March 24, 2025 • 58 mins
President Trump wants higher tariffs, and he also wants more industrial production in the United States. This we know. In the meantime, a coterie of economists and pundits have tried to assemble a larger intellectual architecture to explain that strategy in a coherent way. The story they tell is one where America gets paid by its allies for national security and access to American markets, while the US brings down its debt and deficits, and weakens the dollar, so as to make US manufacturing more globally competitive. Whether Trump sees things this way himself, and whether it will actually work is an entirely separate question. On this episode of the podcast, we speak with Jim Millstein, co-chair of Guggenheim Securities, about what he sees as the massive risks underway with this line of thinking. During his time in government, he was closely involved with the conservatorship arrangement of the GSEs, so we also talk about the possibility of re-privatizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Read more:
Dalio Warns of US Debt Crisis ‘Heart Attack’ Within Three Years
Wishful Thinking Won’t Solve the US Debt Crisis
Only Bloomberg.com subscribers can get the Odd Lots newsletter in their inbox — now delivered every weekday — plus unlimited access to the site and app. Subscribe at bloomberg.com/subscriptions/oddlots
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Hello and welcome to another episode of the Odd Lots Podcast.
I'm Joe Wisenthal.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
And I'm Tracy Alloway.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
So, Tracy, you know, there's obviously a lot of anxiety
these days, really for a while, but going into the election,
post about the size of the US debt, the size
of the US deficit, et cetera.
Speaker 4 (00:35):
And what I the way I like.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
To think of these things is that any discussion of
federal spending is about a competition for resource allocation. Right,
So we know that a huge component of what drives
persistent deficits is the social safety nets, social security, medicare, medicaid,
et cetera. And when we talk about the debt or
(00:58):
the deficit in the abstract, and when people talk about
tackling the debt or the deficit, what they're really talking
about is freeing up resources somewhere, freeing up consumption somewhere,
and creating availability for consumption and resources elsewhere in the economy.
Speaker 4 (01:14):
Are they well, I mean, yeah, I think I would say.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
So.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
It seems to me there's a desire to like pay
down the debt and then not necessarily do anything else,
like what's the else here?
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Well, So, for example, Secretary of Scott Bestant and some
of his recent interviews talked about, you know, we want
to releverage the private sector. It's we want to get
raids down and therefore that makes investing more appealing for companies,
et cetera. And so the idea of like, okay, we're
going to like reduce demand, reduced consumption from various sectors
(01:49):
of the economy that are perceived to be unproductive, such
as retirees, et cetera, and then open up expansion so
then there's less consumption and then that creates resource availability
for other things which are perceived to be more productive,
like reindustrialization.
Speaker 3 (02:06):
Okay, maybe what I would say, you know how I
like to think about those Sure, I like to ask
like to think about the big picture in bonds, and
I always say, bonds are built on norms, right, Yeah,
Government spending is built on norms. So you lend money
to me and I pay you back. It's basically a promise,
(02:28):
which means it's a human construct. Yes, and there are
all these values and norms and narratives that are embedded
in those constructs, in those promises, and that's what I
find really fascinating, especially when those values start to change,
and I think that's what's happening now.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
Yeah, well, you know absolutely, and obviously, you know, we
did that conversation with Jim Bianco about a you know,
either a literal or a metanomic moral lago accord, and
then we talked to Ridalio and he slipped it in there,
and I thought it was that kind of He's like, well,
maybe they'll restructure the debt some way or return it out,
And to me, that screams default, you know. I mean,
that's just a you know, it's a polite way of
(03:05):
saying deult.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
But one man's default is another man's restructuring. Jar that's right.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
But I think if I were a treasury holder, I
would be very upset if the thing that I considered
to be the most liquid, safe asset of the entire world,
that the entire finance system runs on, the one thing
that's perceived to be genuinely risk free from a credit standpoint,
suddenly gets like, oh, it's this is a five year
bond and a seven year bond and you're going to
get the same money in the end. I think that
(03:31):
would be very disruptive in a way that is not disruptive, say,
like you know, when a hospital chain has to restructure
its dead it.
Speaker 3 (03:39):
Is definitely the risk free rate upon which, like all
the other markets are basically built on. Should I do
a reminder of what the mar a Lago accord may
surely says about this point. So the way I think
about it, it's an attempt to resolve some of the
tensions embedded in the Trump administration's economic agenda. We about
(04:00):
it with Jim Bianco, and those tensions are primarily the
desire to reshore manufacturing and shrink the deficit, and also,
I guess, address the sort of emotional sense that the
US isn't getting compensated enough for its role in the
global economy or global security. Oh wow, all while paying
(04:21):
down the debt. Right, so having your cake and eating
it too. And I should just emphasize this isn't a
hardcore plan. This is based on a paper that Stephn
Miran put out last year that people started getting very
interested in and talking about. And that's why we're talking
about it.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Well, I want to go to our guess a second.
But there is something very funny because there's all these
academic papers that are going out, and it's like, oh,
there's this big plan, and you know, the exorbitant privilege
of the dollar makes it so that, you know, it's
hard to reshore manufacturing in the US, and we need
to weaken the dollar and decentralize its role. And it's
like they sort of like intellectualize it five D chests. Meanwhile,
(05:01):
Trump is like, no, I just want more money from terrorists.
Like I don't know, he like, there's this intellectual infrastructure
around it. I'm not sure that Trump himself buys into
this anyway. We really do have the perfect guest, because
we're gonna be speaking someone who knows about the intersection
of finance and politics, someone who knows about debt and
debt restructuring, someone who actually matters. We've had him on
(05:22):
the show, sorry my wife, someone whose opinion, someone whose
opinion actually matters. All of our guests matter, all of
our guests opinion matters. We're gonna be speaking with Jim Milstein,
co chair of Googenheim Securities. Jim, thank you so much
for coming back on ODS My pleasure. We talked about
(05:43):
your background when we had you on the show last year.
What do you know about debt restructuring just a little.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
What have you done?
Speaker 2 (05:51):
What have you done in that room?
Speaker 3 (05:53):
You've dabbled.
Speaker 4 (05:55):
Yeah, it's my metier, you know. So I had this
awful job and a great title called Chief Restructuring Officer
of the United States Department of the Treasury during the
Financial crisis.
Speaker 3 (06:06):
That is quite a title.
Speaker 4 (06:07):
It is quite a title. It sounds like they might
have been hiring me to restructure the federal government. In fact,
I was there to help restructure the TARP investments we
made during the financial crisis and AIG and Ally Financial
and City and b of A and the rest of
that crowd. But before that, you know, I worked on
the restructuring of Argentina. The Republic of Argentina's one of
(06:28):
their many restructurings ye debt in two thousand and five,
we did a big exchange offer for their international bond
in net and this I worked on Puerto Rico's debt
default and restructuring back in the odds.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
Wait, were you on the hedge fund side of Argentina.
Speaker 4 (06:44):
Or the republic side?
Speaker 3 (06:45):
Oh? Okay, yeah.
Speaker 4 (06:46):
And then when I was a lawyer back in the eighties,
my firm Cleary Gottlie worked on all of the Brady
bond restructurings across Latin America. So you know, I've done
a bunch of sovereign.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
Yes, yeah, Okay, Shall I just jump into it and
ask the obvious question or one of the obvious questions?
But where is the suggestion coming from? A debt restructuring
is part of a potential Mara Lago accord? And what
is the problem we're trying to solve?
Speaker 4 (07:17):
So I think there's a clear I mean, I don't
want to engage in sanewashing, which, yes, you know, there's
clearly an impetus by the President to impose tariffs. He's
tariff man, and around him through Bessent and Moran, there
is some intellectual architecture that suggests that's just a tactic
(07:39):
towards an end, and the end is to bring manufacturing
back to the United States. Yeah. Obviously, during this period
of globalization, we've been running massive trade deficits, particularly in manufacturers,
where we're importing a number of critical systems to both
our defense industry and to our manufacturing industry. We once
(08:00):
dominated the semiconductor trade. We actually created that industry in
the nineteen sixties through a series of government policies, research
and development grants to IBM and AT and T that
created the semiconductor technology. Then a series of procurement policies
at NASA and the Defense Department to commercialize that industry,
(08:21):
and eventually we created, you know, the calculator industry and
the computer industry and the TV industry and all of that.
But that was all a byproduct of a coordinated set
of federal policies. Fast forward forty years, fifty years later,
and you know, semiconductor manufacturing is mostly being done, particularly
at the high end, in a strategically vulnerable country across
(08:47):
the Straits of China from China in Taiwan, and that
has created a sense now going back in the ten
years in the defense establishment, that we have a problem,
and not just in semi conductors, but in a number
of advanced industries where we're really reliant as a country
on the importation of critical technologies and critical intermediate inputs. Again,
(09:12):
you know, if you piece together some of the things
that Bessint has said and some of the things that
Moran has said, the goal of the tariff play, which
is really just a tactic, is to bring manufacturing back
to the United States to hollow in or build out
the communities that were hollowed out by the wave of
(09:33):
globalization that occurred after China's admission to the WTO in
the early two thousands. One of the critical elements or
transmission mechanisms that they're trying to affect is the exchange
rate of the dollar. A high dollar means that our
exports are more expensive and our imports are less expensive.
(09:55):
So we have been the beneficiary with a strong dollar
of very cheap imports, you know, moderating the inflation that
might otherwise occur from domestic manufacturing. But that said, we've
lost manufacturing. We used forty years ago we represented twenty
five percent of the manufacturing industry. Now we're a mere
(10:16):
fifteen percent of global manufacturing. China was nowhere to be seen.
Now they're thirty five percent of global manufacturing. The goal
of this Mari Lago accord is to really weaken the
dollar without upsetting the financial flows that finance our debt.
Speaker 3 (10:35):
And crucially, the manufacturing buildout is supposed to be done
by private capital. To Joe's point earlier, it's not. You know,
we've had efforts from the Biden administration, the Chips Act
to try to boost some of those industries. But the
emphasis under Trump is really we want to create a
beneficial market environment so that private capital moves in.
Speaker 4 (10:56):
Yes, there's obviously a kind of you know, traditionally Republican
bias in favor of private capital and scaling back the
use of public investment to promote industrial development. But you know,
raising a tariff wall, a high tariffall is a bet
(11:17):
that private capital will invest behind it. Biden administration, you know,
started something that I actually worked on as a graduate
student back in the seventies called industrial policy. That is
to use not only tariff barriers, but investment policy, tax policy,
procurement policy, and R and D policy to promote domestic industry. So,
(11:42):
you know, Trump has inherited the Chips Act and it
is making progress. It has spread terrible, Yeah, I know,
he said it's terrible. But the reality is that there's
all sorts of activity now both in the under the
Chips Act subsidies and through the Inflation Reduction Act, which
was another one of the Biden administration's policies to promote
(12:03):
investment in the United States. The reality is that those
investments have been made and are continuing to be made
around the fifty States, most particularly in the Red States,
and so there will be political pushback on the Trump
administration to just zero those out going forward. So going back, though,
(12:25):
you know, if we really want to restore American manufacturing dominance,
particularly in critical industries critical to our defense establishment, we're
going to have to use a mix not only of
high tariff barriers, but of R and D subsidies, of
investment subsidies, and use procurement as a way to create
(12:50):
demand pull for these new industries.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
You use the word sanewashing, which is a good word,
because there are there's this sort of intellectual as you said,
architecture around Trump. It's not clear that Trump himself sees
it this way that this is that this works, that
you can sort of like reaccelerate US manufacturing simply via
(13:30):
some sort of weakening of the dollar in a coordinated
way or tariffs. What is the gap between what you
see is actually going on and the sort of like
the white papers that people put out.
