Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 27 Aug 2014, 17:32

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Cliff Asness' Response to Obama

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 25 Mar 2009
Posts: 305
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 66 [1] , given: 6

GMAT Tests User
Cliff Asness' Response to Obama [#permalink] New post 30 Jun 2009, 12:06
1
This post received
KUDOS
This was from a few months ago, but I thought I'd share here since my mind started going off on a tangent while reading the other 80% cap gains tax thread.

http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/05/c ... or-my.html

Unafraid In Greenwich Connecticut
Clifford S. Asness
Managing and Founding Principal
AQR Capital Management, LLC

The President has just harshly castigated hedge fund managers for being unwilling to take his administration’s bid for their Chrysler bonds. He called them “speculators” who were “refusing to sacrifice like everyone else” and who wanted “to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout.”

The responses of hedge fund managers have been, appropriately, outrage, but generally have been anonymous for fear of going on the record against a powerful President (an exception, though still in the form of a “group letter”, was the superb note from “The Committee of Chrysler Non-TARP Lenders” some of the points of which I echo here, and a relatively few firms, like Oppenheimer, that have publicly defended themselves). Furthermore, one by one the managers and banks are said to be caving to the President’s wishes out of justifiable fear.

I run an approximately twenty billion dollar money management firm that offers hedge funds as well as public mutual funds and unhedged traditional investments. My company is not involved in the Chrysler situation, but I am still aghast at the President's comments (of course these are my own views not those of my company). Furthermore, for some reason I was not born with the common sense to keep it to myself, though my title should more accurately be called "Not Afraid Enough" as I am indeed fearful writing this... It’s really a bad idea to speak out. Angering the President is a mistake and, my views will annoy half my clients. I hope my clients will understand that I’m entitled to my voice and to speak it loudly, just as they are in this great country. I hope they will also like that I do not think I have the right to intentionally “sacrifice” their money without their permission.

Here's a shock. When hedge funds, pension funds, mutual funds, and individuals, including very sweet grandmothers, lend their money they expect to get it back. However, they know, or should know, they take the risk of not being paid back. But if such a bad event happens it usually does not result in a complete loss. A firm in bankruptcy still has assets. It’s not always a pretty process. Bankruptcy court is about figuring out how to most fairly divvy up the remaining assets based on who is owed what and whose contracts come first. The process already has built-in partial protections for employees and pensions, and can set lenders' contracts aside in order to help the company survive, all of which are the rules of the game lenders know before they lend. But, without this recovery process nobody would lend to risky borrowers. Essentially, lenders accept less than shareholders (means bonds return less than stocks) in good times only because they get more than shareholders in bad times.

The above is how it works in America, or how it’s supposed to work. The President and his team sought to avoid having Chrysler go through this process, proposing their own plan for re-organizing the company and partially paying off Chrysler’s creditors. Some bond holders thought this plan unfair. Specifically, they thought it unfairly favored the United Auto Workers, and unfairly paid bondholders less than they would get in bankruptcy court. So, they said no to the plan and decided, as is their right, to take their chances in the bankruptcy process. But, as his quotes above show, the President thought they were being unpatriotic or worse.

Let’s be clear, it is the job and obligation of all investment managers, including hedge fund managers, to get their clients the most return they can. They are allowed to be charitable with their own money, and many are spectacularly so, but if they give away their clients’ money to share in the “sacrifice”, they are stealing. Clients of hedge funds include, among others, pension funds of all kinds of workers, unionized and not. The managers have a fiduciary obligation to look after their clients’ money as best they can, not to support the President, nor to oppose him, nor otherwise advance their personal political views. That’s how the system works. If you hired an investment professional and he could preserve more of your money in a financial disaster, but instead he decided to spend it on the UAW so you could “share in the sacrifice”, you would not be happy.

Let’s quickly review a few side issues.

The President's attempted diktat takes money from bondholders and gives it to a labor union that delivers money and votes for him. Why is he not calling on his party to "sacrifice" some campaign contributions, and votes, for the greater good? Shaking down lenders for the benefit of political donors is recycled corruption and abuse of power.

Let’s also mention only in passing the irony of this same President begging hedge funds to borrow more to purchase other troubled securities. That he expects them to do so when he has already shown what happens if they ask for their money to be repaid fairly would be amusing if not so dangerous. That hedge funds might not participate in these programs because of fear of getting sucked into some toxic demagoguery that ends in arbitrary punishment for trying to work with the Treasury is distressing. Some useful programs, like those designed to help finance consumer loans, won't work because of this irresponsible hectoring.

Last but not least, the President screaming that the hedge funds are looking for an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout is the big lie writ large. Find me a hedge fund that has been bailed out. Find me a hedge fund, even a failed one, that has asked for one. In fact, it was only because hedge funds have not taken government funds that they could stand up to this bullying. The TARP recipients had no choice but to go along. The hedge funds were singled out only because
they are unpopular, not because they behaved any differently from any other ethical manager of other people's money. The President’s comments here are backwards and libelous. Yet, somehow I don’t think the hedge funds will be following ACORN’s lead and trucking in a bunch of paid professional protestors soon. Hedge funds really need a community organizer.

This is America. We have a free enterprise system that has worked spectacularly for us for two hundred plus years. When it fails it fixes itself. Most importantly, it is not an owned lackey of the oval office to be scolded for disobedience by the President.

I am ready for my “personalized” tax rate now.
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 28 Feb 2008
Posts: 1323
Schools: Tuck
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 117 [0], given: 6

GMAT Tests User
Re: Cliff Asness' Response to Obama [#permalink] New post 01 Jul 2009, 11:32
Good post.

Obama made a joke during a commencement speech that is someone criticizes him too much, he'll just have the IRS audit them.

It was meant as a joke, but it's not funny.

The Chrysler bond holders invested in the company based on the idea that they would be one of the first in line when it came to liquidating assets. They ended up waiving that right. Why? I would assume the president strong armed/convinced them to accepting less than they would have normally gotten.

I mean, why else would you give up that kind of a right?

RF
_________________

Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership

CEO
CEO
User avatar
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 2995
Followers: 55

Kudos [?]: 430 [0], given: 210

GMAT Tests User
Re: Cliff Asness' Response to Obama [#permalink] New post 01 Jul 2009, 23:21
Great read +1. This is sounding more and more like the world from Atlas Shrugged.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 30 Jul 2007
Posts: 385
Location: Europe
Schools: St. Gallen '09
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 5

GMAT Tests User
Re: Cliff Asness' Response to Obama [#permalink] New post 05 Jul 2009, 03:54
Wasn't AIG essentially a big hedge fund?

They were bailed out...
Re: Cliff Asness' Response to Obama   [#permalink] 05 Jul 2009, 03:54
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Obama wins nobel prize thomaswos 0 26 Oct 2009, 20:03
1 Obama Fried Chicken nink 7 04 Apr 2009, 18:15
Monthly expenses - Cliffs - PS Amit05 6 06 Nov 2006, 06:50
DS - Cliffs Amit05 2 06 Nov 2006, 06:28
Cliff's GMAt review nakib77 0 22 Sep 2005, 12:49
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Cliff Asness' Response to Obama

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.