LyrArc Article Gist
Subprime also includes high rate loans that higher income borrowers used between 2004 and 2006 to buy homes that had inflated prices. And these loans were heavily marketed by mortgage lenders and in the later stages of the boom by thrifts and banks who got into the act also. As a result every corner of the country and every income bracket borrowers have been caught up in the high rate borrowing most were overstretching themselves to meet the higher prices of homes as prices went up. This is the finding of a research done by the WSJ of 130 million home loans in the past decade with particular focus on the period 2004- 2006 when the worst aspects of this bubble were taking place. Note that about $600 billion in adjustable rate loans will adjust by the end of 2008. And a total of 1.5 trillion dollars of high rate loans were made in 2004-2006 so more ogf these high rate loans will adjust in 2009. Places like Las Vegas, Nevada, Stockton, California, and Fort Myers, Florida and these states may be the hardest hit but the problem is spread nationwide is what the Journal's research suggests and is also not limited to poorer borrowers. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The House bill just passed will only help 500,000 homeowners avoid foreclosure, when foreclosures this year are expected to be more than 2.4 million and much higher next year, as its estimated that 9 million homeowners have negative equity in their homes already. It doesn't do enough to prevent a downward spiral in house prices that will be difficult to control once it picks up speed. So while Congress is only doing too little, Bush administration is doing nothing. Here a NYT editorial points to Mr Bush's worthy efforts as having negligible impact. Hope Now after 5 months has barely dented the problem, Project Lifeline hasn't produced results, and FHA Secure has helped fewer than 2000 homeowners facing foreclosure. This is a shame because Mr Bush has praised FHA Secure. Doubts expressed that Mr Bush is sincere about his intentions or efforts, that the Republican's free market biases may be behind this, that bold action would not let the market offer a necessary correction in their view. Also possible is that like the Council of Economic Advisors chairman Lazear, Bush feels optimistic that the economic situation is not as bad as its made out to be and will respond to the stimulus package of government checks....

LyrArc Article Gist
Governor Pawlenty of Minnesota will be in a quandary if he vetoes the Minnesota Subprime Borrower Relief Act because he will be described as insensitive if chosen as McCain's running mate. Essentially this bill helps needy borrowers. Minnesota according to a research group Housing Link will see a 39% increase in foreclosures in 208 and is described by some homebuilders as F- in its rating for conditions in the housing market.

LyrArc Article Gist
A lot of the same subprime lenders who had questionable ethical practices and in many cases defrauded homeowners are back in business as FHA guaranteed lenders. The FHA gets to pick up the tab for faulty lending by these brokers and companies. Inside Mortgage Finance, a research newsletter, estimates that over the next 5 years fresh FHA loans that go sour will cost thaxpayers $100 billion more. Risk Mitigation Group, a consultancy, says over the next 12-18 months there is going to be a FHA Insurance Armageddon. Founded in the New Deal years the FHA is supposed to promote first time home purchases by allowing small down payments, as little as 3%, and lenient standards on borrower income , as long as mortgage and related expenses do not exceed 31% of household earnings. Buyers pay a modest fee for the taxpayer backed insurance. Lenders and brokers can get a license to participate in FHA programs by showing industry experience and knowledge of agency rules. BUt experts say the FHA does not have the staff to deal with its expanded responsibilities under the new Bush programs like HOPE for homeowners, and does not have the IT systems to show if the brokers had violations and convictions in the past in their records. Overburdened, lacking the computer systems to track brokers records, and understaffed, the FHA has licensed some of the same brokers who caused the subprime disaster as they applied under different names and as different companies. After the subprime market evaporated in 2007 FHA loans are all thats available for many borrowers. In fact by fall 2008 FHA loans accounted for 26% of all new mortgages issued nationwide, up from only 4% a year earlier. The Bush administration and FHA extended $300 billion in loan guarantees to HOPE. And these brokers who defraud investors with deceptive practices are known to put down even disabled people as employed, and show incomes that are not verified. Once these loans are sold as securities these brokers engaged in deceptive practives have collected their fees and being FHA guaranteed they hold their value as securities, except that the losses as they default are the taxpayers responsibility. This is the $100 billion in losses that Inside Mortgage Finance is warning about. Along the way it leaves a trail of trouble for homeowners, state agencies trying to stem these practices, and taxpayers. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This article in the Economist says the bad loans in the financial system threaten to derail India's rapid growth. It points out that about 17 percent of all loans are estimated to be non-performing. Government plans to set up a bad bank and have bad loans transferred at steep discounted rate to the bad bank are still at an early stage. India weathered the 2008 financial crisis with a financial system in better shape. Since then a surge in lending has led to an increase in the bad loans. Today both banks and corporate firms are facing this problem. The political system and dysfunctional governance with frequent changes for management at state controlled banks are part of the problem.