Speaker 4 (13:42):
Of Okay, so so, and this is all coming out
of Moran's paper. As Tracy indicated at the beginning, I mean,
he's put together the most kind of comprehensive strategy, and
he acknowledges this very narrow chord or within which this
might work, and in some sense the present and it
has already gotten out ahead with his tariff tactics and
(14:04):
also his threatening to withdraw the security umbrella from NATO,
because those are the two critical sticks that Moran advocated
we use to induce foreign central banks and foreign investors
to continue to buy treasuries at favorable rates, so it
(14:28):
is to continue to finance what is really a growing
and potential as Dalio said in your podcast, debt crisis.
And then just let me say maybe to frame that problem. Today,
federal debt to GDP is one to one. Federal debt
is equal to GDP. We're running deficits at seven percent
(14:52):
of GDP, and the economy has kind of grown at
one too little north of two percent. So the debt
is growing faster as a result of the imbalance in
the federal budget, where deficits are growing at the rate
of seven percent of GDP, which means the debt's growing
at the rate of seven percent of GDP. Where our
(15:13):
debt is growing now faster than GDP and is becoming
an increasing overhang to the extent that when you look
at the federal budget, interest expense has become the second
largest category of federal spending.
Speaker 3 (15:27):
Issuing bonds to pay off bonds.
Speaker 4 (15:29):
That's right, So we're now we're now issuing bonds to
pay the interest on our bonds. This is a classic
recipe for disaster. We're not even treading water. Was now
slowly sinking behind a huge under a huge pile of debt.
So we have to get that fiscal imbalance corrected. And
(15:51):
as you were saying at the beginning of the podcast, Joe,
you know, now some very tough allocation decisions need to
be made with regard to federal spending because someone joked
that the federal when you look at the federal government,
it's really a retirement program attached to an army, right,
I mean the largest ever. Yeah, it's exactly. You have
(16:15):
you have, you know, income security in the form of
Social Security for retirement, and you have medical security in
the form of Medicare for retirement. But when you add
it all up, the parts of the budget that you know,
Elon musk Is and his merry band of pranksters are
off trying to slash is a relatively small part of
(16:36):
federal spending, but it is the stuff that actually you know,
supports education, transportation, housing, infrastructure, right.
Speaker 3 (16:48):
The wider economy, some sort of stuff.
Speaker 4 (16:50):
That you know, is building human capital, building physical public capital,
building housing structure. That part of the budget is a
mere seven hundred billion out of a total spending of
six point seventy five trillion. The rest of it is
interest on the debt, retirement, security, defense, and healthcare support.
(17:15):
And so we're really we're really in a pickle. We're
going to see in the fall or maybe sooner when
the reconciliation bills finally make their way to a vote
on the floor of the House in the Senate, we're
going to see whether or not this Congress really has
the courage to deal with the allocation issues that you mentioned.
Because in the House that in the framework for the
(17:37):
House Reconciliation Bill, they call for eight hundred and eighty billion.
That's over ten years, so it's really not a lot.
It's really like about one hundred billion of spending cuts
annually in medicaid, transportation, housing, and education. You know, out
of that Medicaid is about six hundred billion a year,
(18:00):
and the housing, transportation, education, that part of the budget
is about seven hundred billion, so there's a they're calling
for a reduction of one hundred billion a year against
that one point three billion of medicaid and social the
other social spending. So it's not it's not a big ticket,
and it's not going to make a massive change in
(18:23):
the deficit, particularly if they add incremental tax cuts on tips,
on over time, on social security as they've talked about.
You know, they're not really attacking the deficit. So we're
going to continue to need to sell a lot of debt.
Speaker 3 (18:43):
So you've laid out the pickle problem very well, perfectly
laid out the pickle problem perfectly.
Speaker 4 (18:50):
Say that.
Speaker 3 (18:53):
The idea here embedded in the mar Lago Accord is
that the US could bring down its det costs by
getting foreign investors to swap some of their current treasuries
into century bonds that would be less expensive for the
US to actually pay back.
Speaker 4 (19:13):
That's right, And so how do we induce them to
engage in that exchange? So the two primary tactics that
Moran lays out in his paper are sort of, you know,
the way you do exchange offers in the private markets
that eye traffic in the way you do in exchange
offers with carrots and sticks. You offer a sweetener and
(19:38):
you threaten, you know, doom and gloom. So the two
primary tactics here are that you foreign country are going
to face, on the one hand, a high tarerfall unless
you play ball, and on the other hand, the withdrawal
of our security umbrella. So if you want the protect
(20:00):
action of the largest and most powerful military in the
world to protect your borders against a Russian invasion, you're
going to have to swap your debt that you currently hold,
which is generally short term bills, into what they're calling
century bonds, a you know, one hundred year bond at
(20:22):
a low interest rate, which takes the refinancing risk of
an indebted country away from it because we don't have
to touch that debt for underdal, turning out duration, turning
out duration on the one hand, and reducing the interest
burden of servicing that debt over time. So there are
a couple of problems with this. One problem is that
(20:47):
when you look at who holds US government debt, not
more than fifteen percent of it today is held offshore
and mutting down a lot. Yeah, it's come down a
lot and much of that fifteen percent is not in
the hands of you know, government instrumentalities, but rather than
foreign private investors. So inducing that crowd to come in
(21:10):
to this exchange offer, even if you could succeed, you're
touching a very small part of the debt. So where's
the rest of it? Where's the other eighty five percent
of our thirty six trillion dollars of outstanding debt? It's
basically owned by us. Some of it's owned and government
accounts and the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, but
some of it is owned by banks and insurance companies.
(21:32):
Some of it's owned by endowments and wealthy individuals. Some
of it's in the bond in the mutual fund market,
you know, underwriting our money market funds. So the reality
is we're to get this done. We're really doing it
with ourselves. What we really need to do is turn
out our debt. And the problem we're facing right now
(21:55):
is that, you know, the debt, the cost of debt,
the interest cost of our debt is relatively high. You know,
the ten years at four point three, the thirty year
put its outis what you'd pay for a century bond.
Thirty year is even higher. And the current average interest
rate on our outstanding thirty six trillion dollars of debt
(22:19):
is three point three percent, So to term it out
in this market would take that one point one trillion
dollars of annual interest expence up. You know, if we
had to term it out at four point three or
four point six, we'd be talking about increasing the interest
expense we're facing. So there, you know. So this intellectual
(22:41):
architecture around the so called Mara Lago accord has many
flaws now, at least among which is we're in targeting
foreign holders of our debt, We're targeting a relatively small
part of it. If the game plan here of that
Mara lagocord is to weaken the dollar so is to
improve the competitiveness of US domestic manufacturing. There is another
(23:06):
approach and that you've also heard rumor of from the
Trump administration, and that is the creation of a sovereign
wealth fund to take assets that the US government currently owns,
dump them in a central fund managed by the Treasury Department,
and allowing the Treasury Department then to intervene directly into
(23:30):
the currency of the foreign exchange markets to try and
push the dollar down. I see.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
It's interesting because so you know, historically, right, like sovereign
wealth funds in resource rich countries are often about stable
keeping the currency strong, etcetera, especially for countercyclical elements, and
so the idea that we would use it to intervene
and in foreign exchange is interesting twists. You know, you
said something about restructuring, and you said there's carrots and
sticks in a typical restructuring, and imagine the sticks are, Look,
(23:59):
you don't want to go along with this restructuring plan,
then you're going to end up with like some sort
of asset and a bankrupt company and it's going to
be pretty bad for you and you're gonna get less
money and it's going to take a long time. And
so come on, go with the deal. It seems to
be part of the problem. Like just conceptually with the
carrot and sticks approach is like, you can't really threaten
a stick if you're the US government without immolating yourself.
Speaker 4 (24:24):
Yeah, I mean the latter you really want to see
rates blow out? Have the federal government of threatened to
not pay its debts, that would be uh, that would
be an event from which the financial markets might not recover.
Speaker 3 (24:44):
Does the carrot hold any water here either, because the
carrot's supposed to be like, Okay, maybe you don't get tariffs,
maybe you get US security. But that maybe is really
important because what we've seen so far, it's only been
two months, but we've seen Trump go back and forth,
back and forth, back and forth. I think a lot
of trust has been lost.
Speaker 4 (25:05):
Yeah. Well, and you know, if you were going to
use tariffs or the threat of tariffs and the threat
of the loss of the security umbrella as the inducement
to the exchange, he's already gotten out ahead of himself, right.
I mean, he's on again, off again with the tariffs.
(25:28):
So the threat isn't isn't imminent, it's extant, and as
you say, the trust that he might change his mind
the day after the exchange is consummated is real. And similarly,
with regard to NATO, you know, it's not obvious if
I were a NATO country that I can rely on
(25:50):
the United States any longer. You saw what happened in Germany.
You know, they've gotten rid of their debt limited and
are now going to massively increase defense spending in order
to you know, potentially defend themselves without the benefit of
the United States security umbrella. Poland's already done this their
way there, increased their defense spending, and basically the countries
(26:13):
on the border of the of Russia, the Baltics, Poland
have all increased their defense spending recognizing that they may
not be able to rely on US any longer. So,
as you say, Tracy, he may have gotten out ahead
of this to the point where this really can't be
used as an inducement for an exchange of short term
(26:35):
to long term debt.
Speaker 3 (26:36):
Jo, you know what I was just thinking, say more,
what if China exchanged its bills and treasuries for century
bonds in exchange for NATO protection.
Speaker 2 (26:46):
First of all, you know, there's obviously that history of
the fact that at one point in time China perceived
its main adversaries the Soviet Union and did you know,
try to have that protection with the United States. So
there is not zero history for that. Maybe a slightly
realistic version of that is swap out your debt and
will let you build byd plants. Then you get that
(27:08):
technology transfer and you sort of do the whole classic
thing where the high tech country brings in their manufacturing
and teaches you how to build giggle plants and stuff.
I would be into that. Do you see more though,
about an event from which the markets may never recover.
That's not a term you hear. They always recover. But
you know, like when you get into existential questions about
(27:29):
the sort of safety and risk freeness of US debt,
what do we talk about here?
Speaker 4 (27:33):
Yeah, I mean the when you think once we went
off the gold standard, once you know, our currency and
our debt was not convertible into gold into a hard commodity.
