April 26, 2024

You’re the Boss Blog: Do Romney’s Budget Pledges Threaten S.B.A. Loans?

The Agenda

How small-business issues are shaping politics and policy.

Should Mitt Romney become president next year, he will face a difficult question pitting his eagerness to help small businesses against his eagerness to shrink the government: What to do with the Small Business Administration?

Since taking office in 2009, President Obama is on track to nearly double the S.B.A.’s budget. But apart from a burst of stimulus spending in 2009 and 2010 to increase lending temporarily, the infusion has not expanded the S.B.A.’s reach — it has merely allowed the agency to maintain its existing loan volume. Much of the S.B.A.’s mission is to guarantee loans to small companies that banks would otherwise not make, and steep cuts would likely force the agency to turn away borrowers.

While Mr. Romney’s campaign has been short on specifics about how it plans to achieve a “smaller, simpler, smarter” federal government, it does make two promises on its Web site that could affect the S.B.A.:

• Send Congress a bill on Day One that cuts nonsecurity discretionary spending by 5 percent across the board
• Pass the House Republican Budget proposal, rolling back President Obama’s government expansion by capping nonsecurity discretionary spending below 2008 levels

Either proposal could make it harder for small-business borrowers to receive government-backed loans, because federal law requires the government to set aside money to cover the cost of loans that it estimates will go bad, and the recession has driven those costs up by making small-business loans much riskier. Before the recession, fees on borrowers and lenders paid for the cost of loan defaults, but those fees have reached a cap set by law and can’t be increased unless Congress changes the law. Instead, since 2010, Congress has appropriated a subsidy to make up for the difference between the fees received and the allocation for defaults.

Largely because of the subsidy, the S.B.A.’s appropriation for small-business programs (that is, excluding funds for disaster loans, which the S.B.A. also administers) in 2013 will likely approach $1 billion, nearly double the appropriation in 2008. Loan subsidies for the agency’s two main loan programs, which cost taxpayers nothing in 2008, will grow to somewhere around $340 million, enough to support $22 billion in financing.

There is a fairly direct correlation between the size of the subsidy and the amount of lending — if the subsidy shrinks by 5 percent, lending will fall by roughly the same amount. That said, estimating the effects of Mr. Romney’s proposed 5 percent cut is a little complicated, if only because it is unclear what the starting point for the cut would be. Is it the president’s proposed budget for 2013? Is it the actual appropriation for 2012? Is it something else? (The Romney campaign declined to clarify.)

Taking 5 percent off what the Obama administration has proposed — and the House and Senate have largely accepted — for the S.B.A. in fiscal year 2013 would probably amount to a modest cut, but could still shut out some borrowers unless the agency is able to move some money around. If, on the other hand, Mr. Romney chooses to cut 5 percent from the 2012 budget, S.B.A. lending could be decimated. According to an Obama administration budget analyst who ran the numbers — but insisted on anonymity — the agency would be reduced to guaranteeing just $13.3 billion in loans in 2013. That is a third less than the $19.4 billion it has approved so far this year.

And slashing spending to below the level in 2008, when there were no subsidies, could effectively end S.B.A. lending. In the current economic environment, the loan programs cannot legally operate without a subsidy appropriated by Congress. (The S.B.A. will likely have some subsidy funds leftover at the end of 2012 that it can use next year, but once that money is spent, it will need a new appropriation to continue making loans.)

There appears to be little enthusiasm in Congress for raising those fees to substitute for the subsidy. In a budget letter this year, Republicans on the House Small Business Committee opposed both raising loan fees and cutting subsidies. The House, in its appropriation bill for 2013, actually passed a subsidy that was even larger than the president requested to support more loans.

But in an e-mail statement, Representative Sam Graves, the committee chairman, supported a 5 percent budget cut for the S.B.A. — even from the agency’s actual 2012 appropriation. “Our massive debt is acting as an ominous cloud over our economy, therefore, cutting the federal budget is necessary to help provide a better economic environment for small-business growth,” he said. “We can cut a lot of fat in every agency, including the S.B.A. There are some core programs that are useful, but there’s no question that there’s 5 percent of waste in agencies and numerous duplicative programs with little to show for the taxpayers’ generous investment.”

The Agenda sought the Romney campaign’s comment on the squeeze the S.B.A. might face and more generally on the agency’s place in Mr. Romney’s small-business agenda. The response from a campaign spokeswoman, Amanda Henneberg, didn’t mention the S.B.A. “Governor Romney has proposed bold policies that champion small business and support the economic growth needed to help create 12 million jobs in his first term,” Ms. Henneberg said in an e-mailed statement. “Chief among these policy proposals is reducing taxes on job creation through individual and corporate tax reform, stopping the increase in regulation that tangles job creators in red tape, and replacing Obamacare with real health care reform that controls cost and improves care.”

