LyrArc Article Gist
An average of major opinion polls compiled by Real Clear Politics website shows 50.5% of Americans opposed to the Obama U.S. health care law.

LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman on the failure of the Obama administration to take steps to help homeowners in the foreclosure crisis. The serious problems created in housing markets by a wave of foreclosures and declining prices. The failure of regulatory agencies to take necessary action that would reduce the wave of foreclosures. The impact this has in hampering an economic recovery.

LyrArc Article Gist
Alan Blinder calls for something better than Social Darwinism to tackle the problem of foreclosures in the U.S. economy. Martin Feldstein has made the same call repeatedly. Homeowners under water need help from the government to avoid foreclosures. Rising foreclosures reduce the chances of a recovery in housing markets and U.S. economic recovery.

LyrArc Article Gist
Some figures on the foreclosure situation. 2.3 million Americans faced foreclosure proceedings in 2008, 81% increase over 2007. 860,000 properties were repossessed by lenders, more than double the 2007 level, according to RealtyTRac a foreclosure listing firm in Irvine,, California. Moody's Economy.com predicts the numbers to go up 18% in 2009 before slowing through 2011. That is 2.71 million foreclosures in 2009. To prevent the foreclosure levels from getting much worse as unemployment drops, the new administration plans to use upto $100 billion of the remaining $350 billion TARP funds to help homeowners. The 4 states hardest hit are Nevada, Arizona, California and Florida. More than 1.1 million properties there received foreclosure notices, almost half the total nationwide. The hardest hit areas are in California, with the metro areas worst hit in order are Stockton, California, Las Vegas, Nevada, Riverside and Bakersfield, California, and Phoenix. In December more than 303,000 properties nationwide received foreclosure notices, up 40% from year ago month, and 17% above November 2008. At 303,000 the yearly rate is 3.6 million foreclosures or higher for 2009, so the Moody's estimate for 2009 must take into account acceleration of steps to help homeowners with the new administration. Are the rather modest steps taken upto now helping? RealtyTrac analysts estimate that without a state law requiring lenders to give borrowers a 30 day warning before starting the foreclosure process, the foreclosures in California would be 10% higher. There are similiar state laws in Massachusetts and Maryland. Throughout 2008 few steps were taken by the Bush administration to slow foreclosures, even though Republican economists like Martin Feldstein repeatedly advocated this. See links to Feldstein and Sheila Bair of the FDIC who also advocated aggressive action, and providing the numbers to show that it was costlier for lenders to see borrowers go into foreclosure compared to reducing principal and interest payments significantly. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
How bankruptcy courts can offer a solution to the foreclosure crisis or at least mitigate its effects on the economy and on people. Senator Durbin of Illinois is expected to introduce legislation to put this into effect. It was adopted as a Chapter 12 provision to save farmowners in distress in Iowa in the 1980's, and helped keep many farming families on the farm in that situation. Not all families would be helped as some will not be able to make even the reduced payments given by a bankruptcy judge. But it gives bankruptcy courts the authority to cut through all the red tape and reluctance of bankers and mortgage securities owners to take the initiative and reduce payments, and in the end may actually generate more money for lenders than foreclosure, which has high costs on several dimensions. One cost and one dimension that is not considered is the cost to the economy and to all businesses, from retail to other products, as foreclosures lead to declines in housing prices. This leads in a downward spiral to more homeowners going under water with their homes being worth less than the mortgage, and this in turn leading to foreclosures that lead to further house price declines. The decline in housing prices adds to the incentive to save and reduce spending, which leads to inventory buildup and layoffs. This is why the situation cannot be seen in isolation, and becomes an area where interests of individual parties like lenders and securities holders tend not to be maximized when they follow their personal interest. And there is no party that can take the collective interest in this case except the federal government. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the WSJ describes the sharp increase in premiums under the Affordable Care Act of president Obama. The average premium increase is about 24.2% according to a Barclay's analysis, and as high as 43.9% in states such as Illinois. Bill Clinton calls it the craziest thing with small business affected, and some premiums doubling. Of the 17 million people in the individual market eight million buy without subsidies. One in five enrollees cannot qualify for subsidies. Democrats say subsidies are too small. Hillary Clinton has proposed to have a Medicare "buy-in" for people ages 55-65, and a "public option" government run plan. Republicans want to rewrite the law. But this depends on which party wins the Senate, with the election in Missouri giving Democrats an opportunity to maintain a Senate majority.

LyrArc Article Gist
Baker and Rudoren of the NYT describe how the relationship between Netanyahu and Obama gradually deteriorated over a number of years.

LyrArc Article Gist
Israeli prime minister Netanyahu retracts his statement about rejecting a two state solution in an interview with Andrea Mitchell of NBC News. He says he meant that it was not possible under the current conditions with terrorism in the Middle East, Iran pursuing a nuclear weapon, and the Palestinian Authority having an alliance with the militant Hamas movement. In 2009 Netanyahu said he supported a two state solution in a speech at Bar-Ilan University, and the statement before the election was meant to bring out larger number of right wing votes. He also clarified his comments about Israeli Arabs "voting in droves," as meant to bring out large numbers of his own voters to vote, saying Israeli Arabs voting was "sacrosanct." The White House response was to say that it was free to support a two state solution at the United Nations, and U.S. president Obama discussed the comments on Israeli Arabs- seen widely as racist baiting- with Netanyahu in a phone conversation. The rift between the two leaders is now seen as irreparable and bigger than ever....

LyrArc Article Gist
Oversupply and price wars in China's solar power industry in 2012.

LyrArc Article Gist
Job loss nubers for 2009 from the Labor Dept are- February 681,000, March 699,000, April 539,000 as govt payrolls expanded by 72,000. About 8.9 million people work parttime, adding in the people who have given up looking for a job, the underemployment rate is 15.8% in April 2009.

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
Will the long awaited Obama plan do enough to reduce foreclosures and help the economy? $75 billion will go to help homeowners facing foreclosure. But it continues the earlier course of letting it be voluntary for banks and lending institutions to decide if they in fact want to reduce the mortgage payment to 38% of the borrower's income. If they do the government provides an incentive of $1000 for every loan modified, and more payments if the borrower stays current. If the lender decides that its not in its interest to make concesssions to reduce the payments to 38% of the borrower's income, in exchange for the $1000 incentive, it could well decide to do nothing, and even continue the current practice of adding on interest and penalties that actually increase the mortgage payment in many cases. Is it enough? Clearly no, if Mark Zandl, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com is right, and helps only 1 million of the estimated 14 million people who are under water, and the homes are worth much less than the outstanding mortgage. As Martin Feldstein has pointed out for the last year since early 2008, its these people who are under water that need to be helped, and not in a piecemeal or voluntary way as Obama is suggesting. It only goes to show that after all the rhetoric, Government both Republican and Democratic, differ only in degrees in the way they are responding to the foreclosure crisis, that is at the root of the financial crisis. The tidal wave of foreclosures, the other 13 million borrowers that are not helped by this plan but are under water, with growing numbers because of growing layoffs, suggest a serious failure to tackle the problem, with serious consequences for 2009 and beyond....

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
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....

LyrArc Article Gist
Yale's Robert Shiller, founder of the of the Shiller-Case survey, says that he does not see a turning point in the housing market at this time, based on the 5000 mailed questionnaires he sends out each year. He says this is not visible and hard to conclude from the responses. He also describes the bubble thinking and behaviours he sees from the responses, especially how people extrapolate into the long term the short term gains being made. Nowhere in these responses does he see the term bubble being used by respondents, as if it never existed.

LyrArc Article Gist
In this WSJ op-ed, Michael Oren, Israel's former ambassador to the U.S. 2009-2013, describes the difficult moments in the Israel- U.S. relationship during the 7 years of the Obama administration. He says prime minister Netayahu made mistakes, but president Obama acted deliberately against Israel's interests. Oren says two core principles of the Israel-U.S. relationship, that of "no daylight" or no open disagreements, and "no surprises," were broken during the two terms of the Obama administration. One such moment says Oren was in May 2011, when Obama endorsed the 1967 lines with land swaps- a former Palestinian position- as basis for peace-making. M. Netanyahu was seen as lecturing the U.S. president about this the next day, according to Oren, because he was assured by the Israeli ambassador that this was not going to happen and it came as a surprise to Netanyahu.

