LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. Dow Jones Industrial Average passes 15,000 in May 2013. The DJIA average has increased by 130% after reaching a low in March 2009. The DJIA peaked at 14000 in July 2007 before falling 54% and recovering to the 14000 level in Feb 2013.

LyrArc Article Gist
Jeremy Grantham and Jason Zweig share the view that this market has gone up too fast too quickly. Stocks that went down the fastest of companies in industries like finance and banking, insurance and autos, went back up with government support. And many of these companies that have poor earnings prospects are issuing more shares to raise capital now that the credit markets are working, so that they have some cushion if credit markets tighten again. Grantham thinks this dilution of shares spreads future earnings thin over a larger number of shares. Zweig says whatever was garbage has done good, which suggests that what is seen as a recovery in the stock markets is not perceived as a healthy recovery. Grantham's comment that "the junky companies may be diluted to hell just to keep them alive," and Zweig's comment that these "garbage" stocks are hot, but can be expected to sink for precisely that reason, do not offer a reassuring view of this kind of fragile recovery. Companies with stable businesses and stable earnigs prospects haven't done as well as these so called "garbage" businesses to use Zweig's term. Companies like Microsoft, Procter and Gamble and Johnson, and Wal-Mart which have low debt and stable returns. Grantham sees them as offering value in today's market. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
An analysis by Credit Suiss analysts shows that borrowers who have their principal reduced are less likely to default. But mortgage companies have been reluctant to take down loan balances. One study shows that47% of loan modifications completed in November 2009 resulted in higher payments for borrowers, typically because unpaid interest and fees were added to the loan balance. It is critical to make loan payments significantly affordable, as many people have other loans such as credit car loans, home equity loans, car loans, and these obligations make even a lower payment unaffordable.

LyrArc Article Gist
Information provided by experts suggest that the government plans including the public-private partnership with $1 trillion committment to absorb the bad assets in financial institutions, offered as a general solution without specifics by Treasury Secretary Geithner, will be inadequate to cope with the growing bad debt. Nouriel Roubini at New York University says his analysis suggests that the USA financial institutions are already insolvent. The bad debts of banks he says now surpass bank assets. Roubini has been ahead of the curve in his estimates in 2008, and is respected for his prescient remarks about growing credit problems. In his latest report he says that total losses by American financial institutions and the fall in market value of the assets they hold will reach $3.6 trillion , up from his previous estimate of $2 trillion. Of the total he says American banks face half of this or $1.8 trillion, with the rest borne by other financial institutions in the United States and abroad. Mr Posen an economist at the Peterson Institute agrees. He says the liabilities of of American financial institutions far exceed their assets. The only qualification of this says Posen is whether this should be seen as a temporary panic, or whether the economic climate will improve and the value of bank assets recover from depressed values. Raghuram Rajan, of the University of Chicago graduate business school, agrees that if the banks had to sell these assets today at distressed prices then they are insolvent, but if there are calmer times say in ayear or so and values recover then banks may get anew lease on life. So much of this depends on market psychology, market confidence and the economic climate improving. The only problem here is that as happened in 2007 and 2008, the recognition, awareness and action has fallen behind the speed and accelerating manner of the downturn. The Bush administration, Congress, and the American public support, have all been lacking in providing the vigorous action needed, compared to the speed with which the crisis hit in the October 2008 to January 2009 period. The transition between administrations added to this effect. The total lack of any Republican support for the Obama administration's effort continues this effect. Now the Geithner plan with few specifics for a public private partnership for tackling the bad debt, and the lack of action on a bad bank solution with government takeover of certain banks as needed, continues this pattern. The constricted credit meanwhile continues to hit business with an additional hit from dropping sales, leading to layoffs across all industries, which simply worsens the housing crisis and growing foreclosures. So all across the spectrum government action is at worst very late as in the slow response to foreclosures, where the $50 billion proposed now should have come in early 2008, and the banks halting foreclosures and modification efforts proposed now should have come in early 2008 as proposed by Bair and Feldstein. And at best government is just catching up to the credit crisis as with the Fed and FDIC efforts to contain and stabilize it, with inconsistent results and the collapse of some financial institutions like Lehman Brothers. The lack of consensus in Congress and the inexperience of the new administration, means more valuable time will be lost in crafting an effective response in the manner of the bad bank solution. What all this means is that the overall response in 2009 as in 2008 will also lag behind, and the opportunity for a decisive solution is slipping away even as the cost of that solution is climbing, putting it further and further beyond reach. See the link to Hiroko Tabuchi's article titled In Japan's stagnant decade, Cautuonary Tale for America, February 12, 2009, NYT. Tabuchi touches on just this point, that the American experience in 2007-2009 is just like that in Japan where the response lagged the problem in strength and effectiveness till 2003, after years of wasted effort....

