LyrArc Article Gist
Union leaders at plants more receptive to the VEBA, Voluntary Employees Benefit trust.Trust funding at discounted rate an issue. The VEBA could work both ways if its short on funds GM could step in, if it has more funds due a national health care plan being passed then GM could have access to liquidity from the VEBA. Meanwhile Clinton speech in Des Moines, Iowa on new Health Plan addresses the burden on GM to fund retirees health and other costs in the range of 1600 dollars vs Toyota's 200 some dollars. Senator Clinton offers for Governnment to take up the burden of catastrophic coverage for the large companies like GM in her Plan. She also cites the Mayo Clinic study as example of a consensus on the need for action on health care.

LyrArc Article Gist
As Obama faces the situation FDR faced, between political popularity after election in 1932, and loss of some political capital in the first year by 1933, and a lot depends on political will and courage. He has to execute and implement plans for efficient government spending that builds jobs to replace those lost, and to use the investments in really productive ways including projects that provide returns for years into the future. As David Axelrod points out in the Frank Rich column in the NYT, people sometimes live in a parallel universe, which may be completely at odds with what the rest of the country caught in the economic currents of layoffs and collapsing businesses is thinking.

LyrArc Article Gist
Kessler in the WP corrects Obama's claim that he created 800,000 jobs. He says this is clever arithmetic as it takes a low point in Feb. 2010 following the financial crisis. Kessler points out that according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. manufacturing jobs were 12.56 million in Jan. 2009 when Obama became president. In Nov. 2016, early estimates show there were 12.26 million manufacturing jobs, a loss of 300,000. This loss does not reflect the problems in the U.S. auto industry and older industries in the midwestern states as a result of trade and globalization that speeded up with the rapid industrialization of China. And led as Greg Ip pointed out in a recent WSJ report to a rapid acceleration of job losses in a decade that did not happen in the same scale during Japan's industrialization and urbanization in the sixties. This aggravated the situation in Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Pennsylvania, and was met with a feeble response from Democrats. Even a economist like Krugman favoring the Obama administration's efforts came to the conclusion that TPP did not add much to gains from trade as most of the gains had already been realized. More of the gains went to tech and IT in California, at the expense of the auto industry based in the midwest. A report in WP show a president too close to IT in California and failing to grasp the situation in the midwest. Voters punish whoever is in power, regardless of being Conservative or Liberal, in Canada the hollowing out of manufacturing under Harper in Ontario and Quebec led to the win by Trudeau's Liberals.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Douthat of the NYT describes the criticism of the U.S. and Canada for taking so few refugees from Syria, and responds by saying chancellor Merkel may have taken on greater challenges of assimilation of a new wave of Arab migrants than Germany can handle.

