HomeBusinessRussian Concerts ForumsPhoto AlbumTravelLinksRussian TV
Welcome to Russian Forums Sign in | Join | Help | Active

The Biggest Lie About U.S. Companies

Last post 08-06-2010, 11:35 AM by Egor. 3 replies.
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  •  08-03-2010, 2:27 PM 196499

    The Biggest Lie About U.S. Companies

    http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110218/the-biggest-lie-about-us-%20%20companies?mod=bb-budgeting&sec=topStories&pos=3&asset=&ccode=

     

    You may have heard recently that U.S. companies have emerged from the financial crisis in robust health, that they've paid down their debts, rebuilt their balance sheets and are sitting on growing piles of cash they are ready to invest in the economy.

    You could hear this great news pretty much anywhere — maybe from Bloomberg, which this spring hailed the "surprising strength" of corporate balance sheets. Or perhaps in the Washington Post, where Fareed Zakaria reported that top companies "have accumulated an astonishing $1.8 trillion of cash," leaving them in the best shape, by some measures, "in almost half a century."

    Or you heard it from Dallas Federal Reserve President Richard Fisher, who recently said companies were "hoarding cash" but were afraid to start investing. Or on CNBC, where experts have been debating what these corporations are going to do with all their surplus loot. Will they raise dividends? Buy back shares? Launch a new wave of mergers and acquisitions?

     

    It all sounds wonderful for investors and the U.S. economy. There's just one problem: It's a crock.

    American companies are not in robust financial shape. Federal Reserve data show that their debts have been rising, not falling. By some measures, they are now more leveraged than at any time since the Great Depression.

    You'd think someone might have noticed something amiss. After all, we were simultaneously being told that companies (a) had more money than they know what to do with; (b) had even more money coming in due to a surge in profits; yet (c) they have been out in the bond market borrowing as fast as they can.

    Does that sound a little odd to you?

    A look at the facts shows that companies only have "record amounts of cash" in the way that Subprime Suzy was flush with cash after that big refi back in 2005. So long as you don't look at the liabilities, the picture looks great. Hey, why not buy a Jacuzzi?

    According to the Federal Reserve, nonfinancial firms borrowed another $289 billion in the first quarter, taking their total domestic debts to $7.2 trillion, the highest level ever. That's up by $1.1 trillion since the first quarter of 2007; it's twice the level seen in the late 1990s.

    The debt repayments made during the financial crisis were brief and minimal: tiny amounts, totaling about $100 billion, in the second and fourth quarters of 2009.

    Remember that these are the debts for the nonfinancials — the part of the economy that's supposed to be in better shape. The banks? Everybody knows half of them are the walking dead.

    MW-AF721_domest_MD_20100802154926.jpg

    Central bank and Commerce Department data reveal that gross domestic debts of nonfinancial corporations now amount to 50% of GDP. That's a postwar record. In 1945, it was just 20%. Even at the credit-bubble peaks in the late 1980s and 2005-06, it was only around 45%.

    The Fed data "underline the poor state of the U.S. private sector's balance sheets," reports financial analyst Andrew Smithers, who's also the author of "Wall Street Revalued: Imperfect Markets and Inept Central Bankers," and chairman of Smithers & Co. in London.

    "While this is generally recognized for households," he said, "it is often denied with regard to corporations. These denials are without merit and depend on looking at cash assets and ignoring liabilities. Cash assets have risen recently, in response to the fall in inventories, but nonfinancials' corporate debt, whether measured gross or after netting off bank deposits and other interest-bearing assets, is at peak levels."

    By Smithers' analysis, net leverage is nearly 50% of corporate net worth, a modern record.

    There is one caveat to this, he noted: It focuses on assets and liabilities of companies within the United States. Some U.S. companies are holding net cash overseas. That may brighten the picture a little, but the overall effect is not enormous, and mostly just affects the biggest companies.

    That U.S. companies are in worse financial shape than we're being told is clearly bad news for those thinking of investing in U.S. stocks or bonds, as leverage makes investments riskier. Clearly it's bad news for jobs and the economy.

    But why is this line being spun about healthy balance sheets? For the same reason we're told other lies, myths and half-truths: Too many people have a vested interest in spinning, and too few have an interest in the actual picture.

    Journalists, for example, seek safety in numbers; there's a herd mentality. Once a line starts to get repeated, others just assume it's correct and join in.

    Wall Street? It's a hustle. This healthy balance-sheet myth helps sell stocks and bonds. How many bonuses do you think get paid for telling customers the stark facts, and how many get paid for making the sale?

    You can also blame our partisan age too. Right now, people on the right have a vested interest in claiming businesses are in healthy shape. That makes the saintly private sector look good, and demonizes President Barack Obama and Big Government for scaring away investment. Vote Republican! Meanwhile, people on the left have an interest in making businesses sound really healthy too: If greedy companies are hoarding cash instead of hiring people, they can cry "Shame on them! Vote Democratic!"

    As ever, the truth is someone else's problem and no one's responsibility.

    if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object(); window.yzq_d['ZKXkBWKImnk-']='&U=12cec1o4l%2fN%3dZKXkBWKImnk-%2fC%3d-1%2fD%3dFSQR%2fB%3d-1%2fV%3d0';

    When it comes to the economy, let's just hope the public is too hopped up on painkillers and antidepressants to notice. If they knew what was really going on, there'd be trouble.