LyrArc Article Gist
Will the long awaited Obama plan do enough to reduce foreclosures and help the economy? $75 billion will go to help homeowners facing foreclosure. But it continues the earlier course of letting it be voluntary for banks and lending institutions to decide if they in fact want to reduce the mortgage payment to 38% of the borrower's income. If they do the government provides an incentive of $1000 for every loan modified, and more payments if the borrower stays current. If the lender decides that its not in its interest to make concesssions to reduce the payments to 38% of the borrower's income, in exchange for the $1000 incentive, it could well decide to do nothing, and even continue the current practice of adding on interest and penalties that actually increase the mortgage payment in many cases. Is it enough? Clearly no, if Mark Zandl, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com is right, and helps only 1 million of the estimated 14 million people who are under water, and the homes are worth much less than the outstanding mortgage. As Martin Feldstein has pointed out for the last year since early 2008, its these people who are under water that need to be helped, and not in a piecemeal or voluntary way as Obama is suggesting. It only goes to show that after all the rhetoric, Government both Republican and Democratic, differ only in degrees in the way they are responding to the foreclosure crisis, that is at the root of the financial crisis. The tidal wave of foreclosures, the other 13 million borrowers that are not helped by this plan but are under water, with growing numbers because of growing layoffs, suggest a serious failure to tackle the problem, with serious consequences for 2009 and beyond....

LyrArc Article Gist
The graph tell the story, in early 2007 there were close to 4 million homes under water, in early 2008 closer to 8 million homes and in early 2009 closer to 16 million homes under water, close to doubling the number of homes under water. This is why more of the morgage securities become bad assets with each passing year, as their underlying assets the mortgages become high risk for default. During the third quarter the number of homeowners under water, or owing more than their homes were worth, were 11.8 million, and by the end of 2008, 13.6 million, according to Moody's Economy.com They are growing at close to 1.8 million every quarter, or at the rate of over 7 million a year. Which at this rate would reach 21 million homes under water by early 2010, if one assumed that government help only worked to offset the impact of further deterioration of housing prices, by lowering payments for some homeowners. A new housing rescue plan was announced March 4, 2009. This will supplement the $75 billion announced earlier. This plan announced March 4, 2009, is expected by the Obama administration to cover 9 million homeowners. Borrowers who face severe financial hardship that may cause them to lose their homes, are required under this plan to sign affidavits attesting to this. They will in then see their loans modified, payment periods lengthened, and interest rates dropped to as low as 2%, to bring the monthly payment down to 31% of income, the number that experts say is appropriate for sustainable payments. Only first lien mortgages, and homeowners who live in these homes and not homeowners who use them as investments, will qualify. The outstanding principal balance cannot be over $729,750. As incentives loan-servicing companies will get upto $3500 from the government, and the government will also match a portion of the ender's costs dollar for dollar. Homeowners get $5000 in government money to reduce their outstanding balances, as an incentive to them to stay current on these modified mortgages. The administration plans to announce plans to those holding second mortgages on their homes, who have difficulty modifying them. The other component of the plan is for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to refinance loans for borrowers who are under water, owing more than their homes are worth, even if they are wealthy enough to afford current payments. There is no income ceiling for this part of the plan. And these mortgages have to be held or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, with homeowners not owing more than 105% of the current value of their homes. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The NYT editorial says the summit came up short on both the Stimulus that Europe was asked by the US to commit to, and the global regulation that the Europeans asked the US to agree to. The regulatory reform is not what it needs to be to address the many issues raised by this crisis says the NYT. And Germany it says needs to see that deteriorating conditions will require a strong stimulus. By committing to $1 trillion in funds to backup international trade and to help emerging countries fight the crisis, the summit did achieve its other goal of helping the vast majority of people in the world in the emerging countries deal with this crisis, including countries in the EU.