LyrArc Article Gist
It makes for good political rhetoric, but in reality the flow of money goes both ways. A lot of investments are made by American companies overseas. This time the flow of oil money because of high oil prices, from the USA and Europe to the Middle East is being recycled back to the USA in the form of investments in the US through small equity stakes in companies and more so through purchases of capital equipment and services to build Saudi infrastructure projects. The $500 billion investment plan over several years in Saudi Arabia is to build everything from new cities, aluminium plants, electricity generation plants and chemicals and plastics plants. The fears and rhetoric are overblown, as the USA also invests overseas with holdings according to the Treasury department of $6 trillion of foreign stock and debt. The acceleration of foreign investment in the US is to be seen in the numbers, as the dollar gets weaker, and its more advantageous for Canadians and Euuropeans to invest here. Last year $414 billion of foreign investors money went into buying stakes in American companies and building factories and purchasing stock, according to Thomson Financial. Thats up 90% from 2006 and represented one fourth of all announced deals. This year in just 2 weeks foreign investors poured $22.6 billion in just the first 2 weeks of January, and that represents one half of all deals. Shows how quickly the picture is changing. One way of looking at it is that Americans buy a lot of foreign goods and the money Americans use to pay for a lot of imports is now being returned to the USA in the form of foreign investments. Note that foreign investment is desirable because it brings new ideas and technology and new management methods to the host country from other countries. These foreign investors in many cases are able to make these investments overseas because they are good at what they do, having them in the host country benefits the host country and shakes up competition in the particular industry in the host country that is receiving the investment. This is why economies once relatively unfavorable to foreign investors like Japan and S. Korea are now passionately seeking foreign investment to make their economies thrive through the exchange and inflow of new ideas and ways of doing things. The same can be and is true for the USA. The other aspect is that most of the investment is still from countries like Canada, Germany, Japan, S. Korea which are big free trade partners of the USA. Manufacturing investment is heavily skewed to European and Japanese companies. Foreign multinational investment (Sony, Toyota etc) grew to $43.3 billion in 2007 from $39.2 billion in 2006 according to OCO Monitor, and will accelerate significantly as companies like VW and other German companies find it cheaper to build in the USA and shift more manufacturing here. To get an idea why the rhetoric is overblown Canada spent the most in buying American companies, $65 billion in 2007, according to Thomson Financial. Russia spent $572 million and India $3.3 billion. How will this improve the chances of the USA making it out of this recession? Five million American work for foreign companies in the USA. Of these one third are manufacturing jobs. These jobs pay about 30% more than jobs in American owned companies. Figures from Treasury Department. There will be more of these jobs as companies like VW build plants here. Roubini Economics estimates that an infusion of about $300-400 billion is needed for the USA to overcome the effects of the current mortgage and credit crisis. $414 billion was invested in the USA by foreign investors according to Thomson Financial in 2007, going up from something like $200 billion in 2006. If this pace continues becasue of some of the same underlying reasons as the weaker dollar, stronger economies overseas, then $200 billion additional investments this year would add that much to a stimulus package of $150 billion by one estimate, to provide a boost of somewhere around $350 billion. In the range of the needed boost. Companies like IBM and GE which have significant investments in India and China and investments in software or infrastructure industries that are growing rapidly or Caterpillar with growth in construction overseas, may keep growing through this downturn. This recession may hit selectively and differently, not be a complete hit to the USA economy, and could prevent it from going beyond 2009 with recovery in 2010. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
About the reorganization of IBM under Sr. Vice President Robert Moffat Jr. that is underway. The idea is to make IBM more efficient by increasing the productivity of its people and reduce costs. There are over 200,000 people in the IBM services business. Operating margins increased by 2.3% to 10.3% with productivity improvements in the 1st quarter of 2006. IBM's revenues declined by 1.2% in the 1st quarter to $11.6 billion. This IBM Tech services restructuring will be watched closely by Indian IT and IBM's competitors. Moffat hopes to attack the IT tech services business with a new format to improve productivity and reduce costs, and bring IBM' strengths such as research capabilities to bear. The format is being a virtual factory with competency centres of excellence across the globe. The question is can Moffatt pull this off and convince a bureaucratic large organization to overcome inertia and do things differently. Especially as Indian IT is smaller and not yet affected by Big Company Syndrome. What Moffatt is attempting to do is to create a virtual global factory with specialized centres of compency in different global locations so that work can be transferred from one location to another- much as we see in the automobile industry- based on who does best what at what cost. Nilekani of Infosys, says American competiitors are "seeing it as a compelling threat after years of putting their head in the sand." They are responding to megatrends but not fast enough, according to Business Week. This may be attributable to the fact that Indian IT is younger, smaller, faces more competition inside India, and is more agile for these reasons compared to an IBM or an EDS. Hamm points out that IBM is shifting to a new posture as a globalized business, one that puts behind it its days as a multinational company or MNC, no more MNC geographically based independent country businesses, not an outsourcer as frequently assumed when IBM shifted some jobs overseas recently. The new IBM is an organization that builds on competency centers across the globe with concentration of skills and talent in different locations worldwide. It uses the competency centres to pull together the best people and sequence of operations to meet customer needs. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Dean of Harvard Medical School says the Health Reform bill gets an "F" grade. He say its disingenuous to call this reform, and Congressmen and the White House are deceiving the public if they attempt to pass this off as reform. What it will do is accelerate health care spending in the US, and the bill has simply postponed most of the major health care problems, especially the ones that drive cost including the fee for service system and delivery of health care.There are no substantial efforts to control the growth in health care costs or improve the quality of care, which makes this effort unacceptable as reform. In his discussions with other health care leaders and economists, Dean Jeffrey Flier, says he has found the opinion unanimous on this point, that whatever the final legislation looks like in Congress, it will only serve to accelerate health care spending rather than contain it. On the present system's failings he is explicit- the current system he says promotes fragmented care making it difficult to assess outcomes, the true costs of care are disguised, and competition based on price and quality is made impossible. The new legislation while expanding access to coverage makes a terrible tradeoff of an accelerated crisis of health care costs and merely continues the current dysfunctional system. The experience of Massachusetts, where access to care was expanded but spending went up, is that this won't work. He points to the Special Commission on Health Care Payment System in Massachusetts recommendation, that the health care system there must be changed from a fee for service system to one with "capitated" payments. So what is really disingenuous about this whole affair? Congressmen making it look as if reform has happened and congratulating themselves on increasing access to health care, when many of the serious problems of funding health care, skyrocketing costs, and a dysfunctional system, have only been kicked further down the road for some future legislators to tackle. With the national debt about 12 trillon dollars when this plan is factored in, this is cause for serious concern. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Mark Landler of the NYT intervews Ben Bernanke at his office overlooking the Washington Mall, and Secretary Paulson in his Treasury office. Both men look back at events that led to Chinese savings financing excessive American consumption, and currency and other policies on both sides perpetuating the dependence of America on lowpriced Chinese products, and of China on the American export market. Now that this export market is collapsing it presents China with serious problems with unemployment in the export sector, and pesents America with the hangover from a consumption binge that now must be paid for with years of low or negative growth. Could this have been foreseen and if foreseen could things either have been mitigated or prevented. In March 2005, Prof. Bernanke at Princeton was not at the Fed (his Fed job started in 2006), and cautioned about the imbalances presented by Chinese savings finacing American consumption. But Bernanke saw this as a market phenomenon that would take years, even a decade to work itself out in a global economy. He said "for now, we have little choice except to be patient." The prevailing opinion among Greenspan, Bernanke and others was that the global economy worked in ways that were ultimately benign and regulation was not a good thing. After all the situation benefitted American consumers and kept inflation low while also providing China as an additional engine for global economic growth. The American economy it was believed was large and resilient, and it would not be adversely affected in the long run by such a large dependence on foreign savings. Only the positive effects were visible and the adverse effects were simply talked away as not serious for now. Zoellick, who was deputy secretary of state says that successful models are very hard to change, and Paulson says that without some kind of crisis its hard to get changes made once asituation gets entrenched. For China efforts to strengthen the currency that would slow exports and improve internal consumption were stymied by a reluctance to disturb the status quo, and Americans were lulled into complacency as years of low priced imports provided the best of both worlds, high growth and low inflation. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Citing the drop in oil prices (with housing having to hit bottom at some point) and the stimulus package, Alan Blinder, says the recession should end by the 4th quarter of 2009. This is in sharp contrast to Ferguson's, Spence's, Roach's and Reinhart's view on the editorial pages of the NYT. The difference is whats striking. Ferguson, Roach and Reinhart say 3-4 years, Spence, is of a similiar view, if actions taken don't work the way they are expected to, and they don't put any dates down because too much is happening in the economy, with so much uncertainty. The titles of these three economist's pieces are also instructive, Beware of False Dawn by Roach, Rule of Four by Reinhart, and Spence's A Long Goodbye. Here is Blinder not only saying there won't be any surprises from now on (who knows for sure?) but also puts down an approximate time. He also ventures an exact impact of the stimulus, of 5% impact on real GDP in 2 years. With all that has gone wrong under Greenspan's leadership, one wonders about the credibility of being Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve during Greenspan's time at the Fed. And as if to ridicule his own forecast he says without any hesitation: "But here's the rub. My forecast assumes that no other (big) shoes will drop. Sad to say, shoes have been dropping like rain." Whats the use of a forecast that has a remark like that tagged on to it, and how responsible is a statement that doesn't suggest caution, when businesses and jobs have been destroyed through overoptimistic forecasts and lack of decisive action. A case in point being General Motors, and the government and the American people are being asked to put $100 billion into General Motors. This is no time for reckless forecasts or for any but the most carefully thought through analysis. Lives and livelihood depend on it. Is this what the President means, when he talks about an era with a lack of responsibility in government and in companies, and those in leadership positions in the country, for their statements and their actions....

