LyrArc Article Gist
IMV architecture for rugged vehicles and the Hilux brand of vehicles for emerging markets, are two favorable factors that Toyota hopes will generate half a million more sales than the old Hilux line. Toyota has spent $1.4 billion on building plants in India, Indonesia, Argentina and S. Africa and other countries to develop the new vehicles with new chassis, engines and other parts made in developing countries. These plants say chief engineer Hoskawa help reduce costs by 20-25% for the Hilux line of rugged vehicles with new chassis. But a port strike in India which makes the manual transmitssions, and a problem at the plant in Indonesia which makes gasoline engines- which are then shipped to plants for assembly in South Africa and Argentina- could cause problems. To cushion against such events Toyota keeps 2 weeks supply of engines and other parts in Thailand.

LyrArc Article Gist
The figures tell the story. One area where Mexico is having success is policy decisions for technical education in the past 10 years and building up enrollment in technical and engineering colleges. This will have a lasting impact on Mexico's future and the attraction of staying in Mexico vs crosssing the border for millions of Mexicans trying to build a better future from humble beginings. BW says 451,000 students are enrolled in fulltime engineering and technical undergraduate programs vs 370,000 in the USA. With the cost being one-third or less than that in the US, the proximity to the U.S., the dedicated hardworking eager workforce and the keen willingness of local authorites to help foreign companies, the future looks bright for Mexican engineers.

LyrArc Article Gist
This article has several information links for different groups. One to "Putin and Russian oil policy"- consolidating into state hands all the major oil properties by buying the privately held company holdings such as BP-TNK's Kovykta gas field. A link to remarks to the New York Times in an interview by Medvedev, deputy CEO of Gazprom. And a separate link to "How Russians see Themselves and the World around them." The other link is in comments by Surkov, Mr. Putin's deputy chief of staff at a news conference and Putin's remarks in pre-8 Summit television interviews. Content Links 1. Link To the group "How Russians See Themselves and the World." In remarks at a news conference, Vladislav Surkov, Putin's deputy chief of staff referred to Russia's desire to keep its national sovereignty in terms of how it manages its oil resources in Russian interest. Russia did not want to have to respond to western demands for access to its oil resources and oil and gas pipelines. Surkov pointed out that Russia was a free nation among other free nations and did not want to be controlled by outside interests. Putin in pre-summit television interviews had an interesting view of the criticism of Russian oil policy and its consolidation of oil resources into state hands, as well as the centralization of powers and putting media into state hands, and its new stance in foreign affairs. He told this to the French channel TF1: Putin suggested old views of Russia stemmed from outdated cold-war competition, and misguided colonial-era arrogance. If we go back 100 years and look through the newspapers, we see what arguments the colonial powers of that time used to justify their involvement in Africa and Asia. They justified their involvement with statements that is was about playing a civilizing role, the white man's burden, the need to civilize these people, Putin told TF1. All you have to do is change the words "civilizing" to "democratization" and then we see the application almost to a word of what the newspapers were saying in 1900 to day's world. These are the arguments one hears from our peers in the U.S. and Europe on democratization and democratic freedoms. This is remarkable statement in revealing how the post Berlin Wall 90's experience with democracy has soured Russians view of democracy. And the peculiar way Putin and other Russians see the western exhortations for openness, transparency, freedoms, self interested, motivated by gains for western economic interests, and disregarding Russian interests such as national pride, economic-higher energy prices to sustain growth, national sovereignty. The NYT article can be seen in the context of a strategy article in Foreign Affairs, July/August 2006, "Russia Leaves the West," by Dmitri Trenin. Trenin says the U.S. and Europe want a weak Russia that they can exploit and manipulate, which means Russia needs to assert itself and its own interests just like the U.S. and China. The idea presented by Deputy Director of Carnegie Moscow Center, echoes Putin's own suspicion of western interests and their "colonial era arrogance". Trenin's view is of a fundamental shift in Western-Russian relations: the United States and Europe could protest this change in Russia's foreign policy all they want but it will not matter. For Trenin the U.S. and Europe had to agree that the terms of the Western-Russian interaction, set after the collapse of the Soviet Union's collapse, was now fundamentally changed. 2. The second link is with the "Putinand Russian Oil Policy" group. It provides details about the Kovytkta field owned by BP-TNK and what is happening there. Alastair Ferguson, director of BP-TNK's gas operations describes the situation in a interview with NYT at his Moscow offices. Ferguson says it makes sense to do what Russia is doing if you are the Russian government. By letting BP-TKN build its own pipeline Russia would lose influence over gas prices. According to Gazprom allowing private companies to ship gas independently would drive down gas prices. And Ferguson says this gas field is huge and supplies going to China and rest of Asia could lower prices of liquefied natural gas in California. Medvedev, Gazprom's deputy CEO was also interviewed in his Moscow offices. Gazprom and the government would answer the question about export sales, not BP-TNK. Medvedev's view is that this is a technical question for Gazprom and Russia to decide and has little to do with the G-8....

LyrArc Article Gist
Most Congressmen are skeptical of Obama's plan to give the Fed new powers to meet the kind of emergency created by the glovabal economic crisis. Their concern is that the Fed may let the property bubble develop wihtout taking any action, and that the Fed failed as abank regulator. Congressman Ron Paul is co-sponsoring abill that would require Congressional audits of the Fed, which has the support of two thirds of the House.

LyrArc Article Gist
Reilly raises the question why asset allocation decisions of the type made by JP Morgan Chase since 2008, does not make it similiar to a mutual fund or a hedge fund, and why this should itself not be considered a form of proprietary trading. JP Morgan Chase had $600 million of corporate debt in its overall debt portfolio or 1% in 4th quarter 2006. By end of 2008 this increased to 5% or $10 billion. By end of 2009, this went up to 17% of the portfolio or $62 billion, and they are at that level today. The holdings of non-U.S. residential mortgage securities was also increased, going up to 20% of holdings or $75 billion at end of 1st quarter 2012, from $2 billion or 1% of the portfolio in 2008. Corporate debt holdings at Bank of America at the end of the 1st quarter of 2012 were about 1% or $2.4 billion, and at Citigroup were about 4.5% or $12 billion. The Chief Investment Office unit of JP Morgan handles this portfolio, which is the result of deposits of $1.12 trillion exceeding loans of $700 billion. The low interest rate environment after 2008 creates incentives for banks to look for ways to improve crimped margins and in the process adding risk....

LyrArc Article Gist
A shocking fact about oversupply in one crucial industry. Automakers worldwide have the industry capacity to make 94 million vehicles. According to researcher CSM Worldwide the current sales in late 2008 reflects demand for 60 million vehicles worldwide. This is about 34 million extra vehicles and represents about 100 plants. Toyota has already cut production in Japan by 27% in November, the biggest cuts seen at Toyota in 30 years. The numbers for 2009 will reflect a deepening downturn from higher unemployment and lower spending. Not all of this capacity wil be cut as automakers will look for a rebound as customers replace aging vehicles, but as sales decline in Russia, China and emerging markets and in the USA and Europe, some consolidation will take place and many plants will have to close in the US, China, Portugal, Italy and Spain.

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
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
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....