Private Equity and the Next Credit Crisis

My September Book Lust column included a preview of Josh Kosman’s book, The Buyout of America: How Private Equity Will Cause the Next Great Credit Crisis, which was released this month.

Monday I heard Kosman interviewed by Fresh Air’s Terry Gross (on NPR affiliates everywhere).

FASCINATING STUFF, including:

• How interest tax deductibility allows private equity (PE)  firms to dodge about $70b in federal taxes
• Why you can’t buy a two-sided mattress any longer
• Why PE  likes the hospital industry (and what it could mean to you if your local provider is bought by PE)
• PE firms (including the companies they own) are the largest employers in the country; even larger than Walmart (by a mile)
• Four of eight former treasury secretaries now in PE.  John Snow (under G. W.  Bush) is now at Cerberus which finagled bailout funds for its company, GMAC, by turning it into a bank (even though it didn’t have capital reserve requirements of “real” banks)
• Buyouts are facilitated by Collateralized Loan Obligations  (CLOs), the private equity version of the mortgage industry’s Collaterelized Debt Obligations (CDOs)
• Returns to PE  investors are below that of the S&P 500

SCARY STUFF, including:

• The conservative Boston Consulting Group estimates that half the companies owned by PE will default on their loans or go into bankruptcy
• If these companies lay off half their employees (which is reasonable) another 1.9m people will be out of work, which will ripple through the economy in consumer spending, mortgage foreclosures and so forth
• The trillion in bad debt will freeze lending everywhere
• Of the current 11% corporate loan default rate, 50% has PE involvement. Tsunami of defaults has begun

Prescription

Kosman would like to eliminate interest tax deductibility for corporate takeovers. This would make LBOs unprofitable and end the industry.

Why is the end of private equity considered a good thing?  Don’t buyout firms improve companies? According to Kosman,  PE firms only put down about 20% of the purchase price, then use CLOs to fund the remaining 80%. The acquired company has to service the debt out of profits instead of spending that money on R&D and other capital expenditures. PE has a 4-5 year horizon on its exit, so they’re not running companies for the long haul.  Theoretically, everyone’s supposed to win with PE, but the record shows that few do.

The Obama administration is reportedly looking into this.  Paul Volker is charged with considering the whole tax code, including tax deductibility of interest for buyouts.

Writing Prompts for Blogs and Newsletters:

• Here’s your chance to defend PE, and the enabling triumvirate of i-bankers,  hedge funds and ratings agencies!
• Do you work for a pension fund that invested in CLOs? How will you assure participants that YOUR CLOs will perform in spite of the 11% corporate loan default rate Kosman cites?
• GMAC fired its CEO this week. Do you regret giving TARP money to this non-diversified auto lender-cum-bank?
• Do you have a better idea for recouping the estimated $70b in federal taxes lost to PE deals than dis-allowing interest deductibility? Are we in for a national value-added tax or sales tax?

Dan Ariely 3 of 3: Trust and Healthcare Reform

In the first of this three-post series I offered a sound file of Dan talking about the limits of rationality when devising and regulating public services.

In the second, we explored how  Treasury’s un-trustworthiness dealing with TARP and the financial meltdown has led to social anxiety and depression.

While writing that second post it occurred to me if our elected and appointed officials been truthful and upfront in their dealings with $700b bailout, we’d already have a healthcare reform bill.

It also occurred to me that we hold public servants to a higher standard than CEOs of healthcare. When healthcare execs earn blood money by standing between us and our doctors, we shrug it off by saying “Hey, that’s just capitalism,” or “Oh well, cost of doing business,” but when our elected officials stand between us and our doctors we get nuts because that’s rationing.

What Ariely has to say about our beloved invisible hand of the market

In the updated version of Predictably Irrational, Ariely observes about his own profession:

Rational economics has always been the basis for setting up policies and designing our institutions. What’s wrong with that? Neoclassical economics is built on very strong assumptions that, over time, have become ‘established facts.’   Most famous among these are that all economic agents (consumers, companies, etc., are fully rational, and that the so-called invisible hand works to create market efficiency). To rational economists, these assumptions seem so basic, logical, and self-evident that they do not need any empirical scrutiny.

Building on these basic assumptions, rational economists make recommendations regarding the ideal way to design health insurance, retirement funds, and operating principles for financial institutions. This is, of course, the source of the basic belief in the wisdom of deregulation: if people always make the right decisions, and if the “invisible hand” and market forces always lead to efficiency, shouldn’t we just let go of any regulations and allow the financial markets to operate at their full potential?

