LyrArc Article Gist
With the Shiller cyclically adjusted P/E ratio CAPE at 26 for the U.S. in 2014, and the CAPE in Japan at 21, UK, Italy, Spain at about half that in the U.S., experts say international diversification is a good idea.

LyrArc Article Gist
Citigroup remains extraordinarily leveraged, with tangible leverage at 47 times tangible common equity. JP Morgan's is 26 times and Goldman's is 21 times. The government's two preferred shares capital injections of $45 billion does not reinforce the common stock, which fell 20% on the 14 January, 2009, and the discarding of the universal bank structure this week does not adequately address the root problem of problem mortgage related assets and excessive leverage. The government's agreeing to to take a large share of losses on $306 billion of problem assets helps, but with the leverage being so high significant problems remain. So what are the options. Reducing leverage to where J.P. Morgan Chase is would take $35 billion in common equity, something that would make the government the owner of Citibank, as Citibank's market capitalization on January 14, 2009 was $25 billion. The risk of doing this would be that other large bank stocks also fall steeply as the market prices in a similiar outcome. And there are political considerations as giving capital to banks is not popular with so little bank lending to show constituents. The capital needs of Bank of America as it completes the acquisition of Merrill further complicates the picture. But stopgap moves like additional loss sharing agreements will leave Citbank's problems still unresolved. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Citigroup is bleeding even as the government has ringfenced $300 billion in bad assets and its not likely to go under. The next step may be to get these bad assets into a bad bank as Bernanke has suggested. Citigroup is now divesting many of the assets like Smith Barney that were hastily put together by Sandy Weil as some kind of financial supermarket. None of the companies with their separate cultures melded together, and managing this was a huge undertaking which never really got off the ground. Now its all coming apart and Citigroup will go back to its core assets.

LyrArc Article Gist
Germany will provide 140 million euros in extra funding for Syrian refugees and at least 500 million euros in humanitarian and development aid for 2015-2017, according to Foreign Minister Steinmeier.

LyrArc Article Gist
The coronavirus pandemic and the disaster in nursing homes, the chaotic conditions in the first wave, the lack of staff and poor attention to residents during the pandemic, has exposed the major weakness of nursing home care in western countries. Much of this sector is in the hands of private operators seeking a profit.  The staff is paid low wages and lacks the experience and empathy needed for care of older people. During a virus all these factors turn deadly. With some staff sick the other staff is overburdened. If the sick turn up for work they are likely to risk the safety of other staff and the residents. With the incubation period lack of testing there is no way to know. When deaths occur and the nursing homes are sealed from the outside world the deaths happen with no goodbyes as happened in U.S., Britain and Sweden. This has exposed the scandalous and shocking way in which the elderly are treated in today's environment where ridiculous amounts of money are being spent on other things and the the most basic "one's parents" are neglected and allowed to die in horrific manner in a pandemic. The new trend for home care for the elderly is a welcome trend and long overdue as one of the worst aspects of the system in the west is the treatment of elderly parents in nursing homes run for profit. The new technology tools available for monitoring a elderly person at home, and the help of stores such as Best Buy which are serving elderly at home, is making this more and more a choice for the elderly. Even older patients and ones needing significant care can recover and spend time at home in a better environment, a less costly one, as hospital managers and families have learned in 2020. Some hospitals in the U.S. say they never want to go back. That the drive to get every patient home who can be home is the right one for patients and families and for the government paying for the care so that dollars are well spent in quality of care. Home health care companies are working on providing new services for sicker patients recovering at home. Technology helps do better monitoring. Medicare now pays for digital doctor visits and intense hospital type care at home after coronavirus showed this as vitally needed.  Both the Biden and Trump administrations are firmly focused on this issue. Seema Verma as head of Medicare is clear about the need for a national conversation on how we take care of the elderly, of our parents. And Mr. Biden wants to spend $450 billon to make certain that people who need long term care can get the support they need in the home and the community. This report looks at the home health care companies and how they are improving their services. This and telemedicine are two of the major constructive changes coming out of the pandemic, clearing out some of the worst aspects of the old system of living the older years in the western world.  Nothing speaks more about humanity and a human world than the story here of Savanna Hollar, 90 years old and almost blind. She broke her shoulder in August, Her sons decided not to send her to a the rehab facility she went to after a broken hip 3 years earlier. The sons brought her home to recover in the farmhouse near Yadkinville, N.C., where she has lived since 1951. One of her sons himself 63 years says that at a nursing home she would be lonely, scared and afraid to move. The sons hired two people to help her during the day and a rotating system was used for having people help her. At home Mrs. Hollar could enjoy her gray cat, Buddy, her favorite recliner and tomato sandwiches made with produce from her garden. Really, if we can't do this much what good is the U.S.A.? or Britain? or Sweden? or India? ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Jean Claude Trichet is one of the last leaders from a generation that helped create the euro currency union and a pathway to closer union of European nations. For four decades he has worked at the upper echelons of European economic policy making. In accepting the Charlemagne prize he stayed true to his idea for closer integration in the European Union. He said- "Confronting the challenges of the future requires strengthening the institutions of economic union." He would like to see a finance ministry for the EU, saying that "in this union of tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow, would it be too bold...to envisage a ministry of finance of the Union?" Such a ministry would exercize oversight over European nations economic policies and exercize veto power over national budgets. In the current crisis in Greece such a ministry could take actions and make decisions applicable to Greece. Trichet's remarks were delivered in Aachen, Germany. At the very same time finance ministry officials from 24 European countries were meeting in Vienna to come up with a solution to the Greece debt crisis. A main stumbling block is disagreement between Germany and others including the ECB, about how to make private-sector creditors share the burden of helping Greece avoid a default. Trichet and the European central bank and other central bankers have rejected Germany's insistence of an extension on the maturities of Greece's bonds, because they fear this would be perceived as a default by financial markets.This in turn would lead to contagion effects spreading to Spain and Italy, and a Europe wide crisis. In direct exchanges between Trichet and French president Sarkozy, Sarkozy has told Trichet he represents the bankers views whereas Sarkozy and Merkel have to take public opinion into account. In fact in past resolutions of financial crises in Latin America this type of extension of maturities for bonds has been applied, as for instance in the Brady Bonds and negotiated settlement arranged by the U.S. for banks, and Latin American and some Asian governments. Search term "brady" and see Landon Thomas's piece Nov. 30, 2010, in the NYT. This becomes necessary when countries such as Greece, Ireland and Portugal are unlikely to ever be able to repay the debt without a renegotiation of the original debt agreemments, spreading the debt over longer maturities, and private creditors taking some losses. By shifting the entire burden on austerity and spending cuts the current agreements leave the EU lurching from crisis to crisis as the underlying situation remains unresolved. It is here that Trichet's laudable vision of European unity runs aground because of the failure to build bridges between the outlook of the financial community and the public opinion of Germany, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and other countries. The governments of creditor countries such as Germany seek a renegotiation for a restructuring of debt. The governments of Greece, Ireland and Portugal understand that severe austerity cuts alone with declining growth can never resolve the situation, and would welcome a restructuring especially because the cuts are deeply unpopular. The renegotiation has to be conducted with the full faith and credibility of the European governments, ECB and the support of the U.S. government, so that financial markets are given a certain reassurance that the situation will be managed to a successful conclusion, and not lead to contagion effects on Spain and Italy. When asked about this Nicholas Brady recently said this required "a unified decision." This would include money set aside for recapitalization of European banks that are affected by such a restructuring. In such a restructuring the German government and other European governments would still come up with taxpayer money for the resolution, yet the shared cost by all parties would create a fair and workable financial arrangement that has the potential for successful resolution to the sovereign debt crisis. This disconnect between the political leaders and the bankers is why observers say the Europeans have not been able to wrap their arms around this problem. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Some insights into the thinking of Robert Rubin from an interview by Ken Brown and David Enrich with the former Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration about the 2008 financial crisis. As Justice John Paul Stevens. the longest serving Supreme Court justice on the bench once said, those who administer the judicial system form the backbone of the law. In a like manner those who administer the financial and economic system form its backbone, which is why Rubin faces some tough questions in this interview. At the time he was Treasury Secretary, the NYT magazine ran a story on Robert Rubin, as the kind of person who liked to put things down rationally on a note pad, and think things through on the basis of this rational analysis. This is how he approached the Mexican financial crisis of 1994 and the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Here is some of that note pad Rubin, in the context of CDO's and risk taking, with something gone awry. Risks that according to this NYT report Rubin encouraged at Citigroup in 2004 and 2005, on the basis of the idea that Citi's competitors were taking on more risk and making bigger profits. His note pad approach appears to have led to conclusions by Rubin that considering the additional profits that could be made by Citi by ramping up the risk taking in 2004 and 2005 and afterwards like its competitors, it could lead to losses if things went wrong, but these losses would'nt come close to wiping out the profits made during the good times. The cyclical downturn he expected to see in 2004 and 2005 when he is reported to have added his voice to others that the bank take on more risk, was a cyclical downturn of the type he had seen during the 1994 Mexican devaluation and the 1997 Asian financial crisis. He had no idea that it would be a cyclical undervaluing of risk added on to a housing bubble, and to a triple A ratings issuance that was misguided. Rubin says here that there was hardly anyone who saw that low-probability event as a possibility. Was the housing bubble a low probability event, and were the issuance of ratings by the credit ratings agencies compromised by the drive for more business a normal pattern, or would some digging up of facts and some innate skepticism of the prevailing current in favor of one's own instincts that something was overdone missed in the notepad analysis of a supposedly rational approach? Or was there a feeling that somehow the U.S. with its long tradition of technology, its work ethic and sophisticated financial system was somehow immune to something as severe as what the Asian countries were experiencing in 1997, or what happened in the 1930's. Asked about his view of what happened Rubin says that looking back there was an enormous amount that needs to