The reliability of the US government debt is really a
(27:59):
bet on the US government economy that the economy is
going to be so strong and generate the capacity to
pay taxes to support the repayment of the debt. And
so these two things, now it's a confidence game and
they're intricately linked. You know, the the dynamism of the
(28:20):
US economy is ultimately what supports the credit worthiness of
the debt. But you know, as your debt and this
is what Dalia was talking about, you know, as your
debt levels increase to the point where your ability to
service the debt is called into question, or your ability
(28:41):
to service the debt is squeezing out the role that
the government plays in buttressing, undergirding the dynamism of the economy.
You get to a point where, you know, investors start
to worry about the ability of the debt, the ability
(29:02):
of the government to pay the debt, and so the
debt overhang itself becomes a retardant to economic growth. So
if if the dynamos of the economy is what undergirds
people's confidence in our ability to repay our debts when due,
we're in a world of hurt. I mean, I went
to the speech of Bessing gave at the Economic Club
(29:26):
of New York, and he talked a lot about, you know,
unleashing the private sector, reducing regulation, freeing the banks to
once again lend to the private sector, and withdrawing the
Biden stimulus to you know, the various subsidies and procurement
policies that were his attempt at restoring to withdraw the
(29:49):
heavy hand of government from overriding the economy the private sector.
You know, that's all fine and well, but the reality
is that you know, government's play an important part in
promoting the growth of their domestic economies as from as
simple as you know, connecting people and markets through roads
(30:11):
and airports and railroads, to ensuring that there is a
healthy and educated workforce for private employers to be able
to hire. You know, these are really essential functions of government,
not least and including the develop their investment and research
(30:33):
and development and novel technologies that the private sector won't
invest in because the commercial potential of them isn't obvious. Right,
So the basic research that we do through NIH and
the National Academy of Science.
Speaker 3 (30:47):
We've done an episode on this.
Speaker 4 (30:48):
Yeah, this is a really essential function. So there's a balance, right,
I mean, and the success of the United States is
a demonstration of the balance between private and public investment.
The risk that we are in now given the massive
(31:10):
amount of debt we've accumulated, and more importantly, the continuous
reliance on deficits, on debt to fund our spending is
putting us in a place where we really do need
a fiscal consolidation plan. We have to balance revenues and spending.
It doesn't have to be one to one, but the
(31:32):
deficit can't be growing faster than the economy or we're
just you know, piling up debt that will become increasingly
more difficult to sustain.
Speaker 3 (31:56):
I want to go back to the sovereign wealth fund idea,
because when I hear that, it sounds like basically a
shift from the US issuing unsecured treasuries to secured debt.
And when I hear that, I think back to a
term that I used to encounter a lot when I
was covering European covered bonds, encumbrance, like there's a limited
(32:22):
amount of collateral that you can put up into a
bond and at some point you start to run out
of it. How much collateral? I get that the US
is the biggest economy in the world, and probably if
anyone's going to collateralize their debt, maybe it's the US.
But what exactly would they use to secure these things?
Speaker 4 (32:43):
Okay, so you know there's there's loan to value, and
then there's cash flow coverage. Right, So the ballot tuet
of the United States has a variety of hidden assets
that are not really marked to market. You've heard a
lot of talk recently about our gold stocks, right that
(33:03):
are I think at forty two dollars an ounce when
the price of gold is you know, north of three thousand.
If you we marked the tons of gold at Fort
Knox that we own to market, it's probably eight nine
hundred billion dollars. That's against a thirty six trillion dollar
debt balance. That's a drop in the bucket. But it's
(33:25):
not nothing. It's not nothing. We own probably a third
of the land west of the Mississippi. You know, the
Western States complain about this all the time with the
federal government and the Bureau of Land Management is an absent.
Speaker 3 (33:41):
Landlord national park backed bond.
Speaker 4 (33:44):
Yeah, god forbid that Teddy Rosselts legacy, great legacy would
be somehow undone. But put aside the national parks. Yeah,
I mean Utavada, Wyoming. Right, and then there's the vast
expanse of Alaska, most of which is owned by the
federal government. So there are those kinds of resources. Now
(34:05):
they don't cash flow today, but there are mineral rights
on these lands that could be like you know, the
many other countries in the world do with their mineral
rights that they you know, give private developers the right
to extract and they create cash flows for the government
(34:27):
on whose lands they're doing the extraction. We have, you know,
a variety of enterprises, commercial enterprises that we own equity
in or own outright. You know, the Tennessee Valley Authority
is a huge electrical generation and distribution system in Appalachia.
(34:48):
Fanny and Freddy taken over during the financial crisis where
the government owns not withstanding what Bill l Ackman is asserting,
where the government fundamentally owns ninety to ninety five percent
of the equity value in them. You know, there are
those sorts of things that the government could try to
(35:11):
monetize and capitalize a sovereign wealth fund with. Now having
done that, let's say there's a two trillion dollars of
land values, mineral rights, ownership, and commercial enterprises that could
be that could capitalize a sovereign wealth fund, and some
(35:32):
of those things cashflow, or you could design them to
cash flow, so the sovereign wealth fund would actually have income.
And some of those assets could actually be monetized, like
the equity in Fanny and Ready and the equity and
the TVA, you could actually privatize them, sell them into
the public markets and create actual cash and the sovereign
(35:52):
wealth fund as opposed to just asset value. So there
you would have, you know, two trillion dollar fund that
could intervene in the foreign exchange markets to try to
intentionally weaken the dollar without having to engage in this
exchange offer and turn out our debt and try to
you know, browbeat with security umbrellas and tariff walls foreign
(36:19):
countries to help us in that endeavor.
Speaker 3 (36:21):
It's still a big bet on economic growth, though, right,
because the US has to grow enough to pay off
what it owes, and if it doesn't, then at some
point you have to hand back the collateral. And I
think people would be sad slash annoyed if they were
handing over all the gold or national parks, probably not
(36:43):
national parks, but land and things like that.
Speaker 4 (36:45):
Yeah. No, I you know, first of all, we never
pay off the debt, right, We just outgrow it. That's
the key here. The stock of debt is just refinanced
and rolled over continuously. You know, it'd be great to
pay it down one day, but we actually don't have
to do it. We just have to outgrow it. And
there are a couple of different ways that countries have
(37:06):
done this, some of which are more dangerous than others. Right,
you can inflate your way out of the debt. You
just you know, devalue your currency over time, and the
debt stock shrinks relative to the then current value of
your productive enterprises because you've devalued your currency, and so
(37:27):
the debt stock, which is fixed in amount, shrinks as
a relative to the size of the economy, now denominated
in much weaker currencies. You can try this kind of
marl lago, you know, exchange offer, and then, of course
the worst of all outcomes is an outright default where
you restructure the debt.
Speaker 2 (37:47):
You know, it seems to me, and I said in
the beginning, I sort of conceptualize these things in terms
of resource allocation and who gets what, and it seems
to me, you know, yeah, you could revalue the gold
in Fort Knox, And probably people are sitting here thinking like,
why wouldn't you do that if it's you know, it's
three thousand dollars and we have it at forty or whatever.
Of course, no, just do it. But that doesn't produce
(38:08):
more doctors, it doesn't produce more beds for hospitals, it
doesn't produce more food for senior citizens. You know, like
when we're talking about these resource constraints, which is how
I sort of think about it, it's an accounting trick, right,
because it doesn't ultimately it doesn't create any new factories,
It does not do any of that. Anyway, Let's talk
a little bit more. You know a lot about Fanny
(38:29):
and Freddy, and you've made a reference there to Bill
Ackman and the thing that I'm trying. You know, there's
obviously big profits being generated by these government owned enterprises,
and private investors would like access to those profits so
that they don't just get to the treasury. But then
to me, there's the question of, like, can you do
that in a way to avoid the problem, which is
(38:50):
that investors get access to those cash flows or access
to those profits without the implicit guarantee of the government.
Because you know, obvious like you'd love to keep both, right,
you'd love to privatize the profits and keep that backstop.
Is there any conceivable way to privatize them and actually
not have that backstop in place anymore?
Speaker 3 (39:11):
I think the expectation is they would implicitly keep the backstop,
like that's what investors fare well. This begs the question
why bother doing it at all?
Speaker 1 (39:21):
Right?
Speaker 2 (39:22):
Is there a way to do it that's not just
a giveaway?
Speaker 4 (39:25):
Yes there is? Okay, So there's a lot of history here. Yeah,
So before the financial crisis. These government sponsored, government chartered
entities had a special charter that enabled them to borrow
from the Treasury Department, and that was the source of
(39:47):
their being viewed session ultimately backed by the Treasury Department,
even though what they could get from the Treasury Department
was a mere fraction of their balance sheet size. But
the fact that they had that entitlement gave investors the
confidence that in a pinch, the government would step in
(40:07):
and take them over. And we had a pinch in
two thousand and eight, and the government did in fact
step in and put them into a conservatorship. The conservatorship
was structured to make that implicit backstop explicit, and the
Treasure Department entered into a preferred stock purchase agreement with
(40:28):
each of the entities under conservatorship pursue it, to which
the government actually purchased one hundred and ninety two billion
dollars of preferred stock in the two entities, infusing one
hundred and ninety two billion dollars worth of cash of
Treasure Department cash authorized by Congress under the Housing and
Economic Revery Act of two thousand and eight into the enterprises.
Speaker 3 (40:50):
In exchange for equity as well, right, they.
Speaker 4 (40:52):
Got preferred stock back, right, a senior preferred stock. That
senior preferred stock carried a fixed dividend which was converted
into a variable dividend in twenty twelve in order to
keep them from having just to borrow more prefer to
pay off the dividend. And so they were only then
(41:13):
required to pay a dividend to the extent that they
were profitable out of their net profits. And were they profitable.
They have paid the Treasury Department back now three hundred
and two billion dollars on that characterized as dividends on
that one hundred and ninety two billion dollar par investment.
Speaker 3 (41:34):
Yet not only are they profitable, they've also, as I
understand it, kind of restructured their business and increased their
capital basically like gotten ready for a sale while generating
a profit, which is pretty impressive.
Speaker 4 (41:48):
Yeah, So that the dividend stream to Treasury, which generated
three hundred and two billion dollars, was turned off in
twenty eighteen to allow them to build capital in anticipation
in Trump administration one that they would be privatized, and
so they allowed them to build capital. And so the
(42:09):
Treasure Department hasn't received any dividends since twenty eighteen, so
seven years ago. And during that seven year period, Fanny
and Freddie have built between the two of them almost
two hundred billion dollars of capital. That's still short of
the capital rule, the capital regulation that was created for
(42:30):
them during the conservatorship, but they're pretty damn close, probably
two years away from being meeting their minimum capital. There's
so called cet I capital levels. You know, there are
many of us who think that the capital rule that
was created for them grossly oversolved for their how much
(42:50):
capital they should carry.
Speaker 3 (42:51):
Right after the financial crisis, everyone's nervous.
Speaker 4 (42:54):
Exactly, and so you know, the as with the big banks,
the so called cithies, Fanny and Freddy have been subject
to so called stress tests to see how they would
fare in a severely adverse scenario where you know, the
(43:15):
financial markets declined by twenty percent, the interest rates go
up by ten percent, unemployment skyrocks, housing prices collapse, blah
blah blah. They've been subjected to stress tests over the
last couple of years, and those stress tests show that
basically their losses would be less than like ten billion dollars,
and so to have them carrying around in Fanny's case,
(43:38):
one hundred and fifty six billion of capital and in
Freddie's case, one hundred and twenty billion of capital against
what the stress test show would be negligible losses. Seems
like pretty a waste of that capital, just grossly over
solving them. But I'll get off my high hours on that.