LyrArc Article Gist
A crisis situation exists in state revenue and spending needs. According to a Census Bureau report overall state revenue in the US dropped 30.8%, to $1.1 trillion, between fiscal 2008 and 2009. The gap between the spending needed to provide services in the recession and revenues is very large. States fiscal problems along with housing losses, will be the two forces acting as a drag to the US recovery in 2011-2012. State payrolls will be cut back and contracts to private companies reduced to cut spending. Declining federal help in 2011-2012, with the new focus on reducing the federal deficit, will worsen the situation. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, even with large federal help 46 states had to raise taxes and make cuts to close a combined gap of $130 billion in their current budgets. And next year 40 states already have projected gaps totaling $113 billion. Even as revenues drop, the Census Bureau report says the state government expenditures went up by 3% to provide essential services, safety net programs and education. Illinois has a budget deficit of 45 percent of its overall budget, according to the Pew Center on the States. In California it is equal to 13% of te state's total budget, and in Arizona it is 15%. For 2009 tax collections fell by 8.5%, and were partially offset by a 12.9% increase in federal help, which was a total of $477.7 billion, according to te Census Bureau report....

LyrArc Article Gist
Russian oil policy at work in towns like Kalyazin, 100 miles north of Moscow, and across Russia. Gasification program is being extended, plan is to increase coverage from 53% to 60% of the people in Russia in the 2005-2007 program. Increase prices to discourage wasteful use and promote energy saving technologies in cooperation with German companies so that more gas is available for export at higher world market prices, especially to the European market. Use profits to promote exploration and increase exports. Germany gets 45% of its gas from Russia and has built close relationships with Gazprom. See the article in BW, July 31, 2006, Jack Ewing, "The Lines that Bind" and references to German-Russian ties: 1) Gerhard Schroeder, former Chancellor, as managing director of the pipeline joint venture, the $5.7 billion North European Gas pipeline formed by partners Ruhrgas, BASF and Gazprom. Ruhrgas owns 6.4% of Gazprom, and its CEO Burckhard Bergmann sits on Gazprom's Board. 2) The survey by Berlin pollster Forsa shows that 75% of Germans support the pipeline project, 45% consider Gazprom a reliable energy supplier vs. the 26% who consider Saudi Arabia as dependable. 3) At an industrial fair in Hanover German business leaders supportive of Gazprom as follows. Klaus Mangold for Daimler management board member considers it " a totally normal market economic process" for Russia to have threatended to supply China with the same gas if European countries cultivate other sources of energy supply. Michael Gloss, German Minister of Economics and Technology, says its good thing to have a neighbor close to home as a supplier. Ruhrgas, Essen based, is a subsidiary of Dusseldorf company E.O.N., and Wintershall, Kassel based, is a subsidiary of BASF. Wintershall management Board member Rainer Seele, speaks of not just partnerships but friendships. 4) Interlocking ownership of assets between Gazprom and the German companies. Gazprom 35% ownership of the assets in the WinGas Joint Venture, Wintershall gets 35% of the equity and 25% of voting shares in the gas field that supports the pipeline. Ruhrgas traded assets in Hungary for 25% ownership of the same gas field. 5) The German relationship under Merkel changes little because she has no options, German suppliers have long term contracts with Gazprom. This article shows how the Russian policy is being shaped on the ground in small towwns like Kalyazin. The one on Gazprom about "The Lines that Bind," shows how the policy is to build relationships with German suppliers, interlocking ownership of assets, increasing the supplies to Germany from the current 45% to over 50 %. Using German investment in joint venture with Gazprom for exploration and development and building pipelines and securing long term contracts at higher prices. Note the reference in article "Can Gazprom Keep the Gas On?" by BW's Moscow Bureau Chief, Jason Bush, BW July 31, 2006- ironically the policy that caused a lot of controversy between Russia and Ukraine about Russian energy prices will actually provide Gazprom with more profits to put into exploration. Forecasts referred to by Bush show that it is expected to earn $20 billion on $62 billion in revenues. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Former Fed chairman Paul Volcker has opinion about the financial crisis that is deeply felt. He wants the wall that separates banks that take in federally insured deposits from the public separated from the risky trading activities of investment banking houses. That would essentially put us back to the situation that existed before Glass Steagall Act of 1933 was revoked in the 1999. The lessons of the thirties apply today. Says Volcker "people say I am old-fashioned and banks can no longer be seaprated from nonbank activity, but that argument brought us back to where we are today." The Obama advisers like Geithner and Summers are close to the bankers- see the links to Geithner and Summers- and believe that extensively regulating the banks would prevent the banks from engaging in risky practices. However as this reporter Louis Uchitelle of the NYT has not pointed out, the problem is that this is more easily said than done. The very fact that there were close ties between Geithner and Summers and the bankers during the Clinton Administration and Geithner as head of the New York Fed under the Bush administration, and the aggressive lobbying by the investment banks like Goldman and others who are now banks to water down any regulation on derivatives trading and on other supervision, can only lead to a situation where neither Volcker's solution or the Obama people's solution is put into effect. THis will only invite another crisis. With the public anger even worse as the bonuses and compensation from trading profits by Goldman and other banks come through cheap money created by the Fed- see links- for the purpose of addressing the financial crisis. Volcker would separate JP Morgan and Bear Stearns trading operations and separate Merrill from BofA, and Goldman would revert from abank holding company to a investment banking house. Volcker believes that the pay on Wall Street "has gotten grotesquely large." Volcker believes that the separation of deposit taking institutions from investment banking would reduce trading profits and consequently automatically reduce these large bonuses. So is Volcker being ignored by the Obama administration, even as his glow helped the Obama people win public support as a better steward of the economy than McCain during the election campaign? During the crisis Volcker headed the president's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. Today he is rarely seen in his Washington office, he talks to administration officials mostly on the phone, at 82 he is not knocking on doors, and the advisory board has been assigned to look at the tax law on overseas corporate profits. Volcker agrees with most of the Obama plan on financial regulation including higher capital requirements and and pay guidelines, but if this is not enacted because of lobbying by bankers then the nation will have the benefit of neither the Volcker Plan or the Obama Plan. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
State run programs that help businesses to retain employees and avoid layoffs are a great way to operate during the lockdowns and gradual reopening. In these workshare programs workers work reduced hours and collect prorated unemployment benefits to offset lost wages. This avoids full layoffs. As the coronavirus is a temporary setback companies need their employees in a healthy economy. How to retain employees. Shift some of the cost of retaining employees to the U.S. or state governments funded by the federal government which comes in the form of unemployment benefits. Workers can then do shorter hours and get through this period.

Such programs are now set up by states in more than half of American states covering about 70% of payrolls. The problem is getting companies and employees to use this program. As of March 28 only 1% of 8.2 million employees have used the program, but it is growing.

LyrArc Article Gist
The Cleveland address and question answer session on July 10, 2011, showed Janet Yellen at her best. She was applauded several times for her answers especially for her emphasis on clarity. One question was about the use of the term"quantitative easing," couldn't the Fed have found a better word? Yellen pointed out that the Fed at the time used "buying of long term assets" as the phrase for that activity, after the media referred to it as "quantitative easing." That term stuck and the Fed ended up accepting the use of the term to refer to the Bernanke Fed's program. Yellen also said the buying of long term assets was intended to raise long term rates, and was different from the effort in Japan of buying short term assets that failed to stimulate the Japanese economy. Throughout Yellen was entirely comfortable making clear what she had in mind. At one point she was asked about the IMF director Lagarde's statement that the U.S. is better off not raising rates in 2015, because of the uncertain economic outlook in Europe, China and other places. Yellen's response was that this was one more view that she considered along with the views of several other Fed governors who had different views and reading of the economic situation. She emphasized that the increase in the rates will be very gradual, a position very consistent with her earlier statements, and this made the long tem path of interest rates more important said Yellen, than the particular time when the Fed first raised rates. For her clarity, empathy, and sound grasp of the economic situation, few Fed chairman have come close to Yellen, as was evident in the audience's grateful response. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Three regional Fed bank presidents have expressed skepticism of the Fed plan to buy medium to long term Treasury bonds- they are Kocherlakota of Minneapolis Fed, Richard Fisher of the Dallas Fed, and Plosser of the Philadelphia Fed. There are 12 regional Fed banks, and five voting seats on the Federal Open Market Committee rotate for the 12 Fed bank presidents. Opposition to Bernanke will increase as these presidents take voting positions in the Fed Open Market Committee. The Wall Street Journal reports that there is deep skepticism about Bernanke's plan among some of his colleagues. Thomas Hoenig of the Kansas City Fed says that more expansive monetary policy was "a bargain with the devil." The Fed's plan is to take a measured approach with U.S. Treasury bond purchases with maturities between 2 and 10 years. A WSJ survey of private sector economists in October 2010 found that the Fed is expected to purchase about $250 billion of Treasury bonds each quarter, and continue till mid 2011, amounting to $750 billion in all. By pushing down Treasury yields the Fed hopes to have an impact on the federal funds rate of one-half to three-quarter percentage point impact for $500 billon of bond purchases, says Dudley, President of the New York Fed. Treasury yields on the 10 year note have fallen from 4% in April to 2.6% partly in anticipation of Fed's action. The previous Fed intervention in March 2009 was a program to buy $1.75 trillion of Treasury and mortgage bonds over 6-9 months. This time the approach will be careful and measured based on results, according to the Fed. Alan Blinder, former vice chairman of the Fed, says this is the tool less preferred and of unknown effectiveness, as fiscal tools would be the preferred choice. The deficit concerns, he says, have restricted the preferred option....

LyrArc Article Gist
CEO Shigetaka Komori of Fujifilm Holdings Corp. describes how Fuji responded to the technological changes that made photographic film obsolete. Kodak recently filed for bankruptcy protection. Fuji made the transition to other products to cope with the change. Komori became president in 2000. He says one of the responses was to reduce costs. In 2005 and 2006 Fujifilm reduced costs by $2.5 billion mostly in photographic film. Fuji's management asked the question what technologies the company possessed and how they could be applied in new business areas. This led to new businesses in making the films used for making LCD panels used on PC's, televisions and other devices. These materials generate 10% of sales. The other areas are in medical equipment, drugs and cosmetics. Fujifilm acquired health care companies Toyama Chemical for $1.4 billion in 2008 and agreed to buy SonoSite for $995 in Jan. 2012. Health care now makes up 12% of sales.

LyrArc Article Gist
Prof. Neera Chandhoke of Delhi University points out that Jawaharlal Nehru and other leaders of the Congress made great contributions for India. First in the freedom movement and then in helping India take the first steps to modernization. During the early years India needed the leadership of Nehru and Gandhi to establish a functioning democracy. Even though the focus has shifted to the economy and the next steps in modernizing the economy, the contribution of the early years should not be forgotten, as it laid the basis for what happened later.

