Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

Boeing has announced plans to raise up to $25bn in new capital and agreed a $10bn credit facility, as the US plane maker seeks to shore up its balance sheet in the face of a crippling strike by its largest labour union.

In a filing, Boeing told investors it intended to raise up to $25bn in debt or equity, adding that this would provide “flexibility for the company to seek a variety of capital options as needed . . . over a three-year period”.

It has also struck a separate $10bn “supplemental credit agreement” with a consortium of lenders.

Boeing provided no details on precisely how much it intended to raise and when. It said it had not drawn on the new credit facility.

“These are two prudent steps to support the company’s access to liquidity,” the company said, adding that the credit agreement provided additional short-term access to liquidity as it navigated through a “challenging environment”.

Rating agency S&P Global Ratings last week warned of a possible downgrade of Boeing’s bonds to junk status, and analysts had said they expected the company to look to raise at least $10bn in new equity to maintain its investment-grade credit rating.

“They have bought themselves some time,” Ben Tsocanos, aerospace director at S&P, said on Tuesday. He added, however: “Ultimately the company has to resolve the strike and really be on a path to building planes again in order to maintain the rating.”

One bondholder said: “I think this is a smart strategy by management. They’re basically looking for a bridge facility just to give the market confidence that there aren’t any near-term concerns as they go through negotiations with the union.”

Rating agency Fitch said Boeing’s actions would “increase financial flexibility and moderate near-term liquidity concerns amidst an extended strike and continued operational challenges”.

Boeing shares were up just under 2 per cent at $151.92 in afternoon trading in New York after initially falling when markets opened.

Some analysts, however, were not convinced. Nick Cunningham at Agency Partners, said the vagueness and breadth of the filing and the need for the temporary financing implied “that the banks are struggling to sell this issue to potential investors or lenders”.

A second bondholder said they hoped that any equity issuance raised “would be closer to $15bn and not $10bn”, to limit the risk of Boeing having to tap shareholders again if the first issuance proved insufficient.

The fundraising plan comes as Boeing struggles to deal with the impact of a strike by its largest union that has halted production at factories in Washington state, threatening a possible credit downgrade.

The industrial action by 33,000 members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, which began on September 13, has stopped manufacturing lines of most of its planes, including its best-selling 737 Max.

“From a position of negotiating strength, I’m not sure you necessarily need to [issue] the equity before the strike is settled,” the second bondholder added. “You don’t want to necessarily say to the union ‘I have great liquidity, let’s keep on going forever on this one’.”

A third bondholder noted that they did not know how long the strike would continue, saying: “The problem with these supply chains is once you turn them off, it’s pretty hard to turn them back on, so we don’t know how much cash they need, and nor do they.”

The group has been grappling with problems since a door panel blew off one of its 737 Max aircraft in mid-flight at the start of January. Regulators demanded that the company slow production of the best-selling jet as part of a wider effort to improve quality and safety.

Boeing on Friday announced it would cut 17,000 jobs from its operations to stem losses, as it booked about $5bn of pre-tax charges.

It also announced another delay to its 777X jet to 2026. The company said it ended September with $10.5bn in cash and marketable securities — close to the minimum it has said it needs to operate — after burning through $1.3bn in cash during the third quarter.

Boeing had close to $58bn in consolidated debt at the end of the second quarter.

It will report full results for the third quarter on October 23.

Kelly Ortberg, who became Boeing’s chief executive in August, told employees on Friday that “restoring our company requires tough decisions” and structural changes, to ensure that “we can stay competitive and deliver for our customers over the long term”.

Additional reporting by Jennifer Hughes

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

Citigroup profits fell far less than expected to $3.2bn in the third quarter, as a revival in investment banking helped offset rising loan losses.

Profits dropped 9 per cent from the same period a year earlier — or 4 per cent excluding a $200mn one-off gain a year ago from Citi’s sale of its Taiwan consumer business. Analysts had expected the bank to report earnings of $2.6bn.

Citi is the latest big US bank to report better than anticipated results, raising hopes among investors that the US economy is heading for a “soft landing” where it avoids a recession as the Federal Reserve starts to reverse its earlier interest rate rises.

Last week, rivals JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo both reported higher than expected profits, buoyed by continued consumer spending and an uptick in corporate dealmaking.

US bank stocks on Friday hit their highest level since before the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank following the results.

Citi set aside 45 per cent more in the quarter for loan and credit losses than it did a year ago, at $2.7bn.

But turnarounds in its investment banking and wealth management divisions in part offset an industry-wide drop in lending profits compressed by the recent drop in interest rates.

Investment banking fees rose 44 per cent from a year ago to $999mn, while revenues in Citi’s wealth division rose 9 per cent to $2bn, its best quarter since the bank began breaking out results for the unit five years ago.

Citi has brought in high-profile executives to run the businesses in the past year, recruiting Vis Raghavan from JPMorgan to head corporate banking and former Bank of America executive Andy Sieg to lead the wealth unit.