On the other hand, scientists in fields ranging from chemistry to physics to psychology are trained to be suspicious of ‘established facts.’ In these fields, assumptions and theories are tested empirically and repeatedly. In testing them, scientists have learned over and over that many ideas accepted as true can end up being wrong; this is the natural progression of science. Accordingly, nearly all scientists have a stronger belief in data than in their own theories. If empirical observation is incompatible with a model, the model must be trashed or amended, even if it is conceptually beautiful, logically appealing, or mathematically convenient.

Unfortunately, such healthy scientific skepticism and empiricism have not yet taken hold in rational economics, where initial assumptions about human nature have solidified into dogma. Blind faith in human rationality and the forces of the market would not be so bad if they were limited to a few university professors and the students taking their classes. The real problem, however, is that economists have been very successful in convincing the world, including politicians, business people, and everyday Joes not only that economics has something important to say about how the world around us functions (which it does), but that economics is a sufficient explanation of everything around us (which it is not). In essence, the economic dogma is that once we take rational economics into account, nothing else is needed (emphasis added).

In sum, we trust theories more than facts.  No wonder we’re in such a quandry.

Dan Ariely 1 of 3: Trust, Revenge & Financial Reform

Bestselling author Dan Ariely, a professor of behavioral economics at  Duke, made a special appearance in Charlotte for our Business School Alliance last week. Ariely’s book, Predictably Irrational, just went into a second edition and — holy cow– is still in hardcover. I’ll write about his visit in this and two other posts this week. Here’s what’s in the new edition:

1.  A New Intro: Why the recent events in the economy make behavioral economics more important than ever before

2.  Reactions and Anecdotes: Expanding on some of the lessons we learned in the earlier chapters with interesting new stories and some more science

3.  Thoughts about the Subprime Mortgage Crisis and Its Consequences: A more in-depth look at how irrationalities played a role in the recent Subprime Mortgage Crisis, along with some of his thoughts on how we can fix those problems

Part One: we trust and seek revenge irrationally

Cliff’s notes: Ariely demonstrates that people aren’t always “selfish economic maximizers.” We will trust when we are rationally unwise to do so.  He also points out that we are, irrationally, “very happy to spend lots of money to make others suffer,”  joking that if you’ve any experience with divorce you’ll understand what he’s talking about. He explained the social utility of revenge in situations where lawlessness prevails.

Interesting factoid: PET scans of brains plotting revenge are quite similar to those experiencing pleasure.

I particularly like the novel way he approaches financial and healthcare reform.  He reminds us that roads and highways have wider lanes than a vehicle width, they have shoulders where people aren’t supposed to drive, they have protective medians and speed limits — none of which a “rational economist” would allow for.  Conclusion: when we devised our transportation system, we allowed that drivers would need room to make mistakes (or get out of the way of others who do).  We should plan ahead for “mistakes” in financial and healthcare reform efforts as well.

I had the foresight to bring my digital recorder, so enjoy what Dan has to say (click the link to play inside this window or download).

Trust-Revenge-Financial Reform

Writing prompts for bloggers & newsletter writers

• This is a time of great mistrust and financial churn. Perhaps you have either benefited professionally or been mistaken for a miscreant (or both). It’s not all in your control, is it? Do you have any anecdotes on how people irrationally trusted you or another advisor?  What about anecdotes where someone wrongly thought you had treated them badly and sought revenge? Does this make more sense now that you’ve heard Dan’s talk? You might offer some straight talk to your clients and prospects on this topic.
• Dan talked about AIG employees being harassed in public after the bailout. Can you relate any episodes of client anger that you handled particularly well or poorly? What lessons did such an episode teach you about yourself? Your profession? Human nature?
• If you’re an advisor, can you see yourself making use of the mango story when dealing with marriage or business partners who are dissolving their relationship? Or perhaps the Dr. Strangelove metaphor works better?
• What do you make of the parallel between how a “rational economist” would design a highway system and how we should revamp our healthcare system or re-regulate our financial system?

The Road to Success is Paved With…

lots of detours and false starts, from the looks of things.

I’m already on record as a fan of FlowingData, whose blog I subscribe to.  This morning Nathan posted an evergreen allegorical cartoon, originally published in 1913, that blows me away. If you want to study it closer, click to get it in another browser window by itself, then zoom in.  (UPDATE 1-31-62 I just learned the company with the copyright produces great reprints and Tshirts).

