LyrArc Article Gist
Merkel's leadership as Germany goes through the economic crisis. There is not much enthusiasm for further reforms among the Social Democrats or the Christian Democrats. Other than raising the retirement age to 67, the mood is not for any changes in that direction. The economy will contract by 6.1% but Merkel's decision is not to go in for a big stimulus under pressure from the US, and instead stay with the status quo combined with help to workers for unemployment benefits and for retention of workers by companies. As elections approach Merkel is considered favorably, and according to a recent poll by Forschungsgruppe Wahlen nearly 60% are satisfied with the grand coalition of the CDU and the SPD, 78% think Ms Merkel has done well as chancellor, and 58% want her to remain on the job. Actually Merkel's popularity is behind the CDU's prospects, the CDU itself is popular among only 35% of voters. Her analytical habits from her training as a physicist show in the way she is governing, which is thoughtful, and connects well with voters. Merkel benefits from the reduction in unemployment. Unemployment fell from around nearly 5 million in 2005 to around 3 million in 2008. The risk is that Merkel's popularity may be affected by an increase in unemployment to 5.1 million from the averaage of 3.3 million in 2008, according to an OECD estimate. Merkel stands behind a German response to the crisis which is to support the priciples of a social-market economy, make unemployment as least painful as possible to the jobless, to keep every job that can be saved in the nonfinancial sector with a 115 billion euro "Germany fund" providing guarantees and credits to companies that are in trouble because of the credit crisis. Stimulus packages of 64 billion euros supported the auto industry with subsidies to car buyers, and subsidies to keep workers intheir jobs. The idea was to come up with a German version of the response to the crisis by balancing the need to respond based on German conditions, and the concerns for inflation and the budget deficit, that is shared by most Germans. THe vision offered by Merkel is that of a physicist daughter of a protestant minister in East Germany, who is low on the rhetoric and good on substance, and willing to make decisions based on careful study and discernment rather than ideology, without sharp swings in any direction. Her vision comes from her days as environment minister, which is quietly pushing Germany into the forefront of countries developing renewable energy, moving ahead in energy efficiency, with anational goal of cutting emissions by 40% by 2020. The other areas are immigration and education, both key to the future of Germany because of the huge demographic change happening there. She has afamily minister Ursula von der Leyden, who introduced "parents pay", a14 month stipend for parents of newborn children linked to salaries, and to to improve daycare by providing places for 35% of children aged three or less by 2013. And Merkel has approved 18 billion euros of additional funding for research and universities. Says Leyden Merkel has made "daycare" an acceptable term in the CDU, and made Germans accept that they are an immigration country. Which tells you that you have to look closely to find the reasons for Merkel's popularity, which does not carry the rhetoric of an Obama, but is just as effective in German conditions. There are deepseated demographic changes going on in German society, which require a cultural change, and change in mindset, such as that for daycare, immigration, and blending the best of the old in the social market economy with the new like the changes in the educational system. The Economist says that in big cities today nearly half of the children under 15 are immigrants or their children and grandchildren, who are more likely to be poorer, unemployed and with less education. ...

