The Dodd Plan Difference

It is clear that we have to do something quickly to resolve the Financial crisis. However, that does no mean that we simply have to cut a blank check and let it be spent with no oversight and accountability. The original plan presented by the Treasury Department was just that. While things are very fluid, and there are Congressional hearings going on as I type this, it appears that there have been several improvements to the plan, largely due to Congressional objections to the Paulson plan coming from both sides of the aisle.

A competing plan has been drawn up the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut. The final bill will most likely be a blend of the Dodd plan and the Paulson plan. The full Dodd plan can be found at:

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_ayo08b28.html

The Dodd plan has far stronger oversight provisions than the Paulson plan (which have virtually none, and explicitly disallowed any review by the courts or any other agency). There would be monthly reports to Congress as well as weekly press reports on the progress of the plan. There would be an oversight board, which would include the heads of the Federal Reserve, the SEC, the FDIC and one non-governmental employee picked by each party (i.e. the Democrats might pick someone like Warren Buffet and the GOP might pick someone like Mitt Romney).

It also requires the Government get contingent shares in any institution participating in the bailout. If the taxpayer is able to sell the acquired assets at a profit, as some have suggested (but which I see as extremely unlikely), then the Government would not get any stake in the companies. However if the taxpayer takes a hit, the government would end up with a big stake in the institutions. This would significantly dilute the existing shareholders, and would provide some solution to the huge moral hazard issues raised by the bailout. The proposal would also allow judges to modify the terms of mortgages if a homeowner declares bankruptcy (as they can with car loans or even second home loans).

While the Dodd proposal is not perfect, it represents a substantial improvement over the original Paulson plan. It is important to do something quickly, but it is just as important to do the right thing. "Quickly" means within a few weeks, not within a few hours. Congress should seriously reconsider its plans to adjourn at the end of the week to hit the campaign trail, and instead work on getting this right. It should also not load up this plan like a Xmas tree with every favored little project -- however worthy -- attached to it.

Regardless of which plan is enacted (and again I suspect the final result will be a combination of these two plans, perhaps with additional modifications) there has been enough economic damage inflicted that we are going to have a pretty severe economic slowdown.

If we get it right, it will be just a pretty bad recession. We have lived through many of those in the past, if we get it wrong, we face some extremely rough economic times ahead. Those warning about the potential of a second Great Depression are not kidding, but such an awful outcome is far from the only possibility.

In any case, invest under the assumption that we will have a significant economic slowdown. That means buy companies where there is demand for the products through good times and bad, and which have very strong balance sheets. Some of the Consumer Staples names seem to fit the bill, like Kraft (KFT - Analyst Report), Proctor & Gamble (PG - Analyst Report) and PepsiCo (PEP - Analyst Report). The Integrated Oil companies like Exxon (XOM - Analyst Report), Chevron (CVX - Analyst Report) and Conoco (COP - Analyst Report) also look like safe harbors in this storm.