Saturday, August 01, 2009

NYT Article about BB&T, Allison, Rand, and Objectivism

See the really good New York Times article about BB&T bank and its chairman John Allison, and the connection with author/philosopher Ayn Rand and her philosophy, Objectivism: Give BB&T Liberty, but Not Bailouts. It talks about Mr. Allison and BB&T, but also the significant increase in interest in Rand and Atlas Shrugged in the past year. It includes criticisms as well (page 2 of the web edition), which I disagree with.

The commonplace overviews of Rand and Objectivism is included, but what was most interesting in this article was the part focusing on Allison and BB&T Bank:

He started at BB&T, once known as the Branch Banking and Trust Company, in 1971 and became chief executive in 1989, when the bank had $4.7 billion in assets.

By the time he retired as C.E.O. in December, he had overseen 60 bank and savings-institution acquisitions and turned BB&T into the 11th-largest bank in the nation, with $152 billion in assets, according to the bank.

A 60-year-old who speaks in a rapid-fire Southern accent, Mr. Allison says the current financial crisis is primarily the government's fault. He criticizes the Fed as trying to manipulate normal business cycles and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as facilitating mortgages to people who couldn't afford them.

The government's remedies have made matters only worse, he says: "Almost everything that has been done since this crisis started is going to reduce our long-term standard of living." Mr. Allison says the government forced BB&T and some other healthy banks to accept TARP money to obscure that they were simply trying to save several large banks like Citigroup.

"Everyone thinks we got some kind of subsidy," he says, noting that his company paid the money back in June, with interest. "It's going to cost us about $250 million for money we didn't want."

He suggests that government get out of the way and let businesses start making money again. An example of how to make money? Look no further than BB&T, which, he says, has a proven formula for success that centers on "an uncompromising commitment to reason."

Under Mr. Allison, new executives were handed a copy of "Atlas Shrugged." All employees get a 30-page pamphlet describing BB&T's philosophy and values: reason, independent thinking and decisions based on facts.

"Wishing something is so does not make it so," Mr. Allison says. "I guarantee that long before the rest of us knew, those geniuses at Lehman Brothers knew that something was wrong, but they evaded it."

Mr. Allison was introduced to Ms. Rand's work in college, when he read her book "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal." He describes egalitarianism as the "most destructive principle in our society" and believes that the best employees should receive the most rewards.

"It's not true that everybody is equal," he says. "A lot of business people don't want to deal with nonperformance."

Mr. Allison cites two examples in which the bank's philosophy guided its real-world decisions.

After the Supreme Court upheld the right of local governments in 2005 to condemn private property and hand it to someone else for commercial development, he says, BB&T refused to make loans to developers who obtained property that way.

He also says BB&T decided not to offer the controversial "pick a payment" mortgages that got so many of its competitors into trouble. Such loans, also known as "option A.R.M.'s" or "negative amortization loans," allow borrowers to make payments that don't even cover the interest on the loans, which causes the amount they owe to grow.

"While we did not foresee the decline in the real estate market, we knew home prices would not continue to appreciate at 15 percent per year forever," he says, adding that his bank knew that pick-a-payment loans would be trouble for many homeowners.

"We believe Rand's concept of the 'trader principle,' where life is about trading value for value, where both parties benefit from the transaction," he says.

...

Although BB&T has had problems during the financial crisis, it has outperformed its peers and remained profitable. After the government stress-tested major banks' balance sheets in May, BB&T wasn't required to raise additional capital.

"The philosophy has clearly been a competitive advantage," Mr. Allison says.

Labels:

4 Comments:

At 2:46 AM , Blogger john said...

Very curious for the NYTimes. They normally just ridicule Ayn Rand if not worse. It's just automatic.

Perhaps several things are going on...
1) The Times is noticing the blog activity about the current crisis and collectivist response raising the cry of "I am Shrugging" etc, signally the depth to which Atlas is emmbedded in the culture; they are going along with that flow a litte;

2) The unmistakably shocking rise of a half-century old book they have trashed all this time which has trippled in sales this year;

3) The impression made by the very poorly hidden secret that Allison was FORCED to take the bailout funds and the speed and passion deployed to return it at the earliest permitted moment. That is impressive.


I feel bad for the bank. They did not need the money, they did not ask for it, they did not want it, but they were forced to take it. The turn around cost them $250 million and you can bet your life all the "hooks" have NOT been removed. What a waste.

 
At 8:55 AM , Anonymous Bert Gold said...

When I was 14 I thought Ayn Rand had some good ideas. I am now 55 and know she didn't know what she was talking about. Did you know that Edison could not get money for his first electric company, which was aimed at electrifying Wall Street? Are you aware that Samuel F. B. Morse, who invented the telegraph, only succeeded because Congress gave him money? Capitalists are not famous innovators. Here, read about Morse:
http://www.answers.com/topic/samuel-f-b-morse
Rand knew next to nothing about technology and innovation. That's how she managed to write what she did.

Bert Gold, Ph.D., FACMG, Frederick, Maryland USA

 
At 3:45 PM , Blogger Thomas R. Stone said...

This post has been removed by the author.

 
At 3:55 PM , Blogger Thomas R. Stone said...

Thanks for your comment John. Good observations.

Thanks for your comment also Bert. However, I don't think you understand what Rand's arguments in defense of capitalism were all about. She was giving a *moral* argument, based on individual rights, in defense of capitalism. She never argued that every individual inventor who has a good idea will quickly and easily get funding from others in the private sector. I'll note also that just about all good ideas, if they are truly good inventions/products/etc. will sink or swim without the need for government subsidies or intervention of any kind. The fact that you can point to some (as you did) that in fact succeeded with government assistance does not mean they couldn't have succeeded eventually without it.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home