LyrArc Article Gist
This article in the NYT provides a look at the features of the Republican House Health Care Plan- Both the Affordable Health Care Act and the House Plan provide incentives for buying insurance- the ACA bases these incentives on income levels whereas the House Plan does not provide additional help for low incomes or elderly. Incomes at $20,000 would see a loss greater than  $2000 under the House Plan and as many of the elderly poor living in high cost areas may not have the resources to make up for this loss of subisidies they may forgo buying insurance or have insurance coverage that protects only in a limited way. President Trump has given assurances that all will be covered. For people with incomes of $50,000 or $75000 the loss of $2000 subisidies would also have some impact. At larger incomes or the well to do the subsidies are not handed out under either plan. Under the ACA the emphasis was on income levels and high cost insurance areas the subsidies were greater, under the House Plan the subisidies would be higher for the elderly compared to the young but very low income levels are not given additional help.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Municipal yields are back up. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says states in the USA will have to close budget gaps of $140 billion in fiscal year 2012, ending in June, down from $160 billion this year. But real shortfalls will increase because federal stimulus funds that helped state and local governments will fall from $59 billion this year to $6 billion next year. Local governments depend on states for one third of their revenue, according to a Congressional Budget Office report, which makes them vulnerable. Property taxes account for a quarter of local government revenue and this too will be declining with declining assessed values. The Federal Reserve Act limits open-market purchases of munis to ones with maturities of less than 6 months, which reduces the scope for help from the Fed.

LyrArc Article Gist
The culture of risk at Societe Generale. Is this typical of this period the glorification of the quants and the general aspiration to attain the status reserved for them. Did this lead to a lax supervision that led to the huge losses of a single youthful trader. How was it possible to allow a single trader to take positions amounting to $50 billion? See the link to the WSJ article.

LyrArc Article Gist
What date should one keep in mnd if both sides fail to reach agreement in U.S. "fiscal cliff" negotiations? Payroll tax and other tax increases go into effect Jan. 1, 2013. Spending cuts could be backloaded to the latter part of 2013. Early January would be when a debt ceiling increase would lead to more negotiations and if no increase in the debt ceiling is made by March 27, the government would go into partial shutdown.

LyrArc Article Gist
Lessons from the Mexican financial crisis of 1994-95 with the collapse of the Mexican peso, and a massive government bank bailout and Mexico's biggest slump since the Great Depression. Guillermo Ortiz, now central bank governor, was finance minister at the time. He discussed things with Fed Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, about the Mexican experience which could be seen as the first financial crisis of the global economy. What lessons can be learned? Ortiz says there comes a moment when something happens that leads to a general loss of confidence. Once this happens things can deteriorate fast. This happened when Mexico could not successfully manage the devaluing of the peso. For the USA this might have happened with the collapse of Lehman, which may have triggered a sequence of events leading to a general loss of confidence and banks fear of lending to each other and credit markets getting frozen. At that point Ortiz says its better to do too much than to do too little, as it takes a lot to restore confidence. "And don't be ruled by ideology, stay flexible and act decisively. Help those with mortgages they can't pay. Take stakes in troubled banks. Don't expect to turn a profit on government investment." How do you tackle mortgage workouts or modification. Vicente Corta who led Mexico's bank bailout program says "we tried fancy scemes that did not work. We ended up saying 'OK you pay half your mortgage, and we'll pick up the other half." Sounds similiar to what FDIC's Sheila Barr is doing on a small scale at IndyMac bank, basically " making mortgages affordable." And take stake of ownership in banks in exchange for injection of capital. Paul Krugman says the Bush administration earlier was reluctant to do this, thinking oh that is socialism, because they let themselves get into an ideological bind. Until Gordon Brown did just this in the UK with RBS and HBOS banks on Monday October 13, 2008. In that case because no on else came forward Britain took a majority stake. British finance Minister, Alistair Darling, stated that the British government was not in the business of running banks and that this was taking a necessary step to restore lending. The Mexican experince in this context is very instructive. It cost Mexico dearly in terms of political warfare about this, because once Banamex for example- to which the Mexican governmet gave money without any ownership stake- became healthy it was sold to Citigroup for $12 billion and the government got nothing. In Mexico Lopez Obrador and other politicians have created a running debate about this as totally unfair and it has been divisive for Mexican politics, making passing even basic legislation difficult. Ortiz now says take ownership stakes and if you don't forget about socialism you will have political fallout of a different kind when banks once healthy and profitable are on their own owing little to the government; just when the government falls short of financing the basic programs for the elderly, for children, for schools, for health care,and for collapsing bridges and roads that are falling apart, not to speak of funding shortfalls for Medicare and Social Security. So Guillermo Ortiz has some very useful advice for Ben Bernanke and the Fed and for Treasury and for the next President. Edmund Phelps of Columbia University was interviewed on Bloomberg today, October 13. He is a recent winner of the Nobel prize in Economics. He also believes capital injection into the banks- like other economist have suggested -is the key to getting the banks to lend. He thinks the auction process and buying up toxic assets is way too complicated and would take way too much time. He thinks keeping homeowners in their homes and reducing foreclosures is critical and thinks Martin Feldstein has some good ideas on this. See the links to Martin Feldstein. What if things still deteriorate? The government may have to nationalize or takeover some of the banks, he says. Gordon Brown has already taken over RBS and HBOS. What are some of the ways to improve things. One is that credit ratings firms he says have become almost oracular. Do they know what can happen in the future he asks. We have to rethink what it means to give a rating he says. And the U.S. financial institutions have to go back to doing what they should be doing in the first place, which is to finance investments in companies and business, and not homes and residential construction. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Cerberus will lose control of GMAC, and this may be a good thing, as decisions at Cerberus and GMAC while under its control were made not in the interests of GM and its customers but of Cerberus,s efforts to extricate itself from its troubled investments. One of these decisions was the decision in September 2008 to raise the credit scores for prospective GM customers to 700 before approving credit. Johnson of Barclays Capital says that in November 2008 only 1% of GM's customers used GMAC financing from a figure that was normally at 45%. During September, October, and when the credit crisis hit hardest in November 2008, GM continued to suffer hugely declining sales, and the decision to cut GM's customers off from GMAC credit must have only aggravated a bad situation from GM's concentration in SUV's and trucks and the tight credit conditions. With the November situation worsened by customers simply postponing car purchases due to concerns about job security (as about 586,000 jobs were lost in November), the credit scores decision could only hurt GM badly. Now Treasury is stepping in with $5 billion to GMAC with another $1 billion to GM to invest in GMAC. The result will be reducing Cerberus control of GMAC from 51% to 14.9% of voting shares and 33% of total equity. Cerberus will also stop providing consulting services to GMAC and the 2 companies will no longer share executives. And the GMAC Board will be reconstituted reducing the number of members affiliated to GM and Cerberus, and adding agovernment appointed board member. The government's $5 billion stake will pay an 8% dividend and it will put the government ahead of Cerberus's common equity holdings. Originally Cerberus and dozens of co-investors paid $7.4 billion for the 51% stake in GMAC in 2006. Now Cerberus plans to distribute piev=ces of it current GMAC stake directly to coinvestors. Cerberus has other troubled investments. With its flagship $4 billion fund down 15.8% as of November 30, 2008, and the firm has suspended withdrawal requests from investors after suffering big losses in October and November on a bet in fixed income markets....

