankruptcy code. That is, if the US Government, which now owns 70% of the company, will allow it.

In addition, salaried headcounts appear too high. While this can be dealt with outside of the bankruptcy process, GM and Chrysler should analyze their salaried organizations and adopt Toyota’s performance target of 10% improvements in salaried productivity every year.

Regardless, neither company should exit from bankruptcy protection until the operations are restructured to allow a competitive, best cost manufacturing operation to emerge. We shall see, both GM and Chrysler face enormous challenges for survival.

Have two of the Big Three suffered such a loss in reputation over the years, their brands are too damaged beyond repair for today’s marketplace?

No, quality management can turn anything around with the right strategy, capital, cost structure, and culture. But it requires the tools needed to compete. Anything is possible.

Why William Clay Ford, Jr. Failed

In October 2006, the Ford Motor Company replaced William Clay Ford, Jr. as its Chief Executive Officer.

Why did Mr. Ford fail?

His own words, reported by Micheline Maynard of the New York Times on July 16, 2006, titled "Is Ford Running On Empty" revealed the answer.

"I bowed to managers on what I knew were product development mistakes”. “I can’t delegate to anybody…dealing with unyielding managers that stymie and condescend to me.” “… would have performed better if not faced with people obstacles”. - William Clay Ford, Jr.

Mr. Ford cited as one of his victories his environmentally friendly new River Rouge assembly plant. He believed this to be a victory because “…I did it over the objections of company executives.”

He brought in a new Chief of Staff and Gatekeeper, who is his best friend and brother-in-law, whose prior experience was as manager of the Henry Ford Museum. “He helps me decide which meetings and projects deserve my attention.”

One of his priorities was examining “…everything from how we’re going to treat each other in meetings to the trappings of our job.”

All of the priorities he listed in the article were essentially 'trivial many' when he had vital priorities that need attention. His “River Rouge” victory was quite minor with the intractable problems Ford is facing. Crowing about it publicly was a polarizing mistake. His new Chief of Staff, his brother in-law, further undermined him.

He made the fundamental CEO error, not persuading his managers to change their position on vital priorities. If he couldn’t persuade them, he should have made the correct strategic decision. He was not leading the company. He was not in command.

One example of Ford’s bloated overhead is its executive dining room replete with waitresses, multi-course menu, and silver finger bowls. Mr. Ford would have been more successful if he had executed an operational restructuring that significantly reduced salaried headcount in 2006 – not phased in over 3 years.

Better yet, he would have been well served to adopt Toyota’s performance target of 10% improvements in salaried productivity every year. If he adopted these principals, Mr. Ford, Jr. might then have been in a position to encourage unions to voluntarily modify contracts, base wage rates, pensions, and retiree medical care.

Leadership is learned. Taking command is learned. Mr. Ford held the CEO position for five years. He did not learn.

His lack of leadership and lack of prioritized focus, as demonstrated by his poor relationship with his managers, turned into poor performance at Ford. Only increasing Ford's low quality ratings, unimpressive new models, lack of worldwide integration in sourcing - product development, and the negative financial performance.

Alan Mulally, Ford’s new CEO, would be well served if he followed the practice of Neville Isdell when he was first named CEO of Coca-Cola. He was asked what are his plans for the company. Mr. Isdell's memorable response: "I plan to spend the first 120 days visiting employees and managers around Coke finding out what the state of the business really is."

Certainly the correct approach.

It is just that simple to get a company focused. Establish a rough-cut strategy, lead and motivate the team.

India – What Hinders Its Development?

Some thoughts on the interesting book “In Spite of the Gods – The Strange Rise of Modern India” by Edward Luce, the Financial Times' Washington Bureau Chief. He worked and lived in India for years.

While his conclusion is that India will become an economic super power, its many negatives will delay its development.

Some of the negatives:

Its massively ineffective and corrupt "quasi-socialist" political system.

Labor laws are too restrictive, cannot fire or lay off any employees, even if they are criminals, which supports the case for outsourcing only and not investing in 100% owned operations.

Literacy in China is 90%, in India it is 65% - female literacy is 48%. Focus in India is on university education, not elementary school education which China has focused on to build a viable work force. By comparison, the USA's literacy rate was 90% during its industrial and economic ascendancy in the 1800s.

India lacks investment in infrastructure, just starting to build roads and highways.