LyrArc Article Gist
The major provisions of the Republican House healthcare bill that passed by a vote of 217-213 are- 1. To help people buy insurance coverage the bill offers $2000 to $4000 a year, upto $14,000 a year in credits based mainly on age, reducing them for families making $150,000, individuals making $75,000. 2.  Under the Affordable Care Act insurers cannot charge older Americans more than 3 times for same coverage they offer to younger people, the new bill makes this 5 times. This would increase premiums for older Americans and reduce it for younger Americans. This is the most controversial part of the bill. Older Americans supported the Republican party in the presidential election. 3. The new bill ends Medicaid as an open ended entitlement and places this on a budget with cuts of $880 billion over 10 years. 4. To mollify conservative Republicans a provision allows state to opt out some provisions of the ACA that requires minimum benefits such as maternity care and emergency services. It retains coverage for pre-existing conditions to mollify moderate Republicans. The bill provides states with $138 billion over 10 years to subsidize premiums, provide coverage for pre-existing conditions, mental healthcare and drug addiction. 5. The bill removes the taxes imposed under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on high income people of about $300 billion over 10 years by repealing a payroll tax increase and tax on investment income. This bill and the ACA offer 2 competing visions on healthcare, both bills passed only by a margin of 4-5 votes in the House. The ACA overlooked the impact on premiums causing discontent among middle income Americans. The new bill lets premiums rise for older Americans in order to keep premiums down for other Americans. This shows the many tradeoffs involved and choices being made, and the lack of a consensus on the issue of healthcare in the U.S., becoming a highly politicized issue instead of the way it is treated in western Europe.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Student loan default reaches 22% in 2017 up from 17% in 2013. Defaulted loans are $84 billion or 13% of $631 billion required to be paid by borrowers.

LyrArc Article Gist
Wolfgang Ischinger, former German ambassador to the U.S. 2001-2006 and president of the Munich Security Conference, says that one thing that would make a difference in the current state of German and European relations with the U.S. after NSA spying on chancellor Merkel, is for president Obama to show contrition. The continuing dynamics are important, as is evident in the deterioration in relations in 2003 following the American intervention in Iraq when not enough was done, says Ischinger. His view is that the proposals to limit diplomatic personnel of the U.S. in European countries, or putting on hold the Trans-Atlantic trade talks, are not good ideas as they do not help restore trust. Building on a report by the European parliament in 2001 on protections against intelligence operations would be a good start.

LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. Fed publishes a 38 page policy statement in Nov. 2013 on procedures and guidelines for stress tests of U.S. banks. Efforts to increase clarity for stress tests. Outlines for three scenarios- baseline, adverse and severely adverse.

