LyrArc Article Gist
The tough job President Obama faces as he faces opposition from politicians who have interests to protect, and healthcare businesses with interests to protect. The President has to come up with a plan that is deficit neutral, because financial markets could see a healthcare bill that further widens the deficit as a signal for higher interest rates that would deepen the recession. At the same time each of the three sources of revenue puts him at loggerheads with political leaders in Congress or groups with interests to protect. Limiting income tax deductions for high earners could raise $267 billion in 10 years. It would require taxpayers in the top tax brackets deduct their mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and charitable donations, at the 28% tax rate instead of the 33% and 35% tax rates. The opposition is with democratic leaders that it would hurt charities, universities that depend on tax deductible donations, and taxpayers in high tax cities like New York city that are the home base of Democratic leaders. Yet only 1.4% of households would be affected says the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, says charitable giving would decrease by 2%. The other opposition on this comes from the preference of Senators Baucus and Grassley, who head the Senate Finance Committee, for tax increases or cost savings to come from the health sector. Specifically they want to see the value of workers' employer provided health benefits subject to income taxes. It is a situation in which every sensible person admits the need for healthcare reform and would see the current pace of healthcare costs as unsustainable and dangerous; and after that will just go back to his group and try to preserve as much of the status quo as possible, so as not to disturb by much the benefits or compensation they have secured from the system over the years. Then there are political leaders in Congress with their own preferences, and Congressmen who are the subject of heavy lobbying by these interests. The administration and the Presidents job is to navigate this stream with a workable deficit neutral plan, without any requirement for any group to make sacrifices, and in some situations even small sacrifices for the public interest. Would charitable institutions be hurt that much, what if charitable institutions were exempted, why would other interests the try to obtain the same exemption. Its like the unions trying to keep the old unsustainable goldplated healthcare and other benefits at GM even as the ship was going down. Taxing employer provided employee health benefits as income would raise $2.5 trillion over a decade. The opposition here is from unions which are a force in the Democratic party and which count tax free health benefits as a legacy of the labor movement. Employer provided health insurance covers 160 million American employed and their dependents under the age of 65, so it has a wide impact. Yet most economists favor ending the tax break. They say it mainly goes to upper income taxpayers, and discourages cost consciousness among consumers of health care, thus encouraging excessive spending and surging health care costs. Senior Obama advisors, Peter Orszag, the budget director, and economist Jason Furman favor this approach. So do Republicans in Congress. Senators Baucus and Grassley are not asking for the complete removal of the tax break, what they want to see is capping the value of benefits that go untaxed. If the tax-free limit is $13,000, a policy worth $15,000 would pay income taxes on $2000. A third spource is to spend less on Medicare. About two thirds of the $948 billion in savings Mr Obama has proposed over 10 years comes from a number of reductions in Medicare spending. $177 billion comes from insurance companies bidding for government reimbursements for offering private plans to seniors. $106 billion comes from cutting the subsidies to hospitals serving the uninsured as universal coverage should remove this need. And $110 billion in reduced payments to hospitals and doctors because of productivity gains. A range of industries insurance companies, hospitals, doctors drugmakers, nursing homes, home health care companies and medical device makers, all stand to lose from reduced payments from Medicare and Medicaid. And these groups with interests to protect are another factor in this process of working out a healthcare plan. ...

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....

LyrArc Article Gist
AIG's bad bets on housing were made right under the supervision of a "college' of global bureaucrats and regulators in the Office of Thrift Supervision, according to its acting director Polakoff, says the WSJ editorial.

LyrArc Article Gist
Dana Milbank of the WP says the views of some Democrats on Trump as a good Republican nominee based on the notion that he has high negative perception with voters is fraught with dangers for U.S. democracy. Milbank points out that this ignores what is good for the country. Having Trump as the nominee of one of the two main parties would create a divisive atmosphere and is not good for the country, says Milbank. In comparing Trump with Cruz, he says Trump is likely to follow his instincts to operate outside the U.S. constitutional system. Cruz as a person believes in the U.S. constitution and would never endorse violence or action against minorities. Cruz has not done enough to come across as a likable person with his persistent focus on conservative or Reagan values to the exclusion of everything else. This is changing in mid-April 2016 following a CNN interview with the Cruz family, a MSNBC town hall answering questions from undecided voters, and NYT coverage of Cruz at a Brooklyn bakery, that shows a different human face that people have never seen about Cruz. Cruz's self-deprecating humor in a NYT article where he talks about voters not liking "a hectoring scold," is part of this needed change that could have happened earlier in the campaign. About Trump Milbank cites Conservative party prime minister Cameron who says Trump would unite all Britons against him if he ever came to Britain....

