Altria, Lorillard, Citigroup, GM and AIG

CHICAGO--([ BUSINESS WIRE ])--Zacks.com Analyst Blog features: Altria (NYSE: [ MO ]), Lorillard (NYSE: [ LO ]), Citigroup (NYSE: [ C ]), GM (NYSE: [ GM ]) and AIG (NYSE: [ AIG ]).

Get the most recent insight from Zacks Equity Research with the free Profit from the Pros newsletter: [ http://at.zacks.com/?id=4579 ]

Here are highlights from Fridaya�s Analyst Blog:

On Power and the Constitution

All taxes create some distortions in the economy, but doesna�t it make sense to distort the economy in a good way rather than a bad way? Clearly the issue that this is most in the forefront here is carbon emissions right now. However, the logic of doing so is the same as the one for putting excise taxes on cigarettes. While many of those that oppose cap-and-trade or a carbon tax simply deny that Global Warming exists, the overwhelming scientific evidence is that it is real, and is happening even faster than Al Gore laid out in his Power Point presentation.

To my mind, the Global Warming deniers are in the same position as the tobacco executives of yore who claimed that smoking was not harmful to your health. In that case, we have gone the direct excise tax route. A cap-and-trade approach would be to say to Altria (NYSE: [ MO ]) and Lorillard (NYSE: [ LO ]), we will only allow, say, 1 billion packs of cigarettes to be sold this year, now you guys bid for the right to sell each pack up to that limit, then next year to lower the number of packs allowed to go down to 900 million and repeat the process.

In either case the price of the pack would go up, and the government would collect revenues. Thus when opponents of cap-and-trade call it aCap and Tax,a they have a valid point. My response is, aSo what?" We have to raise tax revenues somewhere, so why not do so by encouraging a decline in either cigarette consumption or carbon emissions? Doesna�t that make more sense than taxing (and thus discouraging) say employment through a payroll tax? Or income, through an income tax? After all, jobs and income are good things that we would want to see more of, not less of.

Next time you get into a conversation with someone opposed to either a carbon tax, or its indirect cousin, cap-and-trade, ask them if they also think that it would be a good idea to have cigarettes sell for just $1 per pack (about what they would cost without taxes on them). Of course if they simply deny that there is a problem, despite the scientific evidence, that argument will not work with them.

A cap-and-trade system was first used to control emissions of sulfur dioxide, and was put in place by the GOP. It has been extremely successful. After all, when was the last time you heard anyone talking about the damage being done by acid rain? When I was in college in the late 1970a�s, acid rain had the same general spot in the mind of environmentalists as Global Warming does today. The cost to control SO2 proved to be far less than expected, even by the proponents of the cap-and-trade system at the time it was put in place.

Think of the role of the regulator as being that of the referee in a football game, and the regulations being the rules. A football game would rapidly degenerate into something that was no longer recognizable as football without rules. Players have to know when something is in bounds or out of bounds. We dona�t want defensive ends to be rushing the Quarterback with knives in their hands. Clearly, though, referees can at times become too much a part of the game, so you want them to let the players play to some extent, but you also dona�t want to let the players get hurt.

When Powers Become Interchangeable

There is also a real danger as political and economic power start to become interchangeable. The basic presumption should be that political (governmental) power should be more tilted towards the interests of the poor and the middle class, since there are more poor and middle class voters than there are rich voters.

In the 19th century, senators were elected by state legislatures, not by the people directly. The votes of the state legislatures could be bought, and the end result was that the Senate turned into a millionaires club. That was ended by the 17th amendment. Recently, though, the power of money to influence the political process has again increased. This has happened as the cost of running a political campaign has risen dramatically.

The power of money, and thus the conflating of political and economic power, took a quantum leap upward with the Citizens United decision. Now, not only do corporations (and unions by the way, but the economic resources of corporations are far larger than the economic resources of unions) have the same free speech rights as individuals, they have more rights. Now a corporation can go to a Senator and say, "Here is a check for $1 billion. It will be spent on the upcoming political campaign. Which side it will be spent on is up to how you vote on this bill we are interested in. Oh, and by the way, we can put it to use without anyone finding out where the money came from."

Seriously, how is that functionally any different than outright bribery? I think it has to be on any top five list of worst Supreme Court decisions ever (on par with Dread Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson and the blatantly political Bush v. Gore decision that even the majority of the court thought was so weak that they said in the decision that it should not be used as future precedent would also make my list of truly awful decisions).

It is not a one-way street, though. The political power is then used to further increase economic power -- to get regulations written in such a way that it favors one company over another, to steer government contracts in one direction or another. The question becomes not why is there so much money in politics, but why is there so little.

aBuyinga a politician is almost always the highest ROI investment available. The self-reinforcing cycle continues and undermines the division of power principal that is at the heart of the Foundersa� genius. What you end up with is acrony capitalism.a Historically (at least in the 20th century) this was mostly associated with third-world countries, such as Indonesia under Suharto. Crony capitalist economies are not particularly strong or efficient economies, and tend to have lots of monopolies.

