How the Rent Seeking Model Failed Enron

When companies shift focus from servicing the consumers to seeking to profit from regulation, trouble lies ahead. That’s the story of Enron’s debacle according to a former employee.

Enron used to be the seventh largest corporation in the US, but filed for bankruptcy in 2001 (see timeline of Enron scandal here)

Writes Robert L Bradley Jr. at the Library of Economics and Liberty (hat tip Professor David Henderson)

Enron was a political colossus with a unique range of rent-seeking and subsidy-receiving operations. Ken Lay's announced visions for the company—to become the world's first natural-gas major, then the world's leading energy company, and, finally, the world's leading company—relied on more than free-market entrepreneurship. They were premised on employing political means to catch up with, and outdistance, far larger and more-established corporations.

A big-picture Ph.D. economist with Washington, D.C. experience regulating oil, gas, and electricity, Lay found his niche in the private sector managing federally regulated interstate gas-transmission companies, first at Florida Gas Company and then at Transco Energy Company. When Lay became CEO of Houston Natural Gas Corporation, he transformed a largely unregulated intrastate natural-gas company to a federally regulated (interstate) one in 1984-85. Then, during the next 16 years, he steadily moved the renamed Enron into rent-seeking.

The interesting part is how Enron gamed the system (bold added)

Any analysis of Enron's business history will reveal entrepreneurial error and unhealthy government dependence that left major divisions of Enron in the red or just marginally profitable. But rather than make midcourse corrections, Enron manipulated the highly prescriptive—indeed politicized—tax and accounting systems to create the illusion of profitability. Such gaming was another crucial government front for the company.

The corporate tax division acted as a profit center at Enron by meeting earnings targets. Federal investigators identified 881 offshore subsidiaries as part of Enron's tax-sheltering strategy. Enron's general tax counsel remembers reaching his gaming limit: "When the [tax-saving] number got up to $300 million [in 2001] I said... 'We have to come up with a way to get this through [real] earnings—through regular business'."

Gamed financial reporting was a second "profit center," as Enron scoured the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) rulebook to book paper earnings where economic profit (positive cash flow from operations) was absent. "Financial engineering" also hid liabilities and inflated assets, allowing Enron to meet investor expectations and concoct peculiar narratives about its business performance.

A particularly contrived business in this regard was Enron Energy Services (EES), which purportedly split energy savings with customers via long-term outsourcing agreements. EES buttressed Enron's "green" image, but the green was not monetary. Mark-to-market accounting turned into mark-to-model, under which arbitrary assumptions about future energy prices turned losses into profits. The GAAP game was even explained in Enron's employee Risk Management Manual:

Reported earnings follow the rules and principles of accounting. The results do not always create measures consistent with underlying economics. However, corporate management's performance is generally measured by accounting income, not underlying economics. Risk management strategies are therefore directed at accounting rather than economic performance.

A third exercise in government gaming that gave Enron false profitability concerned electricity trading in California in 2000-2001. Through contrived schemes with code names like "Get Shorty" and "Ricochet," Enron exploited loopholes in the state's highly regulated system, which generated hundreds of millions of dollars of paper profits that utilities and their ratepayers could not and would not pay. One manipulation was described in an Enron memo: "The net effect of these transactions is that Enron gets paid for moving energy to relieve congestion without actually moving any energy or relieving any congestion."

The bottom line:

Although an Enron could not have been predicted, it is yet another example of the unintended consequences of interventionism in the field of energy, as well as from the politicized accounting and tax systems that governed all corporations

And then there is the ultimate consequence from the dynamics of intervention. Historically, the failures of the mixed economy have been an excuse to further politicize the economy. Richard Epstein warned: "The greatest tragedy of the Enron debacle is not likely to be the consequences of the bankruptcy, but from the erroneous institutional reforms that will take hold if its causes are not well understood." The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002) and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (2002), enacted with Enron in mind, proved him right.

Read the rest here

The Anatomy of Rent Seeking: China Edition

Rent seeking is simply the manipulation of the social or political environment in order to obtain wealth through monopoly privileges (Wikipedia.org). Such actions usually comes in the form of subsidies, various political concessions and or regulations which works to prevent free market competition.

The following controversial article from Bloomberg (which reportedly has been censored in China, according to Zero Hedge) gives an example.

Bloomberg: (bold emphasis mine)

Xi Jinping, the man in line to be China’s next president, warned officials on a 2004 anti-graft conference call: “Rein in your spouses, children, relatives, friends and staff, and vow not to use power for personal gain.”