LyrArc Article Gist
Considering the fines and sanctions by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, during the time Mary Schapiro headed the organization from 2007 -2008, it did not take a serious watchdog role over the brokerage business that it was expected to supervise. NASD which she formerly headed, and FINRA, did several examinations of the brokerage business of Mr Madoff who ran a$50 billion Ponzi scheme, but failed to find anything wrong. Her agency in 2007 concluded that Madoff's firm had only violated some technical rules. Also fines and sanctions assessed by FINRA declined during the time she headed it. Fines levied by FINRA declined from $148 million in 2005, the year of her predecessor, to $40 million in 2008. Ms. Schapiro headed NASD regulatory arm in 1996, NASD itself in 2006, and FINRA after its creation in 2007. FINRA is a private agency set up by Wall Street to regulate itself. As the prevailing opinion at the time, with the SEC severely understaffed, was that Wall Street could regulate itself, agencies like FINRA had a bigger responsibility than was realized by Ms Schapiro and others. One securities lawyer who represented firms examined by FINRA, says FINRA should at least have asked more questions about the Madoff operation. In a November 2006 speech to the Securites Industry and Financial Markets Association, Mary Schapiro says, "we remain utterly committed to our regulatory mission but we should be also committed to doing no unnecessary harm or restriction to innovation in the industry and markets". Some of the stuff that went on in the name of innovation went against some basics and commonsense, and the failure to follow tested old good financial practices to separate sound innovation from unsound innovation, was a failure of that period. Schapiro's statement seemed to be a contradiction of a severe nature when examined closely, because how could she remain committed 100% to the regulatory mission if she made strong exceptions for innovations whose true logic and effectiveness only time could tell. The element of caution that should be a key part of the regulator's temperament and mental build was entirely missing. See the link to financial regulators in India, and of how this task was handled with that element of caution and skepticism of prevailing opinion. Other failure of FINRA is that it lagged behind state regulators in catching upto the mess resulting in afreeze up of auction rate securites markets. In June and July 2008, Massachusetts and New York securities regulators filed fraud charges against big firms in that matter. Another failure was the failure to look into the mortgage securites that were held in brokerage accounts and see that the valuations of these securites are sound. Finra only filed small cases against Lehman Brothers, with a fine of only $125,000 for failing to keep accurate books and records. As late as May 7, 2008 in speaking at the Financial Services Institute meeting, Schapiro was asked about what FINRA was doing to regulate complex packaged products like mortgage securites. And even though credit rating agencies had by this time been exposed as having failed, Ms Schapiro would only say, according to a financial advisor who asked the question, that "we have credit rating agencies that rate them." A pretty hands off view for a regulator when the cracks in the system were already exposed in mid 2008. Another facet of this is the high levels of compensation especially for a regulator. For her job at FINRA she received pay of $3.1 million a year including $2.5 million in compensation and $615,000 in benefits and deferred pay. In 2007 she also earned $449,000 in cash and stock grants as director of Duke Energy and Kraft Foods. All of which means that it is straining credulity for Obama to suggest that Mary Schapiro is the best person the Democrats could find for this critical job, in which the record has been severely impaired....

LyrArc Article Gist
Miller says the whole thing about the super-committee, the polemics between Republicans and President Obama about deficits and billionaires, could end up being a charade with Obama hoping to squeeze by in the 2012 presidential elections and the Republicans equally intent on getting 51%. In the end Obama's poor handling of the debt ceiling, including an unwillingness to go ahead with raising the debt ceiling even if it went to court, says Miller, shows a basic failure of the Obama presidency. In the end he thinks its not that the centre-left is going to be mad at Obama, they will be mad at themselves for believing he was going to be any different.

LyrArc Article Gist
Edmund Phelps, is 2006 Nobel prize winner and director of the Center on Capitalism and Society at Columbia University. Phelps offers a deep reflection on capitalism and what it is as a system and isn't, from the insights gathered and knowledge accumulated about its workings- conditions in which operates best, and conditions under which it is stressed or fails. It is the actors and overseer's, the public's ignorance about how the system works, the insights about its advantages and its serious hazards if neglected, that lead him to say we need deep reform and re-education. Capitalist systems, he says, are mechanisms by which economies may generate growth in knowledge- with much uncertainty in the process owing to the incompleteness of knowledge- with growth in that knowledge leading to income growth and job satisfaction. The uncertainty can be serious and dangerous if not accounted for, and the knowledge offers opportunities for personal growth, problem solving and exploration. There has been an intellectual failure in developing a wide understanding of its benefits as well as its serious costs if not kept in check, costs that arise from uncertainty and moral issues of proper behaviours if not properly guided. This is an admirable and clear expression of what capitalism is and how it should be understood....

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....