LyrArc Article Gist
In this report in the NYT Amy Chozick describes the fund raising efforts of Hillary Clinton, but fails to take note of the heavy fund raising particularly from wealthy tech and Silicon Valley donors of president Obama. Romney failed to keep up with the fund raising efforts of Obama, with Obama investing in advertising campaign throughout the summer in crucial states in the midwest to gain an edge over Romney. About 2.3 million people are cited as having given in small amounts to the Clinton campaign, showing a gradual shift. The appeal to wealthy donors is a pattern in American politics going back many years and shared by both parties, and is only changing slowly. The Koch Brothers target for 2016 was cited in the NYT at $889 million for 2016 election. Both sides are in a race to increase amounts raised and it can affect elections or public perceptions, which is why Obama was also raising money from big donors for 2012 elections, and so were the Koch brothers. Of particular relevance is the manner in which election campaigns are strictly limited in terms of dollars spent and financing provided by the state in Britain, an example rarely discussed in the media.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Asset reports of Fed governors and candidates for Fed chairman show Ben Bernanke and Daniel Tarullo at the low end of $1-$3 million, Stein, Duke and Yellen at $5-$12 million in the middle, and at the high end are Summers $8-$31 million, and Powell between $17-$40 million.

LyrArc Article Gist
Pearlstein touches on the main issues raised by Obama's regulatory reform proposals. A thorough and independent analysis by a panel of seasoned regulators and independent experts would have done better, Pearlstein says. It would take more time, but the regulatory reforms need to be thorough, considering the damage that has been done to the financial system, and considering the opportunity to do something serious about this. It would have also shielded the administration from criticism if tough action was needed in some areas. Hearing all sides of the matters at hand, and weighing the pros and the cons on each issue is helpful, but there are gaps in this approach when some of the key actors like Geithner and Summers have worked too closely in the past with the financial firms that are being regulated, and may have a tendency and bias in that direction. The President's lack of expertise in these areas, and a desire to keep the regulatory hand as light as possible, and intense obying by financial firms, can tilt things away from serious regulatory reform. The danger is that the opportunity to fix things with major structural changes where necessary, and some tough actions where needed may be lost. Some of the obvious gaps are mentioned by Pearlstein. There is no measure to tackle the situation with the ratings agencies. There will be more transparency than before but complex derivative trading can take place prettty much like before. Credit default swaps will continue as before. If you set up acouncil of regulators, then why not bite the bullet and consolidate them into a single agency, asks Pearlstein? Banks will continue to have their proprietary trading desks, from where they ran up huge losses, these act like in-house hedge funds. Ultimately a lot depends on who is running these agencies, or the Fed, and what is the prevailing opinion about markets in the country. The prevailing opinion that the less regulation the better for free markets, and the lack of independent regulators, and poor appointments, had a lot to do with the capture of the regulatory agencies by the the firms they were supposed to regulate. And on this point the President is on safer ground, as he can ensure that he appoints tough regulators and create a new culture that puts regulation right where it should be, as a necessary ingredient for free markets, just like rules of the road. And in one area the President has created a new structure, a new agency with powers- this is where consumer protections are at stake- so that the abuses that took place with mortgages do not take place....

LyrArc Article Gist
The Europeans led by France and Germany demand stricter regulation and a financial regulatory system that oversees the entire financial system, and oversees all the larger countries. The US in contrast wants to see a lighter regulatory system, and lighter regulation of parts of the financial system like hedge funds. For the USA where the crisis originated, the emphasis is on larger stimulus spending. For the Europeans which have a larger safety net that they would like to see considered as part of their stimulus- and their social arrangement such as reduced hours in Germany to avoid layoffs, and the presence of a large public sector in France that is about 52% of GDP- the situation as they see it does not require breaking the EU's committment to control large deficits. The cultural and historical roots are also different. Germany was hit by hyperinflation in the period between the two wars, and there is thought there that this helped the rise of demagogic leaders and the collapse of democracy there. At that time the issue was war reparations that Germany found difficult to absorb in an economy devastated by the first war, which strained German finances. France and Germany also have no foreclosure crisis, and car sales and consumer spending are not in the deep decline that is seen in the USA. In fact car sales have increased in the two countries with the refunds for scrapping old vehicles, with no such plan in place in the USA. Making there is a credible position on the European side. Germany does see itself hit by the collapse in international trade. Germany and France face the prospect of helping their banking systems deal with the large bad loan situation facing them in Eastern Europe. At the same time Germany and France want to save some firepower for coming to the aid of key parts of the European community like Spain, Greece, and Ireland, which are facing a worsening crisis. In short both sides have credible positions, and some form of accomodation as events unfold may be a better desired outcome than some unified outcome. And little has been said of the position of the other countries in the G20, the emerging countries like Brazil, India, China, Russia, Indonesia, Argentina and others, and the position of the World Bank speaking for the poorest countries. These countries may favor stronger stimulus, and would favor the stricter regulation and supervision of global financial systems favored by the Europeans. This is because they may rightly feel that the messups in the global financial system have stolen their chance, at just the point where they were turning the corner in their efforts at bringing better standards of living to their peoples....