LyrArc Article Gist
The first significant action to help homeowners threatened with foreclosure comes from Sheila Bair, Chairman of the Federal Deposit insurance Corporation, one of the few people after Bernanke and Paulson who have shown initiative and foresight in the current crisis. Bernanke and Paulson had the foresight to open the Fed lending window to investment firms like Lehman Brothers and others but little has been done for homeowners to have significant impact. When interviewed on television in the days surrounding the Bear Stearns crisis Sheila has shown a good grasp of the issues and courage to take the initiative. This action is similiar in line to what Martin Feldstein has suggested on the pages of the WSJ for some time now. Martin wanted the Federal government to step in to loan homeowners the 20% of their outstanding loan and work towards bringing the homeowners payment to an affordable sum. According to Feldstein's calculation this would be about the right amount as a percentage of their loan so that homeowners rationally would not be better off walking away from the loan as the best possible decision under the circumstances. If the rational option was taken under a scenario that homeowners would get no direct help here is what would happen even though it may be intuitively read in one's mind. Homeowners would walk away in increasing numbers, it would become the popular option, one that has happened in prior housing crises in Colorado for example but this time it would be spread out across America, making it dangerous. This would launch a downward spiral or cycle in which the more homeowners walk way, or default the more house prices drop, and the more house prices drop a new group of homeowners who previously had enough equity in the house now because of the last price drop enter the category of homeowners who would be better off just walking away as a rational option. During the next wave this gorup would default and set the spiral or cycle moving again to lead to further price declines and another group of homeowners finding not enough equity in their homes to justify making payments and this group would walk away. At each turn of this spiral another cycle would be set in motion which is why it is so dangerous once it gets started, and the need for timely but also well thought out plan and good execution. This cycle is that of the economic system as a whole. As house prices drop at each turn of this cycle, it would have a serious impact on consumption for an already indebted American consumer. A drop in consumption means fewer product purchases by consumers, and the falling demand means factories would close as companies consolidate operations around the remaining factories to keep capacity utilization at reasonable levels, and this would mean layoffs and cuts in investment and other spending. The layoffs in turn would add another layer of homeowners leaving their homes through foreclosures adding to the pool of homeowners who have left their homes, and adding to the downward pressure on house prices. The pickup in inflation would bite at exactly the worst time as this would mean consumers would have to spend even more carefully. The price of oil which normally would respond to changes such as a fleet of cars with higher mileage on American roads would take a longer time to respond as this fleet change would take a few years to occur. It would respond to lower demand for oil in American factories but the considerable demand in Asia and other countries where the economies are likely to slow down but still be growing at rates to accomodate the large number of people who have not benefited from the market economy, would make the price decline in oil a gradual affair. The weaker dollar would add to the price of imports adding to the inflation. This bite from inflation would lower consumption even further in the economic cycle. And this would mean lower production in factories and even more layoffs at the next turn of the economic cycle. The Federal Reserve would find itself having difficult choices between maintaining confidence in the dollar, for which Capman and McKinnon argue on the pages of the WSJ recently and lowering rates but not achieving much in terms of stimulating either consumption or investment as this would take time to work itself out and all the Fed could achieve by its interest rate making tool is to buy time to weather these adjustments in an orderly manner. There is almost a consensus among experts that interest rate reductions in the current climate of inflationary movements in prices and the current currency exchange rates moving towards a loss of confidence in the dollar is something to be done very carefully and each action taken only with careful understanding of the possible consequences. A look at the proposal itsel shows that it gets around the whole issue of moral hazard by having the cost paid for in this manner. The mortgage investors will pay for the 5 years of interest on the 20% of the loan the government provides. The homeowner takes over after that. The mortgage investors cannot add deferred interest, prepayment penalties or other ways to make the homeowner pay some of the interest charges. And the homeowners payment has to be afforadable so mortgage investors have to show that the payment is not more than 35% of income of the homeownercalled the debt to income ratio (DTI). And only homeowners with mortgage payments above 40% DTI are eligible. And the government would raise the money needed through a $50 billion offering. To show there is no moral hazard that is the government bailing out any of the parties involved, the government will get back all of its money or intends to do so, the government will have the first rights to the money should a home foreclose and before anybody else is paid. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
On October 30, Sheila Bair heading the FDIC, the main advocate for reducing foreclosures by reducing the mortgage payments is in discussions with Treasury officials for a plan whose details are still being worked out. A key part of it is for the government to assume half of the losses on home loans that are incurred if mortgage companies agree to lower monthly payments for at least 5 years. The cost to the government is about $50 billion that would come from the $700 billion bailout fund. Right now loan companies are reluctant to reduce monthly payments because homeowners might defaul again or the owners of mortgage securities might file law suits. The funds would go to shoulder half of any future losses on default. For example if under a loan modification program 40% redefault and losses on loans are 55%, and $500 billion in loans are modified under the program, the total losses government would bear are $55 billion. This scenario is possible in a deep and prolonged housing and economic slump. This would be a gradual program if mortgage companies or companies with home loans or servicers of loans have to decide if they want to take advantage of this program, and time is critical as the foreclosures are accelerating and thisputs downward pressure on prices....

