LyrArc Article Gist
People with doubts about Obama and McCain being agents of change or just bearers of the latest popular slogan for electioneering, would benefit from looking at the details gathered by the New York Times about the two candidates ties to lobbyists. Obama is second only to Senator Dodd in the amount of donations received from employees and PAC's of the 2 companies Fannie and Freddie. Mr McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, is a longtme lobbyist, and previously was head of Homeownership Alliance. Homeownership Alliance is a coalition of banks and housing industry interests led by Fannie and Freddie to counter another organization FM Watch, which was an alliance of financial institutions and lobbying associations that wanted to even the playing field against Freddie and Fannie by challenging the implicit government guarantee that allowed them to borrow funds at lower rates. And both candidate's vetters for vice Presidential picks have links to Fannie. Its former chairman, James Johnson, initially led Obama's search committee and Arthur B. Culvahouse Jr., McCain's vetter was a Fannie Mae lobbyist. For McCain, confidant and adviser, Charlie Black, and deputy Finance Chairman, Wayne L. Berman, lobbied for the 2 companies. For Obama, Robert Tsien, Freddie Mac VP, and directors. William Lewis , Brenda Gaines, a Chicago businesswoman, come up as names of contributors. There are so many such names right at the top of these two candidates advisors, that it makes one wonder seriously who are these people fooling when they make statements about Fannie and Freddie- like the one made recently by McCain about Fannie and Freddie enriching their executives by millions of dollars while things were going downhill, and the picturesque phrase "going to hell in a handbasket". And did he talk to Rick Davis about this. And Obama did he talk to James Johnson about this, and Brenda Gaines? One, McCain is a maverick yes, meaning he is independent, and the other can talk intellectually and excite young people about the future, but its a thin veneer, when all is said and done both promote their careers above anything else, and the difference is in degrees with one perhaps more than the other. And people have short memories. The Times reminds us that McCain was one of the "Keating Five" senators investigated by the Senate, accused of interceding with federal regulators for the operator of a failing thrift and received a rebuke. This is what Paul Gigot, who as editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal has directed the investigative reporting on Fannie and Freddie for years, says in his recent column about all the dishonesty and failure and efforts to corrupt the whole political system across the political spectrum with lobbying and donations and tactics. In a note of pessimism he says "not that either presidential candidate is interested." Quite a comment on the political system. Which is also why Vincent Reinhart, who headed the Monetary affairs section at the Federal Reserve, when asked about the bailouts of Bear Stearns and of Fannie and Freddie, and the help Detroit auto companies are seeking, on Bloomberg News on September 8, 2008, said that "free markets is a thin veneer" when things really get rough. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Michael Bromwich, a Washington lawyer and experienced investigator, will head the Minerals Management Service. He is from outside the oil and gas industry, and may have the benefit of looking at the industry from the angle of proper regulatory action.

LyrArc Article Gist
Polls taken before the June 16 elections in Greece show the leading New Democracy party and the Syriza party running very close to each other. Both Tsipras of the Syriza party and Antonio Samaras of New Democracy are calling for renegotiating the agreements with the IMF, EU and the EC, referred to as the troika, so that austerity programs do not fall too hard on ordinary Greeks. Tsipras says the goal is to reach "a just and viable European solution." He added in a news conference in Athens that "We don't claim there is plenty of money. Greeks are not asking for money. They are asking for work and the ability to make a living." The troika imposed a 22% reduction in the monthly minimum wage of 751 euros, or $930. This is unpopular in Greece and both New Democracy and Syriza now support reversing this, and extending unemployment benefits. Syriza proposes a moratorium on debt payments till growth is restored, and stabilizing public spending at 43% of GDP, below the 46% that is the eurozone average and above the 37% demanded by creditors. Syriza says it will scale back the value added tax which falls largely on the poor, raise taxes on the wealthy, and reduce tax breaks....