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 best that can be said about all the efforts to stabilize the housing markets is that they help in the context of the credit crisis that hit the economy hard with the Bear Stearns crisis and help to provide an orderly retreat for housing prices and ways to soften the blow to homeowners and lenders caught up in the wave of foreclosures. But housing prices themselves have not declined anywhere near what one would expect. In fact BW, p17, April 7, 2008 shws percentage changes for existing homes from Feb 2007 to Feb 2008 with data from the National Association of Realtors. And they are surprising when you consider sales for the northeast down 26% and prices up slightly 0.4%. Elsewhere the sales are down 29% in the Western states for a 13% price decline, sales down 20% for a 7% price decline in the Midwestern states, and sales are down 22% for a 9% decline in the Southern states. Jobless rates are 3.9% in Austin, Texas and Birmingham, Alabama and only Detroit, St Louis and Cleveland have jobless rates above 6%. What this suggests is that the unemployment situation has not seen the brunt of this credit tightening and drop in capital investment. As house prices have not declined much declines over 10% mostly in the western states and places like Detroit but not in the northeast and across the south, and unemployment still low across many regional communities, consumption spending has not seen the brunt of this credit tightening. Once tightened credit conditions hit payrolls as companies cut their workforce and unemployment moves up then expect to see greater housing price declines as more houses go into foreclosures, and then expect consumption spending to feel the impact which would reduce sales and further trim payrolls as companies run their factories at less and less production capacity. This sequence would continue and bring the economic crisis to more and more parts of the country in a manner that we have hardly see upto this point. What we have seen is the unfolding of a collapse of mortgage securities firms and of mortgage securites insurance providers like ACA, and with it the huge writedowns about $150 billion taken by the investment houses and the banks. And this has happened as a wave of foreclosures took place in 2006. And the collapse of Bear Stearns with the effects felt in global stock markets. In the communities themselves in the areas of consumption spending and in jobs the conditions will only now begin to be felt and the real impact not felt till the end of 2008 and into 2009 with the Fed action to shore up confidence adding several months in slowing the process. See the link to BW, Bernanke the Reluctant Revolutionary, where the BW estimate is that Americans took on about $3 trillion in additional debt between 2000 and 2006 from what they would have taken if they had followed the trajectory of spending patterns that had prevailed upto that point, with their recent free spending ways. It would take abot 3 to 4 years conservatively for Americans to work down all that debt. Another way of saying this is that consumption spending is going to take a big hit and with it sales of companies and consequently higher unemployment and more part time labor force with less benefits, which would tend to depress consumption even more. The winds of housing, credit, consumption and unemployment would all hit the economy in about 12 months time. Credit will further tighten as BW estimates about $130 billion of additional writedowns still expected....

LyrArc Article Gist
The Bush administration's and Paulson's thinking that letting the government buy parts of the banking system was unthinkable, as recently as late September, may have led to squandering of valuable time. Now Paulson is following Gordon Brown's lead in planning an injection of capital in banks in return for equity stakes, using much of the $700 billion Congress has authorized, and Paulson says the package that passed Congress gives Treasury all the authority it needs to do so. The failure to be open to this thinking earlier may have cost valuable time in addressing this crisis. And now there are second thoughts on whether it was wise to let Lehman fall into bankruptcy, because the Administration had not correctly anticipated or calculated the true cost of the Lehmann bankruptcy in terms of the way it created a crisis in the rest of the financial system. Paulson has still not taken Gordon Brown's lead in guaranteeing lending between the banks which the British are doing as part of their plan. Is the administration too slow in its response and a bit wrongheaded or stubborn headed as each step of the crisis has moved faster than its ability to respond, and its response being one step behind. Frederic Mishkin of Columbia University a former Fed Governor says, "if you delay and create uncertainty, the amount of money you have to put up goes up." It appears from Paulson's remarks over time first turning down proposals for capital injection into banks for equity stakes, and now in making that route central to his plan, that Paulson and Bernanke simply did not anticipate the shutting down of credit markets and the collapse of stock market prices that occurred, and they had no backup plan prepared for a situation such as this. And on top of this the backup plan they went out to sell to Congress turned out to be short on details and in this sense naive for the amount requested. And then by refusing to consider alternatives such as capital injection for equity stakes, it was wrong headed, if not closed minded. William Poole who retired in August as President of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, says that " I am not aware that Treasury presented any evidence on auctions that have been successful when they are used for assets that are so heterogenous", referring to the reverse auctions that would take weeks to set up and would be terribly complicated to buy up troubled assets, as part of the plan presented to Congress in but 3 pages. Now the plan appears to be to let Fannie and Freddie, which were given $100 billion by the Treasury as authorized by Congress, to move ahead with the purchase of troubled mortgage securities, something for which Fannie and Freddie have the capabilities. In the end the crisis in confidence and near panic generated in the markets and the climate of fear may go way beyond the actual losses incurred from debt securities, and some of this may be the result of a clumsy and poorly thought out approach by Bernanke and Paulson. The cost of fixing the problem will be higher and the recession more prolonged because of this. It is a situation of capable people blinded by ideological reasons to see what is happening and in Bernanke's case not making enough of a case to Treasury about his reservations and his own thinking that capital injection was the right approach, as people familiar with the early planning say Bernanke argued that it would be easier and more efficient to inject capital directly into banks. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The view from Germany on Trump's economic plan and the need for changes by his advisors. DW.com's Wenkel says Trump needs to understand that 80% of job losses in recent years have come from not from globalization, but automation and higher productivity, rationalization. He says higher tariffs on Mexico could backfire.