On that leave them with those capital levels one hundred
(44:01):
and fifty six and one hundred and twenty billion, respectively,
they will be They would need another four years of
retained earnings to reach that. So if you were really,
if you weren't prepared to let them out of conservatorship
until they were fully capitalized, you'd wait four years and
then they'd be fully capitalized under that rule. And then
(44:23):
the question goes to the backstop. You know, why privatize them?
And can they be privatized without an explicit government guarantee. Well,
there's no reason in law or fact that would prohibit
them from carrying that preferred stock purchase agreement, that equity
backstop out of conservatorship and having the Treasury stand behind
(44:47):
this two hundred and seventy billion dollars worth of capital
with a commitment to buy two hundred and fifty billion
of capital should the need arise. So you know, if
in my view, Fanny carrying one hundred and sixty and
Freddy carry one hundred and twenty billion is already over capitalized,
well we're going to almost double that with the treasury backstop,
(45:10):
and Treasury should be paid for the privilege of standing
behind them a commitment fee, and could the earnings would
support a commitment fee, but that would give comfort to
the markets that you know, there's enough capital behind them
to ensure the prompt payment of principle and interest on
the underlying mortgages, that they guarantee. The benefit to the
(45:34):
government of doing this of instead of leaving them in
conservatorship in perpetuity, is that the government owns ninety odd
percent of the equity. They own the senior preferred stock.
They have a warrant to purchase eighty percent of the
stock for a penny you do you know, a classic
(45:55):
recapitalization turn the preferred stock into common, diluting the exists
in common and the Treasury Department's warrant, and Fanny, the
Treasury Department will end up owning ninety to ninety four
percent of the total common stock of cleanly capitalized companies.
What's that worth? The CBO did a recent analysis and said, well,
(46:18):
this is the Congressional Budget Office did a recent analysis,
and it's filled with lots of assumptions, and you could
quibble with some of them. But it's a dividend discount model,
which isn't you know, unheard of in the valuation of
financial institutions. And you know, they suggested the equity, the
total equity of which I think the government ends up
(46:40):
with at least ninety percent when you recapitalize, and the
total equities were somewhere between three hundred and five hundred
billion dollars.
Speaker 3 (46:48):
That's a decent number.
Speaker 4 (46:49):
That's a decent number to put in your softign wealth
fund or to pay down some of the deficit.
Speaker 3 (46:55):
The one question I have is, Okay, if the gsees
are privatized, the government gets a payout of an unknown amount,
but it could be pretty decent. As we said, is
there anything that Fanny and Freddy actually start doing differently
once they're privatized, so they get an influx of private capital,
what do they do with it?
Speaker 4 (47:16):
Okay, So this is a critical question of whether they're
going to be allowed to go back and do the
kinds of crazy things they did prior to the financial
crisis that got them into hot water. One of the
great innovations, along with Dodd Frank, coming out of the
financial crisis, was a new statute governing both the federal
(47:40):
home loan banks and Fanny and Freddy. It's this Housing
and Economic Recovery Act of two thousand and eight, which
created a new, stronger regulator called the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
This is the agency to which Bill Pulti has just
been confirmed as the director. But that agency has significant
(48:04):
supervisory and regulatory powers to constrain the business model that
Fanny and Freddy can pursue. So, I mean, just to
do it just a touch little more history. If you
look back to two thousand and three through to two
thousand and eight, you know what really got Fanny and
Freddy into trouble is they were running hedge funds. They
(48:25):
were a government sponsored hedge fund. Beyond the basic business
of securitizing so called conforming mortgages, you know, eighty LTV
or less safe mortgages, besides packaging them and securitizing them
and guaranteeing the prompt payment of principle and interest on
those mortgage backed securities, of which they are now seven
(48:48):
and a half trillion outstanding, so that they are the
big factor in that conventional mortgage market. In the run
up to the crisis, they also expanded their balance sheets.
They borrowed money at government rates, levered themselves up, and
bought all day subprime no dock private labeled securities in
(49:09):
order to goose their earnings, and they did it on
a highly levered basis. One of the great reforms that
has occurred during the conservatorships is those portfolios have been
completely wound down and so today the only balanced sheet
that they have is to facilitate a securitization business. Therein so,
they buy mortgages that have been originated by someone else,
(49:32):
they pull them, and then they securitize them, and with
the proceeds of the securitization, they repay the debt that
they incurred to buy the mortgages in the first place.
And similarly, when mortgages go bad in the MBS and
the securitizations, in order to fulfill their guarantee of prompt
(49:54):
payment of principle and interest on those securities, they buy
the mortgages out of the pools, restructure them, and modify them.
Speaker 3 (50:05):
Which is why agency MBS is treated as a very
safe and liquid asset for bank capital purposes.
Speaker 4 (50:12):
Exactly because Fanny and Freddie are there to guarantee the
prompt payment of principle and interest. And now if we
go back to the privatization, right, what will back that
guarantee is both the two hundred and eighty billion of
capital directly on their balance sheets as well as the
preferred stock purchase agreement with two hundred and fifty billion
(50:35):
of unused capacity. So behind that guarantee will stand more
than half a trillion dollars of capital. And so that
this is you know, when I get into debates with
people about people who are opposed to the privatizations, about
whether or not the privatization would create instability in the
(50:58):
MBS market, because would they suffer a ratings decline and
therefore attract higher capital for anyone who owned them, and
therefore higher rates on the mortgage backed securities which translate
into higher rates on the mortgages themselves. You know, that
(51:19):
is the big question. Is half a trillion dollars of
capital standing behind the guarantees enough to keep the credit
ratings on the MBS stable and in place. I think
it is. But you know, at the end of the
day there'll be a conversation with Moody's and S and
P and Fitch. Then they'll have to decide whether they
(51:42):
remain near sovereign credit.
Speaker 3 (51:44):
Oh, it's kind of funny that the credit rating agencies
are like, it's still in control.
Speaker 4 (51:49):
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1 (51:52):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (51:52):
So we've talked a lot about creative ways for the
US government to raise money and pay off its debt.
There's one we haven't talked about which is one of
my favorite financial topics of all time, and that is
the bonds owned by the US issued by other countries,
(52:13):
really old ones, Oh, like Chinese imperial debt or did
you know the UK owes the US a lot of
money from like World War Two loans?
Speaker 4 (52:23):
Oh, stell, I didn't know that.
Speaker 3 (52:24):
I didn't know that now, and as an intellectual curiosity,
I find it really interesting to think about the question
of what would happen if Trump decided to go after
those as a way of raising money. And this actually
came up in the first Trump administration. The Treasury was
looking at ways to get a payout on the Chinese bonds,
and funnily enough, it was doing that at the same
(52:46):
time that the SEC was prosecuting someone for selling those
bonds to investors and promising a payout. That's fun. That
could be fun.
Speaker 4 (52:56):
So these are I don't know anything about this. These
are bonds is issued by predecessor governments in China. Yeah,
you know there is some history of I'm aware of
some Czarist Russia bonds, Yeah, that are out there. Shortly
(53:18):
after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the French government
and the British government, representing French and British bond holders,
got the Russian Federation to acknowledge those bonds and make
a paud on them because the Russian Federation was desirous
(53:39):
of having access to the capital markets in Europe, and
the quid pro quo was to pay off the debts
of Czarist Russia.
Speaker 2 (53:50):
Well, we're in unshorted territory. This little like intellectual exercise
at the end of the conversation may one day not
just be an intellectual curiosity. Jim Millstein, so great to
have you back. We could just talk to you for hours.
Speaker 3 (54:04):
Thank you so much.
Speaker 2 (54:05):
Yeah, but that was a fantastic conversation.
Speaker 4 (54:08):
I appreciate you coming back on upline into it though.
Speaker 2 (54:11):
That's great, Tracy. I love talking to Jim.
Speaker 3 (54:28):
He's so good. He's great, and he lays everything out
so clearly, which is very useful when we're talking about
a hypothetical like this. The one thing, well, there are
a lot of things that I think are funny or
ironic in some of this discussion. But one of the
big ironies I think about is treasuries are kind of
the US's biggest export. Yeah, and Trump is obsessed with export,
(54:53):
I know, but he doesn't want to export those particular things,
even though you could make an argument that debt helps
to grow the private economy. As Jim was discussing.
Speaker 2 (55:05):
Uh, it is funny. I mean, look, I guess i'd
rather US export real things that employee.
Speaker 3 (55:10):
People that he could just take the win, right.
Speaker 2 (55:13):
Take the wind. Yeah, we're a big Uh, we're a
big exporter of these pieces of paper, not even pieces
of paper anymore.
Speaker 1 (55:18):
No.
Speaker 2 (55:19):
I thought there was like a great conversation. And look
the way I see it is some of this stuff
could be playing with fire, like we really don't know
how some of you know, some of these goals is
like we're going to like, you know, we're the fact
that Germany itself is rearming, and that for decades and
decades and decades, this sort of entire premise of sort
(55:39):
of Western geopolitics was preventing Germany from rearming.
Speaker 1 (55:43):
That was in.
Speaker 2 (55:44):
Itself this sort of is sort of like this like
massive pivot in world history feels like for me, and
you know, who knows decades from now, you know, we don't.
We might not know how the consequences of the ways
geopolitics have been reshaped by that decision.
Speaker 3 (56:00):
Well, this is the norm's point, right, Yes, Like norms,
it turns out, are actually pretty important, and there's a
risk of what happens once they're gone or they start
to change.
Speaker 2 (56:12):
Yeah, I would say two points. I mean one is, yes,
norms themselves I think are pretty important. And then you
get into things that are sort of beyond norms, questions
like once you bring in the conversation about and again
I don't know how serious it, but like restructuring debt
or et cetera, you're like, go beyond norms and you
actually like you could trigger trigger formal things.
Speaker 3 (56:33):
No, that's still a norm though, I guess it's like
historically has not defaulted on its death.
Speaker 2 (56:39):
No, but it's like there are things in pieces of paper,
right that like when you don't when you like try
to change.
Speaker 3 (56:44):
There are legalities, yeah, but frankly, legalities are being treated
as norms now right, I suppose so, yes, I suppose,
so shall we leave it there?
Speaker 2 (56:55):
Let's leave it there.
Speaker 3 (56:56):
This has been another episode of the ad Thoughts podcast.
I'm Tracy Alloway. You can follow me at Tracy Alloway and.
Speaker 2 (57:02):
I'm joll Wisenthal. You can follow me at the Stalwart.
Follow our producers Carmen Rodriguez at Carman armand dash Ol
Bennett at Dashbot and Keil Brooks at Kelbrooks. More Oddlots
content go to Bloomberg dot com slash odd Lots. We
have all of our episodes in a daily newsletter, and
you can chat about all of these things twenty four
to seven in our discord with fellow listeners at discord
(57:23):
dot gg slash od lots.