    Sic semper tyrannis
    ~War is Peace~Freedom is Slavery~Ignorance is Strength~ George Orwell "1984"


  •  08-05-2010, 12:45 PM 196529 in reply to 196499

    Re: The Biggest Lie About U.S. Companies

    I thought you said banks weren't lending? Big Smile  Where's this historical record leverage coming from then?

    Rising interest rates will solve this problem, as I stated in the other topic.  You can see in your chart that they solved it in late 70s/early 80s and again started solving it in 2002 until they were knocked down in the feds response to the crisis.

    The fact is, profits, earnings, revenues, whatever you want to look at, have grown/are growing by much greater percentages than the debts.  Problem is, most earnings cannot be reinvested due to divident payouts, debt repayments, and damage control from the recession.  Because this type of economy (as you correctly stated in another topic) depends on leverage, and with interests rates hovering at historical lows, they BORROW, BORROW, BORROW, whether they need it or not, because any competent corporation can do more with that money, than would take to cover the interest.

    By the way, looking at the chart, I would point out that the previous record high ratio, which was sustained for a decade (1992-2002), and was not much lower than today's, coincided with the =greatest economic expansion this nation has ever seen.  Not implying a cause and affect, but implying "no need to panic".  Yet.


    "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Margaret Thatcher
  •  08-05-2010, 1:46 PM 196535 in reply to 196529

    Re: The Biggest Lie About U.S. Companies

    Simple amateur misconception, Egor. The figures shown are not for BANK LENDING (collaterized lending), it is for BONDS. Bonds are documentary "IOUs" that are sold on the market to private and public investors. While some banks purchase market bonds, the majority is purchased by mutual funds, pension funds, hedge funds and money managers (institutional investors). Banks mostly assist bond placements and perhaps underwrite issuances (in some cases). But the money comes from parties other than banks.

    Small and medium size businesses cannot issue bonds, their only source of funds are the banks.

    "The fact is, profits, earnings, revenues, whatever you want to look at, have grown/are growing by much greater percentages than the debts" - this is just plain wrong. Most reported profits are there due to cost cutting, layoffs, restructuring, selling off devisions, and easy year over year comparisons (vs. the paniced 2009 figures). The economy is in pretty bad shape, and so are the reported profits.

    "any competent corporation can do more with that money, than would take to cover the interest" - while I see where you are going with this, you are still way off. The "measured" rule of thumb is to deliver incremental benefit to shareholder. If you can borrow at 4%, what would you do with the money? Most businesses are retrenching and cost cutting, not expanding, upgrading or hiring (the typical use of proceeds). So where would the money go? It's OK to be a contrarian sometimes, if you see something others don't. Like, for example, seeing a need for a certain gadget, and borrowing to start production ahead of time, before competitors crowd in. But it is hardly the case these days. Consumer is badly beaten down (for some good reasons, I must say), so there goes about 70% of domestic demand. Other businesses are in survival mode. There are very limited signs of activity here in there, but the overall market direction is down (as in declining GDP). For example, there were reports that the PC hardware and network hardware had rebounded on orders from dot com companies, like Google and others. I have not seen or read the report, so I don't know how accurate it is. Certainly, large well established companies like Microsoft or Google that have generated BILLIONS of cash deposits (still unpaid to shareholders in the form of dividends) could afford upgrades, but somehow I am sceptical, given the macro outlook.

     

    PS. And by the way, rising rates are sign of inflation, not something that actually helps the economy rebound. You have commented that when rates were high there was less leverage, but you are confusing cause and effect. The leverage wasn't there because at higher rates companies could not afford to borrow as much. But they really needed to borrow, more than they need to borrow now, that the rates are the lowest.



    Sic semper tyrannis
    ~War is Peace~Freedom is Slavery~Ignorance is Strength~ George Orwell "1984"


  •  08-06-2010, 11:35 AM 196561 in reply to 196535

    Re: The Biggest Lie About U.S. Companies

    Banks purchase bonds, it is a form of lending.  You say "majority is purchased by mutual funds, pension funds, hedge funds and money managers (institutional investors)." That is correct. However, all of the above are collectively referred to as "the banking/investment sector".

    Moreover, returns on any type of bonds are always in direct competition with other forms of lending or borrowing. So they cannot be examined independantly from the lending/capital investment climate nationally and globally.  While smaller institutions do not have a choice, larger ones do, which creates competition between "cash" lending and bonds.

    On the topic of what is done with the leveraged funds, you are saying the borrowers are cost-cutting.  There is a fallacy in that reasoning, if i am cost-cutting for the sake of cost-cutting, the last thing i am doing is borrowing.  Clearly something else is afoot.  You mentioned re-trenching, I think there is some of that.  And it is a good thing, as it makes the private sector more efficient and productive.  It is a cyclical phenomenon in economic slowdowns (like a forect fire), that creates a more fertile environment for the next expansion cycle.  Other things are happening as well, they are "hoarding" cash, optimistic about a better economic climate, at which time investment capital will be needed, however borrowing will cost significantly more than the historical lows we enjoy today.

    Last point, the US GDP is not declining, that is a false statement.  It has not had a declining quarter in 1.5 years, and as of 2010 has recovered ALL losses from the ongoing crisis, and today stands at an all time high.


    "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Margaret Thatcher
View as RSS news feed in XML

Contact Us | Privacy Statement | Link to Us | Advertising | Help
TOP.germany.ruBaraban
Copyright ©2001-07 by KOSTYA, INC.