The S.B.A. also went unmentioned at the Republican convention two weeks ago, which dedicated an entire night to the theme of “We Built It” — a dig at President Obama’s “you didn’t build that” moment in July. But even so, the choice of speakers that evening illustrated the agency’s importance, perhaps unintentionally. Three of the four small-business owners who proclaimed on the dais that night that they built their businesses themselves have borrowed money with guarantees from the S.B.A. And the fourth sought business counseling from a small-business development center and a women’s business center — both organizations that are supported by grants from the S.B.A. and that might see less funding if Mr. Romney wins and follows through on his campaign pledges.

Article source: http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/do-romneys-budget-pledges-threaten-s-b-a-loans/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Bucks Blog: Tuesday Reading: Attacking the Causes of the Obesity Epidemic

September 13

Tuesday Reading: Attacking the Causes of the Obesity Epidemic

Attacking the causes of the obesity epidemic, student loan defaults rise sharply, how to use the U.S. News college rankings and other consumer-focused news from The New York Times.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=d9432675c0ba10af95e9818959d3cf73

Bucks Blog: Monday Reading: How to Personalize Your Online Hotel Search

September 13

Tuesday Reading: Attacking the Causes of the Obesity Epidemic

Attacking the causes of the obesity epidemic, student loan defaults rise sharply, how to use the U.S. News college rankings and other consumer-focused news from The New York Times.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=8787e7fc41c7b2d9d330b9017a8b8a2a

Moody’s Sees Much Bigger Local Debt in China

BEIJING — China’s local government debt may be 3.5 trillion renminbi ($540 billion) larger than auditors estimated, potentially putting banks on the hook for deeper losses that could threaten their credit ratings, the rating agency Moody’s said Tuesday.

China’s mountain of local government debt has long been seen as a major risk by investors. The worry is that slower growth in the world’s second-biggest economy after that of the United States could set off a wave of loan defaults and hobble its banking system.

“Banks’ exposure to local government borrowers is greater than we anticipated,” Yvonne Zhang, a Moody’s analyst, said in a statement.

Unless China comes up with a “clear master plan” to clean up the problem, the credit outlook for Chinese banks could turn negative, Moody’s said.

Moody’s debt tally is near the midpoint of various estimates from Chinese authorities, which used different definitions and accounting methods to compute their debt totals. The varying figures have led to confusion about just how serious the problem could become if heavily indebted local governments default, saddling banks with large loan losses.

Moody’s said it was hard to judge which banks had taken on the most local government debt, but Bank of China and China Citic Bank were among those that had lent more aggressively than their peers during China’s bank lending spree in 2009.

China’s state auditor reported last week that local governments had accumulated 10.7 trillion renminbi of debt, about half of it amassed during a stimulus spending binge as Beijing sought to cushion the blow of the global recession.

Moody’s said the auditor’s report excluded some bank-funded loans because they were not deemed to be “real claims” on local governments. But the rating agency said that those loans posed the greatest risk of delinquency and that banks may face losses.

The warning weighed on Chinese bank shares, which were the biggest drag on the Hang Seng index for the Hong Kong stock market Tuesday. However, the share declines were modest, and analysts expressed confidence that banks could withstand loan losses.

“Even if the worst-case scenario happened, it’s not going to be fatal,” said Victor Feng, an equity strategist at Everbright Securities in Shanghai. “Profits may drop, but banks will not go bankrupt.”

The rating agency said a jump in local government loan defaults could push the nonperforming loan ratio for Chinese banks as high as 12 percent, well above its base-case scenario that envisions losses in the range of 5 percent to 8 percent.

Government figures show the average nonperforming loan ratio was 1.1 percent at the end of March.

Moody’s outlined three scenarios for resolving the debt problem. Most likely, Beijing would work on a case-by-case basis to help local governments to get funding. China might ask banks to absorb losses on loans for which local governments are not liable. Moody’s said this scenario would probably involve a fair amount of debt restructuring by banks.

In the worst-case scenario, Beijing would leave banks and local governments to thrash out the issue on their own. This could hurt investor confidence in China, as there would be no clarity on China’s debt problems and loan disputes could drag on, thereby worsening losses.

The best case would involve Beijing’s stepping in to supply local governments with funding or take on some of their debt, although Moody’s acknowledged that this would raise so-called moral hazard issues of banks’ assuming excessive risk, knowing the government would always come to their rescue.

Reuters reported on May 31 that China’s regulators planned to shift 2 trillion to 3 trillion renminbi of debt off of local governments to ease the default threat.

About half of the debt dates to the 2008 financial crisis, when Beijing unveiled a 4 trillion-renminbi fiscal stimulus package that compelled the local authorities to spend their way back to economic health.

But the legacy of the massive spending is now catching up with China, as maturity dates for the loans, many of which are due in 2013, draw closer.

While most loans were used to build roads and other infrastructure that some analysts argue that China needs, it has also generated some wasteful spending.

Peter Elston, a strategist at Aberdeen Asset Management Asia, said the episode served as a reminder that Chinese banks can be used as instruments of the state, making them less attractive as investment options.

“It is very sad, because it is going to take a very long time for them to convince investors that they are run for the benefit of shareholders and not for the benefit of the broader economy,” Mr. Elston said in an interview in Singapore.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=057be9c72ef58b404d4e48c9502a119d