LyrArc Article Gist
A report by pharmacy benefits managing company Express Scripts shows a 13% increase in the price of branded drugs in the U.S. from Sept 2011 to Sept 2012. Generic drug prices declined by 22% in this period. The report also shows that growing spending on specialty drugs for cancer, MS and other diseases is a big reason for the increase in prices of branded drugs. This report is from a random sample of six millon Express Scripts members using prescription drug coverage. Prof. Schondelmeyer of the University of Minnesota, who manages the drug benefits program at the university and conducts a similiar price report for AARP, says the potential benefits for these specialty drugs are not that good to justify the high prices.

LyrArc Article Gist
The FDIC acknowledges that it has not been able to get banks interested in a pilot program called the Legacy Loans Program. That program was designed to give the banks an opportunity to sell off $1 billion of troubled mortgages. Since November with the efforts of the Troubled Asset Program under Secretary Paulson to have the banks sell off these assets in an auction or some other way, the whole issue of getting the toxic or troubled assets off the books of the banks has been effectively shelved. The Obama administration's version of this was the Geithner Public Private Partnership program, but this like Paulson's TARP never really got off the ground. Instead several things have happened that have enabled banks to show higher profits and improve stock prices. The period from March 2009 to June 2009, a period of several months has seen bank stock prices recover and banks are now able to raise capital on their own from investors. The government's "stress tests" gave the banks credibility with investors and they were designed not to be so stringent as to affect confidence. The mark to market rule has also been relaxed so that banks are no longer required to show these toxic assets at prices that reflect large losses. Bank executives also are wary of the new executive compensation rules of the government. All of these things have combined to create asituation where some confidence has been restored, but at the same time experts are pointing out that the underlying problems of an estimated $1 trillion in troubled assets remains. Banks are even less likely to want to part with these assets at lower prices now that some semblence of confidence is returning, as they would then have to show large losses. What this implies is that if the economy suffered a setback, these problems would return and be just as intractable as ever....

LyrArc Article Gist
Fausset of the NYT looks at a rust belt city in the U.S. midwest that has suffered as U.S. manufacturing declined. Much of the decline happened in the 1980's in the steel industry in competition with Japanese imports. North of town there is a GM plant that makes the Chevy Cruze. The unemployment rate of 17% in 2010 has dropped to 7.6%. Fausset describes the life of a retired steel worker on state pension who works in law enforcement. He is Joe Marshall Jr. from the song by Bruce Springsteen about a steel worker who the singer read about in a book. Youngstown appears to be divided by people who support Trump and Clinton.

LyrArc Article Gist
Spain will allow a European banking supervisory authority to visit banks and exercize financial supervision over banks receiving aid from the EFSF, the EU rescue fund. In addition investors including small retail investors will have to take losses to reduce the loans required to recapitalize Spanish banks.

LyrArc Article Gist
Under the rules for the European currency and the European Union there is no mechanism or process of fines or other sanctions to promote compliance to debt and deficit rules. In the case of Greece, an examination of budget reports shows that Greece never met the deficit rule of 3% for any year except 2006 and it has never been within 30 percentage points of the debt ceiling. Greece's statistics are faulty and deficit figures are continually being revised upwards. Several times the figures were quadruple what was initially reported in late 2009, for instance the deficit figure was 3.7% of GDP, then revised to 13% of GDP, setting off the current crisis for the Euro and the European Union. In 2001 Greece failed to reflect $2.2 billon in military expenses. According to Eurostat, the EU statistics authority this was 10 times what was saved from the derivatives swap arranged by Goldman Sachs to trim Greece's deficit. That transaction trimmed the deficit by one tenth of a percentage point.

LyrArc Article Gist
Raghuram Rajan, Professor of Finance at the Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago, was appointed chief economist at the IMF in 2003. He presented a paper, titled "Has Financial Development Made the World Riskier," at the annual Jackson Hole meeting of economists and central bankers for 2005. Rajan says he had planned to write about how financial developments during Greenspan's 18 year old tenure had made things safer, but the more he looked the more evidence came up that the risk reward relationships in a normal functioning financial market had been terribly distorted. Market participants were being rewarded for wins but were not being asked to take on commensurate risks and impacts on their bonuses and rewards. He also cautioned about the use of credit default swaps which acted as insurance against bond defaults, and said insurers were generating big returns on this but with the appearance of little risk- even though the pain could be immense in a default. Banks were carrying credit securties on their books that posed risks to the whole financial system if things went wrong with the credit securities. Reaction from the gathering was unfavorable. Lawrence Summers, a former Treasury Secretary said, "the basic, slightly lead eyed premise of the paper was misguided."...

