|
The retail sector would have been hit especially hard. CIT serves as short-term financier to about 2,000 vendors that supply merchandise to 300,000 stores, according to the National Retail Federation. Analysts say 60 percent of the apparel industry depends on CIT for financing. "If CIT had gone under, that would have left a huge hole in the supply chain," said Craig Shearman, a spokesman for the National Retail Federation, one of the trade groups that had urged the government to prevent CIT's collapse. By not getting involved, the administration gambled that CIT was not so enmeshed with the financial system as companies like Citigroup, Bank of America and others banks that accepted federal bailout money, analysts said. "The government's sitting there saying, 'If this doesn't set off a meltdown of the financial system, there's no rationale to bailing out creditors,'" said Daniel Alpert, managing director of the investment bank Westwood Capital LLC. CIT, squeezed as its debt has come due and borrowers have drawn down their credit lines, had been scrambling to raise $2 billion to $4 billion. It received $2.3 billion from the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program last fall
- money that could be lost if CIT files for bankruptcy. The Federal Reserve put the company through its "stress test" last week and found it faced a $4 billion capital shortfall. It has more than $7 billion in debt due in the first quarter of next year. CIT had been in round-the-clock talks with regulators to reach a deal for emergency funding before talks broke down last week. The company had warned that depriving it of more federal aid could imperil about a million corporate borrowers. Once talks with government officials fell apart, CIT turned to some of its major bondholders for financial help. They struck a deal late Sunday. Federal officials were not involved in the negotiations that led to Sunday's deal, a Treasury official said Monday. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the matter. The government's hands-off approach marks a major shift in the crisis. In the past 16 months, the government has poured billions into stumbling mega-banks like Citigroup and Bank of America. It's also provided guarantees or guidance on the sales of Bear Stearns, Washington Mutual and Merrill Lynch. The nation's biggest banks still enjoy federal support through borrowing or debt guarantees. So how far the government is willing to go with its hands-off policy is unclear. "The question is, does it only apply to the small- and medium-sized guys, or does it apply to everyone?" said MIT's Johnson said. Scott Talbott, top lobbyist with the Financial Services Roundtable, which represents CIT and other big financial firms, said the government's seeming pullback from the banking sector was a welcome sign. "When the government steps in, you disrupt the market," he said. "That was necessary to restore liquidity but distorted the free-market system. Now the exit strategy is becoming clear."
[Associated
Press;
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This
material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or
redistributed.
News | Sports | Business | Rural Review | Teaching & Learning | Home and Family | Tourism | Obituaries
Community |
Perspectives
|
Law & Courts |
Leisure Time
|
Spiritual Life |
Health & Fitness |
Teen Scene
Calendar
|
Letters to the Editor