Speaker 3 (57:25):
And if you enjoy odd Lots, if you like it
when we talk about US debt restructuring potential US debt restructuring,
then please leave us a positive review on your favorite
podcast platform. And remember If you are a Bloomberg subscriber,
you can listen to all of our episodes absolutely ad free.
All you need to do is find the Bloomberg channel
on Apple Podcasts and follow the instructions there. Thanks for
(57:49):
listening in
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Hello and welcome to another episode of the Odd Lots Podcast.
I'm Joe Wisenthal.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
And I'm Tracy Alloway.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
So, Tracy, you know, there's obviously a lot of anxiety
these days, really for a while, but going into the election,
post about the size of the US debt, the size
of the US deficit, et cetera.
Speaker 4 (00:35):
And what I the way I like.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
To think of these things is that any discussion of
federal spending is about a competition for resource allocation. Right,
So we know that a huge component of what drives
persistent deficits is the social safety nets, social security, medicare, medicaid,
et cetera. And when we talk about the debt or
(00:58):
the deficit in the abstract, and when people talk about
tackling the debt or the deficit, what they're really talking
about is freeing up resources somewhere, freeing up consumption somewhere,
and creating availability for consumption and resources elsewhere in the economy.
Speaker 4 (01:14):
Are they well, I mean, yeah, I think I would say.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
So.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
It seems to me there's a desire to like pay
down the debt and then not necessarily do anything else,
like what's the else here?
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Well, So, for example, Secretary of Scott Bestant and some
of his recent interviews talked about, you know, we want
to releverage the private sector. It's we want to get
raids down and therefore that makes investing more appealing for companies,
et cetera. And so the idea of like, okay, we're
going to like reduce demand, reduced consumption from various sectors
(01:49):
of the economy that are perceived to be unproductive, such
as retirees, et cetera, and then open up expansion so
then there's less consumption and then that creates resource availability
for other things which are perceived to be more productive,
like reindustrialization.
Speaker 3 (02:06):
Okay, maybe what I would say, you know how I
like to think about those Sure, I like to ask
like to think about the big picture in bonds, and
I always say, bonds are built on norms, right, Yeah,
Government spending is built on norms. So you lend money
to me and I pay you back. It's basically a promise,
(02:28):
which means it's a human construct. Yes, and there are
all these values and norms and narratives that are embedded
in those constructs, in those promises, and that's what I
find really fascinating, especially when those values start to change,
and I think that's what's happening now.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
Yeah, well, you know absolutely, and obviously, you know, we
did that conversation with Jim Bianco about a you know,
either a literal or a metanomic moral lago accord, and
then we talked to Ridalio and he slipped it in there,
and I thought it was that kind of He's like, well,
maybe they'll restructure the debt some way or return it out,
And to me, that screams default, you know. I mean,
that's just a you know, it's a polite way of
(03:05):
saying deult.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
But one man's default is another man's restructuring. Jar that's right.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
But I think if I were a treasury holder, I
would be very upset if the thing that I considered
to be the most liquid, safe asset of the entire world,
that the entire finance system runs on, the one thing
that's perceived to be genuinely risk free from a credit standpoint,
suddenly gets like, oh, it's this is a five year
bond and a seven year bond and you're going to
get the same money in the end. I think that
(03:31):
would be very disruptive in a way that is not disruptive, say,
like you know, when a hospital chain has to restructure
its dead it.
Speaker 3 (03:39):
Is definitely the risk free rate upon which, like all
the other markets are basically built on. Should I do
a reminder of what the mar a Lago accord may
surely says about this point. So the way I think
about it, it's an attempt to resolve some of the
tensions embedded in the Trump administration's economic agenda. We about
(04:00):
it with Jim Bianco, and those tensions are primarily the
desire to reshore manufacturing and shrink the deficit, and also,
I guess, address the sort of emotional sense that the
US isn't getting compensated enough for its role in the
global economy or global security. Oh wow, all while paying
(04:21):
down the debt. Right, so having your cake and eating
it too. And I should just emphasize this isn't a
hardcore plan. This is based on a paper that Stephn
Miran put out last year that people started getting very
interested in and talking about. And that's why we're talking
about it.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Well, I want to go to our guess a second.
But there is something very funny because there's all these
academic papers that are going out, and it's like, oh,
there's this big plan, and you know, the exorbitant privilege
of the dollar makes it so that, you know, it's
hard to reshore manufacturing in the US, and we need
to weaken the dollar and decentralize its role. And it's
like they sort of like intellectualize it five D chests. Meanwhile,
(05:01):
Trump is like, no, I just want more money from terrorists.
Like I don't know, he like, there's this intellectual infrastructure
around it. I'm not sure that Trump himself buys into
this anyway. We really do have the perfect guest, because
we're gonna be speaking someone who knows about the intersection
of finance and politics, someone who knows about debt and
debt restructuring, someone who actually matters. We've had him on
(05:22):
the show, sorry my wife, someone whose opinion, someone whose
opinion actually matters. All of our guests matter, all of
our guests opinion matters. We're gonna be speaking with Jim Milstein,
co chair of Googenheim Securities. Jim, thank you so much
for coming back on ODS My pleasure. We talked about
(05:43):
your background when we had you on the show last year.
What do you know about debt restructuring just a little.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
What have you done?
Speaker 2 (05:51):
What have you done in that room?
Speaker 3 (05:53):
You've dabbled.
Speaker 4 (05:55):
Yeah, it's my metier, you know. So I had this
awful job and a great title called Chief Restructuring Officer
of the United States Department of the Treasury during the
Financial crisis.
Speaker 3 (06:06):
That is quite a title.
Speaker 4 (06:07):
It is quite a title. It sounds like they might
have been hiring me to restructure the federal government. In fact,
I was there to help restructure the TARP investments we
made during the financial crisis and AIG and Ally Financial
and City and b of A and the rest of
that crowd. But before that, you know, I worked on
the restructuring of Argentina. The Republic of Argentina's one of
(06:28):
their many restructurings ye debt in two thousand and five,
we did a big exchange offer for their international bond
in net and this I worked on Puerto Rico's debt
default and restructuring back in the odds.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
Wait, were you on the hedge fund side of Argentina.
Speaker 4 (06:44):
Or the republic side?
Speaker 3 (06:45):
Oh? Okay, yeah.
Speaker 4 (06:46):
And then when I was a lawyer back in the eighties,
my firm Cleary Gottlie worked on all of the Brady
bond restructurings across Latin America. So you know, I've done
a bunch of sovereign.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
Yes, yeah, Okay, Shall I just jump into it and
ask the obvious question or one of the obvious questions?
But where is the suggestion coming from? A debt restructuring
is part of a potential Mara Lago accord? And what
is the problem we're trying to solve?
Speaker 4 (07:17):
So I think there's a clear I mean, I don't
want to engage in sanewashing, which, yes, you know, there's
clearly an impetus by the President to impose tariffs. He's
tariff man, and around him through Bessent and Moran, there
is some intellectual architecture that suggests that's just a tactic
(07:39):
towards an end, and the end is to bring manufacturing
back to the United States. Yeah. Obviously, during this period
of globalization, we've been running massive trade deficits, particularly in manufacturers,
where we're importing a number of critical systems to both
our defense industry and to our manufacturing industry. We once
(08:00):
dominated the semiconductor trade. We actually created that industry in
the nineteen sixties through a series of government policies, research
and development grants to IBM and AT and T that
created the semiconductor technology. Then a series of procurement policies
at NASA and the Defense Department to commercialize that industry,
(08:21):
and eventually we created, you know, the calculator industry and
the computer industry and the TV industry and all of that.
But that was all a byproduct of a coordinated set
of federal policies. Fast forward forty years, fifty years later,
and you know, semiconductor manufacturing is mostly being done, particularly
at the high end, in a strategically vulnerable country across
(08:47):
the Straits of China from China in Taiwan, and that
has created a sense now going back in the ten
years in the defense establishment, that we have a problem,
and not just in semi conductors, but in a number
of advanced industries where we're really reliant as a country
on the importation of critical technologies and critical intermediate inputs. Again,
(09:12):
you know, if you piece together some of the things
that Bessint has said and some of the things that
Moran has said, the goal of the tariff play, which
is really just a tactic, is to bring manufacturing back
to the United States to hollow in or build out
the communities that were hollowed out by the wave of
(09:33):
globalization that occurred after China's admission to the WTO in
the early two thousands. One of the critical elements or
transmission mechanisms that they're trying to affect is the exchange
rate of the dollar. A high dollar means that our
exports are more expensive and our imports are less expensive.
(09:55):
So we have been the beneficiary with a strong dollar
of very cheap imports, you know, moderating the inflation that
might otherwise occur from domestic manufacturing. But that said, we've
lost manufacturing. We used forty years ago we represented twenty
five percent of the manufacturing industry. Now we're a mere
(10:16):
fifteen percent of global manufacturing. China was nowhere to be seen.
Now they're thirty five percent of global manufacturing. The goal
of this Mari Lago accord is to really weaken the
dollar without upsetting the financial flows that finance our debt.
Speaker 3 (10:35):
And crucially, the manufacturing buildout is supposed to be done
by private capital. To Joe's point earlier, it's not. You know,
we've had efforts from the Biden administration, the Chips Act
to try to boost some of those industries. But the
emphasis under Trump is really we want to create a
beneficial market environment so that private capital moves in.
Speaker 4 (10:56):
Yes, there's obviously a kind of you know, traditionally Republican
bias in favor of private capital and scaling back the
use of public investment to promote industrial development. But you know,
raising a tariff wall, a high tariffall is a bet
(11:17):
that private capital will invest behind it. Biden administration, you know,
started something that I actually worked on as a graduate
student back in the seventies called industrial policy. That is
to use not only tariff barriers, but investment policy, tax policy,
procurement policy, and R and D policy to promote domestic industry. So,
(11:42):
you know, Trump has inherited the Chips Act and it
is making progress. It has spread terrible, Yeah, I know,
he said it's terrible. But the reality is that there's
all sorts of activity now both in the under the
Chips Act subsidies and through the Inflation Reduction Act, which
was another one of the Biden administration's policies to promote
(12:03):
investment in the United States. The reality is that those
investments have been made and are continuing to be made
around the fifty States, most particularly in the Red States,
and so there will be political pushback on the Trump
administration to just zero those out going forward. So going back, though,
(12:25):
you know, if we really want to restore American manufacturing dominance,
particularly in critical industries critical to our defense establishment, we're
going to have to use a mix not only of
high tariff barriers, but of R and D subsidies, of
investment subsidies, and use procurement as a way to create
(12:50):
demand pull for these new industries.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
You use the word sanewashing, which is a good word,
because there are there's this sort of intellectual as you said,
architecture around Trump. It's not clear that Trump himself sees
it this way that this is that this works, that
you can sort of like reaccelerate US manufacturing simply via
(13:30):
some sort of weakening of the dollar in a coordinated
way or tariffs. What is the gap between what you
see is actually going on and the sort of like
the white papers that people put out.
