TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum  

Go Back   TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum » Main Forum » Politics

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 06-10-10, 02:50 PM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default Cheap Debt for Big Corpos: It's good to be rich

This is an article I mentioned while discussing the economic situation with PmP in the "Tea Party" thread. It's useful because it underlines who has money to spend... NB: So much cash on balance sheets has already led to some M&A activity... We could see more.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/bu...ed=1&th&emc=th

Cheap Debt for Corporations Fails to Spur Economy
By GRAHAM BOWLEY
Published: October 3, 2010

As many households and small businesses are being turned away by bank loan officers, large corporations are borrowing vast sums of money for next to nothing — simply because they can.

Companies like Microsoft are raising billions of dollars by issuing bonds at ultra-low interest rates, but few of them are actually spending the money on new factories, equipment or jobs. Instead, they are stockpiling the cash until the economy improves.

The development presents something of a chicken-and-egg situation: Corporations keep saving, waiting for the economy to perk up — but the economy is unlikely to perk up if corporations keep saving.

This situation underscores the limits of Washington policy makers’ power to stimulate the economy. The Federal Reserve has held official interest rates near zero for almost two years, which allows corporations to sell bonds with only slightly higher returns — even below 1 percent. But most companies are not doing what the easy monetary policy was intended to get them to do: invest and create jobs.

The Fed’s low rates have in fact hurt many Americans, especially retirees whose incomes from savings have fallen substantially. Big companies like Johnson & Johnson, PepsiCo and I.B.M. seem to have been among the major beneficiaries.

“They are benefiting themselves by borrowing and keeping this cash, but it is not benefiting the economy yet,” said Dana Saporta, an economist at Credit Suisse in New York.

American corporations have been saving more money since the financial collapse of 2008. But a recent rush of blue-chip bond offerings — including a $4.75 billion deal last month by Microsoft, one of the richest companies in the world — has put even more money in their coffers.

Corporations now sit atop a combined $1.6 trillion of cash, a figure equal to slightly more than 6 percent of their total assets. In the first quarter of this year it was 6.2 percent of assets, the highest level since 1964, when it was 6.4 percent.

When will they start spending that money — in particular, by hiring?

That is part of what has become the great question of this long, jobless recovery: When will corporate America start to feel confident enough to put its cash to work, building factories and putting some of the nation’s 14.9 million unemployed to work?

Businesses are holding on to their protective cash cushions, worried perhaps that the economy could slip back into recession or at least grow too lethargically to make an investment worthwhile.

The nation’s corporations will be strong, well capitalized and ready to act aggressively when executives finally decide it is time to expand their businesses.

After running up sharply every quarter since mid-2008, the ratio of cash holdings to assets by corporations fell slightly for the first time in the second quarter of this year.

Although investment in factories and plants still languishes, companies have spent some money on investment in new equipment and software. That spending grew at an annualized rate of more than 20 percent in the first two quarters of this year.

But economists say that such investment is still below its peak before the financial crisis.

In addition, many of the new machines and computers may be replacing older machines companies put off retiring in the recession. Businesses are playing catch-up, and little expansion is occurring.

“They may actually be using this new investment to be more efficient and cut jobs,” said Michael Gapen, an economist at Barclays Capital. “The mix of signals right now is still telling corporations to sit tight and wait.”

Mr. Gapen said those signals included the direction of the housing market, the outcome of midterm election, the effects on the economy as the fiscal stimulus wears off and any changes in tax policy.

They are deciding, “Why don’t we just wait until the first quarter of next year?” he said.

The cheap money may be having yet another effect unintended by policy makers eager to cut the nation’s 9.6 percent unemployment rate. Several of the corporations borrowing billions on bond markets are using the money to put their own financial house in order rather than to create jobs.

Microsoft said it was using some of its money to buy back shares, other companies are locking in longer-term borrowing, and some of the new borrowing is financing an increase in mergers and acquisitions.

All of this may enrich the corporations’ shareholders and cut company costs in the long run, but it does not necessarily lead to more jobs and it does not represent the big investments in growth that could fuel a sharp economic recovery for everyone.

“They are still holding on to more cash in the same way that Noah built the ark,” said David Rosenberg, chief economist at Gluskin Sheff & Associates in Toronto. “It is very telling.”

In the case of Microsoft’s bond offering, one factor might have been avoiding a big tax bill, said Richard J. Lane, who analyzes Microsoft for Moody’s. If Microsoft had needed cash, it could have pulled some from its operations abroad, but “borrowing new money on the debt markets is now cheaper than bringing its own money back from overseas,” Mr. Lane said.

Microsoft’s offering was only its second; its first was last year. The second offering included three-year debt at an interest rate of 0.875, among the lowest on record for that type of borrowing.

According to the financial data provider Dealogic, United States companies have borrowed $488 billion on the American high-yield and investment grade bond markets so far this year, 7 percent more than businesses borrowed during all of 2009, and on track to at least match the $589 billion borrowed in the boom year in 2007, which was the highest on record.

Smaller companies continue to have trouble borrowing, and most of the new financing is limited to bigger corporations.