LyrArc Article Gist
Wagoner became President at age 45, CEO at age 48. So you would think that young blood is coming in to GM, but that does not appear to be the case. At the Board level most of the Board members like George Fisher formerly of Motorola, have been around for a long time, and there does not appear to be new blood that would bring in fresh thinking. And serious decisions about investment in developing new technologies to develop fuel efficient cars, like hybrid technologies, electric and other alternative technologies, diesel technology, have been held up for years at General Motors. The way decisions are made on such issues with Board members voicing their opinions more than wrestling seriously with the issues, shows serious shortcomings of management and the Board. At key points of decision making the CEO and key members of his team had not prepared carefully, and Board members did not come up with serious thinking on the problems facing GM. It, appears that the investment in technologies to develop fuel efficient cars much earlier, long before they were finally being addressed in 2006, was a failure of Wagoner's management and of the Board. Management discussed this but continued to be mired in old ways of thinking that continuing with the status quo- cars with existing low fuel efficiency- would not expose GM to illwinds as preferences changed. Its clear from the description here of discussions within GM that the old thinking is quite entrenched at GM, and Wagoner just was not the kind of person who could vigorously articulate a new vision for GM. A couple of things are noteworthy in this account of management indecision at GM. When fuel prices began hurting sales of SUV's and large vehicles in 2005, efforts to get a decision on investments in new technologies for fuel efficiency for the whole product lineup failed at the Board level in an April 2005 meeting. One Board member saying at that meeting, that" do we want to lose another billion dollars in developing new technology for fuel efficient cars." And no one calling him to account that the remark still did not address the point that GM had to respond to the changing market and world oil dynamics, and not just hope for the best, as GM had aggressive competitors, and faced continually diminishing role in the market place for the entire decade of the 1990's. While April 2005 was already at the tail end of the previous era of gas guzzling cars and a decision then would still not have shown a forward looking vision of things, it was not until 10 months later that a decision was reached. And this almost from necessity, as oil prices jumped in 2006 after hurricane Katrina, and by this time President Bush was also calling for higher mandated fuel efficiency standards. The other noteworthy point here is that by making the changes so late in the game, GM had to compress the development cycle for new and some cases unknown technologies into short time frames. If the ingenuity of its engineers comes to its rescue it still faces another hurdle that of cost, because the technologies have to be perfected and improved, so that the costs are low enough for customers, and importantly comparable with what it is costing competitors to make the same fuel efficient technology engine or other part. Which is why one Honda executive remarked, "GM like everyone else is serious about this, because they have to be, but how many of their hybrids and how many Volts will they sell? Their technology is very expensive." Even if GM develops the Volt electric car by 2010, GM will need a whole range of fuel efficient technolgies to power its large product lineup. Its just to hard to avoid the conclusion that this is going to prove costly. All the dragging of feet and indecision, and failure to prepare GM for a different world in case something drastically different from what was expected happened, will prove very costly especially considering how aggressive and well financed some of the Japanese and German competitors are. It also hard to avoid the conclusion that there is too much bureaucracy at the large auto companies, and getting new blood and new ideas and fresh thinking is tough in a place where everybody agrees with everybody else, and there is uniformity of thinking. This makes it difficult for any original or wayward types to thrive. These bureaucracies look up to the top for direction. Initiative is discouraged on one hand, and at the same time even if a new direction is taken at the top. a lot of resistance can be expected to implementing it throughout the company without persistent persuasion and reminder of new facts and realities. This is true for both Wagoner and Mullaly as they face the skepticism of subordinates to new direction. Mullaly for instance has to remind his managers that large vehicles are only a small percentage of the entire global market, and if Toyota is making money in small cars so can Ford. See the link to this. Is Toyota immune from bureaucracy type behaviour throughout the company? Not really, Toyota's chairman emeritus came out of retirement in fact and went out of the way to caution its CEO and management about their complacency a year or so before. Shoichiro Toyoda personally intervened to caution against too much expansion in the US and climbing wage costs, and other risks they perceived such as the company managers in the USA appearing to be resting on their laurels. See the link to this. A lot of discussion is probably going on within these companies about the present state of affairs, and considerable anxiety for what the future will bring. It may be useful to ask the question is there something that makes it difficult for once successful organizations -now with entrenched bureaucracy and set ways -to put forward leaders with vision and foresight, till it becomes very late? The vision and foresight about where their markets and the world is heading, and the ability to move their organizations in that direction. Or to break out of old patterns of behaviour and thinking....

LyrArc Article Gist
Details of the $825 billion stimulus plan. Renewable energy does well under the plan including production tax credit for renewables, with $32 billion for a "smart" electrical grid for which GE makes components and lobbied for. Renewable energy producers win an extension of production tax credits now convertible into cash for companies whose losses leave them unable to use the credits. Transportation infrastructure green projects did not do so well, with $32 billion for transportation projects and only $10 billion for mass transit projects.The Natural Resources Defense Council had compiled a list of more than 80 environmentally friendly infrastructure and transportation projects worth about $405 billion. Only a small number of these projects made it. What is in the stimulus to create jobs and stimulate capital investment? Businesses get bonus depreciation, which speeds up depreciation deductions for companies that invest in plant and equipment. The stimulus doubles the amount small businesses can immediately write off for capital investments and purchasing new eqipment, and gives incentives for businesses to invest in renewable energy. States get help with $90 billion going to increase the federal share of Medicaid payments, and an additional $79 billion to help states avoid cutbacks in education and other services. And there is a "Make Work Pay" tax credit for $500 per worer and $1000 per couple. Experts say the effects of the stimulus will be felt in the latter part of 2009 and into 2010. Which is one reason the view of economists that there would be a second half recovery does not reflect conditions on the ground. Goldman has revised its view to 2010 and even that may be optimistic. One example of what has happened in the stimulus in this respect is that the earlier optimistic view of largeinvestments in science and technology, broadband networks, and transportation projects for fast rail and transit have all been trimmed down. Part of the reason may be that the bill for the nation's banking system revival may be larger than realized as an additional amount of $15-20 billion is being negotiated for Bank of America and more money will go to Citigroup. $6 billion is shown for highspeed internet access for rural and underserved areas. Science facilities get $10 billion. Repair of public infrastructure (read roads and bridges) gets $31 billion. School modernization gets $21 billion. And modernization of health information technology systems gets $20 billion which its hoped will provide equivalent or higher returns to pay for some of the universal health care costs, and preventative care gets $4 billion. There is a tax credit for R&D work on energy innovations and renewable energy production of $20 billion, and $32 billion for a "smart electricity grid." These are the proactive parts of the stimulus that create something new and make improvements. They add up to $144 billion. So much money goes to shore up the existing services and supplement incomes, and to relieve stresses on the banking system, and other ways to shore up the system, that the proactive expenditures are only a small fraction or 17% of the $825 billion stimulus. And all the time the federal deficit and debt increases with these huge outlays just to shore up the system. The Heritage Foundation Data Analysis Director Mr. Beach told Congressmen at a discussion chaired by Congressman Cantor (R), on January 16, 2009, that the federal debt would reach 92% of the nation's GDP in 2009 from 58 billion or 70% in 2008, with the $825 billion for stimulus. The federal deficit would go up to $1.31 trillion or 9.2% of GDP up from $541 billion in 2008. See the research paper on the Heritage website. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Working America, an arm of the U.S. trade union the AFL-CIO, conducted conversations with 350,000 voters in 17 U.S. states. Here a representative of Working America, says the overwhelming response to the question "does it make a difference whether Democrats or Republicans are in power for my well being," is reflected in one of the responses- "does it even matter?"

The suggested approach here is for Democrats in particular who have represented working class voters in the past, to start with a fresh approach by creating new conversations with working class Americans.