LyrArc Article Gist
There appears to be a conscious deliberate decision by the Chinese government and policymakers to shift the economy from low-end technologically unsophisticated and polluting industry, that pays low wages with little worker protections, towards technologically sophisticated, environment respecting, and higher wage industry. This does not mean textiles are out, but textile companies that are larger better managed, able to introduce newer technologies and produce higher quality product- that command higher prices in the world market and therefore also able to sustain decent wages and worker protection- are in. Phasing out the smaller shops and the poorly run or deliberately polluting and labor exploiting companies run from Hong Kong or elsewhere. The general shift is to be a leader in products which are value added either by technology or human capital, such as better trained more knowledgeable workers. This is similiar to the shift Japan made after the sixties, as it moved from a rural to a urbanized society and textile companies like Kanebo became technologically sophisticated, while small shops withered out, and Japan gradually shifted into automobiles, electronics and chip making. The noticeable difference is that Japan with a prewar industrial base and a smaller market protected its home market for Japanese companies, whereas China lacking this prewar industrial base let foreign investment and companies overseas bring in equipment and use low cost Chinese labor to supply western markets. And it turned a blind eye to labor protections, at least till it had built up its own industrial base and knowhow with policy requiring Chinese partners in industry and technology transfer. Economic winds are also doing the job. Inflation, Chinese goods prices increased by 4.6% in May according to the U.S. Commerce Department. This is a result of the Chinese government requiring worker protections and decent wages and stricter pollution enforcement resulting in increased energy costs. For years the U.S. and other countries depended on China for low cost goods and the demand for low cost goods depressed margins which resulted in legitmate costs such as pollution control technology, worker protection and decent wages, being ignored. China is now left with heavy environmental cleanup costs, and a bad image internationally as a heavy polluter. The huge external trade surpluses China has built up exceeding a trillion dollars have pushed up the value of the yuan making Chinese goods costlier in world markets, and apparel and shoe makers in developed countries seeing Vietnam as a better lowcost alternative. The story of this phase of Chinese industrial development can be seen in a town like Honghe, a 90 minute drive from Shanghai, which has half of its 100,000 residents working in 100 factories and 8000 shops that knit, dye, package and ship some 200 million sweaters a year, bringing in according to local government estimates $650 million a year. Now many of these shops are idle and mirant workers are returning home. To see the subtler signs of the Chinese policymakers hand note that even visa policies have been tightened to make it harder for foreign buyers to visit Chineses factories and trade shows. Also the Chinese government has raised the minimum age for workers in these factories from 16 to age 18 and so on. And the impact is being felt in places like Honghe near Shanghai, Shengzhou another city near Shanghai which makes one third of the world's neckties, and in Dongguan in Guangdong where its toy, shoes shops close. The change also shows how quickly things can change in the world economy. Only 3 years earlier in 2005, Jiaxing Yishangmei Fashion Company, a family owned company was booming and had just landed Walmart Stores as a customer. Now Walmart no longer sources from this company. Analysts say that the Chinese sweater industry was probably overbuilt, with about 6 cities in China claiming to produce more than 100 million sweaters annually. A wave of consolidation could boost efficiency, and bring pressures to innovate rater than compete only on price. And many Chinese economists, and policymakers think China has relied too much on cost-cutting and simple production models to increase exports. A researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences thinks such a high dependence on foreign trade is not good for China. For the US and Japan this researcher says that trade is equivalent to 20% of gross national product and by contrast for China trade is equivalent to an extreme of 75% of GNP. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The impact of foreclosure in one Detroit neighborhood called Boston-Edison, where Henry Ford once lived and how the residents who have a neighborhood association going back many years to the 1920's are coping. The human consequences of foreclosures for a neighborhood. How could either side win, the lenders or the borrowers in a foreclosure situation and the need for the government to step in and bring some sense to the whole thing before it sinks both and blights towns and neighborhoods across America. One home bought for $179,000 in April 2006 was sold in the Boston-Edison area for guess how much, $6,500. Which shows that by the time thieves who for the copper and metal mining of these homes can destroy tens of thousands of dollars in value in minutes, and the deterioration of the neighborhood with crime and boarded up looks, and the very presence of foreclosures on each street destroys enormous amounts of value so that in this case the bank and its lenders got how much, less than $6500 or less than 4% of its original price. Repeated all across America this just does not make sense. Just as it never made sense for those who benefitted from the housing boom to say that subprime lending was a good thing because it brought home ownership to the less well off. Only lending that is at rates that are reasonable and considers the borrowers true finances, and on ethical and fair terms can be good lending and only government regulation designed to be easily enforceable and keeps lenders responsible, can ensure that this happens, as a free market is not good for this sort of thing. And this is all the more true for lending to those who are less well of because their ability to screen these contracts and their wording is not adequate and their own understanding of their finances inadequate. Barclay's Capital estimates that there are 811,000 bank owned homes in the USA, up from 129,000 in 2006, and predicts that it will grow by 60% before peaking in late 2009. ...