LyrArc Article Gist
The way Mr. Partovi's idea of mixing keyword search with ads met with resistance at Microsoft, after Microsoft spent $265 million to acquire his company LinkExchage. Some of Partovi's bosses warmed to his idea of auctioning keywords but their eyes were glued to the prospects of display banner ads and did not think much of the search and ads combined together, like searching for a term and seeing the vendors of all kinds of related services who pay a fee every time someone clicks on their name. Bosses changed and the Keywords group was shifted to other parts of the Microsoft business ending up in software. A small trial was made but price of auctioning keywords was not set appropriately. Partovi's insistence was seen as resistance to the ordered way of doing things at Microsoft, and Ballmer in 2003 talked about "discordant and dissident directions" in the company, tendencies which he derided. Partovi's passion was seen as insubordination and finally in May 2000 with $1 million in revenue from Keywords comparing poorly with Microsoft's other online ad revenue, Keywords was shutdown. Partovi left Microsoft in July 2000. He shopped his idea around. Yahoo said it did not fit in with its plans, later buying Overture for $1.8 billion in summer 2003. Google talked to Partovi but declined, instead quietly building its own service. And Google launched its own service AdWords combining search and ads in October 2000. It was under pressure to come up with arevenue generating method.By 2002 Google was stealing advertisers from Goto.com that had pioneered the business of ads and search but lacked the advantage of having its own search engine. Microsoft also faced the same problem. In May 2002 AOL dropped Goto.com and teamed up with Google for paid search. By late 2002 Microsoft executive Yusuf Mehdi was visiting Goto.com and launched an effort to buy Overture the new name for Goto.com. But when in Spring 2003 Mehdi pitched buying Overture for $1 billion to Gates and Ballmer, both tore into the proposal saying that they could do it for less than the $1-2 billion price tag by doing it inhouse. By this time Google was already the dominant company in search ads and Overture was losing out. But even with hundreds of programmers Microsoft did not get its search engine ready till late 2004 and the search ad system in May 2006, about 3 years from the meeting with Mehdi. The resistance of founders to development of new products, is seen at HP for the personal computer which was later embraced, and at Honda where a new kind of engine had to be developed secretly without Soichiro Honda's knowledge. In both cases the product was developed successfully after initial resistance, but in the case of Microsoft the new ideas and people may have been smothered and development done to Microsoft's founders own inclinations for order, and treated the same way as its other products till it was too late. A factor not present to the same degree in HP and Honda's situation was the speed with which the internet developed and search engines like Google developed. So that in 8 years since its launch Google is firmly entrenched, and has 73% of search ad spending, with Yahoo at 13.3% and Microsoft a distant third. Google generated $5 billion in profits from this in 2008. By 2009 search ad spending is estimated to reach $12.3 billion....

LyrArc Article Gist
An analysis by Credit Suiss analysts shows that borrowers who have their principal reduced are less likely to default. But mortgage companies have been reluctant to take down loan balances. One study shows that47% of loan modifications completed in November 2009 resulted in higher payments for borrowers, typically because unpaid interest and fees were added to the loan balance. It is critical to make loan payments significantly affordable, as many people have other loans such as credit car loans, home equity loans, car loans, and these obligations make even a lower payment unaffordable.

LyrArc Article Gist
Information provided by experts suggest that the government plans including the public-private partnership with $1 trillion committment to absorb the bad assets in financial institutions, offered as a general solution without specifics by Treasury Secretary Geithner, will be inadequate to cope with the growing bad debt. Nouriel Roubini at New York University says his analysis suggests that the USA financial institutions are already insolvent. The bad debts of banks he says now surpass bank assets. Roubini has been ahead of the curve in his estimates in 2008, and is respected for his prescient remarks about growing credit problems. In his latest report he says that total losses by American financial institutions and the fall in market value of the assets they hold will reach $3.6 trillion , up from his previous estimate of $2 trillion. Of the total he says American banks face half of this or $1.8 trillion, with the rest borne by other financial institutions in the United States and abroad. Mr Posen an economist at the Peterson Institute agrees. He says the liabilities of of American financial institutions far exceed their assets. The only qualification of this says Posen is whether this should be seen as a temporary panic, or whether the economic climate will improve and the value of bank assets recover from depressed values. Raghuram Rajan, of the University of Chicago graduate business school, agrees that if the banks had to sell these assets today at distressed prices then they are insolvent, but if there are calmer times say in ayear or so and values recover then banks may get anew lease on life. So much of this depends on market psychology, market confidence and the economic climate improving. The only problem here is that as happened in 2007 and 2008, the recognition, awareness and action has fallen behind the speed and accelerating manner of the downturn. The Bush administration, Congress, and the American public support, have all been lacking in providing the vigorous action needed, compared to the speed with which the crisis hit in the October 2008 to January 2009 period. The transition between administrations added to this effect. The total lack of any Republican support for the Obama administration's effort continues this effect. Now the Geithner