Speaker 4 (13:42):
Of Okay, so so, and this is all coming out
of Moran's paper. As Tracy indicated at the beginning, I mean,
he's put together the most kind of comprehensive strategy, and
he acknowledges this very narrow chord or within which this
might work, and in some sense the present and it
has already gotten out ahead with his tariff tactics and
(14:04):
also his threatening to withdraw the security umbrella from NATO,
because those are the two critical sticks that Moran advocated
we use to induce foreign central banks and foreign investors
to continue to buy treasuries at favorable rates, so it
(14:28):
is to continue to finance what is really a growing
and potential as Dalio said in your podcast, debt crisis.
And then just let me say maybe to frame that problem. Today,
federal debt to GDP is one to one. Federal debt
is equal to GDP. We're running deficits at seven percent
(14:52):
of GDP, and the economy has kind of grown at
one too little north of two percent. So the debt
is growing faster as a result of the imbalance in
the federal budget, where deficits are growing at the rate
of seven percent of GDP, which means the debt's growing
at the rate of seven percent of GDP. Where our
(15:13):
debt is growing now faster than GDP and is becoming
an increasing overhang to the extent that when you look
at the federal budget, interest expense has become the second
largest category of federal spending.
Speaker 3 (15:27):
Issuing bonds to pay off bonds.
Speaker 4 (15:29):
That's right, So we're now we're now issuing bonds to
pay the interest on our bonds. This is a classic
recipe for disaster. We're not even treading water. Was now
slowly sinking behind a huge under a huge pile of debt.
So we have to get that fiscal imbalance corrected. And
(15:51):
as you were saying at the beginning of the podcast, Joe,
you know, now some very tough allocation decisions need to
be made with regard to federal spending because someone joked
that the federal when you look at the federal government,
it's really a retirement program attached to an army, right,
I mean the largest ever. Yeah, it's exactly. You have
(16:15):
you have, you know, income security in the form of
Social Security for retirement, and you have medical security in
the form of Medicare for retirement. But when you add
it all up, the parts of the budget that you know,
Elon musk Is and his merry band of pranksters are
off trying to slash is a relatively small part of
(16:36):
federal spending, but it is the stuff that actually you know,
supports education, transportation, housing, infrastructure, right.
Speaker 3 (16:48):
The wider economy, some sort of stuff.
Speaker 4 (16:50):
That you know, is building human capital, building physical public capital,
building housing structure. That part of the budget is a
mere seven hundred billion out of a total spending of
six point seventy five trillion. The rest of it is
interest on the debt, retirement, security, defense, and healthcare support.
(17:15):
And so we're really we're really in a pickle. We're
going to see in the fall or maybe sooner when
the reconciliation bills finally make their way to a vote
on the floor of the House in the Senate, we're
going to see whether or not this Congress really has
the courage to deal with the allocation issues that you mentioned.
Because in the House that in the framework for the
(17:37):
House Reconciliation Bill, they call for eight hundred and eighty billion.
That's over ten years, so it's really not a lot.
It's really like about one hundred billion of spending cuts
annually in medicaid, transportation, housing, and education. You know, out
of that Medicaid is about six hundred billion a year,
(18:00):
and the housing, transportation, education, that part of the budget
is about seven hundred billion, so there's a they're calling
for a reduction of one hundred billion a year against
that one point three billion of medicaid and social the
other social spending. So it's not it's not a big ticket,
and it's not going to make a massive change in
(18:23):
the deficit, particularly if they add incremental tax cuts on tips,
on over time, on social security as they've talked about.
You know, they're not really attacking the deficit. So we're
going to continue to need to sell a lot of debt.
Speaker 3 (18:43):
So you've laid out the pickle problem very well, perfectly
laid out the pickle problem perfectly.
Speaker 4 (18:50):
Say that.
Speaker 3 (18:53):
The idea here embedded in the mar Lago Accord is
that the US could bring down its det costs by
getting foreign investors to swap some of their current treasuries
into century bonds that would be less expensive for the
US to actually pay back.
Speaker 4 (19:13):
That's right, And so how do we induce them to
engage in that exchange? So the two primary tactics that
Moran lays out in his paper are sort of, you know,
the way you do exchange offers in the private markets
that eye traffic in the way you do in exchange
offers with carrots and sticks. You offer a sweetener and
(19:38):
you threaten, you know, doom and gloom. So the two
primary tactics here are that you foreign country are going
to face, on the one hand, a high tarerfall unless
you play ball, and on the other hand, the withdrawal
of our security umbrella. So if you want the protect
(20:00):
action of the largest and most powerful military in the
world to protect your borders against a Russian invasion, you're
going to have to swap your debt that you currently hold,
which is generally short term bills, into what they're calling
century bonds, a you know, one hundred year bond at
(20:22):
a low interest rate, which takes the refinancing risk of
an indebted country away from it because we don't have
to touch that debt for underdal, turning out duration, turning
out duration on the one hand, and reducing the interest
burden of servicing that debt over time. So there are
a couple of problems with this. One problem is that
(20:47):
when you look at who holds US government debt, not
more than fifteen percent of it today is held offshore
and mutting down a lot. Yeah, it's come down a
lot and much of that fifteen percent is not in
the hands of you know, government instrumentalities, but rather than
foreign private investors. So inducing that crowd to come in
(21:10):
to this exchange offer, even if you could succeed, you're
touching a very small part of the debt. So where's
the rest of it? Where's the other eighty five percent
of our thirty six trillion dollars of outstanding debt? It's
basically owned by us. Some of it's owned and government
accounts and the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, but
some of it is owned by banks and insurance companies.
(21:32):
Some of it's owned by endowments and wealthy individuals. Some
of it's in the bond in the mutual fund market,
you know, underwriting our money market funds. So the reality
is we're to get this done. We're really doing it
with ourselves. What we really need to do is turn
out our debt. And the problem we're facing right now
(21:55):
is that, you know, the debt, the cost of debt,
the interest cost of our debt is relatively high. You know,
the ten years at four point three, the thirty year
put its outis what you'd pay for a century bond.
Thirty year is even higher. And the current average interest
rate on our outstanding thirty six trillion dollars of debt
(22:19):
is three point three percent, So to term it out
in this market would take that one point one trillion
dollars of annual interest expence up. You know, if we
had to term it out at four point three or
four point six, we'd be talking about increasing the interest
expense we're facing. So there, you know. So this intellectual
(22:41):
architecture around the so called Mara Lago accord has many
flaws now, at least among which is we're in targeting
foreign holders of our debt, We're targeting a relatively small
part of it. If the game plan here of that
Mara lagocord is to weaken the dollar so is to
improve the competitiveness of US domestic manufacturing. There is another
(23:06):
approach and that you've also heard rumor of from the
Trump administration, and that is the creation of a sovereign
wealth fund to take assets that the US government currently owns,
dump them in a central fund managed by the Treasury Department,
and allowing the Treasury Department then to intervene directly into
(23:30):
the currency of the foreign exchange markets to try and
push the dollar down. I see.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
It's interesting because so you know, historically, right, like sovereign
wealth funds in resource rich countries are often about stable
keeping the currency strong, etcetera, especially for countercyclical elements, and
so the idea that we would use it to intervene
and in foreign exchange is interesting twists. You know, you
said something about restructuring, and you said there's carrots and
sticks in a typical restructuring, and imagine the sticks are, Look,
(23:59):
you don't want to go along with this restructuring plan,
then you're going to end up with like some sort
of asset and a bankrupt company and it's going to
be pretty bad for you and you're gonna get less
money and it's going to take a long time. And
so come on, go with the deal. It seems to
be part of the problem. Like just conceptually with the
carrot and sticks approach is like, you can't really threaten
a stick if you're the US government without immolating yourself.
Speaker 4 (24:24):
Yeah, I mean the latter you really want to see
rates blow out? Have the federal government of threatened to
not pay its debts, that would be uh, that would
be an event from which the financial markets might not recover.
Speaker 3 (24:44):
Does the carrot hold any water here either, because the
carrot's supposed to be like, Okay, maybe you don't get tariffs,
maybe you get US security. But that maybe is really
important because what we've seen so far, it's only been
two months, but we've seen Trump go back and forth,
back and forth, back and forth. I think a lot
of trust has been lost.
Speaker 4 (25:05):
Yeah. Well, and you know, if you were going to
use tariffs or the threat of tariffs and the threat
of the loss of the security umbrella as the inducement
to the exchange, he's already gotten out ahead of himself, right.
I mean, he's on again, off again with the tariffs.
(25:28):
So the threat isn't isn't imminent, it's extant, and as
you say, the trust that he might change his mind
the day after the exchange is consummated is real. And similarly,
with regard to NATO, you know, it's not obvious if
I were a NATO country that I can rely on
(25:50):
the United States any longer. You saw what happened in Germany.
You know, they've gotten rid of their debt limited and
are now going to massively increase defense spending in order
to you know, potentially defend themselves without the benefit of
the United States security umbrella. Poland's already done this their
way there, increased their defense spending, and basically the countries
(26:13):
on the border of the of Russia, the Baltics, Poland
have all increased their defense spending recognizing that they may
not be able to rely on US any longer. So,
as you say, Tracy, he may have gotten out ahead
of this to the point where this really can't be
used as an inducement for an exchange of short term
(26:35):
to long term debt.
Speaker 3 (26:36):
Jo, you know what I was just thinking, say more,
what if China exchanged its bills and treasuries for century
bonds in exchange for NATO protection.
Speaker 2 (26:46):
First of all, you know, there's obviously that history of
the fact that at one point in time China perceived
its main adversaries the Soviet Union and did you know,
try to have that protection with the United States. So
there is not zero history for that. Maybe a slightly
realistic version of that is swap out your debt and
will let you build byd plants. Then you get that
(27:08):
technology transfer and you sort of do the whole classic
thing where the high tech country brings in their manufacturing
and teaches you how to build giggle plants and stuff.
I would be into that. Do you see more though,
about an event from which the markets may never recover.
That's not a term you hear. They always recover. But
you know, like when you get into existential questions about
(27:29):
the sort of safety and risk freeness of US debt,
what do we talk about here?
Speaker 4 (27:33):
Yeah, I mean the when you think once we went
off the gold standard, once you know, our currency and
our debt was not convertible into gold into a hard commodity.
The reliability of the US government debt is really a
(27:59):
bet on the US government economy that the economy is
going to be so strong and generate the capacity to
pay taxes to support the repayment of the debt. And
so these two things, now it's a confidence game and
they're intricately linked. You know, the the dynamism of the
(28:20):
US economy is ultimately what supports the credit worthiness of
the debt. But you know, as your debt and this
is what Dalia was talking about, you know, as your
debt levels increase to the point where your ability to
service the debt is called into question, or your ability
(28:41):
to service the debt is squeezing out the role that
the government plays in buttressing, undergirding the dynamism of the economy.
You get to a point where, you know, investors start
to worry about the ability of the debt, the ability
(29:02):
of the government to pay the debt, and so the
debt overhang itself becomes a retardant to economic growth. So
if if the dynamos of the economy is what undergirds
people's confidence in our ability to repay our debts when due,
we're in a world of hurt. I mean, I went
to the speech of Bessing gave at the Economic Club
(29:26):
of New York, and he talked a lot about, you know,
unleashing the private sector, reducing regulation, freeing the banks to
once again lend to the private sector, and withdrawing the
Biden stimulus to you know, the various subsidies and procurement
policies that were his attempt at restoring to withdraw the
(29:49):
heavy hand of government from overriding the economy the private sector.
You know, that's all fine and well, but the reality
is that you know, government's play an important part in
promoting the growth of their domestic economies as from as
simple as you know, connecting people and markets through roads
(30:11):
and airports and railroads, to ensuring that there is a
healthy and educated workforce for private employers to be able
to hire. You know, these are really essential functions of government,
not least and including the develop their investment and research
(30:33):
and development and novel technologies that the private sector won't
invest in because the commercial potential of them isn't obvious. Right,
So the basic research that we do through NIH and
the National Academy of Science.
Speaker 3 (30:47):
We've done an episode on this.
Speaker 4 (30:48):
Yeah, this is a really essential function. So there's a balance, right,
I mean, and the success of the United States is
a demonstration of the balance between private and public investment.
The risk that we are in now given the massive
(31:10):
amount of debt we've accumulated, and more importantly, the continuous
reliance on deficits, on debt to fund our spending is
putting us in a place where we really do need
a fiscal consolidation plan. We have to balance revenues and spending.
It doesn't have to be one to one, but the
(31:32):
deficit can't be growing faster than the economy or we're
just you know, piling up debt that will become increasingly
more difficult to sustain.
Speaker 3 (31:56):
I want to go back to the sovereign wealth fund idea,
because when I hear that, it sounds like basically a
shift from the US issuing unsecured treasuries to secured debt.
And when I hear that, I think back to a
term that I used to encounter a lot when I
was covering European covered bonds, encumbrance, like there's a limited
(32:22):
amount of collateral that you can put up into a
bond and at some point you start to run out
of it. How much collateral? I get that the US
is the biggest economy in the world, and probably if
anyone's going to collateralize their debt, maybe it's the US.
But what exactly would they use to secure these things?
Speaker 4 (32:43):
Okay, so you know there's there's loan to value, and
then there's cash flow coverage. Right, So the ballot tuet
of the United States has a variety of hidden assets
that are not really marked to market. You've heard a
lot of talk recently about our gold stocks, right that
(33:03):
are I think at forty two dollars an ounce when
the price of gold is you know, north of three thousand.
If you we marked the tons of gold at Fort
Knox that we own to market, it's probably eight nine
hundred billion dollars. That's against a thirty six trillion dollar
debt balance. That's a drop in the bucket. But it's
(33:25):
not nothing. It's not nothing. We own probably a third
of the land west of the Mississippi. You know, the
Western States complain about this all the time with the
federal government and the Bureau of Land Management is an absent.
Speaker 3 (33:41):
Landlord national park backed bond.
Speaker 4 (33:44):
Yeah, god forbid that Teddy Rosselts legacy, great legacy would
be somehow undone. But put aside the national parks. Yeah,
I mean Utavada, Wyoming. Right, and then there's the vast
expanse of Alaska, most of which is owned by the
federal government. So there are those kinds of resources. Now
(34:05):
they don't cash flow today, but there are mineral rights
on these lands that could be like you know, the
many other countries in the world do with their mineral
rights that they you know, give private developers the right
to extract and they create cash flows for the government
(34:27):
on whose lands they're doing the extraction. We have, you know,
a variety of enterprises, commercial enterprises that we own equity
in or own outright. You know, the Tennessee Valley Authority
is a huge electrical generation and distribution system in Appalachia.
(34:48):
Fanny and Freddy taken over during the financial crisis where
the government owns not withstanding what Bill l Ackman is asserting,
where the government fundamentally owns ninety to ninety five percent
of the equity value in them. You know, there are
those sorts of things that the government could try to
(35:11):
monetize and capitalize a sovereign wealth fund with. Now having
done that, let's say there's a two trillion dollars of
land values, mineral rights, ownership, and commercial enterprises that could
be that could capitalize a sovereign wealth fund, and some
(35:32):
of those things cashflow, or you could design them to
cash flow, so the sovereign wealth fund would actually have income.
And some of those assets could actually be monetized, like
the equity in Fanny and Ready and the equity and
the TVA, you could actually privatize them, sell them into
the public markets and create actual cash and the sovereign
(35:52):
wealth fund as opposed to just asset value. So there
you would have, you know, two trillion dollar fund that
could intervene in the foreign exchange markets to try to
intentionally weaken the dollar without having to engage in this
exchange offer and turn out our debt and try to
you know, browbeat with security umbrellas and tariff walls foreign
(36:19):
countries to help us in that endeavor.
Speaker 3 (36:21):
It's still a big bet on economic growth, though, right,
because the US has to grow enough to pay off
what it owes, and if it doesn't, then at some
point you have to hand back the collateral. And I
think people would be sad slash annoyed if they were
handing over all the gold or national parks, probably not
(36:43):
national parks, but land and things like that.
Speaker 4 (36:45):
Yeah. No, I you know, first of all, we never
pay off the debt, right, We just outgrow it. That's
the key here. The stock of debt is just refinanced
and rolled over continuously. You know, it'd be great to
pay it down one day, but we actually don't have
to do it. We just have to outgrow it. And
there are a couple of different ways that countries have
(37:06):
done this, some of which are more dangerous than others. Right,
you can inflate your way out of the debt. You
just you know, devalue your currency over time, and the
debt stock shrinks relative to the then current value of
your productive enterprises because you've devalued your currency, and so
(37:27):
the debt stock, which is fixed in amount, shrinks as
a relative to the size of the economy, now denominated
in much weaker currencies. You can try this kind of
marl lago, you know, exchange offer, and then, of course
the worst of all outcomes is an outright default where
you restructure the debt.
Speaker 2 (37:47):
You know, it seems to me, and I said in
the beginning, I sort of conceptualize these things in terms
of resource allocation and who gets what, and it seems
to me, you know, yeah, you could revalue the gold
in Fort Knox, And probably people are sitting here thinking like,
why wouldn't you do that if it's you know, it's
three thousand dollars and we have it at forty or whatever.
Of course, no, just do it. But that doesn't produce
(38:08):
more doctors, it doesn't produce more beds for hospitals, it
doesn't produce more food for senior citizens. You know, like
when we're talking about these resource constraints, which is how
I sort of think about it, it's an accounting trick, right,
because it doesn't ultimately it doesn't create any new factories,
It does not do any of that. Anyway, Let's talk
a little bit more. You know a lot about Fanny
(38:29):
and Freddy, and you've made a reference there to Bill
Ackman and the thing that I'm trying. You know, there's
obviously big profits being generated by these government owned enterprises,
and private investors would like access to those profits so
that they don't just get to the treasury. But then
to me, there's the question of, like, can you do
that in a way to avoid the problem, which is
(38:50):
that investors get access to those cash flows or access
to those profits without the implicit guarantee of the government.
Because you know, obvious like you'd love to keep both, right,
you'd love to privatize the profits and keep that backstop.
Is there any conceivable way to privatize them and actually
not have that backstop in place anymore?
Speaker 3 (39:11):
I think the expectation is they would implicitly keep the backstop,
like that's what investors fare well. This begs the question
why bother doing it at all?
Speaker 1 (39:21):
Right?
Speaker 2 (39:22):
Is there a way to do it that's not just
a giveaway?
Speaker 4 (39:25):
Yes there is? Okay, So there's a lot of history here. Yeah,
So before the financial crisis. These government sponsored, government chartered
entities had a special charter that enabled them to borrow
from the Treasury Department, and that was the source of
(39:47):
their being viewed session ultimately backed by the Treasury Department,
even though what they could get from the Treasury Department
was a mere fraction of their balance sheet size. But
the fact that they had that entitlement gave investors the
confidence that in a pinch, the government would step in
(40:07):
and take them over. And we had a pinch in
two thousand and eight, and the government did in fact
step in and put them into a conservatorship. The conservatorship
was structured to make that implicit backstop explicit, and the
Treasure Department entered into a preferred stock purchase agreement with
(40:28):
each of the entities under conservatorship pursue it, to which
the government actually purchased one hundred and ninety two billion
dollars of preferred stock in the two entities, infusing one
hundred and ninety two billion dollars worth of cash of
Treasure Department cash authorized by Congress under the Housing and
Economic Revery Act of two thousand and eight into the enterprises.
Speaker 3 (40:50):
In exchange for equity as well, right, they.
Speaker 4 (40:52):
Got preferred stock back, right, a senior preferred stock. That
senior preferred stock carried a fixed dividend which was converted
into a variable dividend in twenty twelve in order to
keep them from having just to borrow more prefer to
pay off the dividend. And so they were only then
(41:13):
required to pay a dividend to the extent that they
were profitable out of their net profits. And were they profitable.
They have paid the Treasury Department back now three hundred
and two billion dollars on that characterized as dividends on
that one hundred and ninety two billion dollar par investment.
Speaker 3 (41:34):
Yet not only are they profitable, they've also, as I
understand it, kind of restructured their business and increased their
capital basically like gotten ready for a sale while generating
a profit, which is pretty impressive.
Speaker 4 (41:48):
Yeah, So that the dividend stream to Treasury, which generated
three hundred and two billion dollars, was turned off in
twenty eighteen to allow them to build capital in anticipation
in Trump administration one that they would be privatized, and
so they allowed them to build capital. And so the
(42:09):
Treasure Department hasn't received any dividends since twenty eighteen, so
seven years ago. And during that seven year period, Fanny
and Freddie have built between the two of them almost
two hundred billion dollars of capital. That's still short of
the capital rule, the capital regulation that was created for
(42:30):
them during the conservatorship, but they're pretty damn close, probably
two years away from being meeting their minimum capital. There's
so called cet I capital levels. You know, there are
many of us who think that the capital rule that
was created for them grossly oversolved for their how much
(42:50):
capital they should carry.
Speaker 3 (42:51):
Right after the financial crisis, everyone's nervous.
Speaker 4 (42:54):
Exactly, and so you know, the as with the big banks,
the so called cithies, Fanny and Freddy have been subject
to so called stress tests to see how they would
fare in a severely adverse scenario where you know, the
(43:15):
financial markets declined by twenty percent, the interest rates go
up by ten percent, unemployment skyrocks, housing prices collapse, blah
blah blah. They've been subjected to stress tests over the
last couple of years, and those stress tests show that
basically their losses would be less than like ten billion dollars,
and so to have them carrying around in Fanny's case,
(43:38):
one hundred and fifty six billion of capital and in
Freddie's case, one hundred and twenty billion of capital against
what the stress test show would be negligible losses. Seems
like pretty a waste of that capital, just grossly over
solving them. But I'll get off my high hours on that.
On that leave them with those capital levels one hundred
(44:01):
and fifty six and one hundred and twenty billion, respectively,
they will be They would need another four years of
retained earnings to reach that. So if you were really,
if you weren't prepared to let them out of conservatorship
until they were fully capitalized, you'd wait four years and
then they'd be fully capitalized under that rule. And then
(44:23):
the question goes to the backstop. You know, why privatize them?
