Vox clamantis in deserto is Latin for “the voice of one crying out in the wilderness”. The phrase denotes an unheeded warning, an opinion not in the mainstream of popular thought.

It is the title of John Gower’s 10,000 line poem in elegiac verse on the Peasant’s Rising of 1381 (Vox Clamantis). It is the motto of Dartmouth College, one of the nine Colonial Colleges founded before the American Revolution, and the name of a great blog by a good friend.

In the case of both Darthmouth College and my friend, the title is a Biblical reference to the Prophet Isaiah and the Gospel of Mark .

Today however, we’re not discussing Gower, The Bible, or even Richard II…but we may very well be discussing, like Gower’s poem, an uprising, the possibility of a future “vacant of law and education”, and acts of injustice committed by those who think themselves as secure in their own power.

Meet Clifford S. Asness, hedge fund manager, peasant in revolt, and unlikely Isaiah.

This is America. We have a free enterprise system that has worked spectacularly for us for two hundred plus years. When it fails it fixes itself. Most importantly, it is not an owned lackey of the oval office to be scolded for disobedience by the President.

Those are the closing lines, the throwing down of the gauntlet if you may, of Clifford Asness’ “Unafraid in Greenwich Connecticut”, a scorching denunciation of President Obama’s unlawful, thuggish handling of the Chrysler bankruptcy.

As you may have read, a group of Chrysler secured-lenders calling themselves the “Committee of Chrysler Non-TARP Creditors”, refused the government’s offer to settle on their portion of the Chrysler debt, choosing instead to take their chances in bankruptcy Court. This prompted some harsh words from President Obama:

“A group of investment firms and hedge funds decided to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout.”

It also (allegedly) generated a threat from Steven Rattner, the White House’s auto task force chief.

“One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight.

Said Thomas Lauria, the head of White & Case’s bankruptcy practice. Not surprisingly, a White House spokesman denied the threat, claiming that there is “no evidence to suggest that this happened in any way.”

“No evidence…”?

Let’s consider the President’s words…”A group of investment firms and hedge funds decided to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout.” Mr. Obama went on to describe the group as “speculators” who were “refusing to sacrifice like everyone else.”


Here’s Mr. Asness on the idea of this “unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout” and the refusal by these “speculators” to have their clients “sacrifice like everyone else”:

Let’s be clear, it is the job and obligation of all investment managers, including hedge fund managers, to get their clients the most return they can. They are allowed to be charitable with their own money, and many are spectacularly so, but if they give away their clients’ money to share in the “sacrifice”, they are stealing. Clients of hedge funds include, among others, pension funds of all kinds of workers, unionized and not. The managers have a fiduciary obligation to look after their clients’ money as best they can, not to support the President, nor to oppose him, nor otherwise advance their personal political views. That’s how the system works. If you hired an investment professional and he could preserve more of your money in a financial disaster, but instead he decided to spend it on the UAW so you could “share in the sacrifice”, you would not be happy.

I would say that the President’s words are ample evidence of the White House using the press to destroy these people’s reputation.

How about this?

The rogue hedge funds that refused to agree to a fair offer to exchange debt for cash from the U.S. Treasury – firms I label as the “vultures” – will now be dealt with accordingly in court.

That is from a statement issued by Congressman John D. Dingell (D) Illinois.

Then there is this…from Bloomberg.com:

Today, an anonymous group of 20 Chrysler lenders calling itself the “Committee of Chrysler Non-Tarp Lenders” said in a statement they’d been treated worse than junior creditors during negotiations in violation of “long-recognized legal and business principles.” They said they were owed $1 billion.

The dissidents included OppenheimerFunds Inc., Perella Weinberg Capital Management LP and Stairway Capital Advisors, a person representing the group said, asking not to be identified. Also in their camp is Group G Capital Partners LLC, said another person who declined to be named. After the president’s attack, Perella said it had agreed to the buyout offer.

The President’s attack?


Princeton defines a “dissident” as being “a person who dissents from some established policy.”

What established policy is this group dissenting from?

Here’s Mr. Asness again:

When hedge funds, pension funds, mutual funds, and individuals, including very sweet grandmothers, lend their money they expect to get it back. However, they know, or should know, they take the risk of not being paid back. But if such a bad event happens it usually does not result in a complete loss. A firm in bankruptcy still has assets. It’s not always a pretty process. Bankruptcy court is about figuring out how to most fairly divvy up the remaining assets based on who is owed what and whose contracts come first. The process already has built-in partial protections for employees and pensions, and can set lenders’ contracts aside in order to help the company survive, all of which are the rules of the game lenders know before they lend. But, without this recovery process nobody would lend to risky borrowers. Essentially, lenders accept less than shareholders (means bonds return less than stocks) in good times only because they get more than shareholders in bad times.

The above is how it works in America, or how it’s supposed to work. The President and his team sought to avoid having Chrysler go through this process, proposing their own plan for re-organizing the company and partially paying off Chrysler’s creditors. Some bond holders thought this plan unfair. Specifically, they thought it unfairly favored the United Auto Workers, and unfairly paid bondholders less than they would get in bankruptcy court. So, they said no to the plan and decided, as is their right, to take their chances in the bankruptcy process. But, as his quotes above show, the President thought they were being unpatriotic or worse.

The act of dissidence here, that is the person dissenting from some established policy, is Barack Obama; he is seeking to circumvent long-established bankruptcy laws. He is engaged in an unprecedented excess of the reach of the office of President of The United States, and in thuggery.

Where is the press?

The New York Times, in a report by Michael J. de la Merced and Jonathan D. Glater, covered the story last week, in it, we find this interesting paragraph:

When the debtholders, calling themselves the Committee of Non-Tarp Lenders, made its first public statement last Thursday, they said their group consisted of about 20 investment firms holding about $1 billion. According to Mr. Lauria’s motion to file under seal, the group now claims about $300 million in holdings.

The Wall Street Journal’s Tom Blumer saw what was NOT there:

de la Merced and Glater were apparently not curious about the possible reasons why the amount involved, and presumably the number of holders, is significantly lower than it was just a few days ago.

Maybe it’s because the threats are real, guys.

The threats may very well be real, and the might of the Executive something to be feared, but the power of one man crying out in the wilderness should never be underestimated.

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin.