World News Insights
1-3 Minute Gist

Browse Articles or use Lyrarc's US patented "Groups" and "Links" for new insights. A Lyrarc Group of Articles on a topic gives insights into particular angles shown in the Group Title. A Lyrarc Link shows more specific insights for 2 articles.

All Topics Articles

LyrArc brings in selected articles from many of the world's top publications.

Articles are selected by experts and you can see the gist of the important articles.


New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Banking regulation in the U.S. after the Dodd-Frank legislation differs from banking regulation rules proposed by the Independent Commission on Banking in Britain. Britain has a much bigger financial sector relative to the size of its economy than the U.S., posing larger systemic risks. The commission in Britain is proposing structural changes that would separate investment banking from deposit taking at banks. Banks would have separate balance sheets for these two activities- and operate them as separate subsidiaries- even though they are part of one holding company. This means it would be harder to raise money cheaply for risktaking in investment banking. Under the Volcker Rule in the U.S., banks investment banking and deposit taking would not be separated in a structural separation- there would still be one balance sheet- only banks ability to trade with their own capital and run hedge funds would be constrained. Some banks have spun off trading operations in the U.S. and the the rules banks have to follow have not been clearly defined. Too big to fail is still a problem under current American regulation, though its effects are mitigated to some extent. As one expert puts it, its hard to regulate the banks because too much money is involved and the banks have the money and the lawyers to prevent or dilute new rules. The argument made by the banks in Britain is that universal international banking provides a public benefit and efficiencies. But John Vickers, the former chief economist of the Bank of England, and chairman of the Independent Commission on Banking, has a different view. He said recently, "it seems quite hard to identify and quantify real efficiencies as distinct from purely private gains."...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh's views on the need for greater transparency and disclosure from the large U.S. banks and the risks to the financial system from "too-big-to-fail" banks in 2012-2013. He says the U.S. should not be dependent on the Basel standards for capital requirements and use its own system of stricter requirements similiar to the UK and Switzerland. His views are that the Dodd-Frank law puts too much dependence on regulators doing the right thing, information transparency is lacking for markets to impose discipline, and delegates too much to Basel standards which are not rigorous enough for protecting the U.S. economy.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Warren Stephens, head of Stephens Inc, in Little Rock, Arkansas, says repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was a mistake. U.S. banks should have a 5% cap on holdings of total deposits in the U.S., and no "grandfathering" of banks over the 5% limit. Five institutions controlling 50% of the deposits in the U.S. creates too much systemic risk in another financial crisis. Banks should be expected to be one or the other, commercial banks or investment banks, not both. These recommendations are not new. Bank of England Governor, Mervyn King, called for breaking up the largest banks or shrinking the size of the largest banks during the global financial crisis in 2008. This position for banks that are smaller in size is supported by veteran bankers Paul Volcker, Thomas Hoenig and other experts.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, wants to see stricter requirements than Basel III on capital reserves for U.K. banks. The Bank of England has expressed its strong disapproval of UK banks lobbying activities in Brussels to push for a dilution in Basel III standards. The British government and the Bank of England want to have the flexibility to set their own stricter standards and not to be bound by a relaxed standard set by the EU. The risk to British taxpayers is a principal concern. In the U.S. Fed governor Daniel Tarullo is pushing for capital reserve requirements stricter than Basel III's 7% requirement- calling for a requirement of 10-14%.
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Systemic risks from "too big to fail" and the pushback on capital reserve requirements that leave banks with lower reserves. Ewing describes the role of the president of the Swiss Central Bank, Mr Hildebrand, in setting rules for higher capital reserves for Swiss banks than that of other countries and the pushback from the banks resisting the new regulations. "He will never find another job in Switzerland," a Swiss newspaper Der Sonntag quoted one banker saying this about Mr. Hildebrand. Losses at Swiss bank UBS during the financial crisis and the $2 billion loss at a UBS trading desk in 2011 have created a new awareness of systemic risk at banks. During the financial crisis banks used an optimistic estimate of "risk weighted assets" which led to insufficient capital reserves in a crisis even as the banks were shown to be well capitalized. A sense that banks in Europe and the U.S. will continue to have insufficient capital reserves at 3-4% of assets under new rules and with the longer phase in times for the new Basel III regulations of reserves at 7% of assets to after 2016....
New York Times Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Deborah Solomon interviews Abby Cohen of Goldman Sachs. Cohen is asked about bank bonuses and compensation, about the role of the banks in the financial meltdown, and whether she and Goldman Sachs felt any responsibility for the economic crisis.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Glen Hubbard, who was Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President George W. Bush and is now Dean of Columbia University Business School, Hal Scott professor of International Fiancial Systems at Harvard Law School, and Luigi Zingales professor of finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, say a different plan of action is needed from what the Obama administration is doing to tackle the banking crisis. They are really skeptical about the the Public Private Investment Program and other plans put forth upto now for several reasons. First, in every case they say there is a lot of carrot but very little stick, and this won't work. TARP program was mostly carrot, with Treasury getting back securities worth $78 billion less than the $254 billion invested, as pointed out by the Congressional Oversight Panel.The FDIC's guarantee of short term debt was worth $100 billion just for the original nine TARP participating banks, and the mortgage related asset guarantees offered Citibank and Bank of America were worth tens of billions. They see anew round of TARP injections with the conversion of the government's preferred stock into equity after release of the stress test results. Then there is PPIP the Public Private Investment Program, and its plans to subsidize the purchase of bank's"toxic assets" by hedge funds and other investors. They estimate the government will spend $2 for every $1 the private sector puts up. And even with this subsidy their thinking is that the probability of succes is low for the same reason that has prevailed since the earlier efforts by Treasury Secretary Paulson- there is just too big a gap between the bid and ask prices on the toxic assets, and add to that the reluctance of investors to partner with the government. Its time for more stick say these experts as the problem of toxic assets, and of credit and lending in the economy, will hang like a large shadow over the economy, as long as these tough problems are not wrestled with. This is the Hubbard-Scott-Luigi Plan: 1) The FDIC should announce that its guarantees of short term debt set to expire in October will not be renewed. Insolvent banks, defined not by stress tests but as those that cannot fund themselves in the private market, will be taken over by the FDIC under aclear and credible action plan. 2) The FDIC lacks the resources to run several large and complex banks which may become insolvent. And waving the idea of nationalization the creditors may try to get the government to bail them out. The authors of this plan say the FDIC should solit each bank into a "bad bank" and a "good bank." The "bad bank" would carry all the residential and commercial real estate loans and securitized mortgages as assets, and all the long term debt as liabilities. THe "bad bank" would obtain along term laon from the good bank to fund the assets of the bad bank. Al the remaining assets including the derivative contracts and the loan to the bad bank would be assets of the good bank. It would also have all the insured deposits and the FDIC guaranteed short term debt as liabilities. With the split accomplished the good bank can be released from FDIC receivership. 3) The long term debt holders would be compensated by receiving all the equity of the good bank. The old shareholders would get the equity in the bad bank. And in any restructuring bondholders should do better than equity holders. If banks are not really insolvent as some say and just facing temporary dislocations, then the bad bank will eventually surge in value, and the equity holders will do alright, and if not they will receive nothing as they should. 4) For this to work legislation needs to take effect before October for FDIC procedures for handling failed banks to be also applicable to bank holding companies. And this new legislation puts no new cost on the taxpayer....
New York Times Original article ›

