Thoughts & Comments
G.E.--G.E.!-Gets a $140 Billion Bailout
Funny. I thought companies rated triple-A didn't need things like that.

Vernon Hill  ( about me )
Posted 11/13/2008
bankstocks.com
vhill@bankstocks.com

Tell me again what a triple-A rating is good for? Not a whole lot, if one of the iconic triple-As in American industry, General Electric, has to go hat in hand to the federal government for a $140 billion bailout.

Or maybe G.E. isn't the bulletproof financial juggernaut the rating agencies say. The company's vaunted GE Capital unit has supposedly been a money machine for years, having generated solid returns come rain or shine. By now, the unit generates upwards of 40% of G.E. overall profits. 

Except there's one problem: G.E.'s financial services business may be the blackest box on Wall Street. The unit has little transparency, no regulatory oversight, and now, we are finding out, an unstable funding model.

In particular, G.E. has chosen to fund its finance business with short-term commercial paper rather than secure more stable long-term funding based on its triple-A rating--which, it appears, turns out to be fiction. 

Odd, isn't it, that even though it operates in the same economic environment as regulated financial behemoths, G.E. never seems to get hit by outsized credit losses or asset writedowns? Is that because a) the people at G.E. are just smarter than everybody else, or b) the company has wide latitude to paper over problems since it doesn't have a regulator looking over its shoulder?

I vote for b. We know, for instance, that GE is not above skimping on non-cash discretionary items in order to plump up its near-term results. And not in a small way, either: one reason Jack Welch could show such sparkling earnings gains toward the end of his tenure as CEO is that in the late 1990s and early 2000s, G.E. systematically underreserved for losses at its reinsurance unit. When the company sold the business in 2005, it had to pump in an extra $10 billion to make up the shortfall.  

Opaque assets and unstable funding. That's some combination. In any event, yet another pillar of the "shadow banking system" founders.

What do you think? Let me know!


  Add your comment

 

 
Ad for inter-arch
Ad for Bankstocks
 

     Bankstocks.com is a public web site operated by individuals who also operate investment advisory firms that serve as investment advisers to hedge funds (the "Firms"). Some articles are authored by employees of the Firms while others are authored by third parties. Under no circumstances does any article posted on Bankstocks.com represent a recommendation to buy or sell a security. This article is intended to provide insight into the financial services industry and is not a solicitation of any kind. The Firms do not vouch for the accuracy of any information contained in any article posted herein and the views expressed in any article herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Firms. The Firms buy and sell securities on behalf of their fund investors and may do so, before and after any particular article herein is published, with respect to the securities discussed in any article posted herein. The Firms’ appraisal of a company's prospects is only one factor that affects the Firms’ decision whether to buy or sell shares in that company. Other factors might include, but are not limited to, the presence of mandatory limits on individual positions, decisions regarding portfolio exposures, and general market conditions, and liquidity needs. As such, there may not always be consistency between the views expressed in this article and the Firms’ trading on behalf of their fund investors. There may be conflicts between the content posted on Bankstocks.com and the interests of the Firms. For an explanation of these conflicts, including an explanation of our trading policy, and how we resolve them, click here.

Neither the authors nor any Bankstocks.com team members can provide investment advice or respond to individual requests for recommendations. However, we encourage your feedback and welcome your comments on any of the articles on this site. Neither the authors nor Bankstocks.com has undertaken any responsibility to update any portion of this article in response to events which may transpire subsequent to its original publication date.