LyrArc Article Gist
By July 2013 only about 40% of the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation rules were completed, 60% of deadlines were missed, according to law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP. A singular aspect of the Dodd-Frank legislation was that rule making was left to regulators in different agencies and open to lobbying by the financial industry. This has the effect of delaying the rule making until a consensus is reached, diluting some of the original intent as financial firms jockey for advantage, and making it voluminous in many cases because of the wording designed to achieve consensus and account for objections by various interests. Reform legislators such as Barney Frank openly said they had no interest in learning enough about the financial industry to do the rule making, and may have left an excessive amount of the rule making to regulators in the future. A consumer protection agency was established under the new law and derivatives are required to be traded on exchanges. The Volcker Rule to separate investment banking from deposit taking and a requirement that banks hold onto a portion of mortgage securities marketed are not completed. The S.E.C. has to write the rule on how much money brokerages must set aside for losses on swap trades. Another bubble in financial markets would leave the U.S. and European economies vulnerable to problems similiar to the global financial crisis of 2008, which is why the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Bank of England and the European regulatory authorites are requiring large banks to set aside more capital reserves. The S.E.C. under its new chief is also taking a more active role in overseeing the banks for violations of securities laws, including a series of actions taken against JP Morgan Chase bank in 2013. This has a deterrent effect as the huge monetary easing by the U.S. Federal Reserve to reduce unemployment also creates bubble conditions in financial markets, according to Fed governor, Jeremy Stein. Former FDIC chief, Sheila Bair, says the lack of leadership in this area is simply astonishing....

LyrArc Article Gist
Frederick Harris of Columbia University says there is a price to be paid for a black president and it may just be too much for the average black person. There is a difference betwen symbols and substance, betwen a role model and accountability in a representative democracy, which is sadly lacking when the black elites, clergy and politicians fail to debate the issues about the problems facing the black community. Problems related to the increasing poverty among black Americans, and the 14% unemployment for black people. There is he says a strange reticience among the black elite to hold the president accountable on these issues just as they would have done for any Democratic president, even one who was as popular with blacks as Mr. Clinton. He says the experience with Obama is not even remotely comparable to the transformative nature of the work of Rev. Martin Luther King in the black community. It may stem from Obama's multiracial background, growing up in many countries, his elite education and being part of a liberal elite more than of the black community. The price is too high in economic and social terms for the poor or average black person and it has created a divide between the average black person and the black elite, with different concerns and different priorities. Harris points out that poor and poverty are words not mentioned often by Obama. Related to this is the foreclosure crisis in which ordinary black people were hardest hit with no effective help from the president to homeowners badly needing relief. Sheila Bair of the FDIC and Martin Feldstein advocated aggressive help for homeowners under water which did not come from the president. Showing not just the limits of a black presidency, but false hopes, inexperience and lack of leadership in issues that mattered to all Americans in the housing and foreclosure crisis. A populist from Kansas, as Sheila Bair describes herself, had the right instincts and courage of convictions which the president lacked and the entire country needed....

