LyrArc Article Gist
The benchmark price of U.S. crude oil dropped to $31.41 a barrel on January 11, 2016, as oil prices continued to drop sharply following a slowdown in China, appreciation in the U.S. dollar and no cuts in production from Saudi Arabia. Analysts expect a crisis for energy producers that is deeper than ones in 1986, and five plunges in oil price all the way back to 1970. With the oil prices at $30 and expected to drop below $30, the companies that took on a lot of debt have no choice but to keep up production. In the process many may find themselves in bankruptcy. Private equity with capital of $100 billion is likely to come in at this point to buy cheap assets without the debt, say analysts. U.S. banks energy portfolios are small, with Wells Fargo energy exposure only 2% for oil and gas loans in the third quarter of 2015, or about $17 billion. Loans that are rated "sub-standard. doubtful or loss," are projected at 15% of loans to energy producers, about $34.2 billion, in a biannaual review by banking regulators. The unusual aspect of this energy price slump is that production is not declining with falling prices- oil production in the U.S. was estimated by the government at 9.2 million barrels a day in Jan 2016- 1% higher than at the beginning of 2015 when prices were over $40 a barrel....

LyrArc Article Gist
THe Economist says that the efforts of banks like Chase JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo to rewrite history are wrong and dangerous. They are wrong because there was acomplete collapse of confidence by December 2009 and these banks benfitted from state guarantees and government efforts to help the banks without which Goldman, and Morgan Stanley and other banks would be in serious difficulty or in danger of collapsing. It is dangerous because it is being used to distort the process of putting in place the right compensation incentives to avoid overleveraging and risk taking, putting in place prudent regulation, and taking all the right steps to prevent a future banking crisis, with the argument that this should apply only to the weaker banks. It is dangerous on two other points. The banking regulations should apply to the entire banking industry, and especially on banks that are too big to fail. These banks now are content to leave the toxic assets on their books where they are and consider government efforts to purchase these toxic loans and securoities or otherwise resolve these assets in some kind of good bank-bad bank scheme, as unnecessary. All this is happening even as the banks themselves remain poorly capitalized, even after raising funds in the capital markets recently, and remain very dependent on the government. The danger is that this may make everyone complacent in the event of a developing new storm....

LyrArc Article Gist
Banks have only taken about $1.1 trillion of expected $2.2 trillion losses, so more losses should be expected, says the Economist. Keefe, Bruyette and Woods, says Wells Fargo may need another $25 billion infusion of capital from the government. Few banks hold their commercial property portfolios close to 50-6-cents on the dollar valuation that Goldman does. Chris Whalen of Institutional Risk Analytics says this first quarter reprieve may turn out to be a"head fake."

LyrArc Article Gist
According to real estate data firm CoreLogic, 38% of U.S. home owners who took a second mortgage on their homes are under water on their loans. 18% of borrowers who did not take a second mortgage are under water and have negative equity in their homes. Second mortgages are loans taken out on a property that are subordinate to first mortgages, including home equity loans and lines of credit. Borrowers with second mortgages have an average of $83,000 in negative equity compared to $52,000 for borrowers without second mortgages according to CoreLogic. During the boom borrowers took out cash using home equity loans and lines of credit for everything from home renovations and automobiles to tution and other expenses. Federal Reserve Board data show homeowners took out a huge amount, $2.69 trillion, from their homes for 2004-2006. Overall the number of underwater homeowners, or homeowners with negative equity in their homes, remained steady, according to CoreLogic's report- 10.9 million Americans in the first quarter of 2011, compared to 11.1 million for the fourth quarter of 2010, 22.7% of all homeowners nationwide compared to 23.1%. The slight decline reflected completed foreclosures, suggesting that the market conditions have not changed. Roubini and other experts predicted large housing losses in 2011-2012. This also affects America's largest banks. While the large part of the first mortgages were bundled and sold as securities, the home equity loans remain on bank balance sheets. About three fourths of the $950 billion in home equity loans outstanding were held by commercial banks at the end of 2010. Over 40% of this is on the books of Wells Fargo, Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase, and Citigroup. A writedown on these loans could use up a significant part of the bank's capital....