Citi’s investment bankers have secured roles on a number of recent big deals, including the buyout of French pharmaceutical group Sanofi’s $16bn consumer business and consumer group Mars’s $36bn acquisition of the maker of Pringles and Pop Tarts, Kellanova.

Sales and trading revenue increased 1 per cent, driven by a 32 per cent increase in commissions and gains from the bank’s stock traders. Revenues in Citi’s much larger fixed income trading division declined 6 per cent.

Overall, Citi’s revenues rose 1 per cent to $20.3bn. Analysts had been expecting Citi’s sales to fall slightly.

On January 6th, 2021, rioters stormed the United States Capitol building. To many of us, it felt like one of the bedrock institutional traditions of our democracy was in jeopardy: the peaceful transition of power to a leader elected by the people.

As inauguration day approached, Americans feared that more violence was possible. Thousands of National Guard troops descended on the capital to keep the peace. And our democratic institutions felt more fragile than ever.

Being an econ nerd, my mind immediately went to the work of MIT economist Daron Acemoglu and University of Chicago economist and political scientist James Robinson. The two, who co-authored the book Why Nations Fail, had done really important research explaining why institutions are so critical to a nation’s success or failure. I wanted to get their perspective during a critical moment in American history, when our democratic institutions seemed to be weaker than they used to be. So I called them up.

Well, yesterday, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which awards some of the Nobel prizes, also called them up. It awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences to Acemoglu and Robinson — as well as their collaborator, MIT economist Simon Johnson — for their research on “how institutions are formed and affect prosperity.”

It’d be one thing for Acemoglu, Robinson, and Johnson to simply argue that institutions are critical to determining how rich a nation becomes. But, being economists, they also did some incredible statistical work to try and prove it.

For example, in one famous paper cited by the prize committee, Acemoglu, Robinson, and Johnson found there was a “reversal of fortune” in the wake of European colonization of the Americas. South and Central America went from being relatively richer than North America before colonization to being relatively poorer afterwards.

Why did this reversal happen? Acemoglu, Robinson, and Johnson argued that it’s all because of differences in the institutions created by European colonizers. In the Northern United States and Canada, Europeans created “inclusive” institutions that protected individual freedom and property rights, enforced the rule of law, educated their populations, and encouraged innovation and entrepreneurialism — institutions that would serve the economy especially well with the coming industrial revolution. The reason why Europeans set up inclusive institutions here, the prize winners explained, was because North America had a smaller, less dense indigenous population, so the Europeans could settle in large numbers and set about governing themselves.

In South and Central America, where there were the Incan and Aztec empires, there were too many indigenous people for Europeans to simply move in and govern themselves. Instead, European colonizers introduced or maintained already-existing “extractive” institutions that were geared more towards exploiting and oppressing the indigenous population. These institutions were not aimed at, for example, protecting individual freedom, investing in and educating the population, or encouraging innovation. Instead, these nations got a set of institutions that would be ill-suited for them to succeed in a modern, innovative industrial economy.

Acemoglu, Robinson, and Johnson argue that these institutional differences persisted over time, explaining why there was a reversal in fortune — that is, why North America became so much richer than South and Central America. The paper finds a similar story in other countries that Europeans colonized around the world.

The Deion Sanders Of Economics

When I got news of the award, I got to say, I was really excited, especially for Daron Acemoglu. I’ve been poring over his research for many years. In fact, one of the joys of my job at Planet Money has been getting to speak with him on multiple occasions and being able to pick his brain.

Yesterday, George Mason University economist Alex Tabarrok called Acemoglu “the Wilt Chamberlain of economics” because he’s “an absolute monster of productivity who racks up the papers and the citations at nearly unprecedented rates.”

Maybe it’s because Chamberlain was before my time, but, to me, Acemoglu is more like the Deion Sanders of economics. When he played football, Sanders was a superstar who could score touchdowns on offense, defense, and special teams. Sanders was also a star baseball player. More recently, Sanders became a football coach and has killed it doing that.

Likewise, Acemoglu has been a superstar in multiple academic disciplines and subfields. He’s made massive contributions not just to institutional economics, development economics, and political science (the area in which he just won a Nobel for), but also in realms like mathematical economics, economic growth, political economy, and the economics of technology and automation.

Acemoglu has been a fixture in the Planet Money Newsletter. In fact, Acemoglu made an appearance in last week’s newsletter! Acemoglu’s work was also featured in a recent newsletter on why artificial intelligence may be overrated; another on why artificial intelligence isn’t wiping out jobs even in areas where it seems to be really good; and another explaining Acemoglu’s profound insights about automation.

And, of course, Acemoglu — and his co-author and co-Nobel-prize-winner James Robinson — appeared in a newsletter explaining their (now) Nobel prize-winning research into the role that institutions play in a nation’s economic success.