Bulk of population lives in small villages, not an urbanized country most developing countries tend toward. Of 1 billion population, 750 million live in small villages.

People are not motivated to seek a better life, caste system is an obstacle, lack of ambition somewhat stifled by elite strata which are still very British oriented.

Corruption is pervasive and extensive. Bribes are commonplace.

A telling difference between China and India is that China has accepted capitalism. Surprisingly for China's controlling government, its economy is based on market-driven industrialization. India has not accepted capitalism with its over-regulated private sector which is a draw back to growth and development.

An interesting fact:
India's police have "encounter specialists" which are policemen who kill criminals the police decide are guilty - prior to a trial. India has a 27 million criminal and civil case backlog. Police kill criminals because evidence gets lost, witnesses die, low-paid judges are easy to bribe and it takes too long for cases to come to trial.

Mitt Romney Advises: “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt”

Governor Mitt Romney offers some interesting advice regarding the Big Three in his November 18, 2008 New York Times Op-Ed “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” summarized as follows:

“If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car…But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries…

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.”

Governor Romney is correct.

In a July post on my blog I opined that running out of cash may be the trigger that puts them into bankruptcy, but it will be a blessing in disguise. My reasoning is that the Big Three’s hourly labor costs are reportedly $20 to $30 higher than their USA based Japanese competitors. In my experience as a Turnaround CEO, this will not be reduced in a voluntary agreement with their union. If it is not corrected, they will continue to decline and probably will not survive.

Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection does not mean the end. The companies will continue to operate. While it will be a severe shock to the USA, it is not liquidation. It will allow modification of the factors contributing to losing money - including the high cost labor contracts.

Click here to review my July 28, 2008 post: “Bankruptcy – The Fate of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler?”

2nd Follow-up to the Analysis of the Financial Crisis

Mr. Komal Sri-Kumar analyzed the Financial Crisis on October 31. It is his fourth webcast since October 3. Mr. Sri-Kumar is TCW Group’s Chief Global Strategist.

It is a meaningful, worthwhile analysis.

A summary of Mr. Sri-Kumar's views and forecasts:

1. The 4th quarter of 2008 will be the worst quarter with a 4% drop in GDP.

2. Is relatively optimistic in expecting the USA recession to end in the middle of 2009 because: “…the economy and stock market went down very fast…for the same reason the upturn will be equally rapid”.

The significant decline in consumer sentiment suggests a deep consumer recession. Does not see a depression risk. Expects unemployment to hit 8% or higher.

3. Federal Reserve should not have cut the interest rate by 50 basis points. It gave little stimulus to the economy. It was not the reason for the stock market increase. The stock market surged because the TED risk spreads have come down. The principal negative issue is the “liquidity trap” in that lenders are not willing to lend.

He suggests that direct to consumer stimulus is more important than interest rate reductions.

Does not see an inflation risk – including copper and oil. But he advises that the Federal Reserve will need to increase the interest rate in six months to avoid inflation.

Federal Reserve has ignored older people who largely rely on interest income for living expenses. An important factor to the economy.

4. As this webcast was prior to the Presidential election, he commented on both candidates and said the new President will not have much flexibility. Senator McCain cannot reduce taxes because of the sizeable budget deficit. President-elect Obama will not be able to increase taxes – particularly dividend and capital gains tax rates – because of the negative impact on economic growth.

5. Forecasts a $1 trillion budget deficit in 2009 which at 7% of GDP he views as manageable.

6. Continues to be bullish on equities. Is negative on Europe’s prospects. Expects equities to yield 9%-10% over the next 3 to 5 years. Forecasted 3% GDP growth and 2% inflation. Considers leverage dead.

7. Surge in the dollar has ended.

8. “What worries him most?” Policy maker errors. Not the economy. Not consumers. In September 2007 he predicted a recession. Federal Reserve and Treasury policy makers ignored the signs. “…will need to depend too much on policy makers”.

Click on this link for access Mr. Sri-Kumar’s October 31, 2008 webcast, approximate duration 60 minutes, expires January 31, 2009:

On October 15, 2008 a panel of economists at New York University gave a decidedly bleaker analysis of the financial crisis compared to the analyses Mr. Sri-Kumar has given.

Click on this link for a summary and access to NYU’s October 15 webcast: