Troubled Assets
Categories: Entrepreneurialism | Finance | Economics | Investing
Posted by
Paul Orfalea
at
10:03 AM
1
comments
It will be a while yet before we know for sure whether the Troubled Assets Recovery Program (TARP) has been a benefit, a hindrance, or a scam. Within days of the act's passage, it became clear that the program's intentions - purchasing "toxic" assets from incompetent banks - would be clouded by the fact that no one could clearly identify the toxic assets or place a value on them.
That didn't stop the Treasury Department from spending $350 billion, but it got me wondering whether we've done a good enough job understanding the range of troubled assets threatening our economy. Bad loans held by reckless investors are trouble enough, but the quality of these so-called assets must be questioned also. Huge numbers of houses unsold or facing foreclosure are in suburbia, locations dependant on cheap oil and increasingly recognized as an untenable community structure. Adding insult to injury: many of the homes themselves, thrown together rapidly during an easy-money building boom, are not built to last. We call them troubled assets, but they are not assets at all. Will we throw good money after bad to prop up ghost towns?
Meanwhile, many of our nation's most valuable assets face even greater risks.
1. Careful, Responsible People - This group, who choose not to over-leverage themselves or their businesses, who pay their bills on time always, who never risk more than they can stand to lose, form a kind of "invisible citizenry." You don't see them on the news. These hardworking, frugal and reliable people provide real value for their customers' dollars, and expect real value for their dollars. So far, they have weathered the financial collapse through habitual prudence, and they are the ones keeping our economy afloat. However, since they will not require federal aid but will continue to pay taxes, this group bears a dishearteningly disproportionate share of the bailout burden. A mismanaged recovery will punish these people for their good judgment, and may impoverish them.
2. Students - From pre-school to college, students represent the hands and minds that will discover new medicines, solve our energy crisis, care for us as we age, and create value in a million other ways. Yet when times get tough, we cut funding to develop these assets. To compete in the global marketplace and become a nation of creators as well as consumers, we need to significantly increase local investment in pre-school and elementary education, and we need our colleges and universities to open the floodgates of their massive endowments to boost educational opportunities for young adults.
3. Small Businesses - So far, the government's recovery efforts have been aimed at huge banks and insurance companies, because they represent a risk to our entire financial system. Yet I don't think these are the companies that will save the economy. In fact, our current approach ensures the survival of our most inept companies and makes them even more dangerous. Instead, TARP and other stimulus plans should be aimed at small, local banks and businesses that can have immediate impact in their communities. Entrepreneurs are a social and economic asset, and should be encouraged, not exploited. The administration wants to create three million new jobs. The best and most lasting way to create three million jobs is to create them one at a time. Before handing more TARP money to companies based on the scale of their blunders, I'd ask the administration to consider former Labor Secretary Robert Reich's comment: "if a company is too big to fail, maybe it's just too big." Support for small business will enrich more Americans and create a healthier, more diverse economy.



Richard Cobb wrote on 01/12/09 3:54 PM
Paul
I had a meeting last week with a senior VP at the bank I have been banking with over the last 15 years.
They of course like all small community banks have merged and changed ownership many times during this tenure.
I have paid them many thousands of dollars in interest over this same period on a personal and business level and am considered a good risk and good customer.
During our meeting I was told how solid the bank was and how well they were doing during these troubled economic times.
I had read in the paper that they had recieved $50 million of TARP money and of course I brought up the question of why they felt like they needed bailout money if they were in such great shape.
His response was that it was available.
I brought up a current project that I have in the planning stages (I am a real estate developer, contractor and do work for other developers on a consulting basis for construction projects in Alabama) and I was told that the bank did not want to release funds for real estate projects during these troubled times.
I said "wait a minute six months ago you approved a 2 million dollar loan for me and now you do not want to loan me anything because you do not have the money for real estate projects?"
"What about the 50 million you just got?"
His response was that they were using the funds to "shore up" their assets even though they are solid.
I am confused how all this money given to banks will help when they will not make loans to good solid customers.
My reaction is even after 15 years as their customer, I am going to move to any bank that will be reasonable.