The WSJ mistrusts companies which pay down debt

By Felix Salmon
December 15, 2010
Sharon Terlep's story on GM trying to pay down its debt is a great indicator of how the leverage-is-good meme simply refuses to die, even after the financial crisis.

" data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google" data-share-count="true">

Sharon Terlep’s story on GM trying to pay down its debt is a great indicator of how the leverage-is-good meme simply refuses to die, even after the financial crisis.

What GM is doing is very simple. The main reason to carry debt is the tax advantages it gets, but GM already has all the tax advantages it will be able to use for the foreseeable future thanks to all the losses it made in previous years. Meanwhile, as GM vividly remembers, carrying a large debt load can be devastating in a cyclical downturn. So GM is trying to pay down its debt and carry as little of it as possible.

But Terlep just can’t seem to believe it’s as simple as that. And so we find:

GM, like its Detroit rivals, had long carried a large debt load to help finance the business through the industry’s periodic downturns.

This makes no sense. A large debt load is a bad thing, not a good thing, in a periodic downturn. If a car company loses money in any given year, it has to borrow that money. But borrowing money is much easier and much cheaper if you have a small debt load than if you have a large debt load.

Terlep seems desperate to find some kind of a downside here:

GM’s plan carries risks. Should the car market again fall severely, GM may not be able to keep funding new vehicles and other investments through current earnings alone.

I’m not sure that’s a risk. If the car market again falls severely, then GM’s lower debt load will make it easier to borrow money to keep funding investments in new autos. GM CFO Chris Liddell isn’t ruling out borrowing money in a crisis — he’s just announcing a baseline plan for paying down debt if there isn’t a crisis. Indeed, a few grafs later, Terlep contradicts herself:

In wiping out most debt, GM hopes to cut the tie between sales levels and its ability to invest in vehicles.

Which is it to be? Does the plan mean that GM won’t be able to invest in vehicles during a downturn, or does it mean that GM will be able to invest in vehicles during a downturn? The latter is surely the case, but Terlep does seem to want to have it both ways.

And this is surely a stretch way too far:

Anticipating GM may again borrow at least some money, Barclays Capital and Goldman Sachs on Tuesday began quoting prices for credit-default swaps for GM debt, a way for investors to insure against losses in any bonds GM may issue.

Does Terlep really think that investors are going to buy protection now against bonds which “GM may issue” some time in the future? Of course not: they’re buying protection now against bonds which are outstanding now. But more to the point, quoting CDS prices on GM in no way means that Barclays and Goldman are “anticipating GM may again borrow at least some money.” Indeed, a case can be made that the opposite is the case: if GM really is going to pay its debt down to essentially nothing, then a great way of getting free money is to write protection on GM debt now, and then just cash your insurance premiums for the next 3 or 5 years. It’s certainly a lot cheaper than buying outstanding bonds.

All of which makes me mistrust something Terlep says earlier on in the story:

“The new GM is trying to be the new GM,” said Gimme Credit analyst Kimberly Noland. Yet over the long term she sees GM needing to return to borrowing.

“Needing,” here, is a strong term: if GM is going to need to return to borrowing over the long term, that basically means it’s going to lose money over the long term. Is that really what Noland meant? Or did she just suggest that GM at some point will issue debt, on its own terms? Given the tone of the rest of this piece, I wouldn’t assume that Noland said what Terlep says she said.

(Crossposted at CJR)


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

You definitely want to keep adequate cash reserves on hand. Paying down debt in the expectation that you can borrow the money back again at need is a chancy strategy.

Posted by TFF | Report as abusive

So do the new shareholders of a formerly bankrupt company get to deduct the losses that were incurred before it went bust? Isn’t it basically a brand new company? Are the debts that weren’t paid off deducted from those losses?

Posted by OnTheTimes | Report as abusive

Felix, isn’t the decision whether (a) to pay down the debt load, as is apparently the plan, vs (b) hold cash on the balance sheet for use when necessary? The article is not clear, but if they are going to keep debt then they are going to do something with the cash that would otherwise go to pay it down. It’s the cash on hand that comes as a by-product of not paying down pre-existing debt (borrowed during attractive market conditions) that would “help finance the business through the industry’s periodic downturns” and “keep funding new vehicles and other investments through current earnings alone.”

GM (and other capital-intense cyclical companies) generally don’t want to borrow during a downturn, it wants to have borrowed before the downturn and have the cash on hand to get them through. I think this is what TFF is getting at in the first comment as well.

Posted by right | Report as abusive

Agree with TFF and right. As an analogy, financial advisors recommend not to drain your bank account to pay down your mortgage because if you lose your job it may be hard to borrow then.

Posted by DanHess | Report as abusive

No debt is an unusual choice but debt matures and must be repaid or refinanced. When it cannot be refinanced in a downward slide, a company goes bankrupt like GM did. Many companies went bankrupt due to a debt caused liquidity crisis, not because their business failed.

Presumably GM believes that it can keep large amounts of cash on hand, no or little debt and have borrowing capacity. I would guess they will have a large revolving credit facility in place for when they need cash but if it is undrawn it tends to be relatively cheap insurance.

Posted by Dave777 | Report as abusive