LyrArc Article Gist
The corporate share buybacks announced by U.S. companies in the last 3 months now exceed $200 billion, more than double than in 2017, according to a WSJ analysis. This includes Cisco, Wells Fargo, AbbVie, Amgen, Alphabet (Google). The surge in corporate buybacks started in December after the tax cut of the Trump administration cut U.S. taxes by $1.5 trillion over a decade, cutting the corporate tax rate for large companies from 35% to 21%. The tax cut also included a one time tax for repatriation of $2 trillion held by U.S. companies overseas. This WSJ analysis says there are questions whether the tax cut is working, whether it will encourage new investment, lead to companies increasing wages, or whether this will largely result in corporations returning money to investors with larger dividends and corporate buybacks. Morgan Stanley's analysis of earnings transcripts of companies in the S&P 500 show 44% of the companies say they will use some portion of the tax gains to make capital investments and increase wages, with 28% going in the opposite direction and using them to return money to shareholders. Experts caution that corporate buybacks do not always lead to the company's stock outperforming the stock market. The future of companies depends more on the capital investments and in human capital. There is a sense that workers wages have stagnated since the mortgage financial crisis in 2008, with the economic crisis, globalization and outsourcing, reduced alternatives for workers, geographic pressures in relocation, all pushing wages down.  This is being closely watched with articles on stagnation in wage growth this week in the NYT and WSJ, and earlier in the Economist magazine. Reports on the Trump administration tax cuts passed by a Republican Congress suggested a large tilt towards benefitting the highest income households. Problem with higher stock prices reaching the broader middle class are recognized in that one third of stocks are owned by overseas investors, and 84% of the remaining stocks are owned by the wealthiest 10%. Republicans have turned to bonuses typically of $1000 per person given by companies yet this amounts now to about a few billion dollars over an estimated 4 million Americans, says this WSJ analysis. This is not enough to justify a huge tax cut and raise the deficit by over a trillion over 10 years on the assumption that it would lead to higher wages or capital investment when about $200 billion goes to boosting stock prices. This comes at a time when the American middle class is not broadly invested in the stock market after the exit following the battering stock prices took during the 2008 financial crisis. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Airbus and Boeing are expected to announce a net increase in orders of 50% in 2010, net of cancellations. Higher airline traffic is one reason, the other reason is that airline leasing companies are coming back in a big way. Lessors account for more than 35% of all orders at Airbus this year, up from 5% last year. At Boeing lessors have placed 21% of the orders, up from 12%. For Airbus and Boeing combined, the 27% of all orders placed by lessors is the highest proportion since 2000, according to Ascend Worldwide. Airbus and Boeing see lessors as more reliable buyers than airlines which are locked into their routes. Leasing companies are benefitting from funding by private equity, investment funds and commercial banks, which have taken up more than $18 billion in equity and debt issued by airplane lessors, according to Gary Liebowitz, an analyst at Wells Fargo Securities. Many lessors are yielding 10%, far above what can be gained in other sectors. Banks are skittish about lending to airlines, but see lessors as less risky. Airlines need planes, but banks have restricted lending to airlines. Stricter financial regulations and higher borrowing costs for banks have reduced lending to all but the strongest airlines, says Kostya Zolotusky, managing director of capital markets development for Boeing's finance division. Investors like lessors because they can move planes to where they are needed worldwide, which is what happened after the financial crisis of 2008. Lessors make money by getting discounts on large orders of planes and then renting them out at higher rates to airlines. Airlines lease the planes for a few months to a number of years, when they can't afford to buy planes or need flexibility. The shift is significant, as Boeing expects one in two planes to be owned by lessors, compared to one in three today. AIG's unit, the International Lease Finance Corporation, faced problems during the crisis. ILFC has raised $9.4 billion in new debt issues in 2010 that allowed it to refinance existing debt and repay loans to the US government. There are risks, say some executives, if speculative orders and competition among lessors get Airbus and Boeing to make too many planes. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A landmark ruling and a huge win for consumers and for the country, as the Supreme Court says states can enforce fair-lending laws and other consumer protection measures against the largest banks in the USA. The Suprem COurt said that the rules issued by the federal banking regulators like the Comptroller of the Currency under the NationalBank Act - a law passed in 1864- could not block sfforts by the states to enforce their laws. For the country its a win because the lack of enforcement of state laws only allowed abuses in the subprime area to continue and helped create the subprime mortgage crisis. The case began with letters by the New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer in 2005 to several national banks including CItigroup, JP Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo inquiring about lending practices to minorites. The letters referred to "troubling" disparities that suggested black and Hispanic borrowers were being charged disproportionately higher interest rates on mortgages compared to whites. THe letters asked for information "in lieu of subpoena." Protection of minorities and the weak in American society is part of the moral fabric of America and that it had eroded in recent years is evident in the manner the banking sector responded. A banking trade group and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency brought a lawsuit to block the New York Attorney General's request saying that the National Bank Act nd rules issued by the Bush administration in 2004 gave that type of authority to comptroller and prohibited such efforts by the states. And then afederal district court ruled against the states, aand the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Court affirmed that decision. These are instances where the system failed to protect the weak even with the laws that states had on their books. Justice Scalia voted in favor with a 5-4 vote to allow states to enforce consumer protection laws, even though his written opinion was based on an interpretation of what "visitorial powers" of a federal regulator were, and not about the importance of fair lending in the proper functioning of the American economy. Justices Roberts, Alito, Kennedy and Thomas voted against....

LyrArc Article Gist
Annamaria Andriotis does enormous service to millions of borrowers for student loans by putting down in simple payments terms everybody can understand the approach to take for a university education. She points out the pitfalls in taking federal loans and following the advice of the student loan office. The federal student loans have an origination fee of about 4.2%, so even if you pay off the loan early you are stuck with the origination cost, which private lenders such as major banks do not normally charge. On a $100,000 loan this could be $4200 right off the beginning, reducing the loan to $95,800. Private lenders offer fixed rates also at attractive terms of about 4%-4.25%, with added reduction of 0.25 to 0.5% for loans with automatic payment. The lenders include Wells Fargo, Suns Trust. It is important to have good credit ratings. Scores of over 700 or 720 in credit ratings provide the most attractive rates, yet a good credit rating is also acceptable. FICO scores range from 350 to 850 for credit ratings. Added reduction of quarter to half percentage point for automatic payment. A loan for $100,000 taken with Federal PLUS loan and government guarantees could run 7.21% for fixed rate. Andriotis points out that compared to the $4586 payment on a $100,000 student fixed rate private loan at 4.25% for 10 years, a federal guaranteed PLUS loan at fixed rate of 7.21% for 10 years would cost $3541 more over the life of the loan. Mortgage loans for 30 year fixed rate jumbo loan is about 4.14%. In September 2014, the rates for jumbo mortgage loans offered by private banks are now converging at the 4.18% for conventional mortgage loans. For auto loans zero percent financing from auto company lenders such as Toyota Financial are a better option. Rates of 2% on auto loans may be available from private banks and credit unions. SunTrust Banks has an online lending division LightStream that is offering personal loans to borrowers having good credit ratings scores, with interest rates of as low as 1.99%. The borrowers with excellent scores can get the unsecured option at the best rate of 1.99%. Credit unions are offering lower auto loan rates of 2.64% and 2.74% compared to banks charging average of 4.79% and 4.9%, according to data from SNL Financial. Millions of borrowers with good credit ratings, especially for student loans, need to start early in checking out the rates and shopping for the best rate. A good credit rating of parents can enable a student to make a huge difference in payments for undergraduate or postgraduate education, and avoid the unnecessary burden of high interest rate loans in a low interest rate environment....

LyrArc Article Gist
Its incorrect to call a loan that has only slightly lower, same or higher monthly payment after modification, a loan modification. The intent is to make a loan affordable in monthly payments for the borrower, for it to be a meaningful modification. Says Tom Miller, the Attorney General of Iowa, "it should'nt be called modifications if people pay more or approximately the same." Many lenders and banks do not want to have to mark to market a whole set of loans of one type in one geographical region, as an accounting rule now requires, just because they have modified one loan of that type, because their reserves are severely depleted and most are already or nearly insolvent. So their way of discouraging loan modifications as a solution is to respond by saying that loans go into foreclosure even after modification, when the modification they are talking about is tacking on interest penalties and fees that accelerate the home into foreclosure in some cases, and in others by leaving payments higher or the same make foreclosure just as likely as before. Tom Miller, attorney general of Iowa, also says that " if you do real modifications, the default rate is significantly lower." Some mortgage companies say that default rates drop significantly, some to as low as 25%, when loan payments are reduced to the 30-40% of borrower income range, which is becoming the standard for a meaningful modification. Analyst Ron Dubitsky's research at Credit Suisse confirms this, showing lower payments reduced defaults to less than 50%. Research by Credit Suisse and Alan White, a law professor at Valparaiso University also show that at this time loan, 2 years into the foreclosure crisis, modification has mostly resulted in higher monthly payments. White says banks like Wells Fargo, a large servicer of loans, have done have modified few loans as apercentage of their delinquent mortgages. Sheila Bair and others have long advocated reducing loan payments to 30-40% of monthly income since early 2007, because foreclosure is costlier for banks than loan modification, but met resistance from the banks and lenders and their lobbying groups. The relevant question is that if the banks are misquided in pursuing this course, and its not in the interests of the banks or the country's economy- because accelerating foreclosures or not taking modification action in the middle of a huge wave of layoffs may result in a even bigger wave of foreclosures that threaten housing prices and effectively leave banks insolventleading to nationalization- then what purpose did all this serve except to exacerbate the crisis and increase the price tag of the government's and country's ultimate rescue of homeowners?...

LyrArc Article Gist
Greenspan testifes before the House Oversight Committee headed by Congressman Henry Waxman (D., California). Congressmen read back quotations from Greenspan where he talked about the resilience and efficiency of American free markets and defended derivatives and complex financial instruments. Some referred to the comments he made saying that housing markets would not collapse and the worst may well be over. Almost by 10 to 1 the readers responding to a WSJ poll say Greenspan was responsible for easy money for most of the decade and his lack of the most elementary safeguards for the economy instead defending derivatives and complex financial instruments, and considering the bubble in house prices as not the Fed's concern. Many used expletives deleted or the words "clowns" or "illiterates" for Greenspan and associates at Treasury. A congresswoman from Minnesota asked pointed questions about state effforts to stop predatory lending that were nixed by the federal authorites under Greenspan and Treasury's watch. She thensuggested that they the stewards of the economy try pragmatism and commonsense for policy decisions. Describing the present crisis he seemed so out of touch that when asked about rising foreclosures and need to stabilize home prices, he still was trapped in his libertarian ideology and impulses. He said transfer payments should be tried instead as modifying the mortgages would not be good in the long run when markets return to normal. He said this crisis has still some months to go. In these observations he showed that he has still not grasped the full extent of the crisis, as a realistic assessment of the economy suggests that the economic downturn has not really hit in terms of unemployment and drops in consumption, which will hit in 2009 and 2010 and years beyond. He looked old and worn out showing every bit of his 81 years, which begs the question how could he have been chairman for 17 years till he was nearly 80, as he was still Fed chairman just 2 years ago. There are term limits for mayors, and for President, how is it that there are no term limits for Fed chairman? Should'nt the Clinton administration or the Bush administration have made a new appointment to get fresh blood, fresh thinking, just as corporations do. Wells Fargo chairman Kovacevich is supposed to retire, even though he has good skills for accomplishing the merger of Wachovia having done this for Norwest. Bloomberg is fighting the term limits to stay on for another term and will need a special vote. Doesn't senility hit the best of us, and isn't there an age when people should have to retire from these positions, long before they get close to 80. An assessment of Greenspan watching him over