LyrArc Article Gist
Standard and Poor's changed its rating of U.S. Treasury securities from stable to negative. U.S. Treasury securites are still rated AAA. Moody's made no change in the rating. U.S gross debt as a percentage of GDP is 91.6%, with the comparable number for Germany at 80%, France 82%, Canada 84%, the UK at 77%, Japan 221%. The U.S. budget deficit as a percentage of GDP is 10.6%, the comparable number for Germany is 3.3%, France 7%, Canada 5.5%, the UK 10.4%. John Chambers, the head of the sovereign ratings committee at Standard & Poor's stated that "the sign of political gridlock was a key determinant in our outlook change." The budget deficit will go up to $1.5-$1.65 trillion, or over 10% of America's GDP in 2011. The gross debt for the U.S. is at $14.219 trillion, just short of the $14.294 trillion cap. With rising entitlement costs and the interest on debt this is expected to go over the debt ceiling as early as July 8, 2011. Again political gridlock and the divide between Republicans and Democrats about deficit reduction is causing concern about the delay in raising the debt ceiling....

LyrArc Article Gist
This article in the NYT explains why the loss of jobs particularly in the auto industry to Mexico, with the experience of NAFTA passed by president Bill Clinton, has caused widespread opposition to the TPP trade agreement proposed by president Obama. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in 2016 oppose the TPP.

LyrArc Article Gist
Economic progress in South Asia may finally put behind it simmering political tensions is evident from nature of this proposal on Kashmir by Pakistan. This proposal by President Musharraf is for India and Pakistan to recognize the "line of control" as a de facto border, gradually withdraw troops, and support a new body to run the government in Kashmir. Musharraf say Pakistan then "will have to, yes," give up its claims on Kashmir. The region would have to be given more autonomy to run its affairs. Musharraf would still have to win support from the political parties for this proposal to take shape and be able to control militants in the region who oppose a settlement.

LyrArc Article Gist
China's trade surplus increased to $18.4 billion in April from $5.4 billion in March. Exports were up 4.9%, slower than expected and down from 8.9% in March. But imports went up by only 0.3%, much lower than March's 5.3% increase. The hopes for improving the trade balance in recent months may be dashed because of slowing imports for infrastructure development, as economic growth slows in China, even as export growth declines from its earlier high levels.

LyrArc Article Gist
A draft of the "Common Vision of the World Bank Group," posted online by Government Accountability Group provides details on how the World Bank sees its mission in 2013. The question relates to what the World Bank's mission should be in a world where develping countries such as China and India have made signficant progress. The fragile and conflict ridden states in Africa and in parts of Asia and Latin America will be critical parts of this mission. Yet a lot remains to be done in China and India, and the World Bank sees its role as facilitating the development of needed infrastructure in India and efforts to control pollution in China, better manage the growth of cities in both countries, and also work in the poorer parts of Europe such as Greece. World Bank president Kim sees the World Bank working with the private sector to ensure that infrastructure projects have "a transformational outcome" to help improve incomes of people struggling to join the middle class.

