LyrArc Article Gist
How the bankruptcy reform came at a bad time for the housing crisis where both lenders and borrowers are likely to be hurt by it. Now more borrowers are likely to walk away from their homes leaving the banks and creditors with no payments at all compared to before the recent law was passed where owners would hold onto their homes and continue to make mortgage payments.

LyrArc Article Gist
Matthew Slaughter of the Tuck School, Dartmouth, says that the principle of comparitive advantage should determine what America exports and imports. Under comparitive advantage each country concentrates its energies on the particular goods and services that it does better than other countries. Free trade operates under the idea of comparitive advantage, but in practice it is quite different than its textbook economic counterpart. It is constantly changing as new countries or industries in different countries try to upset the existing pattern. Under a textbook example Airbus should not exist because Boeing was the most efficient manufacturer upto that time, and new entrants in a industry are nurtured for years with support from the governments of their countries. And in some situations the governments may exclude certain companies or industries from support such as Komatsu and construction equipment in postwar Japan, and Infosys and software outsourcing in India, and still survive and grow. Under comparitive advantage Japan should still be importing construction equipment from Caterpillar in the US, and there would be no serious competition in that industry. This would work to the detriment of the principle of competition in free trade which is just as important to free trade as the idea of comparitive advantage, with new entrants in an industry upsetting the old way of doing things and creating price/quality improvements. Slaughter simply pulls back off the shelf the old idea of comparitive advantage without seriously considering its real life aspects. Without dealing with trade distortion from currency manipulation, from the impact on jobs, without considering the continuing critical role of manufacturing in developed economies to provide the standards of living for a large middle class, and creating the kind of society that people of developed countries aspire to. He mentions GE's Immelt and the President's Council on Jobs, but makes no effort to engage Immelt 's statement in his recent op-ed article in the Washington Post, that the concept of transitioning from a export-oriented economic powerhouse to a services led consumption based economy could be done without loss of jobs, prosperity and prestige, was fundamentally wrong. He has only one line for manufacturing's role in America's economy. This line says knowledge intensive industries such as education and software are just as important as manufacturing, but fails to mention that manufacturing has received less attention in recent decades. In so doing he is discounting his own profession of concern for the high rate of joblessness in the U.S., and the need for a new focus on manufacturing in the U.S. to reverse that trend. By saying that imports are not a sign of failure but can raise standards of living, and leaving it at that, Slaughter does not acknowledge that consumer debt that US consumers have taken on in the process certainly affects future prospects for the US economy. And he makes no mention of the need for rebalancing the world economy, which is exactly how free trade should work ideally. Countries that have high imports export more to rebalance the world trading system, as currency valuations are allowed to adjust makig their exports more attractive. By not taking into account the realities of free trade, and the need for practical measures to rebalance without policy induced distortions by state run economies, Slaughter ignores the idea of free trade that works as it should and for all countries. The irony is that Immelt's own committment to jobs and competitiveness has been questioned in online blogs and most recently by an editorial in the Wall Street Journal on January 26, 2011, titled "The Misallocators." That editorial refers to the outsize role of GE Capital in GE's earnings during the past decade, and the lack of credibility of a focus on competitiveness and jobs that this creates for GE. It mentions the loss of 34,000 GE jobs in the US during the last decade. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
According to First American CoreLogic, a real estate information company, 10.7 million households had negative equity in their homes. That is they were under water because they owed more on their mortgages than the properties are worth. The proportion is 23% or one in four homeowners. Mark Fleming CoreLogic's chief economist points out that having negative equity lowers labor mobility and in that way makes it harder to sell the house to look for jobs elsewhere. This is happening in Michigan and other states and is a discouraging sign for improving the job numbers. In this way the poor prospects in housing, banking bad loans in commercial real estate with tight bank lending, and the already high 10.2% umnemployment rate intersect to make 2010 pose significant risks for the economy.