the years would show that he loved data and data analysis, and trusted data as almost carrying infallible weight. As most of the data he looked at was for the postwar expansion of the USA economy, he saw as he himself testified this week data that showed the economy with small setbacks to be sure but on a constant upward trend. The way down he said in response to a question the data looks completely different, with fear and lack of trust and other things making this pattern have no relationship whatsoever with the way up. Greenspan and the nation's misfortune maybe that for too long the country's political leaders trusted over two decades a man who did not have the healthy skepticism of data even when it appeared to reflect certainty, and did not have the healthy impulses for safety and safeguards that surpass all ideological thinking, and a respect for basic ethics and common sense that goes beyond everything and puts it above everything else. This is a misfortune because these are qualities required for good leadership especially leadership entrusted with such huge responsibilities which can never be taken lightly. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Monthly reports are issued on bank lending by the Treasury. The report for February shows business lending is down by 24% in its dollar value from the previous month, and a similiar decline in student, auto and credit card lending. The only increase is in mortgage lending as government efforts to hold down interest rates heave led to a refinancing boom. The two largest lenders Wells Fargo and Bank of America reported a 35% jump in mortgage lending in February over January. Businesses are charged more for loans by Chase, which it says is to reflect increased risks, and Chase has sharply reduced its business lending. This is bad news for the economy, because it means businesses will continue to pull back, and some businesses will layoff employees and others may close for lack of financing. The other link to the report in the WPost about the consumers who have jobs, but are acting flat broke suggests consumption will continue to decline, which puts stresses on businesses as sales revenues for all sorts of products decline across the spectrum of the economy. With less acess to costlier financing, and declining sales, the picture of continued large job losses is being etched, and will continue to be etched as these are becoming things that will not change for a long time. Banks are insolvent or close to being insolvent, so lending is only like to change if the government takesover the banks and puses through lending at attractive rates. But it has to do this quickly, before confidence drops to a level where the demand for loans just isn't there. China is able to push lending through the banks because government controls the banks, this cannot happen in the US unless the government actually steps in to take over the insolvent banks and push through a large lending program. In this sense the Obama program while admirable and helpful to stabilize things a bit, is only part effective, and can never really restore confidence or a serious measure of economic stability because of the three pillars of progress in this situation, it can impact only two directly- foreclosure prevention, and business plus consumer lending. The third consumption is something it can only indirectly control through foreclosure prevention and lending, but which is headed down as Americans convert to a frugal lifestyle. And in these two areas of foreclosure prevention and business lending the government is failing. The fourth pillar of progress in the recovery is employment, and this is also an area the government can only indirectly control through stimulus spending on infrastructure, education and energy, but is largely influenced by foreclosure prevention- which keeps home prices from falling rapidly and overshooting and reduces household wealth- and business/consumer lending. These are ER (f) FPL (CE). Economic Recovery as a function of Foreclosure Prevention and Lending, and Consumption and Employment, where indirect control is shown by ( ). With not much in place for FPL- the only two variables government can directly control if it takes strong and immediate action before its influence on these two variables begins to diminish over time- Obama's inexperience and learning curve and failure to take bold action to get serious results on FPL, may result in admirable demeanor and rhetoric but medicore results and a struggling economy for years to come. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The New York Times editorial page on the day following the passage of the second bailout or rescue plan of $700 billion in the Senate after it was voted down in the House of Representatives. It points out that the bailout bill does little to prevent a wave of foreclosures which the NYT estimates at six million people expected to default in the rest of this year and 2009. It faults lenders unwillingness to reduce the loan balances amount. At a Congressional hearing for the Hope for Homeowners program in which the governmet wold insure upto $300 bilonin new affordable loans for troubled borrowers if the lenders voluntarily refinance delinquent mortgages by reducing loan balances to 90% of the homes' current market value, lending banks were lukewarm about taking these losses in exchange for bigger losses in foreclosures. These lenders include Wels