be learned. Rubin is also in a quandary when he has to respond to the public concerns about excessive executive compensation. Rubin made $115 million in pay since 1999, excluding stock options, while under his purview as the highest ranking board member Citigroup let some of the problems that it faces now accumulate. As Citigroup faces $20 billion in losses in 2008, a bear raid on its stock by short sellers who ironically were able to do this because of some of the lax regulation set in motion in the Rubin Greenspan years leading to the suspension of the Uptick rule, and the $45 billion government bailout last week. Rubin may have helped Citi but in a different sort of way. He was able to persuade Treasury- Treasury Secretary Paulson was a fellow executive at former employer Goldman Sachs- through the days before the bailout, ensuring government help was on its way. Citigroup shares had dropped to $3.77 a share in the third week of November 2008, losing 50% of their value in one week, as the discussions took place. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
NATO was formed in the days of the Truman administration on 25th July 1949, following the Berlin Blockade, the coup in Czechoslovakia by Soviets, and the efforts to set up pro soviet governments in Turkey and Greece. It accomplished its purpose by pushing back against the Soviet effort securing democracy in Greece and Turkey in the 1950's. Much of this was achieved under Heads of NATO from the US- Gen. Eisenhower, Gen. Ridgway, Gen. Guenther and Gern Norstad proteges of Ike all from West Point by 1964, when Brezhnev was new head of Soviet Union and by 1991 Warsaw Pact of Soviets setup in 1955 was dissolved yet NATO was not. The US interests shifted to Asia - Gen MacArthur leading a UN effort in Korea and the US leading its own effort in Vietnam in the 1960's. The Soviet threat actually receded after 1964 when Brezhnev became head of Soviet Union till 1982. During that period in the 1970's till today the face of NATO as today was from a series of heads of governments of Dutch Stikker in 1970's or other small European states such as Norway Stoltenberg and Rutte Netherlands again in 2025. It could be said that none of these leaders  of small EU countries represented US interests- or even European interests- a point the DJT administration is trying to make. It hurt the US in Venezuela as Russia propped up a regime which led to millions of refugees entering the US illegally. And it hurt Europe as Russia propped up the Syrian regime with millions of refugees entering Germany and destabilizing its political structure. Going back if a new defense institution was set up to replace NATO by the Europeans in 1970's this would have been the right step which would have not led to Russia propping up regimes in the Americas or the Middle East. A goal that is being discussed with Russia by the DJT administration to refocus American efforts in a new direction and pause not just the Ukraine war but also put the US  and Russia in a new direction with the new competition from 3 billion people in China and India. WSJ Editorial Board takes the British position on the Ukraine peace proposals with centuries old skeptical attitude on Russia's intentions. The US government position put forward by DJT is that there are constructive discussions with Russia, and the need to settle the underlying issues behind the conflict. This includes NATO's future. NATO setup in 1949 for Soviets,  on the borders of Russia in 2025 after the end of the Cold War when its rival the Warsaw Pact set up in 1955 of the Soviets was disbanded in 1991. The British position comes from centuries of conflict in Europe and its interests in protecting its Empire till the 1950's remaining unchanged, and cannot reflect American interests in the 21st century as its economy competes with China and India and the EU, and seeks to do this by keeping former colonial powers out of the Americas including Russia, and China.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This article in DW.com cites experts who point out that the Republican Party always had tensions within it because of the diverging interests of three groups that have allied together to form the party- Wealthy businessmen and corporate interests, evangelicals, and white working class people who have seen their incomes decline for several decades. The interests of each group have some overlap, are sometimes masked but frequently they diverge. Nigel Bowles, former director of the Rothermere Institute at Oxford University, says there is no particular reason that this coalition would hold together, that it was unstable to begin with, a wonder that it did not split up earlier. Scott Lucas, an expert on American Studies at the University of Birmingham, says that Reagan showed great skill in holding this coalition together, and Donald Trump has taken it apart by mobilizing only one constituency of white working class voters and leaving out others. The break between Republican party leaders Ryan, McCain, and state party leaders, with Trump is unprecedented in post war American politics, and putting it back together now looks like a lost cause in the medium term.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. Senate passes a motion that allows the chamber to proceed with a debate on a health care bill. The motion passed 51-50 with Vice President Mike Pence casting the deciding vote. Republican Senators Collins and Murkowski voted against the motion. This report in the WSJ says this sets in motion a process in which debate will take place and amendments will be made. It is not clear what shape the bill will take. Under the process used only a simple majority is needed in the Senate, yet this allows for many amendments to be made.  Only hours after this motion passed by one vote, a bill replacing major parts of the Affordable Care Act failed to pass 57 votes against and 43 in favor. Senator John McCain who arrived in Washington from Arizona following brain tumor surgery, delivered strong criticism of the way the Republican healthcare bill was rushed through allowing very little debate. Experts have commented on the way the bill was rushed through with a thin majority for passage, with very little debate, first by Democrats in 2009 and now in the House by Republicans. With the same pattern now followed in the Senate by Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate. A backup bill would remove just the individual and employer mandates and a tax on medical devices- the elements Republicans agree on, if no majority can be put together for the healthcare bill. ...