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
Feldstein says that the $700 billion plan to buy impaired assets will not prevent an overshooting downward in house prices, as more people have negative equity in their homes, rising to 40% of all mortgages at some point; and leading to a cycle of foreclosure and further price declines. This will only decrease the value of the mortgage securities that Treasury seeks to take off the hands of banks. And without direct government help in form of lowcost loans, say 2%, the cost of capital for the government, for 20% of the loan upto $80,000; more and more homeowners will have negative equity in their homes. This will lead to more foreclosures as housing loans are not full recourse, so that only the house is lost and the homeowner can move to an apartment and carry on from there. Thw size of this program would be $1 trillion but it gives the government income from the loans made and these would be full recourse loans so the taxpayer is protected. In Feldstein's view the current plan does not address declining house prices which is the root of the problem. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
During the presidential debates Donald Trump was asked about his proposal for a 45% tariff on imports from China to the U.S.. Trump's response was "if they don't behave." he would use this as a negotiating tactic against China. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas responded by reminding viewers of the high tariffs under Smoot-Hawley legislation that were one of the factors that created the Great Depression in the 1930's. Economist and former Federal Reserve chairman Bernanke is a student of the Great Depression, and says "it was highly counterproductive, it lengthened and deepened the Great Depression." Economist Peter Petri of Brandeis University in his study cited in this article, says that the tit for tat that starts with such a move could eventually cost the U.S. 1 million jobs. It might fix one problem the one of imbalanced trade with China his figures show, and create another huge problem the loss of markets for U.S. goods all over the world. Overall a 45% tariff would reduce U.S. merchandise imports by $383 billion and reduce U.S. merchandise exports by $658 billion, says Petri. Gordon Hanson, economist at the University of California, San Diego, who has actually shown how trade has affected different counties in the U.S., leaving some dependent on government assistance. Hanson sees this tariff as counterproductive, it makes the U.S. more self-sufficient but hurts U.S. exporters, would significantly hurt the tech boom, and reduce America's standard of living. The problem is that everybody can get into this in a tit for tat. France did this even before the Smoot Harley Act of 1938 was passed in 1930 with 60% increase in tariff on individual items, by higher tariff legislation in 1928. Close allies Canada followed quickly after Smoot Hawley increasing its tariffs, so did Great Britain. Unemployment went up significantly after 1931, worsened by weak banks and lack of support from the Federal Reserve. Trade with Mexico would come to a halt Petri shows, and the result would be more Mexicans trying to cross the border turning a relatively non existent problem of immigration in 2015 -with Mexicans preferring to remain home and net immigration dropping significantly following the 2008 financial crisis and the strict Obama policy of deporting illegal immigrants- into a real one. Trump says its just a threat, but it is likely to lead to a tit for tat response by China, then by U.S. allies, other trading partners. Consider that president Herbert Hoover opposed the Smoot Hawley bill for raising tariffs on industrial goods, and only proposed adifferent legislation reducing tariffs on industrial goods and increasing the tariffs on agricultural goods to give relief to American farmers. Politics intervened as Smoot from Utah and Hawley from Oregon, from mountain and agricultural states with a lack of understanding of how the international trading system works but as heads of two influential commmittes, the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee, let politics overrride and pushed their legislation through Congress. In 1932 Smoot and Hawley were defeated for reelection, but the damage had been done, and promises of better conditions for workers and farmers never kept. A significant reason for the U.S. standard of living is that it is a leader in the global trading system. Even in 1945 and the years following the end of the war tariffs were higher in Britain and other countries. In return for this leadership the U.S. enjoys the advantages of the dollar being the main global currency, and the advantages of a world leading technological sector that has large global markets. Hanson and Autor have pointed out how imbalanced trade has hurt some counties in the U.S. This is a very real problem for workers in the manufacturing sector, as shown by elections in the midwestern states, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and other parts of the country. The problem is compounded by the tech sector looking out for itself, the financial sector looking out for itself, and forgetting that we are all in the same boat. And that includes the Chinese who are in the same boat. China is doing a major shift in policy towards a consumer driven economy, and this needs to be accelerated for the benefit of ordinary Chinese. This makes the policy of a 45% tariff by the U.S. doubly unproductive because it hopes to add urgency to the problem of the U.S. trade deficit and manufacturing workers, but takes an approach that risks ending up damaging the global trading system by setting in motion a process that no one controls or can foresee the destination....

LyrArc Article Gist
This story in the NYT describes how the flawed effort to pass the Republican healthcare bill or repeal the Affordable Care Act passed under president Obama failed after another effort. Many developments killed it. In the end the president lost interest, especially when he saw Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky go on talk shows on the weekend before its collapse to complain about the bill. Senator Collins of Maine was exasperated by the way the bill was being rushed through Congress, and she voiced her strong opinions about this by talking to people back home in Maine and sharing her conversations with the media. The bill pushed by Senator McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, imposed annual caps on Medicaid spending. And did this without any discussion, shutting out committee debate, any public discussion, or formal drafting. Once this process was set in motion in this way the Republican Senators formed camps. Senator Grassley of Iowa and Jerry Moran of Kansas, normally conservative moved to the moderate side. Moran held a town hall meeting covered in the NYT, where older people voiced their concerns. Most of the patient advocacy groups, the hospital groups such as the American Hospital Association, and other medical groups also opposed it.  After Senator McCain of Arizona said he could not return following a surgery in Phoenix, Senators Lee and Moran announced their opposition. With this the bill's support crumbled including any effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act.  ...