Fargo, Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup. The FDIC's Sheila Barr has also advocated reducing loan balances in her proposal for tackling the housing crisis presented after the Bear Stearns crisis. She is taking this approach to banks that like IndyMac were taken over by FDIC. But the numbers are not large letters were sent to 28,000 delinquent borrowers of IndyMac recently to reduce loan balances. This is a serious problem and either Congress and Treasury are leaving this problem to the next administration taking office 3 months from now as there is no real consensus on this issue even today or they are missing the impact this has in dropping home price values even further in neigborhoods across the nation as foreclosures drive prices down even further compounding the problem. For the financial institutions it would appear that they are letting this drag out because their capital is at frighteningly low levels and taking losses at one time is harder than taking the foreclosure losses dragged out over 1-3 years and they are also looking for a way in which they can let the government bear the burden of losses as the crisis intensifies which can make sense from the point of view of each institution. According to a report in the Wall Street Journal on September 29, 2008, Sheila Barr told Congress this month that in recent years troubled loan portfolios have yielded about 32% of book value, compared with more than 87% for loans in which the borrower is current. These are strong statistics in favor of lenders taking an informed decision to lower loan balances voluntarily with some government help along the way but the fact that this is not happening leads one to think that something is falling between the cracks, initial lender reluctance to take losses through voluntary balance reduction at the time of Bear Stearns crisis given taxpayer reluctance and lack of government initiative to help lenders in doing this, sort of what Martin Feldstein suggested in a series of articles during the time before and after the Bear Steans crisis. And then as the credit crisis worsened with collapse of Lehman, WaMu, Freddie, Fannie and Wachovia in September 2008 fear gripping the markets and LIBOR interbank lending rate at close to 8%, banks gripped by the fear prevailing in the market, frozen practically about any steps other than preserving their hammered capital, and reluctant to take losses which would further impair their capital. Also in the WSJ Sept 8, on help for homeowners, Deutsche Bank estimates 40% of homeowners or about 20 million households will owe more than their home is worth by the time the housing market stabilizes. This will lead to some homeowners making the rational decision as Martin Feldstein argued to walk away from their homes, leading to more foreclosure losses for th banks. This article Rescue Includes Steps to Help Borrowers Keep Homes by Ruth Simon also has some information that confirms the NYT editorial. An analysis it says of 144 mortgage modifications by the Massachusetts Attorney General's office found that none reduced mortgage balances and onoly a handful reduced monthly payments. Even with interest rate reductions, the study showed borrrowers wound up paying more because of missed paymmets penalties and fees. Another study by Credit Suisse mentioned in the same article points out that the percentage of borrowers who were behind 6 months after loan modifications dropped to 17% when lenders reduced the loan balances and 13% when mortgage companies froze the interest rate of adjustable rate mortgages. A bigger problem is the effect on consumption, if 40% of homeowners end up owing more to the bank than their home is worth as Deutsche Bank estimates, combined with higher unemployment and higher parttime employment, by the time things stabilize. And this is the big looming problem for a new administration in January even if the bailout plan passes Congress this week after revisions and eases the crisis in the credit markets. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
WSJ reporters Corkery and Yoon give a remarkable account of the individual homeowners and investors inside one toxic subprime mortgage security from Countrywide Financial Corp. named CWABS- 2006-2007. There is Amanda Gavini of Fort Myers who continued making mortgage payments against the odds after a illness and death in the family. And a couple Donald Mudd- Patricia Starr who were approved by Countrywide for a $171,000 adjustable rate mortgage loan at 8% with a $10,000 down payment for a home in Port Charlotte, Florida. The approval came only 3 months after the couple emerged from personal bankruptcy in 2006, and by 2009 Mudd was missing payments. Other borrowers such as Mrs. Gavini in Florida took out two loans at 7% and 11% in 2006, have continued making payments and are still unable to refinance under the HAMP or HARP government programs. It is because of these homeowners who continue to make payments helping the security price recover, that one of PIMCO's funds which owns a stake in this security has made good returns. Hedge fund Marathon Asset has also made good returns on this security because of the U.S. government's Public Private Investment Program to help banks recover by providing government incentives for purchase of these securities from banks. This was a way to get banks holding these subprime securities to resume normal lending in financial markets....