Michael J. Golde

Why Dick Bove Is Wrong About Citigroup

I completely disagree with the author that it was a good idea for the government to allow Citibank to repay the TARP at this time. The whole purpose of the TARP was to shore up Citibank's capital. But for the pay czar and the relatively recent restrictions on management compensation, Citibank would never have repaid the TARP at this time.

Who benefitted by the TARP repayment? The shareholders. No, massive dilution at the paltry price obtained. Is Citibank now in a stronger capital position? No, it would have been better to retain the TARP until the Citibank stock price could have supported repayment at a higher stock price.

This rush to action was precipitated by the continual and incoherent interference of the government into the affairs of all of the TARP banks. The government mishandled this situation and the management of Citibank was complicit to save themselves.

It is sickening that after all that has occurred over the past two years that Citibank is still constrained by a disastrous balance sheet that is going to spew losses for some time.

The government should have established very specific requirements for repayment of the TARP. Apparently, each bank has instead negotiated their own deal leading to a lack of consistency. Are all the banks equally or even close to being similarly fiscally sound because of repayment of the TARP. I think not and Timothy Geithner once again proves his complete incompetence and inability to negotiate in the best interest of the American taxpayer.

There is absolutely no basis for Citibank's stock to improve in the foreseeable future and, if it does, there will be massive selling driving the price back down. Is it just a coincidence the Abu Dhabi doesn't want to honor its contractual agreement for purchase of Citibank stock when the U.S. has allowed Citibank to dilute itself to such an extent by the poor offering price of $3.15?

By allowing this insanity, the government is telling foreign investors indirectly that the U.S. doesn't care if they are diluted after making massive investments in U.S. entities. Is that the message, the government wants to send to potential investors in U.S. financial institutions?

Why GM's Not the Only Company Rush Limbaugh Should Boycott

Rush Limbaugh's exhortation to boycott General Motors' products is incredibly naive, misguided and counter-productive. It evinces his complete lack of understanding of "real-time" economics. Does he really think it is ultimately better for the American taxpayers to purposely avoid buying GM products that are produced by American workers for the purpose of creating even higher unemployment?

While I did and do not support the government bailout of GM, it makes no sense to pretend that the bailout did not occur. It did and it is quite clear that the Obama Administration rightly or wrongly is going to spend as many tax dollars as are necessarily to create the illusion of profitability. If a boycott was going to occur, it should have happened before the government invested or gave away taxpayer monies to GM. In other words, a boycott would have potentially useful as an economic threat to avoid or curtail a government bailout of GM. Aside from righteous indignation and chest-beating, what will a boycott accomplish now?

Limbaugh is an agitator. He is also more hellbent on undermining the Obama's presidency than offering a constructive solution to the financial mess that was in large part created or severely exacerbated under the regime of George W. Bush. Remember it was Bush who started all of the bailout madness, not Obama. While it is true that Obama substantially upped the ante and has been dangerously obfuscating and/or trampling on the legal rights of creditors, he was left with the decision of whether to let GM file bankruptcy at the outset of his term as opposed to a few months later after GM was unable to provide a viability plan.

If Obama had allowed GM to fail as one of the first acts of his presidency, especially after the billions, if not trillions, of dollars spent to prop-up flagging banks, the economic consequences to GM of an ill-timed and ill-planned filed bankruptcy and to the affected workforce would have been much harsher and dramatic.

The truth is that George Bush in the waning days of his presidency didn't have the courage to cut off funds to Chrysler or GM. He had the opportunity to force those car companies to restructure under Chapter 11 before the tremendous investment by the government ever occurred. But he didn't avail himself of the opportunity to defend the principles of capitalism upon which this country was based. In contrast, see The 13 New Rules of Government Capitalism. Instead, he allowed his presidency to sink to even greater lows by caving in to political pressure to save the Big Three at all costs.

Bush was totally caught off-guard by the economic crisis and it is a bit absurd to blame Obama for bailout nation when Bush was real progenitor of those policies. So, unless Limbaugh has a coherent economic plan other than to allow all GM and Chrysler and all other companies that received federal assistance to fail after the taxpayer is already on the hook, he ought to consider the consequences of his seemingly simplistic "boycott" message.

Do Paulson and Bernanke Really Understand What's Going On?

Excellent article. An elegant solution as opposed to the current morass being proposed.