Scroll past the poster for my thoughts on success and wisdom from the Buddha on healthcare, entitlements and financial reforms.

Macro events on micro successes

This allegorical poster works well across the range of arenas in which people strive to succeed, whether it be spiritual enlightenment, gaining the esteem of family and neighbors, building a thriving business enterprise or artistic mastery.  When you think about it, there are really several mountains of success we climb in this life: family member, citizen, profession, avocation, seeker…everyone’s list varies.  And none of us is at the pinnacle of all life’s mountains at the same time. Life is full of trade-offs.

The one thing the poster doesn’t account for, however, is the role of macro events in our micro lives. For example, let’s say you created the world’s most precise wristwatch and fashioned it into a gorgeous piece of jewelry at a time when mobile phones have essentially replaced the need for a separate timekeeping device.  Your company goes bust, taking down the family and friends who invested in your vision. Does that make you unsuccessful? Depends upon your definition of success, doesn’t it? I had a similar experience, touched upon lightly in this essay published in Charlotte Magazine, Breathe In, Breathe Out.

One thing I hope we’re all learning in this Great Recession, is how interdependent we are. Investors in now-failed enterprises run by managers with the highest moral fiber have suffered alongside those who placed their life savings in Ponzi schemes.  And now investors of all stripes are suffering alongside those now unemployed by the companies crumbling around them.

Here’s a story about some Madoff investors now marooned in a RV park in Arizona, because they can’t afford the $2500 to drive home to NY. He was a New York City Department of Corrections officer and she, a computer analyst; hardly the glitterati we associate with Madoff’s victims.

It’s a compelling interview, including this quote by the prison guard, “We have our money in a viable institution and nobody was there to check. I mean, if I went to work every day at the Department of Correction and just left the door open and let the inmates out…. That’s my job to keep them in line, keep them behind the gate. Did anybody do that at the SEC? Absolutely not.”

A third way — between unfettered capitalism and outright socialism

I’m growing deaf listening to the various screaming matches on financial reform and fixing healthcare/entitlements.

To hear those on the far right, Fascists monsters are lurking under our collective bed, waiting for us to fall asleep so they can nationalize all industries and make the US unattractive to capital, thereby plunging this great country into the abyss alongside other empires on which the sun has long ago set. The left sees virtue in centrally coordinated systems that make the quality of life in America less dependent on highly variable, state-based programs.  In this vision, we’ll provide for the common weal and wipe out blood money-derived profits, but unless we take swift and broad-sweeping measures to centralize federal control immediately, we’ll be swept into the dustbin of history as another fallen giant.

Interesting that no matter the side, both meet in the middle with their conclusion that we’re headed down the road to ruin.

Look, the desire to organize society around an enforceable ethical code and to take care of the poor, old and infirmed are goals as ancient as the human race. These aspirations separate us from the beasts of the field. Our approach to these goals differs as society matures and technical advances enable us to try new things.  So let’s all take a deep breath and look under the bed. With a flashlight.

I’m a fan of Buddhist monk Pema Chodron’s book When Things Fall Apart and think her work provides a useful frame of reference for the dread we feel about the changes now upon us. “We think that the point is to pass the test or to overcome the problem, but the truth is that things don’t really get solved. They come together and they fall apart. Then they come together again and fall apart again.”

When we can accept the falling apart and coming together of all things in life, starting at our personal lives and including our entire world, we might approach financial reform, health care and entitlements with less dread, hysteria and finger pointing.

All these systems met needs pretty well for a time as originally designed and implemented; things came together at those points in time. Times have changed and new tools and social conditions have come on the scene since then; things have fallen apart.

Two examples:

1. Things fell apart during the Depression, so we implemented entitlement programs and erected new regulatory bodies.  Things came together. I argue that the only reason we’re not in another Great Depression today is the post-Depression social safety nets that now provide unemployment insurance and a baseline of health insurance to our elderly and most financially vulnerable citizens. But since we essentially dismantled Glass-Steagall, and financial mathematicians developed products that were unforeseen by jazz era regulators anyway, we produced fake wealth and things fell apart again.
2. Employer-provided health insurance came into being in a different age, too, beginning in the 1930s and quickly expanding as an employee fringe benefit when wage and price controls were implemented during the Second World War. Breathe in. Time for an update — we don’t even drive vintage 1960′s automobiles anymore, so why a ’60′s era healthcare system? Breathe out.

Now let’s all chant Om and get on with finding third-way solutions to financial and social services reforms that work for all of us.