ObamaCare's Reality Deficit

Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Questions about the true cost of the Obama health care legislation and the assumption that the legislation cuts the deficit by billions of dollars. This WSJ editorial says one has to look at this closely, and not merely look at CBO projections, which may be based in a certain context and not reflect the true costs, especially because many accounting gimmicks and use of numbers to present a particular picture is taking place. The information this editorial cites is that: it uses 10 years of taxes to fund six years of subsidies, Social Security and Medicare revenues are double-counted to the tune of $398 billion, a new program funding long-tem care frontloads taxes but backloads spending, and the assumption of an automatic 25% cut to physician payments that Congress is unwilling to authorize. Rep. Rand Paul has tried to present an alternative view which needs to be studied just as closely, because of the enormous impact of a jump in spending at a time when the public finances are fragile. WSJ also cites the work of Richard Foster, the chief Medicare actuary, as an alternate perspective of how things could turn out, Doug Holtz-Eakin, and Eugene Steuerle. It calls for common sense in evaluating programs, entitlements, defense or other government spending. They not only cost money, but costs escalate over time as history has shown over decades, till they eventually are discovered to be not affordable unless the middle class is willing to dig deeper into its finances to pay for them. Alternate perspectives from a range of informed opinion, Howard Dean, Martin Feldstein, and the head of Harvard's Medical School show that the issue needs to be looked at closely and carefully and cannot be something in which CBO numbers can be trusted to tell the whole story. Especially when common sense, history, and informed opinion across a spectrum of thought advises caution, and fragile public finances also suggest caution. Howard Dean, former Governor of Vermont, says the health care bill is not real reform, and may do more harm than good. He says in a Washington Post article, December 17, 2009, the Obama health care bill does not insert competition into insurance markets, does not significantly reduce costs, and does not improve the delivery and use of health services. It was he says done with a political calculus and crafted for votes not real reform. Jeffrey S. Flier, Dean of the Harvard Medical School, gave the Obama health reform bill an "F" grade, saying in a Nov 18, 2009, WSJ article, that it was disingenuous to call this reform, Congress and the White House were simply deceiving the public. He said the bill will accelerate US health care spending, postpone most of the major health care problems, expecially the ones that drive cost, including the "fee for service" system and delivery of health care. He says in his discussions with economists and other health care leaders the opinion was unanimous that the bill will accelerate health care spending. He cites Massachusetts as an example, where access to care was expanded under the same dysfunctional system, and spending went up, and it doesn't work. Feldstein, who in early 2008 suggested proactive solutions to the mortgage debt crisis which were never adopted, says that the Obama health care law means higher taxes in the long run to pay for the $1 trillion cost of health care for the uninsured group over 10 years. Feldstein says that the Obama plan is to cut Medicare to cut spending, and will reduce the amount of medical services, as reduced spending comes from fewer services, not reducing payments to providers. And he asks if the cost reductions are weighted too heavily towards reduced services and not reduced payments to providers ,would this result in large cuts to services to affect the quality of healthcare for the 85% of the American people who are accustomed to a different pattern of healthcare. ...
DW.COM Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Nick Clegg, deputy prime minister, and the leader of the British Liberal Democrats party, the junior member in the coalition government in Britain, said he was "bitterly disappointed" by prime minister Cameron's decision to reject a pact for 27 EU nations to revise E.U. treaties. He told the BBC in a long interview :"This is bad for Britain." Britain is close to becoming a country "hovering in the mid-Atlantic and not being taken seriously in Europe." But he said "it would be a disaster" for the Liberal Democrats to withdraw from the coalition. Cameron's conditions for protecting Britain's financial industry were rejected by Merkel and Sarkozy.