LyrArc Article Gist
The Wall Street Journal's editorial columns have followed closely the working of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the years. Especially during the last decade, when most of the excesses, missteps and failures in the operations of the two companies occurred at huge cost to the US economy and to taxpayers. The Journal quotes from the recent Treasury report on the planned winding down of the two agencies. And focusses attention on the question of what will replace Fannie and Freddie. Only the first of three options looks viable considering the goals of reducing misallocation of national resources, and winding down the federal government's role in housing, says the Journal. With this Option the federal government guarantees are limited to Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loans to low income buyers and VA assistance for veterans and farm programs- narrow segments that limits the guarantee strictly to 10-15% of the mortgage market. The Journal says that the conclusions of the Treasury report are what WSJ has been saying for 20 years: " The strength of this option is that it would minimize distortions in capital allocation across sectors, reduce moral hazard in mortgage lending and drastically reduce direct taxpayer exposure to private lender's losses." And the points about the benefits: " With less incentive to invest in housing, more capital will flow into other areas of the economy, potentially leading to more long-run economic growth and reducing the inflationary pressure on housing assets. Risk throughout the system may also be reduced, as private actors will not be as inclined to take on excessive risk without the assurance of a government guarantee behind them. And finally, direct taxpayer risk exposure to private losses in the mortgage market would be limited to the loans guaranteed by FHA and other narrowly targeted government loan programs: no longer would taxpayers be at direct risk for guarantees covering most of the nation's mortgages." This bit of wisdom is especially significant, as misallocation of capital that went on in housing for the better part of the last decade has hurt America and the American people. It makes sense to have explicit money allocated by Congress for housing help to the poor and have no housing guarantees that have hurt the economy....

LyrArc Article Gist
Bayer AG CEO Marijn Dekkers talks to the Journal's Geoffrey Rogow about the company's pharmaceuticals business and job retention. Dekkers says profits are reduced by the tight budgets of European governments and the pressure on pricing. He cites the 16% mandatory rebate in Germany on prescriptions. For Bayer diversification through the chemicals business offers a way to handle the ups and downs in the pharmaceuical business with patent expiration. He is not interested in acquisitions because of the high premium involved and the difficulty of recovering this for investors. Bayer like other drug companies has extensive operations in China. Bayer is training salespersons in top and second tier Chinese cities. It has a program to train 10,000 physicians in rural areas of China working with the local government. Dekkers makes an interesting point about jobs and job retention in the U.S. He says a lot of jobs were outsourced in the 1990's and its difficult to bring them back. Germany has done a better job with job retention with "kurzarbeit" and other programs working in partnership with industry. In his view this could have been managed better in the U.S. with active programs such as this in the last two decades....

LyrArc Article Gist
One big concern says Nancy Keates of the WSJ about the National Association of Realtors, is that the organization collects and puts out objective data about home sales, and at the same time provides a commentary on the statistics. It also has a mission to advance the interests of its members. There are 2.6 million licensed real estate agents, and NAR represents about 1.3 million of these real estate agents. Would the real estate agents and the NAR tolerate an economist who raised concerns about the boom in lending? David Lereah, is former chief economist for the NAR ,and worked there from 2000 to April 2007. He remained upbeat throughout these years, even when the market was headed downwards. And the way he sees it he was doing for 7 years everything the NAR wanted him to do, and he was pressured to issue these upbeat reports. Critics called him "Baghdad Dave", after a Iraqi information minister for his false upbeat reports even when the war on the Iraqi side was lost. And a Credit Suisse analyst called him Liar-eah for some of these upbeat assesments, when things were clearly going wrong. The way Nancy Keates sees it this economist was eager to profit himself in the boom years. He was an economics Professor at Rutgers, at the University of Virginia, and later an economist and regulator at the Federal Deposit and Insurance Corporation. He himself bought condos 2 in Washington in 2003 and 2004, and one each in Tampa, Richmond, Va. and Alexandria, Va. and Naples, Florida. Owning by 2006 six condos worth between $150,000 and $400,000 a condo. He had an expensive lifestyle says his wife, with a big house worth $780,000, a country club, sports fishing boat. So in some ways suggests this reporter, he was caught up in the boom himself with his investments and the demands of a expensive lifestyle, with little room left for independent opinion and analysis. This is a striking example of things gone wrong, with all the meticulousness and comprehensiveness with which data is collected having its value destroyed by the lack of strict objectivity in the analysis. And the intrusion of strong personal interest bias in one direction making the destruction of objectivity complete. Looking at the economists at companies and associations, there is a subtle bias in operation that needs to be discounted by CEO's and association heads, a bias for giving the CEO's better and optimistic assessments on a consistent basis. An example is the way a large number of economists see the recovery taking place in 2009. Another related example is the sales forecasts for the Detroit auto companies that continued to assume sales in the 16-17 million a year rate into the latter half of 2008, even after the Bear Stearns collapse in March and the increasing foreclosures suggested something was amiss. All with horrendous consequences for the companies or industries involved, and the US and global economies....

LyrArc Article Gist
Brooks says President Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, was about incremental improvement, about continuity and defensive in nature, and lacked creativity to tackle the many hurdles and lacked most of all the audacity needed to set the country on the right track.