Their borrowing spree is in contrast to America’s households, which continue to cut their debt and consumption. Perhaps unsure of the recovery, like the corporations hoarding cash, Americans are saving far more than they have in years, and some economists fear that consumers’ frugality will further hobble growth.

One of the biggest corporations to borrow recently, the DuPont Company, said it was using the cheaper money to lock in borrowing over a longer period.

“The current low interest rate environment provides DuPont a great opportunity to refinance our long-term debt at lower rates,” it said in a statement.

Conditions have become so good that some companies are borrowing money they will not have to repay until the next century. In August, the railroad Norfolk Southern Corporation borrowed $250 million in 100-year bonds at an annual rate of 5.95 percent.

Robin Chapman, a spokesman, said, “Opportunistic borrowing is a good way to characterize this.” He said that the company was seeing a “slow and steady pickup” in rail traffic but that any hiring the company was doing was to replace workers lost through attrition.

Other companies are borrowing to finance acquisitions. PepsiCo borrowed recently to help pay for the takeover of two bottling plants. Hertz borrowed $300 million for its bid to buy a rival car rental company, Dollar Thrifty.

Economists say it is rational for companies to seize the opportunity to borrow at low interest rates and to buy back shares. But Guy LeBas, a fixed income strategist at Janney Montgomery Scott in Chicago, said, “It is not particularly beneficial for economic conditions.”
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 06-10-10, 07:52 PM
FredFredson's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North America
Posts: 1,749
Default

Quote:
Janney Montgomery Scott in Chicago, said, “It is not particularly beneficial for economic conditions.”
No Shit Sherlock!

F
__________________
"Patriotism means being loyal to your country all the time and to its government when it deserves it."-- Mark Twain

"Inter arma silent Musae"--when the weapons speak, the muses fall silent.

An't nanum hearm deth, doth hwaet ye willath.

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished
unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. -Voltaire

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.36
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 07-10-10, 02:53 PM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

So, as I was saying, M&A activity looks like taking off... Great for IBers. But, overall, most M&As fail and/or destroy value... Buckle up - As long as no one wants to implement the real solutions we need to see this crisis through, it's going to be bumpy AND miserable. It's no longer "We are not Japan" or even "Japan, here we come" but "Japan, here we are"...

G.E. to Buy Dresser for $3 Billion - NYTimes.com

Mergers & Acquisitions
With Dresser, G.E.’s Just Getting Started
October 6, 2010, 6:00 pm


General Electric executives have said for months that they would start spending the billions of dollars in cash that the company has been accumulating. That time, it seems, has now come.

G.E. announced on Wednesday that it had agreed to buy Dresser, a privately held energy infrastructure company, for $3 billion. The deal is the company’s largest industrial acquisition since before the financial crisis, and G.E. executives suggested that more are likely to follow in the coming months.

G.E.’s chief executive, Jeffrey R. Immelt, said in July that the company expected to have $25 billion in cash on hand by the end of 2010 — enabling it to go on the offensive in pursuing acquisitions related to its core infrastructure businesses. The acquisition of Dresser, which is majority-owned by funds managed by Riverstone Holdings and First Reserve Corporation, represents such a deal.

“G.E. is making strategic bets that play to our strengths, address market needs and return value to shareowners,” said Anne Eisele, a G.E. spokeswoman.

The acquisition of Dresser — which manufactures and services natural-gas engines, fueling systems and flow-control valves, among other things — is G.E.’s second industrial purchase in the last two weeks. G.E. announced on Oct. 1 that it had acquired assets of Calnetix Power Solutions that generate power from waste heat. Terms of that deal were not disclosed.

But G.E. had apparently hoped for an early autumn hat-trick. The company also disclosed on Wednesday that it had made an unsuccessful $1.2 billion takeover bid for Wellstream, a British oil-services company.

The spending spree was warmly received by investors. Shares of G.E. rose 2.4 percent on Wednesday, to $16.90.

Dresser, which has 6,300 employees and is based in Addison, Tex., reported $2 billion in revenue and $318 million in earnings last year. G.E. says it expects the acquisition to allow it to expand its own gas technology offerings, complementing existing businesses like GE Jenbacher.

Because of that desirable fit with one of G.E.’s core businesses, Dresser is the type of takeover target that investors hoped Mr. Immelt would eye when he started to open G.E.’s purse-strings, said Steven E. Winoker, an analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein & Company.

Investors have been really concerned about the direction of G.E.’s capital allocation: What are they going to do with the cash? Are they going to do what they said they were going to do?” Mr. Winoker said in a telephone interview. “These acquisitions are an indication that they are.” (NB: Paying GE employees more or distributing bigger dividends would also have been pretty cool, wider economy-wise. But fuck that shit! Let's get bigger!)

The announcement came on a busy day for G.E., whose GE Capital unit announced separately that it had acquired $1.6 billion of private-label credit card loans from Citigroup. Terms of that deal were not disclosed.

G.E. was advised by Barclays Capital. Dresser was advised by Morgan Stanley.

– Thomas Kaplan and Michael J. de la Merced
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
Reply


(View-All Members who have read this thread : 2
FredFredson, Gilles de Rais
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0