What Is the 2011 U.S. Debt Ceiling Crisis?

The 2011 U.S. Debt Ceiling Crisis was a contentious debate in Congress that occurred in July 2011 regarding the maximum amount of debt the federal government should be allowed.

Understanding the 2011 U.S. Debt Ceiling Crisis

The federal government has rarely achieved a balanced budget, and its budget deficit ballooned following the 2007-08 Financial Crisis. In the 2008 fiscal year, the deficit stood at $458.6 billon, widening to $1.4 trillion in 2009 as the government engaged in a massive fiscal policy response to the economic downturn.

Between 2008 and 2010, Congress raised the debt ceiling from $10.6 trillion to $14.3 trillion. In 2011, as the economy showed early signs of recovery and federal debt approached its limit once again, negotiations began in Congress to balance spending priorities against the ever-rising debt burden. 

Heated debate ensued, pitting proponents of spending and debt against fiscal conservatives. Pro-debt politicians argued that failing to raise the limit would require immediate cuts to spending already authorized by Congress, which could result in late, partial, or missed payments to Social Security and Medicare recipients, government employees, and government contractors.

Moreover, they asserted the Treasury could suspend interest payments on existing debt rather than withhold funds committed to federal programs. The prospect of cutting back on already promised spending was labeled a crisis by debt proponents.

On the other hand, the specter of a technical default on existing Treasury debt roiled financial markets. Fiscal conservatives argued that any debt limit increase should come with constraints on the growth of federal spending and debt accumulation.

Outcome of the 2011 U.S. Debt Ceiling Crisis

Congress resolved the debt ceiling crisis by passing the Budget Control Act of 2011, which became law on August 2, 2011. This act allowed the debt ceiling to be raised by $2.4 trillion in two phases, or installments.

In the first phase, a $400 billion increase would occur immediately, followed by another $500 billion unless Congress disapproved it. The second phase allowed for an increase between $1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion, subject to Congressional disapproval as well. In return, the act included $900 billion in slowdowns in planned spending increases over a 10-year period. It also established a special committee charged with finding at least $1.5 trillion in additional savings.

In effect, the legislation incrementally raised the debt ceiling from $14.3 trillion to $16.4 trillion by January 27, 2012.

Following the passage of the act, Standard & Poor’s took the radical step of downgrading the United States long-term credit rating from AAA to AA+, even though the U.S. did not default. The report says, “The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government’s medium-term debt dynamics.” The credit rating agency cited the unimpressive size of deficit reduction plans relative to the likely future prospects for politically driven spending and debt accumulation.

Debt Approval Process Leading to the 2011 U.S. Debt Ceiling Crisis

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to borrow money. Before 1917, this power was exercised by Congress authorizing the Treasury to borrow specified amounts of debt to fund limited expenses, such as war-time military spending, which would be repaid after the end of hostilities. This kept the national debt directly linked to authorized spending.

In 1917, Congress imposed a limit on federal debt as well as individual issuance limits. In 1939, Congress gave the Treasury more flexibility in how it managed the overall structure of federal debt, giving it an aggregate limit. However, by delegating debt management authority to the Treasury, Congress was able to break the direct connection between authorized spending and the debt that finances it. 

While allowing greater flexibility to raise spending, this practice also created a need for Congress to repeatedly raise the debt limit when spending threatens to overrun available credit. Due to occasional political resistance to the idea of continually expanding the federal debt, this process of raising the debt limit has at times engendered controversy, which occurred during the 2011 Debt Ceiling Crisis.

The Bottom Line

Following the 2007-08 Financial Crisis, in an effort to slow down the severe recession as well as the persistently high unemployment rate, the government increased federal spending. As a result, the federal debt reached its limit on multiple occasions from 2008 to 2011 which led to a series of increases of the debt limit. In 2011, the Treasury asked for its borrowing capacity to be extended.

The 2011 U.S. Debt Ceiling Crisis was a contentious debate in Congress that occurred in July 2011 regarding the maximum amount of debt the federal government should be allowed. Congress resolved the debt ceiling crisis by passing the Budget Control Act of 2011, which became law on August 2, 2011. This act allowed the debt ceiling to be raised by $2.4 trillion in two phases, or installments.

What Is an Amalgamation?

An amalgamation is a combination of two or more companies into a new entity. Amalgamation is distinct from a merger because neither company involved survives as a legal entity. Instead, a completely new entity is formed to house the combined assets and liabilities of both companies.

The term amalgamation has generally fallen out of popular use in the United States, being replaced with the terms merger or consolidation even when a new entity is formed. But it is still commonly used in countries such as India.

Understanding Amalgamations

Amalgamation typically happens between two or more companies engaged in the same line of business or those that share some similarity in operations. Companies may combine to diversify their activities or to expand their range of services.

Since two or more companies are merging together, an amalgamation results in the formation of a larger entity. The transferor company—the weaker company—is absorbed into the stronger transferee company, thus forming an entirely different company. This leads to a stronger and larger customer base, and also means the newly formed entity has more assets.

Amalgamations generally take place between larger and smaller entities, where the larger one takes over smaller firms.

The Pros and Cons of Amalgamations

Amalgamation is a way to acquire cash resources, eliminate competition, save on taxes, or influence the economies of large-scale operations. Amalgamation may also increase shareholder value, reduce risk by diversification, improve managerial effectiveness, and help achieve company growth and financial gain.

On the other hand, if too much competition is cut out, amalgamation may lead to a monopoly, which can be troublesome for consumers and the marketplace. It may also lead to the reduction of the new company’s workforce as some jobs are duplicated and therefore make some employees obsolete. It also increases debt: by merging the two companies together, the new entity assumes the liabilities of both.

Amalgamation Procedure

The terms of amalgamation are finalized by the board of directors of each company. The plan is prepared and submitted for approval. For instance, the High Court and Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) must approve the shareholders of the new company when a plan is submitted.

The new company officially becomes an entity and issues shares to shareholders of the transferor company. The transferor company is liquidated, and all assets and liabilities are taken over by the transferee company.

Example of Amalgamation

In late 2021, it was announced that media companies Time Warner and Discovery, Inc. would combine in a deal worth an estimated $43 billion. Owned by AT&T, Time Warner (which the telecom company acquired in 2018) would be spun off and then amalgamated with Discovery. The new entity, known as Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc., is expected to close at some point in late 2022 and will be headed by Discovery CEO David Zaslav.

Types of Amalgamation

One type of amalgamation—similar to a merger—pools both companies’ assets and liabilities, and the shareholders’ interests together. All assets of the transferor company become that of the transferee company.

The business of the transferor company is carried on after the amalgamation. No adjustments are made to book values. Shareholders of the transferor company holding a minimum of 90% face value of equity shares become shareholders of the transferee company.

The second type of amalgamation is similar to a purchase. One company is acquired by another, and shareholders of the transferor company do not have a proportionate share in the equity of the combined company. If the purchase consideration exceeds the net asset value (NAV), the excess amount is recorded as goodwill. If not, it is recorded as capital reserves.

What Was the 500 Shareholder Threshold?

The 500 shareholder threshold for investors is an outdated rule required by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that triggered public reporting requirements of a company when it reached that many or more distinct shareholders. Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 calls for issuers of securities to register with the SEC and begin public dissemination of financial information within 120 days of the end of a fiscal year.

New regulations now require a 2,000 shareholder threshold.

Understanding the 500 Shareholder Threshold

The 500 shareholder threshold was originally introduced in 1964 to address complaints of fraudulent activity appearing in the over-the-counter (OTC) market. Since firms with fewer than the threshold number of investors were not required to disclose their financial information, outside buyers were not able to make fully informed decisions regarding their investments due to a lack of transparency and allegations of stock fraud.

The 500 shareholder threshold forced companies that had more than 499 investors to provide adequate disclosure for the protection of investors and for oversight by regulators. Although the company could remain privately-held, it would have to file public documents in similar fashion to those of publicly traded companies. If the number of investors fell back below 500, then the disclosures would no longer be required.