LyrArc Article Gist
Did a major U.S. chip maker Advance Micro Devices give away advanced computer chip technology in deals that saved the company as it faced a downturn in business. In Jun 2019 the U.S. Commerce Department issued an order that bars several Chinese companies from getting American technology. In the meantime Chinese versions of AMD chips are rolling off production lines in China, according to this report in the WSJ. It shows that AMD's partner in China, a military contractor, already used those chips to build what could be the world's fastest supercomputer. The AMD deals gave China access to state  of the art x86 chips made only by AMD and Intel Corp. Here the WSJ says AMD's CEO in October 2014 Lis Su, faced AMD's financial difficulties when she joined, with lack of cash, large debt, and declining revenues. Some analysts predicting bankruptcy protection. The deal for China's company Sugon to manufacture the x86 chips included $293 million in licensing fees, and $371 million for selling an 85% stake in its two factories in China and Malaysia to China Integrated Circuit Industry Investment Fund Co, a state backed financier. The U.S defense Department tried but failed to get AMD to submit the deals to Cfius, the committee on foreign investment in the U.S. that has people from Treasury, Defense, Commerce, Justice and Energy. The Treasury Department ruled in AMD's favor in the closing months of the Obama administration. Defense Department officials say the deals were structured to sidestep U.S. regulations through two interlinked joint ventures. The first venture focusses on R&D and production controlled by AMD, the second on design and sale controlled by AMD's Chinese partner. The second company venture enables China to show that the resulting product was developed locally in China. In another development Sugon publicly announced that it was using the AMD x86 chip to advance China's chip technology advancement just as it had done for high speed trains. Making indigenous an imported technology, designing it at home, absorbing it, and then innovating to make China a leader. By mid 2017 this information reached General Spalding at the Trump White House. Lawmakers wanted to give Cfius committee new powers. By August 2018 Defense department submitted the Sugon deal for review a second time. After the Defense Department's deputy undersecretary for Research and Engineering criticized the whole deal publicly in front of industry executives, Commerce Department stepped in and on June 21 it asked for the unwinding of the deal with Sugon,  imposing new export restrictions to limit access to U.S. technologies. For AMD the cash infusion from China enabled it to get back from near bankruptcy. China gained x86 technology in its bid to make the fastest supercomputer, the U.S. faced with another loss in technological edge, and AMD shares jumped 80% to $30 per share recently. Brian Spegele, Kate O'Keefe, and Yang Jie in Beijing, covered this story for the Wall Street Journal. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
On one hand the issue of the $165 million in bonuses going out to employees in the 370 person Financial Products Group, and oth the other the need to wind up the complex derivative contracts that are causing these huge losses at AIG. But are such huge payouts needed for these employees to do their job? Isn't this aprofessional responsibility of these employees? And AIG's retention-payment program was disclosed a year ago and the amount of the bonuses $400 million, says the Washington Post, had been widely reported. The company is set to pay according to the WPost $600 million in retention awards to about 4700 people throughout the global insurance units. WHat happens to the $600 million, as no opinion has been voiced on these upcoming payments. The whole idea of retention payment raises another question. Will the skills of these employees be needed in a long drawn out economic downturn spread over several years or longer. And will thefailure of such things as derivatives, and the tighter regulation, mean that they will play amuch smaller role in the future. And even in the insurance units will these skills draw a premium in a market where the supply of new talent is larger than the job market ? One expert has sugggested that even if some of them left, there would be younger people to replace them who might bring an even better set of qualifications, with amix of skills, caution and prudence. So is there something self-interested and spurious in the retention argument itself and shouldn't this bluff be called? ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Steven Ratner says the Obama administration is not considering bankruptcy for GM and Chrysler, asit does not see bankruptcy as necessarily abetter place for the auto companies, especially because of the consumer-facing nature of these companies. And the government is not considering calling the $17.4 billion loaned to the auto companies. THis takes alot od the pressure off of GM and Chrysler.

LyrArc Article Gist
The Fed over the past year has assumed, backstopped, or committed to take on about $2 trillion in assets from shaky financial institutions including Bear Stearns, AIG, Citigroup and Bank of America. In some cases the banks will assume some of the losses, or Treasury will accept some of the losses before the Fed comes into the picture. Another $1 trillion in lending could occur in 2009 as liquidity programs are tapped further by borrowers and the Fed purchases more bonds such as the ones sold by Fannie and Freddie, and securites backed by student loans, auto loans, credit card receivables and small business loans. This would result in a balance sheet for the Fed over 3 times what it was 18 months ago in mid 2007.