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The IMF loans of $18 billion approved in March 2014 are conditional on structural reforms in Ukraine which will be painful. This includes a 50% increase in the price of natural gas on May 1, tax increases and spending cuts, flexible exchange rates. About 10% of the state officals will be cut and decreases in pensions for judges. Higher taxes will be placed on alcohol and tobacco products. Prime minister Yatsenuyk, says without the reforms and IMF-EU loans the economy woud contract by 10%, with the package GDP would decline by 3%. Ukraine's 10 year dollar denominated government bonds had a yield of 8.94%. Years of large state subsidies for natural gas, mismanagement and corruption have left Ukraine's finances in bad shape. Ukraine now faces austerity measures similiar to that in other Eastern European countries and Greece, leading to continued political unrest.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Guerrera describes the vital role that FDIC chairman Gruenberg's plan for unwinding failing financial institutions will play in tackling the "too-big-to-fail" problem facing the U.S. He points to the increasing importance of this after the failure of risk management systems at JP Morgan Chase bank.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Mexico's economy grew at 1.34% in the third quarter of 2011, according to the national statistics institute. Annual growth is estimated at 4% for 2011. The war against organized drug trafficking in Mexico cost the economy one percentage point of economic growth, according to estimates by BBVA Bancomer, Mexico's largest bank. Mexico received $20 billion in foreign investment in 2011, about the same as in 2010. Cars and aerospace have drawn large foreign investment. Mazda will invest $500 million on a new plant in central Mexico. Honda says it will spend $800 million on a second Mexican plant. In recent years with higher costs in China, higher transport costs, and a weaker peso with a stronger yuan, Mexico is becoming more competitive with China as a manufacturing investment location. The younger workforce, low inflation and technical education schooling, offer Mexico additional advantages. Mexico is the second largest manufacturer of flat screen television sets, and is now the fourth largest location for outsourced IT such as call centers. Axa CEO, Henri Castries, and Siemens CEO, Louise Goeser, have very favorable views of doing business in Mexico. Siemens sees sales increasing by double digits through 2015, and has located one of three global R&D centers in the state of Queretaro. Goeser says many parts of Mexico are safer than parts of the U.S. A large part of the violence is concentrated in a few states, and in border cities like Juarez, and affects smaller businesses more than the large manufacturing enterprises of overseas companies. As a result it is as if there were several economies in Mexico, with foreign enterprises largely insulated from the violence. ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A recent poll by Forsa, independent polling institute, shows the governing parties in German chancellor Merkel's coalition have only 34% support. Forsa does surveys for German magazine Stern. By contrast the Social Democrats and the Greens have 47% support. Merkel lost an election in May 2010 in North Rhine-Westphalia. Merkel has three years remaining in her term.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
Washington Post Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
With the U.S. Federal Reserve pulling back from its monetary easing policy and the ECB holding steady with a low interest rate policy, bond investors are finding attractive buys for government bonds of Italy and Spain. 10 year government bonds of Italy yielded 4.2%, and Spain's government bonds yielded 4.3% on Aug. 22, 2013. By comparison German government bonds yielded 1.88%, narrowing the gap between the bonds of southern European countries and German bonds as the eurozone economies recover in 2013-2014.
New York Times Original article ›

Support LyrArc

We took a different way to help millions around the world build educated informed mindsets that affects and shapes their lives. For a future that is open, global and digital, with everyone having access to high quality information. We believe in the renewal of America, renewal of Europe, the renewal of India, the rest of Asia, Latin America and Africa. The renewal of our supply chains, health, education, infrastructure, as we rebuild our countries after the pandemic. Literacy and knowledge we believe cannot thrive and grow in a world of web bots, web crawlers, or AI. This requires human curiosity, human learning, and human imagination. We take as inspiration the saying- “One has to be free, and as broad as sky. One has to have a mind that is crystal clear, only then can truth shine in it.” Every contribution whether big or small is precious- in this crisis and ahead.

Support Lyrarc from as small as $1


Copyright © 2006 - 2026 Intelilinks LLC
Terms and Conditions | Copyright Policy | Privacy Policy | Contact Us