Private companies generally avoid public reporting as long as possible by keeping the number of individual shareholders low, which is helpful because mandatory reporting can consume a great deal time and money and also places confidential financial data in the hands of competitors.

The 2,000 Shareholder Threshold

With the ascendancy of startup firms in the technology sector in the 1990s and 2000s, the 500 shareholder threshold rule became an issue for swiftly growing companies like Google and Amazon that desired to remain private even as it attracted more private investors. While other factors were supposedly in play in the decision of these well-known giants to go public, the 500 rule was a key consideration, according to market observers.

The threshold was thus increased to 2,000 shareholders in 2012 with the passage of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act. Now, a private company is allowed to have up to 1,999 holders of record without the registration requirement of the Exchange Act. The current 2,000-shareholder threshold gives the new generation of super-growth companies a bit more privacy and breathing room before they decide to file for an initial public offering (IPO).

What is Allowance For Credit Losses?

Allowance for credit losses is an estimate of the debt that a company is unlikely to recover. It is taken from the perspective of the selling company that extends credit to its buyers.

How Allowance For Credit Losses Works

Most businesses conduct transactions with each other on credit, meaning they do not have to pay cash at the time purchases from another entity is made. The credit results in an accounts receivable on the balance sheet of the selling company. Accounts receivable is recorded as a current asset and describes the amount that is due for providing services or goods.

One of the main risks of selling goods on credit is that not all payments are guaranteed to be collected. To factor in this possibility, companies create an allowance for credit losses entry.

Since current assets by definition are expected to turn to cash within one year, a company’s balance sheet could overstate its accounts receivable and, therefore, its working capital and shareholders’ equity if any part of its accounts receivable is not collectible.

The allowance for credit losses is an accounting technique that enables companies to take these anticipated losses into consideration in its financial statements to limit overstatement of potential income. To avoid an account overstatement, a company will estimate how much of its receivables it expects will be delinquent.

Recording Allowance For Credit Losses

Since a certain amount of credit losses can be anticipated, these expected losses are included in a balance sheet contra asset account. The line item can be called allowance for credit losses, allowance for uncollectible accounts, allowance for doubtful accounts, allowance for losses on customer financing receivables or provision for doubtful accounts.

Any increase to allowance for credit losses is also recorded in the income statement as bad debt expenses. Companies may have a bad debt reserve to offset credit losses.

Allowance For Credit Losses Method

A company can use statistical modeling such as default probability to determine its expected losses to delinquent and bad debt. The statistical calculations can utilize historical data from the business as well as from the industry as a whole. 

Companies regularly make changes to the allowance for credit losses entry to correlate with the current statistical modeling allowances. When accounting for allowance for credit losses, a company does not need to know specifically which customer will not pay, nor does it need to know the exact amount. An approximate amount that is uncollectible can be used.

In its 10-K filing covering the 2018 fiscal year, Boeing Co. (BA) explained how it calculates its allowance for credit losses. The manufacturer of airplanes, rotorcraft, rockets, satellites, and missiles said it reviews customer credit ratings, published historical credit default rates for different rating categories, and multiple third-party aircraft value publications every quarter to determine which customers might not pay up what they owe.

The company also disclosed that there are no guarantees that its estimates will be correct, adding that actual losses on receivables could easily be higher or lower than forecast. In 2018, Boeing’s allowance as a percentage of gross customer financing was 0.31%.

Example of Allowance For Credit Losses

Say a company has $40,000 worth of accounts receivable on September 30. It estimates 10% of its accounts receivable will be uncollected and proceeds to create a credit entry of 10% x $40,000 = $4,000 in allowance for credit losses. In order to adjust this balance, a debit entry will be made in the bad debts expense for $4,000.

Even though the accounts receivable is not due in September, the company still has to report credit losses of $4,000 as bad debts expense in its income statement for the month. If accounts receivable is $40,000 and allowance for credit losses is $4,000, the net amount reported on the balance sheet will be $36,000.

This same process is used by banks to report uncollectible payments from borrowers who default on their loan payments.