LyrArc Article Gist
Couple of things stand out. First an aging workforce at the oil companies. At ConocoPhillips half of the workers are eligible for retirement in 5 years. According to the Society of Petroleum Engineers about 40% of petroleum engineers are over 50 today. This also means that they are higher paid employees and takes up more of Conoco's budget for exploration of $11 billion as a compared to a younger workforce. What the industry needs is lots of people to do the explortation and drilling jobs from construction labor to project managers, to geologists and petroleum engineers to geoscientists. About half a million petroleum related jobs were lost between 1982 and 2000 when the oil industry had low prices and plenty of supply leading to large layoffs. During 1982 to 2003 petroleum related undergraduate programs saw enrolment drop dramitically by 85%. Now the industry is paying the price with severe people constraints when demand has picked up. Cambridge Energy Associates estimate is that there would be about a 10-15% deficit of people even a few years from now in 2010 because it takes time to turno out new engineers and geologists. Today there is big interest on campuses in petroleum engineering and petroleum related fields. Its the highest paid field for college grauates at $68,000 average and at schools like Texas Tech its $100,000 average. Still only 3700 petroleum engineering students are enrolled on campuses compared to the peak of 11,000 in 1983 so there is some hesitation about this field because of the cycles of ups and downs. The novel approach that oil companies are adopting of turning to the auto industry and to academia to fill the people needs is worth watching because here are 2 industries going in opposite directions and whereas one has a shortage the other has qualified people who have no opportunity, a shift makes sense and training to make that shift makes a lot of sense. The Association of Drilling Contractors has teamed up with Ford Motor Company to hold a career fair to attract auto employees who are subject to buyouts....

LyrArc Article Gist
Amol Sharma and Paul Beckett of the WSJ interview Finance Minister Chidambaram about the Indian government's decisions to open up the insurance, retail and airline sectors to foreign investment, and bring the deficit down to close to 5.3% in 2013. Faced with slowing growth and the risk of credit ratings agencies lowering India's credit ratings the government of prime minister Manmohan Singh has decided to take some decisive steps, including a shift in coalition partners to maintain parliamentary support for these steps. When asked about what influenced the government's resolve to take these decisions, Chidambaram says credit ratings was one factor, another was the difficulty Indian companies were having raising capital inside the Indian market and overseas. In addition he says growth could not be sustained at earlier levels without new capital, and new foreign investment was needed for sustained growth. The Kelkar committee report provided a sense of urgency to the government by providing an independent view and showing the worst case scenario if the government maintained the status quo. Chidambaram says subsidies will now be transferred in the form of cash directly to beneficiaries and reduce costs by cutting leakage in the system.The government will use the list of LPG cooking gas households to transfer the subsidy for 6 gas cylinders directly to beneficiary accounts. The plan is to do the same for the Rural Employment Guarantee Program and subsidized foodgrains to cut the leakage that stems from duplication and falsification. The Indian government's ongoing program to use information technology to have computerized records of the the entire population and linking to the financial system, incuding a large rural population, now makes it possible to take these steps. On the Kelkar committee's recommendation to increase prices of basic commodities cooking gas, kerosene and food to reduce government subsidies, Chidambaram says this is ambitious and the government has to consider the political context even though it agrees that this has to be done over time....

LyrArc Article Gist
Wall Street Journal analysis shows top earners at 38 U.S. banks and securities firms will get $145 billion in 2009, an 18% increase over 2008. This even after increasing public anger about exceedingly high levels of executive compensation with no relation to performance, and at a time of high unemployment.