LyrArc Article Gist
This is a watershed event for Argentina after it returns to international capital markets after decades of being shut out because of the 2001 financial debt crisis and protracted legal settlement. This was possible after a new administration of Mauricio Macri replaced the administration of Peronist party's Christina Kirchner, and U.S. president Obama's confidence boosting visit to Argentina.

LyrArc Article Gist
Ros Douthat sees the crisis only putting things more in the hands of the same elites that got us into the mess in the first place. The mess with an out of control financial sector which began under Treasury Secretary Rubin, is now being handled by his proteges Summers and Geithner. The lack of any new solutions and the continuation of the "too big to fail" era, says Douthat.

LyrArc Article Gist
Raj Rajaratnam was convicted on 14 counts for insider trading violations. Prosecutors successfully used wiretap evidence for the first time in an insider trading case.

LyrArc Article Gist
Would hedge funds that short Lehman's stock want to create an environment of perceptions of uncertainty around Lehman. ts quite possible. Lehman's CEO Fuld flew back from India over the weekend and went on the offensive to dispel perceptions of weakness. According to this report Bear Stearns had $33 billion in total liquidity compared to $169 billion for lehmans which compares with $169 billion for Goldman Sachs. Of this Lehman has $35 billion in cash and liquid assets and $160 billion in unencumbered assets like loans and securities backed by commercial mortgages that it use as collateral to borrow more. Lehman has the highest percentage of liquidity at 25% of total assets compared to other major brokers according to Buckingham Research Associates the source for these numbers. Its here that the Fed's recent decision to lend to the largest investment firms comes into play. As Mr Fuld stated the Fed's decision to create a lending facility for these primary dealers like Lehmanand permit a broad range of investment grade securities o serve as collateral improves the liquidity picture and in his view takes the liquidity issue for the entire industry off the table. Those looking at the downside point to the Level 3 assets of no observable value of $42 billion and the $37 billion in residential mortgages in Lehman Brothers. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Using caution with bubble type internet stocks, stocks with no profits, real estate with large price jumps is suggested by experts. Models and methods have been developed to detect bubble type activity. Sornette at the Financial Crisis Laboratory, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and the Bank of Finland's Taipalus have developed models to detect bubbles, including the bubble activity in internet IPO's and stocks in 2014. Chancellor at Boston asset manager GMO and Utkus at the Vanguard Center of Retirement Research have also come up with methods to detect bubble activity. Utkus says investors could reduce allocation by 10-20% in the case of stocks with bubble activity. Investors were doing this by reallocating in April 2014 from biotech and internet stocks to safer large cap stocks, because internet and biotech stocks had seen sharp increases of over 25% in a short period.

LyrArc Article Gist
Some figures on Ford Motor-$15 billion in secured loans, $8 billion five year credit line from banks, and a $7 billion loan held by instituional investors and hedge funds. Add another $3 billion in unsecured financing, notes convertible to common stock. Thats another $18 billion on top of the $23.6 billion in cash on hand, for $41.6 billion in funds available to finance the recovery. Against this is the $7 billion loss this year. Lets say Ford need 3 years for a fresh product line and the bleed costs another $ 7 billion for 3 years or $21 billion at the worst including extra interest expenses for the loans, then there is still $20 billion available for 3 years to come up with a brand new product line across the board. This is positive development for Ford. see also: Sarah Webster, A Chat with Ford's New CEO, Upbeat but Realistic, Mulally says automaker can succeed, but it must face the facts, Saturday, Nov 11, 2006. See also Susan Tompor on the same Business pages' Ford boss is a convincing car guy. In the same Sat, Nov 11 issue of Detroit News see Daniel Howes - Thursdays with Alan, New Ford Boss demands accountability, results- every week. Sunday Nov 26, 2006 - Sarah Webster, Ford's Go-To Guy. Kuzak's Mission: Developing vehicles customers will want. see also on the same Business pages- Executive says global system lets Ford get vehicles to market faster. Sarah Webster could clarify contents of her interview shown on the pages of the Free Press- what is the target time from concept drawing board to cars rolling off the production line to dealer showrooms, is it the 12-14 months by end of 2008? See also in Nov 28, 2006, Detroit News, Bryce Hoffman, Ford Bets the House, a bit pessimistic in tone and angle of vision and selection of quote expert....

LyrArc Article Gist
The Italian government's austerity measures and changes to promote economic growth are facing criticism including the threat of a general strike by the CGIL trade union. Italy's business lobby Confindustria, said the government plan for new taxes on incomes above 90,000 euros of 5%, and on incomes above 150,000 euros of 10%, over three years, risks sending Italian management talent overseas. Ferrari chairman told the daily, Corriere della Serra, the government's plan does not address tax evasion and other structural problems in the Italian economy. The head of Italy's largest trade union, CGIL, expressed her opposition to the plan to let companies and unions make their own contracts that opt out of rules that make it illegal to fire an employee without "just cause."