James Heskett is a Baker Foundation Professor, Emeritus at Harvard Business School
Published:
October 2, 2008
Author:
Jim Heskett
Summing Up
The depth of the global financial crisis is becoming clearer day by day. In the United States, it is being used as a reason to set aside ideology regarding government ownership of important financial institutions, possibly including those that also manufacture automobiles. Our changing attitudes toward these matters may help explain the reasoned responses to this month's questions, responses surprisingly devoid of emotion. Granted, the emphasis of the column was on how the Government should act, not whether. But responses, by and large, resisted the temptation to venture into the realm of ideology.
Some respondents doubted the Government's ability to achieve the Buffett result, if not the "Buffett Effect" of the column's title. Several argued that the Government, by necessity, has different goals and constraints. Dave Guenthner wondered whether "a government would have the same financial-only interest that Buffett has. He is investing to make money, not save the economy." Sameer Kamat cited several reasons—lack of "credibility" as an investor, a "business model" that avoids hard-to-understand business, and "patience" (the pressure for Government to exit its investments as soon as possible)—as reasons why "a Government bailout may not be perceived in the same way as a Buffett style investment." Henrique Abreu cited a lesson of the late Milton Friedman that "it is a different thing spending your money on someone else (Warren Buffett) or spending someone else's money on someone else (government intervention)." But at the same time, most were resigned to the necessity of government action. In Tom Henkel's words, "Government intervention, while appalling, is really the only short-term fix."
One at least partial solution to these concerns was put forth by Amit Maheshwari, who asked, "Why not ask Warren Buffett to invest the bailout amount on behalf of Govt (he works for money, does he not?) …." Several responding as a group from Bethel University asked whether it would be possible to find an expert investor, including Buffett, who truly is a "disinterested party."
This sparked a side discussion about regulation. As Wilson Kimutai put it, "If we bring in Government to bail out, … more regulation should be brought to stabilize the market." David Moore echoed this thought and went further, suggesting that American people should not be allowed "to obligate themselves to loans they cannot afford." Elizabeth Doty commented, "The promise that individual actions lead to societal gain also means that individual failures of judgment lead to societal risk and pain, as we are seeing…. This is why I think we need to step up to the regulation challenge."
Those trying to fix the blame for the problem pointed in several directions. Bottoms-up (mortgage related) as well as top-down (concerning only financial institutions) solutions were favored. Now the definition of those institutions qualifying for either work out or bail out will be tested further, leading us to the question of whether the U.S. automobile industry should qualify for help. Where should we draw the line? Is it now time for ideology to take over? What do you think?
Published:
October 2, 2008
Author:
Jim Heskett
Summing Up
The depth of the global financial crisis is becoming clearer day by day. In the United States, it is being used as a reason to set aside ideology regarding government ownership of important financial institutions, possibly including those that also manufacture automobiles. Our changing attitudes toward these matters may help explain the reasoned responses to this month's questions, responses surprisingly devoid of emotion. Granted, the emphasis of the column was on how the Government should act, not whether. But responses, by and large, resisted the temptation to venture into the realm of ideology.
Some respondents doubted the Government's ability to achieve the Buffett result, if not the "Buffett Effect" of the column's title. Several argued that the Government, by necessity, has different goals and constraints. Dave Guenthner wondered whether "a government would have the same financial-only interest that Buffett has. He is investing to make money, not save the economy." Sameer Kamat cited several reasons—lack of "credibility" as an investor, a "business model" that avoids hard-to-understand business, and "patience" (the pressure for Government to exit its investments as soon as possible)—as reasons why "a Government bailout may not be perceived in the same way as a Buffett style investment." Henrique Abreu cited a lesson of the late Milton Friedman that "it is a different thing spending your money on someone else (Warren Buffett) or spending someone else's money on someone else (government intervention)." But at the same time, most were resigned to the necessity of government action. In Tom Henkel's words, "Government intervention, while appalling, is really the only short-term fix."
One at least partial solution to these concerns was put forth by Amit Maheshwari, who asked, "Why not ask Warren Buffett to invest the bailout amount on behalf of Govt (he works for money, does he not?) …." Several responding as a group from Bethel University asked whether it would be possible to find an expert investor, including Buffett, who truly is a "disinterested party."
This sparked a side discussion about regulation. As Wilson Kimutai put it, "If we bring in Government to bail out, … more regulation should be brought to stabilize the market." David Moore echoed this thought and went further, suggesting that American people should not be allowed "to obligate themselves to loans they cannot afford." Elizabeth Doty commented, "The promise that individual actions lead to societal gain also means that individual failures of judgment lead to societal risk and pain, as we are seeing…. This is why I think we need to step up to the regulation challenge."
Those trying to fix the blame for the problem pointed in several directions. Bottoms-up (mortgage related) as well as top-down (concerning only financial institutions) solutions were favored. Now the definition of those institutions qualifying for either work out or bail out will be tested further, leading us to the question of whether the U.S. automobile industry should qualify for help. Where should we draw the line? Is it now time for ideology to take over? What do you think?
Original Transcription : HBS Working Knowledge November 2008