plan with few specifics for a public private partnership for tackling the bad debt, and the lack of action on a bad bank solution with government takeover of certain banks as needed, continues this pattern. The constricted credit meanwhile continues to hit business with an additional hit from dropping sales, leading to layoffs across all industries, which simply worsens the housing crisis and growing foreclosures. So all across the spectrum government action is at worst very late as in the slow response to foreclosures, where the $50 billion proposed now should have come in early 2008, and the banks halting foreclosures and modification efforts proposed now should have come in early 2008 as proposed by Bair and Feldstein. And at best government is just catching up to the credit crisis as with the Fed and FDIC efforts to contain and stabilize it, with inconsistent results and the collapse of some financial institutions like Lehman Brothers. The lack of consensus in Congress and the inexperience of the new administration, means more valuable time will be lost in crafting an effective response in the manner of the bad bank solution. What all this means is that the overall response in 2009 as in 2008 will also lag behind, and the opportunity for a decisive solution is slipping away even as the cost of that solution is climbing, putting it further and further beyond reach. See the link to Hiroko Tabuchi's article titled In Japan's stagnant decade, Cautuonary Tale for America, February 12, 2009, NYT. Tabuchi touches on just this point, that the American experience in 2007-2009 is just like that in Japan where the response lagged the problem in strength and effectiveness till 2003, after years of wasted effort....

LyrArc Article Gist
The graph tell the story, in early 2007 there were close to 4 million homes under water, in early 2008 closer to 8 million homes and in early 2009 closer to 16 million homes under water, close to doubling the number of homes under water. This is why more of the morgage securities become bad assets with each passing year, as their underlying assets the mortgages become high risk for default. During the third quarter the number of homeowners under water, or owing more than their homes were worth, were 11.8 million, and by the end of 2008, 13.6 million, according to Moody's Economy.com They are growing at close to 1.8 million every quarter, or at the rate of over 7 million a year. Which at this rate would reach 21 million homes under water by early 2010, if one assumed that government help only worked to offset the impact of further deterioration of housing prices, by lowering payments for some homeowners. A new housing rescue plan was announced March 4, 2009. This will supplement the $75 billion announced earlier. This plan announced March 4, 2009, is expected by the Obama administration to cover 9 million homeowners. Borrowers who face severe financial hardship that may cause them to lose their homes, are required under this plan to sign affidavits attesting to this. They will in then see their loans modified, payment periods lengthened, and interest rates dropped to as low as 2%, to bring the monthly payment down to 31% of income, the number that experts say is appropriate for sustainable payments. Only first lien mortgages, and homeowners who live in these homes and not homeowners who use them as investments, will qualify. The outstanding principal balance cannot be over $729,750. As incentives loan-servicing companies will get upto $3500 from the government, and the government will also match a portion of the ender's costs dollar for dollar. Homeowners get $5000 in government money to reduce their outstanding balances, as an incentive to them to stay current on these modified mortgages. The administration plans to announce plans to those holding second mortgages on their homes, who have difficulty modifying them. The other component of the plan is for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to refinance loans for borrowers who are under water, owing more than their homes are worth, even if they are wealthy enough to afford current payments. There is no income ceiling for this part of the plan. And these mortgages have to be held or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, with homeowners not owing more than 105% of the current value of their homes. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Sudhir Venkatesh, a Professor of Sociology at Columbia University, talks about how constructive expressions of anger that help us get out on the streets and talk to one another, to have stormy discussions in townhall meetings, and other constructive ways of expressing anger can help us overcome all those feelings bottled up inside us. Anger has a positive role to play in promoting catharsis and fostering real healing says Venkatesh. He even says we will recover our public life this way, by storming out onto the streets and then actually talking to one another. That is not so easy in a world of electronic devices and electronic communication like email and text messaging, and in a world where one tends to one's own little world with its daily frustrations and that credit card bill and the mortgage payment and the kid's tution payment. He actually invites the public to go out and do this rather than retreat each person into his own world of humiliation and struggles, or let the anger build up in an impersonal world of Internet, and with sporadic outbursts in small group protests. He doesn't see the Obama administration doing the broad and intensive campaign to shore up the housing, food and welfare safety nets which will be required, or the sustained committments from mayors, service providers and civic leaders. And he sees anger growing and its expression taking place only later on, as the public is patient for a long time, and then the anger just rushes out when it cannot be contained, as happened in the Great Depression. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Unemployment rate up from 8.1% to 8.5% , with 663,000 jobs lost in March, 2009, according to the Labor Department. The number of unemployed hits 13.2 million. Labor Dept data shows that between 423,000 to 9 million people were forced to work parttime for "economic reasons."