LyrArc Article Gist
The revised AIG rescue plan helps banks recover some of their losses on collateralized debt obligations and helps AIG by cancelling the credit default swaps it wrote on these CDO's, and thus helps shore up the financial system. This is what happened. During the boom period banks bought protection from the insurer AIG on securities backed by now-troubled mortgage assets. These securities are called CDO's or collateralized debt obligations backed by subprime mortgage bonds, commercial mortgage loans and other assets. Banks in the US, and Europe bought credit default swaps on these securities from AIG, and AIG promises to compensate them if the securites default. Now with the housing and the credit crisis the values of these CDO's plummet, banks go to AIG and AIG has to provide them collateral to help cover these losses of the banks. AIG ends up giving $35 billion in collateral to the banks including Goldman, Merrill, UBS, Deutsche Bank and others. The continuing fall in value of the CDO's meant AIG had to give more and more collateral to the banks leaving AIG severly exposed, which is along with other problems on its accounting books when the government stepped in in early October to bailout AIG with loans, with interest rates that became punitive for AIG leaving it in a struggling condition. What does the new revised plan do. It eases conditions on the interest rates and the New York Fed puts $30 billion of its money to buy the multisector CDO's at market prices averaging 50 cents to the dollar and AIG provides an additional $5 billion. With than one action banks get to recover their $35 billion and AIG gets to cancell its credit default swaps on these CDO's, in effect freeing AIG from thses swaps that were creating a hemorrhaging effect as it had to keep posting more and more collateral to banks, and banks got to recover the money on CDO's. In effect helping shore up the financial system. There are other problems at AIG but this was the biggest and most draining, and it helps AIG protect its other businesses, and banks get to put this dismal chapter behind them. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A critical part of the Affordable Care Act is the setup of marketplaces or exchanges to let people without insurance buy individual health plans. Some states setup their own exchanges, and some states let the federal government step in and run them. To help the lower middle class and poor the Act provides health subsidies to buy insurance in the exchanges, and 85% of customers in the exchanges qualify for this benefit. The U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 in 2015, compared to a tight vote in 2012 on the Affordable Care Act, to maintain the health subsidies. Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, saying "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not destroy them." Justice Scalia dissented calling it "interpretive jiggery-pokery." Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr. dissented. Voting in favor were Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Justice Kennedy dissented in the 2000 case. The challengers petition to the courts was based on a reading of phrases in the Affordable Act which had not occurred to the writers of the law. The reading suggests only people enrolled in state setup exchanges are eligible for subsidies. If the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs the 6.4 million Americans who are enrolled in the federal exchanges would lose the subsidies provided under the law and lose health insurance. And the economic foundations of the Affordable Act would be undermined with insurance companies required to provide insurance to all regardless of pre-existing conditions and subsidies removed, leaving the companies with sicker pool of customers resulting in destabilizing the exchanges and higher premiums. The court ruled in favor of an interpretation that is compatible with the whole law and the intentions of the statute to help the middle class and the poor buy health insurance. The chaos in the insurance markets that would result in going with the plaintiffs because of a careless writing of a phrase, was uppermost in the majority's mind. Chief Justice Roberts emphasized this, saying- "The statutory scheme compels us to reject petitioners' interpretation, because it would destabilize the individual insurance market in any state with a federal exchange and likely create the very 'death spirals' that Congress designed the act to avoid." This case originated with 4 plaintiffs from Virginia who challenged the IRS regulation that said subsidies were allowed regardless of whether the exchanges were run by the state or the federal government, arguing that this was at odds with the particular phrase in the law that was ambiguous about federal exchanges eligibility for health subsidies. Judge Roger Gregory of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virgina, ruled that the phrase was indeed ambiguous, but the IRS was owed deference in its opinion. Chief Justice Roberts made it clear that this was not a case for the IRS, saying "it is instead our task to determine the correct reading." ...

LyrArc Article Gist
An exceptional editorial on the steps taken since bankruptcy for reviving Detroit -with all the numbers one needs to know for how this was done and is progressing. The editorial gives credit to Michigan Governor Snyder and Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr for having the courage to guide Detroit through the bankruptcy. It sees the outcome emerging, including treatment of bondholders, pension funds, and city workers, as fair considering the problems involved. The steps are also being taken to correct the deep seated problems that caused the crisis.