LyrArc Article Gist
President Obama in his speech at Georgetown, April 13, 2009, describes the thinking behind the decisions made in the first 12 weeks of his administration- why the actions are not aggressive and overreaching as some critics say, and why they are not timid as other critics have said. This was not a typical downturn of the business cycle, but a perfect storm arising from irresponsibility and poor decisionmaking in Washington, Wall Street and Main Street- in effect several crises colliding for something like an explosion, if not dealt with at once, and with strong action. He says "the key to dealing with our deficit and debt is to get a handle on out-of-control health care costs, not to stand idly by as the economy goes into free fall." The recognition that the crisis itself brings with it new possibilities, the opportunity for coming to grips with and forging a good solution to health care, energy and education issues that were neglected while Wall Street directed investments to areas other than investment in building for the future. To the critics like Krugman, Rosenfeld and others who say that the takeover of insolvent banks should be done quickly before the situation worsens, he says it is not because of any ideological or political judgement he has made about government involvement in banks, but because it is more likely to undermine than create confidence at this point. He goes on step by step, through the process of decisionmaking, first to step in and boost spending vigorously, second to get lending flowing again to businesses and families, strengthening the non-bank credit market for consumer purchases and loans, the housing plan, the auto plan, and the work at the G-20. Then President Obama goes on to project his vision and the road to getting there. The five pillars he sees for the future are: redirecting Wall Street and banking to constructive investments for the future, investments in education, investments in renewable energy and technology to create new industries and new jobs, investments in health care to cut costs for businesses and families, and new savings in the federal budget to bring down the deficit. Obama says he will look for savings line by line in every corner of the budget, and has already identified two trillion dollars in deficit reductions over the next decade. And the goal is to reduce discretionary spending for domestic programs as share of the economy by more than 10% over the next decade. Procurement reform will greatly reduce no-bid contracts and save $40 billion. Secretary Gates is attacking th problem of hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and cost overruns that have bloated the defense budget, without adding to the nation's safety. And education programs that don't work will be removed, and waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicare program will be controlled. Finally, Mr Obama points to the nation's political system as one more reason we are in this perfect storm- "a fundamental weakness in our political system." He cites the putting off hard decisions for another day, scoring political points instead of rolling up up sleeves to solve real problems, an impatience that is only worsened by the 24 hour news cycle, and a short attention span that focusses on the immediate results and on poll numbers. And there is too much responding to the "tempest of the moment until the furor has died away and the media coverage has moved on, instead of confronting the major challenges that will shape our future in a sustained and focussed way." After these 12 weeks President Obama says, for the first time there are glimmers of hope, and way off in the distance can be seen a vision of America's future that is far different than its troubled past. And citing the parable in the Sermon on the Mount about that "house built on a rock", he sees America's house built on a rock, a house for which we use this moment to lay a new foundation, come together and begin the hard work of rebuilding, persisting and persevering in the face of disappointments and setbacks that surely lie ahead. Then he has no doubt "that this house will stand and the dreams of our founders will live on in our time." Its a remarkable speech in its directness, its simplicity in approaching the subject, and its borrowing from the Bible for that story of that house built on a rock, and its Lincolnesque reference to the house that will stand. And more than a speech, it describes a vision, and the set of actions and steps taken and to be taken to get there. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Nouriel Roubini has proven correct on global financial issues. He said in an interview on the sidelines of a symposium in Malaysia, that China needs to revalue its currency for its own sake. China will see a growth collapse in the next 2-3 years if it fails to do so. His point is that China can still maintain growth by shifting to domestic consumption and less infrastructure spending and exports. In his view growth should not be affected if China exports less and consumes more. He points to the decrease in consumption as a share of GDP from 45% to 36% in the last ten years- this ratio is 70% in the USA. A cheap yuan keeps foreign goods unaffordable and protects state owned companies which also get cheap credit, as keeping the yuan low requires China to keep interest rates artificially low. What this does is make a massive transfer of income from the household sector to the state owned companies, just at the time when China needs to do the very opposite of this. And compounding the problem is that the 25% of China's GDP that is made up of retained earnings of mostly state owned companies, goes into real estate and production facilities. See the link to David Barboza in the New York Times who points to the wasteful spending and real estate speculation by state owned companies. Roubini cites the automobile sector where capacity has doubled in the last year to 20 million, when the domestic market increased by 50% to 10 million vehicles. The stimulus only increased the effect of surplus capacity and misallocation of investment, with highways to nowhere and brand new airports that are three quarters empty. The Chinese leadership is beginning to grasp this, but the state owned companies and other interests who benefit fromm the old model, may make it difficult to reverse the trends. A lot is at stake in this, as it affects the U.S., as well as countries dependent on China's imports such as Australia, Canada, Brazil and Germany. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A Wall Street Journal/NBC poll conducted in September 2010 shows a big change in public opinion in the US towards outsourcing of production and on free trade agreements. Poll respondents were asked "Do you think free-trade agreements have helped or hurt the US?" The response in 1999 was close to 30% for those who said hurt and those saying helped. By 2005 the curves diverged seriously with more people saying that it hurt and fewer saying it helped. In 2010 this swing is sharp with about 50% saying it hurts the US and only about 10% saying it helps. When asked "Do you agree or disagree that outsourcing of production and manufacturing work to foreign countries is a reason the U.S. economy is struggling and more people are not being hired?" the response is overwhelmingly agreeing that this is bad for the U.S. job situation. The answers are the same across party affiliation, in fact higher for Republicans than Democrats 90% to 84%, higher by income level with 93% for those making over $75,000 agreeing and 86% for those making less than 75,000 agreeing, 93% of professionals and managers agree compared to 89% white collar and 83% blue collar agreeing. This shows all segments of society agree that that the manner in which free trade and outsourcing of production is taking place is not helping the U.S., and this time the highly educated segments are leading the way. Bill McInturff, the Republican pollster who helped do the survey points to the big change in the way well educated and upper income people perceive free trade agreements. In 1999 only 24% of this group making over $75,000 said free trade hurt the U.S., now 50% of this group says it hurts the US. This is sure to lead to big changes in U.S. trade and currency issues with China and other countries. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
R.E.O. is lingo for "Real Estate Owned," the term for homes taken in by banks that are from foreclosures. Reomac is the industry group that specializes in the sales of such homes. And "REO tsunami" refers to the flood of some 700,000 bank properties now on the market nationwide. Therre were just 100,000 in 2006. In February, nearly 45% of the home sales natinwide were called short sales in which homeowners under duress sell a property for less than their mortgage, according to the National Associaiton of Realtors. These sales have worsened a natiowide decline in home values, as REO homes typically sell at a 20% discount. Reomac just held its 2009 conference at Palm Desert. The extravagance and the excess at the conference is amazing considering that the whole country is facing this crisis and California is one of the hardest hit states. From the way people are trying to get these properties one could not imagine that the rest of the country is going through a crisis, and millions in developing countries might at this very moment be plunged below the poverty line!...