LyrArc Article Gist
The first significant action to help homeowners threatened with foreclosure comes from Sheila Bair, Chairman of the Federal Deposit insurance Corporation, one of the few people after Bernanke and Paulson who have shown initiative and foresight in the current crisis. Bernanke and Paulson had the foresight to open the Fed lending window to investment firms like Lehman Brothers and others but little has been done for homeowners to have significant impact. When interviewed on television in the days surrounding the Bear Stearns crisis Sheila has shown a good grasp of the issues and courage to take the initiative. This action is similiar in line to what Martin Feldstein has suggested on the pages of the WSJ for some time now. Martin wanted the Federal government to step in to loan homeowners the 20% of their outstanding loan and work towards bringing the homeowners payment to an affordable sum. According to Feldstein's calculation this would be about the right amount as a percentage of their loan so that homeowners rationally would not be better off walking away from the loan as the best possible decision under the circumstances. If the rational option was taken under a scenario that homeowners would get no direct help here is what would happen even though it may be intuitively read in one's mind. Homeowners would walk away in increasing numbers, it would become the popular option, one that has happened in prior housing crises in Colorado for example but this time it would be spread out across America, making it dangerous. This would launch a downward spiral or cycle in which the more homeowners walk way, or default the more house prices drop, and the more house prices drop a new group of homeowners who previously had enough equity in the house now because of the last price drop enter the category of homeowners who would be better off just walking away as a rational option. During the next wave this gorup would default and set the spiral or cycle moving again to lead to further price declines and another group of homeowners finding not enough equity in their homes to justify making payments and this group would walk away. At each turn of this spiral another cycle would be set in motion which is why it is so dangerous once it gets started, and the need for timely but also well thought out plan and good execution. This cycle is that of the economic system as a whole. As house prices drop at each turn of this cycle, it would have a serious impact on consumption for an already indebted American consumer. A drop in consumption means fewer product purchases by consumers, and the falling demand means factories would close as companies consolidate operations around the remaining factories to keep capacity utilization at reasonable levels, and this would mean layoffs and cuts in investment and other spending. The layoffs in turn would add another layer of homeowners leaving their homes through foreclosures adding to the pool of homeowners who have left their homes, and adding to the downward pressure on house prices. The pickup in inflation would bite at exactly the worst time as this would mean consumers would have to spend even more carefully. The price of oil which normally would respond to changes such as a fleet of cars with higher mileage on American roads would take a longer time to respond as this fleet change would take a few years to occur. It would respond to lower demand for oil in American factories but the considerable demand in Asia and other countries where the economies are likely to slow down but still be growing at rates to accomodate the large number of people who have not benefited from the market economy, would make the price decline in oil a gradual affair. The weaker dollar would add to the price of imports adding to the inflation. This bite from inflation would lower consumption even further in the economic cycle. And this would mean lower production in factories and even more layoffs at the next turn of the economic cycle. The Federal Reserve would find itself having difficult choices between maintaining confidence in the dollar, for which Capman and McKinnon argue on the pages of the WSJ recently and lowering rates but not achieving much in terms of stimulating either consumption or investment as this would take time to work itself out and all the Fed could achieve by its interest rate making tool is to buy time to weather these adjustments in an orderly manner. There is almost a consensus among experts that interest rate reductions in the current climate of inflationary movements in prices and the current currency exchange rates moving towards a loss of confidence in the dollar is something to be done very carefully and each action taken only with careful understanding of the possible consequences. A look at the proposal itsel shows that it gets around the whole issue of moral hazard by having the cost paid for in this manner. The mortgage investors will pay for the 5 years of interest on the 20% of the loan the government provides. The homeowner takes over after that. The mortgage investors cannot add deferred interest, prepayment penalties or other ways to make the homeowner pay some of the interest charges. And the homeowners payment has to be afforadable so mortgage investors have to show that the payment is not more than 35% of income of the homeownercalled the debt to income ratio (DTI). And only homeowners with mortgage payments above 40% DTI are eligible. And the government would raise the money needed through a $50 billion offering. To show there is no moral hazard that is the government bailing out any of the parties involved, the government will get back all of its money or intends to do so, the government will have the first rights to the money should a home foreclose and before anybody else is paid. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Sheila Bair gets credit for anticipating the banking crisis and gets credit from people in the Bush Administration like Robert Steel Undersecretary at Treasury till recently for a comprehensive approach to the banking and credit and mortgage crisis. Steel says that the Bush administration first relied on a case by case approach and only later came around to Sheila Bair's comprehensive approach which also underpins the recent legislation passed by Congress to tackle the mortgage crisis. She has advocated better terms for borrowers as the best approach for lenders and borrowers and the banks and for the economy which has not been favored by the banking industry and lenders aseach group followed its own vested interest seeing only the immediate short run and failing to grasp the full extent of the crisis. Sheila Bair has taught public policy at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and also worked for the Bush administration at Treasury and in other capacities till her appointment to lead the FDIC. She also oversees the IndyMac bank as the FDIC took over that failed bank recently. She has over 100 banks at risk on her watch list and sees more fialures of banks ahead and the worst of the credit crisis still ahead of us when she says in this interview that " we have not seen the trough of the credit cycle yet", and referring to the hard headed work with a lot of work and not enough staff of examiners that " its going to be a slog to work through this."...

LyrArc Article Gist
On October 30, Sheila Bair heading the FDIC, the main advocate for reducing foreclosures by reducing the mortgage payments is in discussions with Treasury officials for a plan whose details are still being worked out. A key part of it is for the government to assume half of the losses on home loans that are incurred if mortgage companies agree to lower monthly payments for at least 5 years. The cost to the government is about $50 billion that would come from the $700 billion bailout fund. Right now loan companies are reluctant to reduce monthly payments because homeowners might defaul again or the owners of mortgage securities might file law suits. The funds would go to shoulder half of any future losses on default. For example if under a loan modification program 40% redefault and losses on loans are 55%, and $500 billion in loans are modified under the program, the total losses government would bear are $55 billion. This scenario is possible in a deep and prolonged housing and economic slump. This would be a gradual program if mortgage companies or companies with home loans or servicers of loans have to decide if they want to take advantage of this program, and time is critical as the foreclosures are accelerating and thisputs downward pressure on prices....

LyrArc Article Gist
It took a long time for the banks to understand what is in their best interests is in the best interests of the country's economy and homeowners, something Sheila Bair has been saying since the beginning of this year and implementing at IndyMac. Its just too costly for banks to use the foreclosure process to recover their money and it makes much better financial sense on the bottomline of banks and for the economy to make home payments affordable. Because the worse home prices get the worse the economy and banks do and nothing drives home prices down like foreclosures. The Bank of America settlement for Countrywide with state attorney generals to modify loans for 400,000 homeowners because of predatory lending practices also set the direction. Chase Bank is now using the Bair template to get the monthly payments down to an affordable level which is about 40% of the current payment by reducing interest rates and using a smaller loan balance and keep homeowners in their homes. Chase's plan will help 400,000 homeowners and will also help homeowners who are having difficulty making payments. It will put a 90 day hold on foreclosures till the program is put in place. Yet there is one problem. Only $350 billion of the 1.5 trillion in home mortgage it services are owned by Chase, the rest are owned by investors in the form of mortgage securities. It can do little for homeowners covered by these securites that are owned by hedge funds and other funds as a few of these funds oblivious of the overall interest including their own have threated to sue if loans are modified, and it would take some time to figure out who owns each security and what the terms are for modifying loans for that security. Its this part of mortgage securitiization that has slowed down a rational process of unwinding this problem throughout housing by making homeowners monthly payments affordable. And Fed's Bernanke did not come to grips with this point in his talk about mortgage securitization to UC Berkeley on October 31,2008, that mortgage securitization done in a way that make loan modification difficult is dangerous as it is today, and makes a crisis bigger than it otherwise would be, and turn a USA crisis into a global crisis through ricotcheting effects and a series of bad decisons....