As Xi climbed the Communist Party ranks, his extended family expanded their business interests to include minerals, real estate and mobile-phone equipment, according to public documents compiled by Bloomberg.

Those interests include investments in companies with total assets of $376 million; an 18 percent indirect stake in a rare- earths company with $1.73 billion in assets; and a $20.2 million holding in a publicly traded technology company. The figures don’t account for liabilities and thus don’t reflect the family’s net worth.

No assets were traced to Xi, who turns 59 this month; his wife Peng Liyuan, 49, a famous People’s Liberation Army singer; or their daughter, the documents show. There is no indication Xi intervened to advance his relatives’ business transactions, or of any wrongdoing by Xi or his extended family.

While the investments are obscured from public view by multiple holding companies, government restrictions on access to company documents and in some cases online censorship, they are identified in thousands of pages of regulatory filings.

The trail also leads to a hillside villa overlooking the South China Sea in Hong Kong, with an estimated value of $31.5 million. The doorbell ringer dangles from its wires, and neighbors say the house has been empty for years. The family owns at least six other Hong Kong properties with a combined estimated value of $24.1 million.

Standing Committee

Xi has risen through the party over the past three decades, holding leadership positions in several provinces and joining the ruling Politburo Standing Committee in 2007. Along the way, he built a reputation for clean government.

He led an anti-graft campaign in the rich coastal province of Zhejiang, where he issued the “rein in” warning to officials in 2004, according to a People’s Daily publication. In Shanghai, he was brought in as party chief after a 3.7 billion- yuan ($582 million) scandal.

A 2009 cable from the U.S. Embassy in Beijing cited an acquaintance of Xi’s saying he wasn’t corrupt or driven by money. Xi was “repulsed by the all-encompassing commercialization of Chinese society, with its attendant nouveau riche, official corruption, loss of values, dignity, and self- respect,” the cable disclosed by Wikileaks said, citing the friend. Wikileaks publishes secret government documents online.

A U.S. government spokesman declined to comment on the document.

While inequality is an innate feature of the marketplace, it is even worse when political access and privilege drives these.

Again from the same Bloomberg article:

Increasing resentment over China’s most powerful families carving up the spoils of economic growth poses a challenge for the Communist Party. The income gap in urban China has widened more than in any other country in Asia over the past 20 years, according to the International Monetary Fund.

“The average Chinese person gets angry when he hears about deals where people make hundreds of millions, or even billions of dollars, by trading on political influence,” said Barry Naughton, professor of Chinese economy at the University of California, San Diego, who wasn’t referring to the Xi family specifically.

Read the rest here

Realize that when politicians and their followers peddle arguments based on “noble sounding” or “feel good policies” such as self sufficiency, nationalism, anti-foreign, currency manipulations-trade deficits, the need for political spending to generate employment (make work bias) and etc.., they are preaching of mercantilism and protectionism which tacitly promotes their interests and NOT of the consumers or of the “people”.

The ultimate beneficiaries of interventionists policies, like the above, are the powers that be.

Interventionism is the essence of rent-seeking politics or crony capitalism.

The rent seeking political economy is a universal phenomenon. The greater share of the political influences on the economy, the more economic opportunities are driven by rent seeking. This includes the Philippines. All you’ve got to do is to OPEN your eyes, use common sense and stop listening to sycophants and the institutional propaganda machines.

Politicians hardly practices on what they preach, as they are focused mainly on generating votes or approval ratings to preserve or expand their entitlements.

In the rent seeking political economy, there are many ways to skin a cat, something which the public can hardly see.

When media and politicians talk about “inequality”, like magicians, they simply are engaged in verbal manipulative framing of the public’s mindset. They deliberately shift the blame on market forces, what in essence are mainly caused by political inequality.

Warren Buffett’s Political Entrepreneurship Investing Paradigm

Warren Buffett has been unabashed crony for the Obama regime, to the extent that has even spited on the principles embraced by his Dad, Howard.

From an erstwhile venerable “value” investor, today Mr. Buffett’s investing formula has pronouncedly shifted into rent seeking.

Peter Schweizer of Reason reckoned in his March exposé on Warren Buffett that this folksy fellow “needed the TARP bailout more than most.”

Let’s run through the numbers. Berkshire Hathaway firms in total received $95 billion in TARP money. Berkshire, you’ll recall, held stock in Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and American Express. Not only did these companies receive TARP funds… they also dipped into the FDIC’s treasury to back their debt. Total bailout: $130 billion. TARP-enabled companies accounted for 30% of the Oracle’s publicly disclosed stock portfolio.