LyrArc Article Gist
Shows what the different states are doing and why the response at the state level is slow even though its better than the respose at the federal level. Most of this action willhelp future borrowers and rlieve some of the effects on current borrowers but only to a small degree otherwise the foreclosure process will probably continue to play out.

LyrArc Article Gist
How the mortgage restructuring process might take shape to mitigate the effects on homeowner, on lenders and on the overall economy of rising foreclosures in 2008 as the Alt-A mortgages rest to higher rates. Active intervention by California's governor to obtain mass restructuring through agreements with lenders, four servicers agreed to extend the teaser rate for several years and fast tract the procedures for whole masses of struggling but not hopeless borrowers to get the lower rate.

LyrArc Article Gist
The House of Representatives just passed a bill to stem foreclosures and stabilize house prices by having the government through the Federal Housing Administration reinsure upto $300 billion of problem loans. The bills backers estimate 1.5 million foreclosures could be prevented by this bill but the Congressional Budget Office estimates only about 500,000 foreclosures can be averted this way. Under this bill lenders would have to writedown their loans to 85% of current value of the house. Borrowers pay a fee for the insurance and give up any share in future price appreciation to the government. According to the Congressional Budget Office the cost to the government is modest about $1.7 billion over years. The reason for the limited effectiveness of this bill is that it is voluntary, not much government money is extended. Many of the comments in the blog on this article as is the case with other articles on help to homeowners facing foreclosure show the widespread idea that its a bailout of irresponsible decisions by homeowners and mortgage companies who made the loans. This may be the reason why so little has been done in this regard and the limited government money extended even in plans put forth by Congressional Democrats like Barney Frank. Feldstein who is a former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under Reagan has taken a different approach focussing on homeowners who may see the rational decision is to walk away from homes where they have no equity in their homes as prices drop by 20% and for government to prevent a wave of foreclosures in this manner. The danger is if not much is done there could be a downward spiral in home prices as foreclosure reach a new high in 2009. Last year according to Economist's charts foreclosures were averaging more than 100,000 a month now they are averaging more than 200,000 a month, this would take it from 1.5 million foreclosures in 2007 to 2.5 million in 2008. According to the Economist 9 million people owe more than their house is worth, the homeowners who have negative equity, and if they were to foreclose at the rate of 2-3 million a year and accelerating as the economy deteriorates, this could be enough to start a downward spiral. At that point a new President and Congress would have to take drastic action with a substantial amount of the government's money. In that kind of crisis not much thought would be given to the cost because like the financial meltdown that was feared during the Bear Stearns crisis the fears of a global severe economic crisis would make action necessary on many fronts of which housing would be one....