And can they be privatized without an explicit government guarantee. Well,
there's no reason in law or fact that would prohibit
them from carrying that preferred stock purchase agreement, that equity
backstop out of conservatorship and having the Treasury stand behind
(44:47):
this two hundred and seventy billion dollars worth of capital
with a commitment to buy two hundred and fifty billion
of capital should the need arise. So you know, if
in my view, Fanny carrying one hundred and sixty and
Freddy carry one hundred and twenty billion is already over capitalized,
well we're going to almost double that with the treasury backstop,
(45:10):
and Treasury should be paid for the privilege of standing
behind them a commitment fee, and could the earnings would
support a commitment fee, but that would give comfort to
the markets that you know, there's enough capital behind them
to ensure the prompt payment of principle and interest on
the underlying mortgages, that they guarantee. The benefit to the
(45:34):
government of doing this of instead of leaving them in
conservatorship in perpetuity, is that the government owns ninety odd
percent of the equity. They own the senior preferred stock.
They have a warrant to purchase eighty percent of the
stock for a penny you do you know, a classic
(45:55):
recapitalization turn the preferred stock into common, diluting the exists
in common and the Treasury Department's warrant, and Fanny, the
Treasury Department will end up owning ninety to ninety four
percent of the total common stock of cleanly capitalized companies.
What's that worth? The CBO did a recent analysis and said, well,
(46:18):
this is the Congressional Budget Office did a recent analysis,
and it's filled with lots of assumptions, and you could
quibble with some of them. But it's a dividend discount model,
which isn't you know, unheard of in the valuation of
financial institutions. And you know, they suggested the equity, the
total equity of which I think the government ends up
(46:40):
with at least ninety percent when you recapitalize, and the
total equities were somewhere between three hundred and five hundred
billion dollars.
Speaker 3 (46:48):
That's a decent number.
Speaker 4 (46:49):
That's a decent number to put in your softign wealth
fund or to pay down some of the deficit.
Speaker 3 (46:55):
The one question I have is, Okay, if the gsees
are privatized, the government gets a payout of an unknown amount,
but it could be pretty decent. As we said, is
there anything that Fanny and Freddy actually start doing differently
once they're privatized, so they get an influx of private capital,
what do they do with it?
Speaker 4 (47:16):
Okay, So this is a critical question of whether they're
going to be allowed to go back and do the
kinds of crazy things they did prior to the financial
crisis that got them into hot water. One of the
great innovations, along with Dodd Frank, coming out of the
financial crisis, was a new statute governing both the federal
(47:40):
home loan banks and Fanny and Freddy. It's this Housing
and Economic Recovery Act of two thousand and eight, which
created a new, stronger regulator called the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
This is the agency to which Bill Pulti has just
been confirmed as the director. But that agency has significant
(48:04):
supervisory and regulatory powers to constrain the business model that
Fanny and Freddy can pursue. So, I mean, just to
do it just a touch little more history. If you
look back to two thousand and three through to two
thousand and eight, you know what really got Fanny and
Freddy into trouble is they were running hedge funds. They
(48:25):
were a government sponsored hedge fund. Beyond the basic business
of securitizing so called conforming mortgages, you know, eighty LTV
or less safe mortgages, besides packaging them and securitizing them
and guaranteeing the prompt payment of principle and interest on
those mortgage backed securities, of which they are now seven
(48:48):
and a half trillion outstanding, so that they are the
big factor in that conventional mortgage market. In the run
up to the crisis, they also expanded their balance sheets.
They borrowed money at government rates, levered themselves up, and
bought all day subprime no dock private labeled securities in
(49:09):
order to goose their earnings, and they did it on
a highly levered basis. One of the great reforms that
has occurred during the conservatorships is those portfolios have been
completely wound down and so today the only balanced sheet
that they have is to facilitate a securitization business. Therein so,
they buy mortgages that have been originated by someone else,
(49:32):
they pull them, and then they securitize them, and with
the proceeds of the securitization, they repay the debt that
they incurred to buy the mortgages in the first place.
And similarly, when mortgages go bad in the MBS and
the securitizations, in order to fulfill their guarantee of prompt
(49:54):
payment of principle and interest on those securities, they buy
the mortgages out of the pools, restructure them, and modify them.
Speaker 3 (50:05):
Which is why agency MBS is treated as a very
safe and liquid asset for bank capital purposes.
Speaker 4 (50:12):
Exactly because Fanny and Freddie are there to guarantee the
prompt payment of principle and interest. And now if we
go back to the privatization, right, what will back that
guarantee is both the two hundred and eighty billion of
capital directly on their balance sheets as well as the
preferred stock purchase agreement with two hundred and fifty billion
(50:35):
of unused capacity. So behind that guarantee will stand more
than half a trillion dollars of capital. And so that
this is you know, when I get into debates with
people about people who are opposed to the privatizations, about
whether or not the privatization would create instability in the
(50:58):
MBS market, because would they suffer a ratings decline and
therefore attract higher capital for anyone who owned them, and
therefore higher rates on the mortgage backed securities which translate
into higher rates on the mortgages themselves. You know, that
(51:19):
is the big question. Is half a trillion dollars of
capital standing behind the guarantees enough to keep the credit
ratings on the MBS stable and in place. I think
it is. But you know, at the end of the
day there'll be a conversation with Moody's and S and
P and Fitch. Then they'll have to decide whether they
(51:42):
remain near sovereign credit.
Speaker 3 (51:44):
Oh, it's kind of funny that the credit rating agencies
are like, it's still in control.
Speaker 4 (51:49):
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1 (51:52):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (51:52):
So we've talked a lot about creative ways for the
US government to raise money and pay off its debt.
There's one we haven't talked about which is one of
my favorite financial topics of all time, and that is
the bonds owned by the US issued by other countries,
(52:13):
really old ones, Oh, like Chinese imperial debt or did
you know the UK owes the US a lot of
money from like World War Two loans?
Speaker 4 (52:23):
Oh, stell, I didn't know that.
Speaker 3 (52:24):
I didn't know that now, and as an intellectual curiosity,
I find it really interesting to think about the question
of what would happen if Trump decided to go after
those as a way of raising money. And this actually
came up in the first Trump administration. The Treasury was
looking at ways to get a payout on the Chinese bonds,
and funnily enough, it was doing that at the same
(52:46):
time that the SEC was prosecuting someone for selling those
bonds to investors and promising a payout. That's fun. That
could be fun.
Speaker 4 (52:56):
So these are I don't know anything about this. These
are bonds is issued by predecessor governments in China. Yeah,
you know there is some history of I'm aware of
some Czarist Russia bonds, Yeah, that are out there. Shortly
(53:18):
after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the French government
and the British government, representing French and British bond holders,
got the Russian Federation to acknowledge those bonds and make
a paud on them because the Russian Federation was desirous
(53:39):
of having access to the capital markets in Europe, and
the quid pro quo was to pay off the debts
of Czarist Russia.
Speaker 2 (53:50):
Well, we're in unshorted territory. This little like intellectual exercise
at the end of the conversation may one day not
just be an intellectual curiosity. Jim Millstein, so great to
have you back. We could just talk to you for hours.
Speaker 3 (54:04):
Thank you so much.
Speaker 2 (54:05):
Yeah, but that was a fantastic conversation.
Speaker 4 (54:08):
I appreciate you coming back on upline into it though.
Speaker 2 (54:11):
That's great, Tracy. I love talking to Jim.
Speaker 3 (54:28):
He's so good. He's great, and he lays everything out
so clearly, which is very useful when we're talking about
a hypothetical like this. The one thing, well, there are
a lot of things that I think are funny or
ironic in some of this discussion. But one of the
big ironies I think about is treasuries are kind of
the US's biggest export. Yeah, and Trump is obsessed with export,
(54:53):
I know, but he doesn't want to export those particular things,
even though you could make an argument that debt helps
to grow the private economy. As Jim was discussing.
Speaker 2 (55:05):
Uh, it is funny. I mean, look, I guess i'd
rather US export real things that employee.
Speaker 3 (55:10):
People that he could just take the win, right.
Speaker 2 (55:13):
Take the wind. Yeah, we're a big Uh, we're a
big exporter of these pieces of paper, not even pieces
of paper anymore.
Speaker 1 (55:18):
No.
Speaker 2 (55:19):
I thought there was like a great conversation. And look
the way I see it is some of this stuff
could be playing with fire, like we really don't know
how some of you know, some of these goals is
like we're going to like, you know, we're the fact
that Germany itself is rearming, and that for decades and
decades and decades, this sort of entire premise of sort
(55:39):
of Western geopolitics was preventing Germany from rearming.
Speaker 1 (55:43):
That was in.
Speaker 2 (55:44):
Itself this sort of is sort of like this like
massive pivot in world history feels like for me, and
you know, who knows decades from now, you know, we don't.
We might not know how the consequences of the ways
geopolitics have been reshaped by that decision.
Speaker 3 (56:00):
Well, this is the norm's point, right, Yes, Like norms,
it turns out, are actually pretty important, and there's a
risk of what happens once they're gone or they start
to change.
Speaker 2 (56:12):
Yeah, I would say two points. I mean one is, yes,
norms themselves I think are pretty important. And then you
get into things that are sort of beyond norms, questions
like once you bring in the conversation about and again
I don't know how serious it, but like restructuring debt
or et cetera, you're like, go beyond norms and you
actually like you could trigger trigger formal things.
Speaker 3 (56:33):
No, that's still a norm though, I guess it's like
historically has not defaulted on its death.
Speaker 2 (56:39):
No, but it's like there are things in pieces of paper,
right that like when you don't when you like try
to change.
Speaker 3 (56:44):
There are legalities, yeah, but frankly, legalities are being treated
as norms now right, I suppose so, yes, I suppose,
so shall we leave it there?
Speaker 2 (56:55):
Let's leave it there.
Speaker 3 (56:56):
This has been another episode of the ad Thoughts podcast.
I'm Tracy Alloway. You can follow me at Tracy Alloway and.
Speaker 2 (57:02):
I'm joll Wisenthal. You can follow me at the Stalwart.
Follow our producers Carmen Rodriguez at Carman armand dash Ol
Bennett at Dashbot and Keil Brooks at Kelbrooks. More Oddlots
content go to Bloomberg dot com slash odd Lots. We
have all of our episodes in a daily newsletter, and
you can chat about all of these things twenty four
to seven in our discord with fellow listeners at discord
(57:23):
dot gg slash od lots.
Speaker 3 (57:25):
And if you enjoy odd Lots, if you like it
when we talk about US debt restructuring potential US debt restructuring,
then please leave us a positive review on your favorite
podcast platform. And remember If you are a Bloomberg subscriber,
you can listen to all of our episodes absolutely ad free.
All you need to do is find the Bloomberg channel
on Apple Podcasts and follow the instructions there. Thanks for
(57:49):
listening in
Hosts And Creators
Joe Weisenthal
Tracy Alloway
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.