Heads I Win, Tails I Win

Previously I wondered aloud why, for example, Ken Lewis, CEO of Bank of America, still has a job, amidst soaring unemployment. He ran his company into de facto bankruptcy, drove the stock price into a ditch, required massive infusions of taxpayer support, and overpaid for Merrill Lynch. If he were a plumber the house would be flooded, sewage would come out of the shower head, and there'd be no hot water. Yet he still has a job, and thousands of competent plumbers are collecting unemployment insurance.

Lewis is not just an isolated example. Why do most of AIG's corporate risk officers still have jobs? If they worked for an automobile manufacturer, they would have failed to notice that a metal knife blade affixed to the steering wheel and pointing at the driver might pose a safety hazard.

Then there's the case of Jake DeSantis, one of the 377 vastly overpaid geniuses at AIG's Financial Products group, the one that destroyed the company. He wrote a New York Times Op-Ed explaining why he still deserved a bonus. Matt Taibbi tears him a new orifice.

These cases are not isolated. They are common, even typical. Executive compensation has been totally decoupled from shareholder interests. And it's the taxpayers who own many of these companies now, or should if public officials were acting in taxpayer interests instead of grabbing money from public coffers and sending it to Wall Street, even without equity stakes.

We don't have a market economy. We have a kleptocracy, more akin to Putin's Russia or Marcos's Philippines. (I am in general agreement with Simon Johnson.) Obama is trying to get FDIC-like authority to take financial institutions into receivership if they are insolvent, and there's also a proposal that shareholders vote directly on executive compensation rather than leave such important matters to a board of directors. (Speaking of which, why, in corporate America, is a shareholder, who does not return his proxy, surrendering his vote to the current Chairman and Board, to vote as they please? If shareholders support current management, then they should have to vote as such. If they don't vote, they shouldn't count for any side.) Obama's budget proposal also helps make the tax code more progressive and close loopholes such as hedge fund compensation taxes. All these policies will help, but they won't be enough, and of course the kleptocracy is fighting them. After all, when you don't have the talent to make money the old fashioned way (by earning it), why not steal it?

AIG Monstrosity

AIG is an absolute horror now, if it wasn't already. The whole situation is blowing up in the young Obama Administration's face. For example, I doubt the President can explain why several AIG employees received million-plus retention bonuses...after leaving the company.

So what now?

Congress will pass some type of legislation raising income taxes on financial industry employees working at zombie companies. Unfortunately that legislation won't cover non-U.S. nationals who worked at AIG's London office, and there are plenty of those. The President should also ask U.K. authorities to do the same. That's the short-term fix for this narrow issue.

The President should also fire both Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers. They're done. It's time for a new team already. Then bring in Bill Seidman and Paul Volcker, veterans from the last banking crisis. (They are change we can believe in.) And give them carte blanche to place financial institutions into full and proper receivership, not this half-assed AIG-style receivership-without-the-benefits. It's your mess now, President Obama, so man up and take control. Didn't you read any book about FDR?

As the AIG situation so wonderfully illustrates, there are a bunch of contracts that need to be broken, starting with multi-millionaire employment contracts that are still rewarding many employees who would otherwise be guilty of criminal fraud on any other planet. Instead we are living in this "New Democrat" ideological fantasy that socialism (massive and continuing subsidies to zombie companies) is really capitalism. It's exactly the opposite! Meanwhile, the Secretary of the Treasury is cutting backroom deals with his Wall Street buddies so they can avoid the fair consequences of their mismanagement. This all stinks, and it's long past time to put these institutions into Swedish-style receivership. Otherwise it looks like we're going to have a new scandal every week.

Do you really want a new financial scandal every week, President Obama? Do you really want to spend the rest of your presidency defending the actions of de facto criminal Wall Street managers? Shut this stupidity down, now, and start with AIG, before this crisis cripples your presidency.

Larry Summers Suggests Buying Stocks

Lawrence Summers, Director of the U.S. National Economic Council, spoke at the Brookings Institution on March 13. In his remarks he pointed out that, after adjusting for inflation, the Dow Jones Industrial Average this past week dipped to the same level it was in 1966. "While there could be many ways to question this calculation, that the market would be at essentially the same real level as it was in 1966 when there were no PCs, no Internet, no flexible manufacturing, no software industry, and when our workforce was half and our net capital stock was a third of what it is today, may be regarded by some as the sale of the century."

I'm glad Professor Summers qualified this calculation. Economists generally believe that, at least in the long run and on average, the prices of financial assets (like stocks) depend on the net present value of expected future profits. (I'm oversimplifying, but only slightly.) The past is the past: PCs, the Internet, software, etc. are all reasons why investors in, say, the early 1970s could be bullish about future earnings growth and, thus, stocks. They are not reasons now.

So what events and innovations will generate future earnings growth in the U.S. economy? It's something I worry about practically every day at work, to make sure we're focused on real, sustainable growth. From our perspective that includes gaining marketshare, as long as it is profitable. Unfortunately too many actors in the U.S. economy focused on financial gimmicks to generate false bubble "growth," and we now better understand that true growth was limited.

Out of curiosity I looked at the composition of the Dow Jones Industrial Average in 1966. Here were the 30 listed companies at that time: Allied Chemical (now part of Honeywell), Aluminum Company of America (now Alcoa), American Can (now part of Rio Tinto Alcan), AT&T, American Tobacco (divided and now owned by other tobacco companies), Anaconda Copper (now only a Superfund environmental liability for BP), Bethlehem Steel (now part of Arcelor Mittal), Chrysler (now owned by Cerberus Capital Management), Du Pont, Eastman Kodak, GE, General Foods (now part of Kraft), General Motors, Goodyear, International Harvester (now Navistar), International Nickel (now Vale Inco), International Paper, Johns-Manville (now part of Berkshire Hathaway), Owens-Illinois Glass, Procter & Gamble, Sears Roebuck, Standard Oil of California (now Chevron), Standard Oil of New Jersey (now ExxonMobil), Swift & Company (now part of JBS S.A.), Texaco (now part of Chevron), Union Carbide (now part of Dow Chemical), United Aircraft (now United Technologies), U.S. Steel, Westinghouse Electric (now split up, with broadcasting as part of CBS), and Woolworth (now Foot Locker). Notice something interesting? There's not a single financial services company on the list. It really was an "industrial" average. With the exception of Sears and Woolworth (and possibly AT&T), every company on the list made something physical. In later years the Dow would add American Express (1982), J.P. Morgan (1991), Travelers (1997, which later became part of Citigroup), AIG (2004), and Bank of America (2008).