Given the Nobel news, we figured it’d be worth revisiting this newsletter from January 2021, which explored their ideas about the power of institutions and how they thought those ideas related to the United States during a volatile period in our history. Here it is (you can also read it here):

Democracy Under Siege

As we approach inauguration day, exactly two weeks after the Capitol insurrection, Americans are on edge. About twenty thousand National Guard soldiers will provide security tomorrow; more troops than in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our political situation feels shaky and our institutions fragile. It’s like we’re living in a bad Tom Clancy novel. We couldn’t reach Tom Clancy, so we called up the authors of Why Nations Fail instead. We wanted to figure out if the insurrection is a sign our nation is failing, and, if so, if there’s anything we can do about it.

“I don’t think January 6th was a singular day of failure,” says MIT economist Daron Acemoglu, who co-authored the book with University of Chicago economist James Robinson. “What surprises me is why it took until January 6th.”

WASHINGTON, DC – JANUARY 14: Members of the New York National Guard stand guard along the fence that surrounds the U.S. Capitol the day after the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Donald Trump for the second time January 14, 2021 in Washington, DC. Thousands of National Guard troops have been activated to protect the nation’s capital against threats surrounding President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration and to prevent a repeat of last week’s deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images/Getty Images North America

hide caption

toggle caption

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images/Getty Images North America

Advertisement

Drawing on decades of economic research, Why Nations Fail argues that political institutions — not culture, natural resources or geography — explain why some nations have gotten rich while others remain poor. A good example is North Korea and South Korea. Eighty years ago, the two were virtually indistinguishable. But after a civil war, North Korea turned to communism, while South Korea embraced markets and, eventually, democracy. The authors argue that South Korea’s institutions are the clear reason that it has grown insanely more rich than North Korea.

Nations like South Korea have what Acemoglu and Robinson call “inclusive institutions,” such as representative legislatures, good public schools, open markets and strong patent systems. Inclusive institutions educate their populations. They invest in infrastructure. They fight poverty and disease. They encourage innovation. They are far different from the “extractive institutions” found in countries like North Korea, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, where small groups of elites use state power for their own ends and prosper through corruption, rent-seeking or brutally forcing people to work.

When Acemoglu and Robinson wrote Why Nations Fail almost a decade ago, they used the United States as an institutional success story. They acknowledge the nation has a dark side: slavery, genocide of Native Americans, the Civil War. But it’s also a creature of the Enlightenment, a place with free and fair elections and world-renowned universities; a haven for immigrants, new ideas and new business models; and a country responsive to social movements for greater equality. Lucky for America — and its economy — its inclusive institutions have had a helluva run.

So, almost 10 years later, how do Acemoglu and Robinson feel about American institutions?

“U.S. institutions are really coming apart at the seams — and we have an amazingly difficult task of rebuilding them ahead of us,” Acemoglu says. “This is a perilous time.”

Yikes.

Acemoglu and Robinson see the rising tide against liberal democracy in America as a reaction to our political failure to deal with festering economic problems. In their view, our institutions have become less inclusive, and our economic growth now benefits a smaller fraction of the population. Some of the best economic research over the last couple of decades confirms this. Wage growth for most has stagnated. Social mobility has plummeted. Our labor market has been splitting into two, where the college educated thrive and those without a degree watch their opportunities shrivel, after automation and trade with China destroyed millions of jobs that once gave them good wages and dignity.

Acemoglu and Robinson believe that while factors like the transformation of our media landscape play a role, these economic changes and our political institutions’ failure to grapple with them are the primary cause of our growing cultural and political divides. “As opposed to some of the left, who think this is all just the influence of big money or deluded masses, I think there is a set of true grievances that are justified,” Acemoglu says. “Working-class people in the United States have been left out, both economically and culturally.”

“Trump understood these grievances in a way the traditional parties did not,” Robinson says. “But I don’t think he has a solution to any of them. We saw something similar with the populist experiences in Latin America, where having solutions was not necessary for populist political success. Did Hugo Chávez or Juan Perón have a solution to these problems? No, but they exploited the problems brilliantly for political ends.”

For Acemoglu and Robinson, more democracy is the answer to our political and economic problems. In a gigantic study of 175 countries from 1960 to 2010, they found that countries that democratized saw a 20% increase in GDP per capita over the long run.

Asked how we can stop our slide into national dysfunction, Acemoglu argues that political leaders need to focus on those who’ve been left behind and give them a leg up and a stake in the system. He advocates for a “good jobs” agenda that envisions policy changes and public investments to create, naturally, good jobs and shared prosperity (read more here). Robinson, citing the work of Harvard University political scientist Robert Putnam, argues we should find ways to transcend our political and cultural differences and connect with fellow citizens beyond our political tribes.

“We are still at a point where we can reverse things,” Acemoglu says. “But I think if we paper over these issues, we will most likely see a huge deterioration in institutions. And it can happen very rapidly.”

Let’s hope they don’t have to revise their book.