LyrArc Article Gist
Feldstein says that the $700 billion plan to buy impaired assets will not prevent an overshooting downward in house prices, as more people have negative equity in their homes, rising to 40% of all mortgages at some point; and leading to a cycle of foreclosure and further price declines. This will only decrease the value of the mortgage securities that Treasury seeks to take off the hands of banks. And without direct government help in form of lowcost loans, say 2%, the cost of capital for the government, for 20% of the loan upto $80,000; more and more homeowners will have negative equity in their homes. This will lead to more foreclosures as housing loans are not full recourse, so that only the house is lost and the homeowner can move to an apartment and carry on from there. Thw size of this program would be $1 trillion but it gives the government income from the loans made and these would be full recourse loans so the taxpayer is protected. In Feldstein's view the current plan does not address declining house prices which is the root of the problem. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Bernanke, says the Fed will keep interest rates low till unemployment reaches 6.5%, as long as inflation remains at about 2%. If unemployment reaches 6.5%, and this is because more people are dropping out of the labor market, he will take this into account. If unemployment stays high the Fed indicated in its statement that it would tolerate a higher inflation of 2.5%, as long as the longer term outlook was for inflation to be at 2%. Bernanke said this doesn't mean monetary policy is on autopilot, because the Fed will watch conditions carefully and will leave room for flexibility- keeping an eye out for new asset bubbles that could develop, and monitoring labor market conditions and inflationary pressures and inflation expectations. If inflation falls well below 2%, or unemployment rate falls mainly because of people dropping out of the labor market, the Fed may continue to keep interest rates low. This policy was announced as U.S. fiscal cliff deficit negotiations continued in Dec. 2012 with one scenario being considered by both political parties being going over the Jan. 1 deadline before coming to an agreement. Bernanke pointed to this, saying "this is a major risk factor right now." The Fed's activist policy in economic policy has given financial markets and business a measure of stability not provided by government and Congress. Fed policy is to buy $40 billion of mortgage securities, and $45 billion of long term Treasury securities for each month in 2013. It will fund the purchases by adding reserves to the banking system, which is to say that it will print money to buy more bonds. This is a major decision by the Fed in that the Fed has shied away from unemployment targets in the past. Bernanke described this action as a new"automatic stabilizer" in the U.S. financial system- if unemployment rises investors know this pushes the Fed's interest rate increases further down the road and would drive interest rates down, if unemployment drops sooner than expected, investors anticipating Fed's rate increases would drive long term interest rates up, to keep stable growth....

LyrArc Article Gist
Leonhardt points out in the NYT that Hillary Clinton actually won in the popular vote by a substantial margin, by more than 2 million votes and more than 1.5 percentage points. He says that Democrats need to pay more attention to the working class in midwestern states- the job losses, crumbling infrastructure, and the plight of communities such as Detroit, Michigan which suffered through the bankruptcies of Chrysler and GM, and again with the foreclosure crisis, the financial crisis of the City of Detroit. With a similar situation in the neighboring states of Wisconsin and Ohio, in places like Toledo and other parts of communities facing industrial decline. While the Silicon Valley centred region powered the economy in California, and the financial industry and real estate powered New York, older midwestern communities never really recovered from a long decline stretching over 2 decades. The result was the loss of faith in Democrats among union workers and young people, leading to the loss of Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan. For most of its history the Democratic Party was based on its union and working class base including a large number of white voters. Only under Obama because of his unique candidacy was the coalition so dependent on the minorities vote. Before minorities were part of the Democratic coalition, but not in the way under the Obama candidacy. A return to its historic and normal base among whites in unions and working class communities, liberals, minorities, is a way to go back to the historic and natural base of Democratic support. In a sense dependence on tech communities for election funding and the tech booms, globalization, may have distorted Democrats sense of their historic role as champions of the working class and middle class communities throughout the country. There is now an opportunity to restore this lost mission of protecting the interests of the middle and working class who have seen huge drop in net worth as reported by Janet Yellen of the Federal Reserve at the Inequality Conference on October 17, 2014-"62 million households with a net worth of $11,000 for the year 2013." Poorly covered in the media and not made the utmost priority by Democrats (or Republicans). In the words of Janet Yellen, this was in the past several decades "the most sustained rise in inequality since the 19th century after more than 40 years of narrowing inequality since the Great Depression." She added the shocking words "by some estimates, income and wealth inequality near their highest levels in the past hundred years, and probably much higher than much of American history before then." Even discussion in the media goes back to the Obama coalition and treats it as a way forward for Democrats, when history shows it was different and the situation described by Yellen calls for a serious response. ...