He’s definitely one of the top beneficiaries of the big bank bailout. And to sharpen the sting, he even got a better deal to help ailing Goldman Sachs than our own government. Buffett got a 10% preferred dividend while the Feds got all of 5%. He cleaned up with $500 million a year in dividends. Without the bailout, you can bet many of his stock holdings would have gone near-zero instead.

That’s from Addison Wiggins of the Daily Reckoning.

As I previously wrote, I think Mr. Buffett has been desperate about preserving his popularity, social privileges and political clout which seems to have mainly been latched on the sustenance of his track record, where the scale of his portfolio may have met the law of diminishing returns using his traditional "value" methods.

So instead of admitting reality, egoism has motivated him to radically shift strategies and to sacrifice principles for convenience.

Quote of the Day: Keynes the Crony

Writes Bob Wenzel,

He was 83% long going into the downturn that resulted in the 1929 crash. So how could Keynes be a great investor with such a bad performance? Because Keynes, the evil bastard, along with Bernard Baruch, talked FDR into confiscating the gold owned by all Americans. He then loaded up his portfolio with gold mining stocks and then urged FDR to prop up the price of gold.

So John Maynard Keynes practiced the interventionist theories he preached because he personally profited from them—he was a rent seeking crony after all!

Quote of the Day: Central Banking Crony Capitalism

The second point made in the classic video is that open market operations are a handout to the dealer banks. Suppose the government is going to spend an extra $100 that it does not have, and it will finance this by printing $100. In practice, it borrows $100 from "the Goldman Sachs" by issuing a bond, prints the $100, then pays "the Goldman Sachs" to get its bond back. This second method of funding the deficit is costlier to the government, but yields profits to "the Goldman Sachs." It also yields profits to the Fed, because the Fed is the agency printing the money, while the Treasury is the agency issuing the bonds. However, from a taxpayer's point of view, the Fed's profits are a wash (all of the Fed's gains come at the expense of the Treasury), and the only net impact is the income transfer to "the Goldman Sachs."

The Fed's response to the financial crisis was to massively increase the size of its balance sheet, thereby massively increasing the income transfer to private financial institutions. In addition, in order to keep this additional money from leaking to businesses or consumers in the form of loans*, the Fed introduced a policy of paying interest to banks on reserves. This increased the value of the transfer from taxpayers to financial institutions.

That’s from Professor Arnold Kling.

How Foreign Trade Restrictions Obstructs Economic Growth

In discussing the official complaint filed by the US at the World Trade Organization (WTO) against China’s rare earth export restrictions, Cato’s Dan Ikenson explains the adverse implications of trade restrictions. Mr. Ikenson writes, (bold emphasis mine)

USTR’s argument against Chinese export restrictions in the raw materials and Rare Earths cases are just as applicable to U.S. import restrictions. Removing restrictions—whether the export variety imposed by foreign governments or the import variety imposed by our own—reduces input prices, lowers domestic production costs, enables more competitive final-goods pricing and, thus, greater profits for U.S.-based producers.

Yet the U.S. government imposes its own restrictions on imports of some of the very same raw materials. It maintains antidumping duties on magnesium, silicon metal, and coke (all raw materials subject to Chinese export restrictions). In fact, over 80 percent of the nearly 350 U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty measures in place restrict imports of raw materials and industrial inputs—ingredients required by U.S. producers in their own production processes. But those companies—those producers and workers for whom Ambassador Kirk professes to be going to bat in the WTO case on rare earths (and the previous raw materials case)—don’t have a seat at the table when it comes to deciding whether to impose AD or CVD duties. (Full story here.)

Ambassador Kirk’s logic and the facts about who exactly is victimized by U.S. trade policies provide a compelling case for trade law reform, such as requiring the administering authorities to consider the economic impact of AD/CVD measures on producers in downstream industries—companies like magnesium-cast automobile parts producers, manufacturers of silicones used in solar panels, and even steel producers, who require coke for their blast furnaces.

Feel good protectionist policies does the opposite of what they intend to accomplish

Yet such policies have been imposed by vested interest groups, who uses the law (in cahoots with vote seeking politicians) to protect their economic standings at the expense of consumers and of the society. This is known as Rent Seeking.

Trade restrictions has significant direct and indirect (unseen spillover) impact to the economy.