The TARP Bailout

A good example of firms having excessive political power that is then turned into further economic rewards for the powerful was the TARP bailout. While I agree that it would have been totally irresponsible to sit back and do nothing, the terms on which the financing was offered was exceedingly generous.

Wall Street had to pay no real price for the disaster. This year bonuses on the Street are expected to hit a record $144 billion, or about 1% of GDP. Most (i.e. over 50%) of that money will go to fewer than 10,000 individuals -- out of a population of 310 million -- and about 140 million individual tax returns. That would work out to about an average of $7.2 million for each of those 10,000. If 90,000 or so split the remaining half of the bonus pool, that would work out to an average of $800,000 each.

In other words, Wall Street makes up a very significant fraction of the top 1% that would see their marginal tax rate rise from 35% to 39.6% if the top end of the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire.

Supposedly the banks are better capitalized now, but that is only if you think that their book values belong on the non-fiction shelf. I dona�t, since they dona�t have to mark their troubled assets to market, and can just pretend that they are worth something close to face value.

The financial system would be much better served, and the economy more stable, if most of that bonus pool had been simply retained by the firms and strengthened their capital position. (To the extent that the bonuses are paid in restricted stock, it does help to strengthen the bank's capital position, albeit at the expense of dilution of the non-employee shareholders).

Remember that most of those 10,000 individuals are the same people who screwed up so royally that they had to be bailed out or the entire world economic system would have crumbled. Yes, it now looks like the government will roughly break even on the whole TARP deal, and perhaps make a small profit, but the taxpayer was taking an enormous risk. We should have gotten returns that were commensurate with the risk.

I should note that I am referring to the TARP program as it was eventually structured, where the government injected capital, temporarily, directly into the banks' balance sheets. The original plan called for by Treasury Secretary Paulson -- to simply buy up the crap paper at something close to face value -- would have simply been a direct gift from the taxpayers to the shareholders of the banks.

It was perhaps the worst single piece of legislation ever seriously proposed in the history of the U.S. Congress. In addition to being a looting of the Treasury, it would have also been almost totally ineffective in shoring up the financial system. The country owes Chris Dodd and Barney Frank a huge debt of gratitude. They transformed a truly awful proposal into one that was at least effective in stabilizing the banking system, and which ultimately did not cost the taxpayers that much. The net cost of the original plan to the tax payer would have probably been on the order of $650 billion (of the $700 billion authorized).

As amended, we did not come close to ever using the whole amount authorized, and have already gotten most of the money back. Which side of the break even line we ultimately fall on will depend on the ultimate price we get for our remaining stakes in Citigroup (NYSE: [ C ]), GM (NYSE: [ GM ]), Chrysler and AIG (NYSE: [ AIG ]) (Fannie and Freddie are a whole different kettle of fish). In any case, it is going to be a much smaller number than $700 billion.

Want more from Zacks Equity Research? Subscribe to the free Profit from the Pros newsletter: [ http://at.zacks.com/?id=5514 ].

About Zacks Equity Research

Zacks Equity Research provides the best of quantitative and qualitative analysis to help investors know what stocks to buy and which to sell for the long-term.

Continuous coverage is provided for a universe of 1,150 publicly traded stocks. Our analysts are organized by industry which gives them keen insights to developments that affect company profits and stock performance. Recommendations and target prices are six-month time horizons.

Zacks "Profit from the Pros" e-mail newsletter provides highlights of the latest analysis from Zacks Equity Research. Subscribe to this free newsletter today: [ http://at.zacks.com/?id=5516 ]

About Zacks

Zacks.com is a property of Zacks Investment Research, Inc., which was formed in 1978 by Leonard Zacks. As a PhD in mathematics Len knew he could find patterns in stock market data that would lead to superior investment results. Amongst his many accomplishments was the formation of his proprietary stock picking system; the Zacks Rank, which continues to outperform the market by nearly a 3 to 1 margin. The best way to unlock the profitable stock recommendations and market insights of Zacks Investment Research is through our free daily email newsletter; Profit from the Pros. In short, it's your steady flow of Profitable ideas GUARANTEED to be worth your time! Register for your free subscription to Profit from the Pros at [ http://at.zacks.com/?id=4580 ].

Visit [ http://www.zacks.com/performance ] for information about the performance numbers displayed in this press release.

Join us on Facebook: [ http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/pages/Zacks-Investment-Research/57553657748?ref=ts ]

Disclaimer: Past performance does not guarantee future results. Investors should always research companies and securities before making any investments. Nothing herein should be construed as an offer or solicitation to buy or sell any security.

N@N

Altria, Lorillard, Citigroup, GM and AIG