Separating the Good Debt From the Toxic

Separate the good debt from the toxic.

Why didn't we just realize this before? All it apparently takes to solve our current economic malaise is just to separate the "good" parts of a company from the "bad," the stuff we like from that which we don't. Like a good farmer, all we have to do is separate the wheat from the chaff.

Bank of America (BAC)  looking weak? Separate its "good" assets from the bad "toxic" debt! American Internatonal Group (AIG) invest in risky mortgages? Separate the "good" investments from the "bad."General Motors (GM) on the brink of bankruptcy? Yep! Separate the "good" car companies parts from the "bad!"

This is the thinking that is now in vogue in Washington. President Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner have decided that all we gotta do is just get rid of the "bad stuff" from our companies and we can return our economy to health. Of course, like waste from a nuclear reactor, no one really wants to talk about what we do with all this toxic stuff. Where are we going to bury it?

Of course we hear that we'll just package it up and sell it off to investors, or whatever doesn't find any takers, we'll "wind it down." Oh, is that all? Gee, why didn't Goldman Sachs (GS), Citigroup (C), or Ford (F), for that matter, think of it? If it's really all so simple as just removing a decade (or more) of bad decisions from the balance sheet -- while still leaving those who made the bad decisions in the first place in their positions -- don't you think the companies would have done that themselves?

We wouldn't have had to bailout out AIG three times or more; Citibank wouldn't have been suckling at the taxpayer's teat, and the President wouldn't have had to fire Rick Wagoner and dirty up his hands. 

This seemingly "simple" solution will do only one thing: saddle taxpayers with even more debt to pay off while exposing us to runaway losses. If private enterprise was unable to find a willing buyer, what makes the government think it will do any better? The only way that can happen is if they remove the risk associated with it and that can only happen if the taxpayer shoulders more of the burden. 

This is just a wildfire ready to burn, but only waiting for the right tinder to set it off. It will be our children and grandchildren who will be stuck sweeping up the ashes and paying the bill.

Disclosure: I have no financial interest in any of the companies listed in this article. 

Republicans to GM: Drop Dead!

Republicans to GM: Drop Dead! It's bankruptcy for you!

Top Republicans, including former presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, say General Motors (GM) should file Chapter 11 sooner rather than later, reorganize its business, and come out ready to sell cars.

"I think the best thing that could probably happen to General Motors, in my view, is they go into Chapter 11, they reorganize, they renegotiate ... the union-management contracts and come out of it a stronger, better, leaner, more competitive automotive industry," McCain told "FOX News Sunday.

House Republican leader John Boehner says they've whistled past the graveyard long enough and giving them any more money -- GM, which lost $31 billion last year, says it needs $30 billion in total to stay afloat -- would amount to "throwing good money after bad."

Although bankruptcy may be a hard decision to make, it probably is the best one. But just like propping up Citibank (C), American International Group (AIG), and all the other financial institutions (not to mention the automakers themselves), having politicians meddle in the decision is the wrong one.

The best retort GM could give as it filed its Chapter 11 paperwork would be to say, "Washington, drop dead!"

Obama Wants to Sign Pork Bill

President Obama says he wants to sign the spending bill that's laden with pork. Even though he campaigned on the promise to go "line by line" and cut all the pork out. Now that he's got the chance, he's not even taking a dull butter knife to it.

"(Pork) will not happen when the president has the full legislative and appropriations process in place," said Peter Orszag, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. 

Likening it to a relief pitcher coming in late in the game and wanting to do it over, he says just pass this bill and trust us that next time we'll do it right.

But government spending isn't like a baseball game, you do have time for do overs. That's why the President has line item veto power. It's meaningless to say wait till next year. 

Cut the pork, Mr. President! Just like you promised us you would. 

UBS Has a Secret

UBS Has a Secret
Financial services giant can't bank on Swiss secrecy laws for protection

Swiss banking secrecy laws have been the stuff of legend. Under the Swiss Banking Act of 1934, the privacy of deposits has been sacrosanct. No one was permitted to divulge any information about who the depositors were. That protective shield has been made the basis of books, movies, spy thrillers, and was even a key feature of Dan Brown's "The DaVinci Code."

But financial services giant UBS (UBS), however, has pierced that shield with a dramatic

 settlement with the U.S. government. Under the deferred prosecution agreement, not only will UBS pay a $780 million fine, but the Swiss bank has also agreed to immediately provide the government with the identities of -- and account information for -- about 250 to 350 United States customers of UBS' cross-border business which it halted last July for U.S. citizens.

The problems might not be over for UBS. Because banks in Switzerland are prohibited from revealing any information to authorities about their clients, except in cases involving recognized criminal investigations, the Swiss Financial Markets Supervisory Authority (FINMA) said "Such charges could have had drastic consequences for UBS and its liquidity situation and ultimately put its existence at risk," as well as for "the stability of the Swiss financial system."

FINMA reprimanded UBS and banned it from future cross-border business with U.S. customers. UBS recorded a $17 billion loss in 2008 and had to get bailout assistance from the Swiss government as a result of the financial crisis and credit squeeze.

It's not secret that UBS was caught between the hammer of the U.S. government criminal prosecution and the anvil of Swiss bank secrecy laws. Although the Swiss government maintains its acclaimed secrecy veil remains in place, UBS has let the cat out of the bag that piercing the shield is possible, though expensive.

I have no financial interests in any of the stocks mentioned in this article.