LyrArc Article Gist
Fuel efficiency rules require average fuel efficiency in the U.S. of 35 mpg by 2016. The debate is now on what to do for 2017 to 2025. New technology such as the P2 systems for hybrids already used in VW, Nissan and Hyundai vehicles makes a 20% increase in fuel efficiency possible. Large investments are being made to bring new technology to bear on increasing fuel efficiency significantly. Government agencies are looking at different scenarios by which the new fuel economy standards beyond 2017-2025 could be set between 47 mpg and 62 mpg. An additional factor is the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions- at 47 mpg the reduction would be 3%, at 62 mpg the reduction would be 6%. Another factor is how much the impact is on the cost of vehicles and reduced cost on gasoline. Here there is a wide range in the numbers for average mpg rules at 62 mpg- with EPA estimates at $2800-$3500 increase in vehicle cost and $5000 savings in fuel cost, Centre for Automotive Research estimates at $9790 increase in vehicle cost. The 62 mpg translates into "real world" actual efficiency of 45 mpg. In April 2011, 17 senators put out a letter of support for the 62 mpg proposal. There is a public value involved in this that is also significant- the reduced dependence on foreign oil means savings in defense expenditures in parts of the Middle East, and an economy that is less impacted by volatility in the price of oil. As this aspect of public value or benefits cannot be quantified easily even though they are significant, this may tend to be lost in the debate and the politics of fuel efficiency. For automakers there is significant marketing value in having a visible and strong presence in fuel efficient vehicles because of perception as forward looking- something that hurt Detroit carmakers in the last decade. During periods of gasoline prices at $5 a gallon this provides carmakers with an extra cushion of safety in securing car sales. Carmakers in one country such as the U.S. also have to worry about what carmakers in other countries such as Japan and Germany are doing- if the standards in the U.S. develop a gap compared to other countries developing advanced fuel efficiency technologies this poses significant risks because of the global nature of the automobile marketplace. See the group "Asleep at the Spigot" for more details on this. Many of these less quantifiable factors do not get the attention they deserve because they are significant from experience but not easily quantified. Throw into this the large unknown of what new technologies not yet developed lie ahead with a burst of effort by one country or another, which bring cost reductions at the same time - and the debate requires as much a good sense of what is the path offering the greatest advantages in years ahead than a pure exercize in numbers. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
David Wessel says there are three hypotheses about the slow recovery with growth of 1.9% in the first quarter of 2011, estimated growth of 1.4-1.5% for the second quarter. The first, is that this is transitory, with gas prices, Japan's tsunami disrupting supply chians, and Europe's poor handling of the financial crisis. This he scores as wishful thinking. The second, that the stimulus was too small, the need for a second stimulus, or the related hypothesis of the large uncertainty hanging over business, including the debt ceiling negotiations, deficit etc. This he scores as more convincing, but one is not sure different policies would have led to a different situation. The third hypothesis is that the underlying diagnosis of the economy itself was hopeful but flawed and wrong. Hope about the housing market- which has been proved wrong. The same for exports, or consumer spending. Wessel cites Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhardt's new book on the afterperiod of financial crises and asset bubbles, with data going back to many historical periods showing that the periods following crises are difficult having protracted periods of slow or marginal economic growth....

LyrArc Article Gist
The business model where hedge funds take in short term money from investors for a 2% fee and a fifth of profits, and invest it in longer term bets and sometimes illiquid situations, is breaking down. This happened to the investment banks and ended with the collapse of Lehman and Bear Stearns. With losses approaching 20%, many illiquid investments, and investors asking for their money, this model may lead to a rapid shrinking of the hedge fund industry, which now has about $2 trillion of investor money.

LyrArc Article Gist
In a major policy move India's Modi government makes major changes for foreign investment in India. In different sectors, pharmaceuticals, defense, civil aviation, and retail stores, the move is designed to attract investment and create new jobs. Foreign investors can now take 100 percent ownership in defense, civil aviation, and food products sectors with government approval. In pharmaceuticals foreign investors can take upto 74 percent ownership with no government approval needed. In retail stores, such as for Apple and Ikea, the rules offer new incentives. From now on the requirement that Apple and other companies buy 30% of their supplies locally for single brand retail stores will be relaxed with a 3 year exemption on local sourcing, which can be extended to 5 years if the products sold are "state of the art" and "cutting edge technology," according to a government announcement. The changes were made by executive order. Apple CEO Tim Cook visited India and lobbied for this change recently. In combination with a national GST goods and services tax to be passed in July 2016, which is to be instituted nationally to replace a old set of state by state requirements and taxes, the two changes could have a bigger impact than the 1991 reforms that moved India away from a socialist managed economy. Poor job report numbers may have increased the pressure for taking action. In the defense sector the earlier change to allow 49% ownership had resulted in few new proposals. The changes in foreign investment rules also follows the resignation of the head of the central bank, Raghuram Rajan. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
David Leonhardt on the policy errors of the Obama administration in managing the economy. Why he asks did the Obama administration not take the risks it took for "undeserving" recipients in the auto industry to provide significant help to GM and Chrysler and at the same not provide large scale and situation changing help to millions of mortgage holders who were under water? The housing crisis with millons of foreclosures depressing home prices has played a significant part in the lagging economic recovery. He points out that Obama economic advisors had read Rogoff and Reinhart's book "This Time Its Different," about the longer times it takes for a economic recovery after a housing bubble, and still made the mistake of believing economists who suggested that the stimulus by itself would be sufficient and that recovery was underway in 2010. Others in the Democratic party had pointed to the lack of focus on unemployment by the Obama administration. Why were such voices not heard?