LyrArc Article Gist
The NYT Editorial on June 2, 2009, says the Obama anti-foreclosure plan is woefully inadequate, and can't stop the wave of foreclosures. The administration's foreclosure plan that went into effect in March 2009, offers upto $75 billion in incentives to lenders to reduce loan payments for homeowners facing foreclosure. Lender participation is largely voluntary under the Obama plan, making it weak. Since March about 100,000 homeowners have been offered a modification according to the Treasury Department. This is a small dent in the plan's intent of preventing 4 million foreclosures. And it continues the Bush administration's apathy and lack of effective action to prevent foreclosures. The Mortgage Bankers Association reported that in the first quarter 2009 5.4 million mortgages were delinquent or facing foreclosure. There are 15.4 million "underwater" homeowners, those who have no equity in their homes, and with average person deeply in credit card and other debt, these people have little to fall back on if they lose their jobs or have a medical crisis. The simple arithmetic of these 15.4 and the 5.4 million, adding upto 20.8 million households, shows that anywhere near a fifth of American households are in deep financial trouble. The same numbers, or another fifth of American households, are approaching foreclosure. Drawing concentric circles of these homeowners inside a circle showing all American households, and seeing these concentric circles increasing in size with every quarter of job losses, one can clearly see why this is the biggest problem facing the economy. Job losses in January 598,000, February 681,000, March 699,000, April 539,000, totalling 2.5 million for Jan-April 2009, and 8.9 million working parttime. The underemployment rate at 15.8%. Till this foreclosure situation exacerbated by rising under employment is addressed, the credit easing and the small recovery thats been managed since December 2009, is like a mirage in the desert. A false sense of comfort. The NYT editorial makes the point that the foreclosures prevention efforts focus entirely on reducing monthly payments. Even here it falls short, in not reducing the payments enough, or programs not big enough in scope to address the millions of homeowners needing help. But an even bigger problem remains unaddressed, says the NYT, and this is not reducing the principal. An effective anti- foreclosure plan has to reduce the principal for the 15.4 million homeowners under water. This as Martin Feldstein has argued repeatedly in the oped pages of the WSJ since early 2008- the homeowners under water or approaching that situation have no incentive to hold onto their homes- has to be addressed by government taking responsibility for loan principal reduction in a carefully designed plan requiring participation of lenders. NYT points out that the mortgage industry has resisted taking this approach, and the Obama plan does not emphasize this important part of an effective plan to reduce foreclosures. By opposing this, the banks with the toxic mortgage assets and the government by going along with this, are shooting themselves in the foot. This makes any recovery at best weak, and more likely a false hope lacking fundamental support, foresight and vision....

LyrArc Article Gist
The Obama administration's foreclosure prevention programs were designed for subprime lending situations. They were not designed for the high unemployment experienced in the U.S. A Treasury Department effort allows jobless people to postpone mortgage payments for 3 months, the average length of unemployment however is 9 months. Only 7,397 participants are in this program. As part of the bailouts Treasury had $46 billion to spend to prevent foreclosures, as of May 2011 Treasury has spent only $1.85 billion. Because housing provide so much of the underpinnings for the U.S. economy, it is essential to put housing back on a stable footing for an economic recovery. The lack of a sensible plan in this area is simply incomprehensible. Morris Davis, a former Federal Economist, has estimated that a million more homeowners went into foreclosure because of a lack of help for the unemployed. Davis is an associate real estate professor at the University of Wisconsin. He says its simply outrageous that the Obama administration has done so little. President Obama recently took credit for a recovery and jobs saved in the auto industry in Detroit. The failure to come up with a workable plan and to do so little in the larger area of housing and unemployment, is likely to overshadow everything else. This is especially so with the Fed approaching its limits after QE II, and with the administration and the Congress in a stalemate over further stimulus and the deficit....

LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. Federal Reserve Open Market Commitee takes a position of pause and wait as it decides in March 2012 not to take any new further bond buying stimulus measures. There is uncertainty in equity markets about the effect this will have on equity prices. During the last two pauses in 2010 and 2011 the equity markets experienced downturns after withdrawal of bond buying measures by the Fed, leading to Fed action with QE 1 and QE 2 followed by a surge in equity prices and the S&P at over 1400. At the peak during the 2001 and 2008 dot-com and housing propelled booms the S&P reached over 1500. At this rate the curve for U.S. equity prices for the 2008-2012 period resembles a repeat of a narrow steep V shaped curve with only a 7% climb in April 2012 needed to reach the 1500 point in the S&P 500 average at which the previous two booms in prices ended up in a bust. John Taylor, Stanford economist, in a separate op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on March 29, 2012, called for a change in the mandate of the U.S. Federal Reserve for a more rule based policy because of the dangers of repeated boom and bust periods in the U.S. economy as a result of ultra loose monetary policies. The problem at this point in April 2012 is that profits of companies are not expected by analysts to come in strongly in the second quarter, with a slightly improving unemployment picture, expected upward pressures on oil prices from the Iranian situation, eurozone debt problems in Spain and Italy, and slowing growth in China, India and Brazil. These fundamentals do not support an S&P at the levels seen during the height of the last two booms of 2000-2001 and 2007-2008....