Too Big to Fail? Ha!

Recs

4

Alice in Wonderland expanded like a telescope after devouring cake marked "Eat Me," growing to such a size that her head bumped against the ceiling and she could no longer fit through the door.

A number of iconic businesses have seemingly found a similar magical elixir causing them to expand to such a size that they can no longer fit through the doorway of bankruptcy.

"Too big to fail."

How many times have we heard that lately? 

  • Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) had to be taken over by the government (after years of telling us the government had no hooks in them) because the reverberations of failure would shake the very foundations of our financial system.
  • American International Group (NYSE: AIG) had become so hopelessly entangled because of its investments in complex financial instruments, that unless the government bailed it out -- three times! -- the building blocks of Western civilization were at risk.
  • We're letting Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) and American Express (NYSE: AXP) change their business models solely for the purpose of grabbing fistfuls of taxpayer cash.
  • General Motors (NYSE: GM) traipsed up Capitol Hill to plead its case that if it is allowed to fail the ripple effects would be cataclysmic throughout the economy.

In each instance, wrack and ruin were predicted. It seems the only solution was for taxpayers to pony up billions, perhaps trillions, to keep them all afloat. After all, they're too big to fail. We can debate the finer points of how we got into this situation later on, the apologists will say, but right now we've got to do something.

Now Citigroup (NYSE: C) is stumbling toward oblivion. With half of its value wiped out in just three days of trading and 53,000 jobs on the chopping block, the whispers were loud enough that the bank "had" to receive another $20 billion from the healing hands of the taxpayers while also being shielded from losses on its bad loans.

It could be that those wanting a bigger role for the government are right, but if we're going to buy into their argument that using taxpayer money is the only way to save these companies, then perhaps we need some mechanisms instituted to prevent them from getting so large in the first place.

Perhaps we could make our economy look like a Brezhnev-era Soviet Union.

Maybe executives need strict salary and compensation caps to stop them from taking excessive risks to secure their excessive pay packages. Maybe we ought to limit the business a company can transact to prevent it from becoming so entwined in the economy that we are unable to extricate it without taxpayer assistance. Perchance executives and boards of directors need to be held personally liable for the damage they allow their companies to inflict.

But, really, we shouldn't want to impede how successful someone can become. And if we can't stop a company from growing "too big," then we can't pretend that a company is too big to fail, either.

There's no bottle labeled "Drink Me" that companies can take a swig from to shrink in size. They need the guidance offered by the risk of failure to rein in their excesses and that means we need to acknowledge that no company is too big to fail.

Closed for 15 months – opening 10 days only! Get notified ahead of time as our expert portfolio manager invests $1 MILLION in the best opportunities from across The Motley Fool’s premium investment services. This is the first open since August 2008, by invitation only. Enter email below.

American Express is a Motley Fool Inside Value recommendation. The Fool owns shares of American Express. Try any of our Foolish newsletters today, free for 30 days.

Fool contributor Rich Duprey does not have a financial position in any of the stocks mentioned in this article. You can see his holdings here. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On November 24, 2008, at 3:10 PM, toolzfoolz wrote:

    Nice to see a fresh perspective on the issue, Rich...great job! Some pretty good ideas there too.

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

TD AMERITRADE
more info
ShareBuilder
more info
Power E*Trade

more info
Scottrade
more info
Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 782003, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 11/10/2009 2:30:31 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

The Must-Read Story on Fool.com
Warren Buffett's Cold Shoulder

By The Motley Fool

Warren Buffett's Cold Shoulder

Related Tickers

11/10/2009 1:51 PM
GS $176.06 Down -0.51 -0.29%
Goldman Sachs Grou… CAPS Rating: ***
AXP $39.27 Up +0.22 +0.56%
American Express C… CAPS Rating: ***
FRE $1.21 Down -0.01 -0.83%
Freddie Mac CAPS Rating: *
GM $0.75 Down +0.00 +0.00%
General Motors Cor… CAPS Rating: *
AIG $37.86 Up +1.68 +4.64%
American Internati… CAPS Rating: **
C $4.17 Down -0.02 -0.48%
Citigroup, Inc. CAPS Rating: **
FNM $1.05 Down +0.00 -0.05%
Fannie Mae CAPS Rating: *

Community: Investing Wiki

Term Of The Hour

Nano cap: A nano cap is a company with relatively tiny market capitalization, generally below $50 million.

Want to learn more or edit this definition?
Click here to read more!