taxpayers, as
a group, are (just) rich enough to make that happen. But a sensible government
will eventually realize that these expensive rescues are pointless. The
financial services business - once an economic mainstay - is declining in
importance in the U.S. economy, and is probably half its relative size compared
to its historic levels from the 1970s. In such an environment, capacity needs to
be lost and Citi is the capacity most obviously surplus.
If Citi is propped up by the taxpayer, some other bank may be forced into
bankruptcy, instead: My bet would be Bank of America, which made a very foolish
acquisition in Countrywide Financial
Corp., at the beginning of 2008 and a very dangerous one (because of its
size and over-leverage) in Merrill Lynch right at the end of the year.
Countrywide was an enthusiastic participant in the worst excesses of the
housing bubble, and hence will have a correspondingly large share of its
detritus, while Merrill Lynch itself made what turned out to be a major misstep
when it bought a major subprime mortgage lender, First Franklin, at the absolute
peak of the bubble in 2006. Merrill had actually prided itself on its aggression
in the housing finance business, but ended up having to shut
down portions of First Franklin.
Aside from financial services, 2008’s major bailout was in the automobile
sector. As is well known, all three major U.S. automakers - General Motors Corp.
(GM), Ford Motor Co. (F) and Chrysler LLC - are
in financial trouble and could be pushed over the edge by a couple of bad
quarters. Given that the government would hate to see a major U.S. manufacturing
sector disappear - especially one with the high profile that the car business
has - and that the sums of money involved are smaller than in the banking
business, I would not expect the automobile companies to be liquidated.
General Motors has world-class engineering and research capabilities that
remain of huge value, and is becoming a bigger player in Asia, while Ford is in
better financial shape than its competitors and also has good international
operations and sufficient scale for its current focused strategy. On the other
hand, it’s clear that both companies need to get out from under their past
pension obligations, as well as their United Auto Workers Union (UAW) contracts,
in order to compete against lower-cost competitors, both internationally and
domestically (where a lot of the foreign carmakers now manufacture).