LyrArc Article Gist
The first of a series of quarterly reports put out by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, on the subject of household debt and credit. It shows that the process of unwinding consumer debt in the US is a slow and painful one. The figures tell the story, which touch every aspect of the US economy and business, with ripple effects through the world economy. Total consumer debt is $11.7 trillion as of June 30, 2010, which is down 6.5% from the crest reached in the third quarter 2008. Credit card accounts are down 23% from the high reached in second quarter 2008, and mortgage obligations down 6.4% from 2008. By mid 2010 11.4% of consumer debt was delinquent, and this was up from 11.2% in 2009. $1.3 trillion of consumer debt is delinquent, and $986 billion is seriously delinquent- that is 90 days late. Serious delinquencies are up by 3.1%. Other figures fromt he Fed report: Half million people in the USA had a foreclosure added to the credit reports for the period March 31, 2010 to June 30, 2010. This was up 8.7% above the figure for first quarter of 2010. New bankruptcies showed up in credit reports for 624,000 people during that quarter, an increase of 34%. Another major problem stacked on top of this for consumer spending- the Fed's interest rate policy according to Todd Petzel, chief investment officer of Offit Capital Advisors, burdens consumers with a tax of $350 billion in income lost from low to zero interest rates. This creates two problems of its own. Not only does it depress consumer spending. It also makes consumers reach out for riskier investments. This figure was calculated by taking $14 trillion in debt issued by Treasury, federal agencies and municipalities. Rates are near zero on short term Treasuries compared to 3% average over the years. Taking 2.5% on $14 trillion, the figure of $350 billion was arrived at. Or 2% of gross domestic product. Analysts say that it would be better not to save a few zombie banks at the expense of consumers and pension funds. It lowers the cost of the deficits through the lower interest rates the government pays on its debt, but lower consumer spending and a limping economy hurt tax revenues and increases the deficit....

LyrArc Article Gist
A Pew Research Center poll in September 2016 finds 81 percent of Indians have a favorable opinion of Narendra Modi in 2016, compared to 87 percent in 2015. Even among supporters of the opposition Indian National Congress a majority say they have a favorable opinion of Mr. Modi. The author of the poll, Bruce Stokes, says the opinion of frustration of the Indian elites and media about the Modi administration is not reflected in public opinion. Recently the Modi government passed legislation for a national Goods and Services Tax replacing overlapping state and federal taxes that are seen as holding up growth.  Issues the Indian public ranks high are corruption, unemployment and terrorism.

LyrArc Article Gist
A local government vehicle in China, Sixth Division of XPCC fails to make a bond payment in August 2018. This is the first such instance of failure to make a bond payment for a local government vehicle in 2018. Economists estimate China's total debt at 242% of GDP in 2017, and government efforts to tighten liquidity and reduce support for overextended local government investment vehicles.

LyrArc Article Gist
India is an attractive place for foreign investors with the country moving up 23 places in the ease of doing business rankings of the World Bank. Growth is faster than China since 2015, and GDP is expected to double to $5 trillion by 2030, according to government think tank NITI Aayog. Corporate deal making from foreign investors exceeds that in China. Mergers and acquisitions targeting Indian companies reaching a total of $93.7 billion in 2018, up 52% from last year, according to Dealogic. Overseas purchases were $39.5 billion for India in 2018 compared to $32.8 billion for China. In comparison to China where trade tensions are increasing, India under the Modi government has improved the ease of doing business- implementing a new bankruptcy code, easing foreign direct investment rules, introduced a nationwide goods and services tax to replace a hodge podge of taxes in different states. In the consumer sector Unilever NV made purchase of a malted drink brand Horlicks from GlaxoSmithKline PLC as part of a $3.75 billion deal. Softbank led a $1 billion investment in OYO Hotels. In infrastructure Tata Steel made a $8.3 billion acquisition of steelmaker Bhushan Steel. Reliance Jio's aggressive push in mobile with low prices is leaving the telecom industry ripe for mergers and consolidation- Bharti Infratel acquired Indus Towers for $6.5 billion. Closely held family companies are also selling out their controlling stakes. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Economist magazine points out that Indian companies will have to invest more in innovation if they are to maintain return on investment. It says the GST, government action to reduce corruption since 2012 through court decision on crony capitalism, better functioning markets for land, natural resources and capital, more efficient supply chains, will force large Indian companies to compete by becoming more efficient. Under the previous regime before 2012 large Indian companies were able to make high ROI but this was an illusory advantage, as the growth in the Indian economy could create opportunities for firms that can compete with innovation, quality and efficiency. In this sense the Indian economy is entering a new phase under the Modi administration with stretch goals and efforts to create  the next ten year period of growth very different from the past.

LyrArc Article Gist
The pressures on Apple to reduce prices and margins in 2016 with the slowdown in sales. Apple also has to deal with the impact of a stronger dollar with a large part of sales coming from overseas.