LyrArc Article Gist
This report says fewer jobs alone is not going to reduce inflation, US inflation is propelled by factors beyond economic theory. The Phillip's Curve is a inverse relationship between unemployment and inflation that was a convenient tool for the 1960's to get the economy to do well with low unemployment at 4% with moderate inflation. It was torn apart by high inflationary expectations in the 70's. In today's world Robert Gordon of Northwestern University suggests central banks consider inflationary embedded expectations, supply shocks and cost push as in the pandemic 2021-2022, and demand changes. The job that Mr. Powell at the Fed has is lowering inflationary expectations by reducing private sector investment and job creation by raising the cost of capital through interest rate increases. Yet today the government is a huge partner in capital investment for America in clean energy and infrastructure building which means job creation remains strong as it has in America. President Biden's effort to reduce pharmaceutical costs and for inflation reduction by fighting price increases through stealth fees, has at the same time cut into inflation. So as lower demand and increased supply in 2022 as the government better manages the supplies of energy, including release of oil stocks from the national reserves. Explained- The Phillips curve is an inverse relationship between unemployment and inflation observed by a New Zealand economist William Phillips in a paper in 1958 based on British unemployment and inflation data1861-1957. Economist Robert Samuelson turned it into a textbook concept as a simple tradeoff in 1960 more inflation gets you less unemployment- which fit the period of the 60's- but warned that it could change over time. Milton Friedman and others during the 1970's period of high inflationary expectations setting rejected it. In reality Mr. Phillips never meant for economists like Samuelson to generalize from his statistical observation of data on the British economy before 1958 and apply it to the US for the closing decades of the 20th much less the 21st century. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
BHP Billiton was known as Broken Hill Proprietary in the 1990's. The largest Australian mining company, it was based in Melbourne and simply known as the Big Australian. It had huge losses in that period - $3 billion in 1998-1999. The turnaround at BHP Billiton comes as a remarkable turnaround for the whole mining sector. BHP made $6.5 billion in profit in the year ending June 2005. Its not just rising Chinese demand that has made this possible. Billiton has taken steps to avoid past boom bust cycles in mining by taking a conservative approach to investing in new mines that might create an oversupply in the market. The company is run buy a banker. CEO Charles Goodyear avoids taking on large risky projects and has announced plans to return $2 billion to shareholders in stock buybacks. Even with this discipline compared to the past, some mining analysts believe the boom bust cycle will occur over time. HP has $10 billion worth of projects in different stages of development. One advantage the mining companies enjoy is the concentration of mining in a few companies- BHP, Rio Tinto, Xstrata PLC. This makes it possible to price aggressively for the nickel, copper, iron ore, and other metals. A 72% price increase was negotiated with steelmakers in 2005. Another part of the transformation is the use of risk-analysis tools. BHP uses "Monte Carlo analysis" to check all potential outcomes once a range of parameters- commodity prices, currency vales, interest rate scenarios- are entered that affect financial performance of a new mine or a new investment. Goodyear came in as CFO under a new team led by Paul Anderson, a former executive of Duke Energy Corporation, after the huge losses in failed copper mining investments in the late 1990's. Even with the recent success and the careful investing discipline there is a sense that things could change quickly if rising demand slows in China and other developing countries. And in that situation this discipline may prove insufficient and the models may only be good as the assumptions and information entered....

LyrArc Article Gist
Over the weekend June 25-26, 2011, the Basel Committee made the decision to raise bank capital reserve requirements from 7% to 9.5%. Wall Street Journal and analyst estimates show that Bank of America, Citigroup, and J.P. Morgan Chase will have to together raise $150 billon in additional capital. The rule gives the banks time till 2019 to reach the new goal. Banks that get even bigger could face an additional one percentage point increase to 10.5%. As of the end of the 1st quarter of 2011, J.P. Morgan had an estimated 7.3% ratio and would need $35 billion to meet the 9.5% capital reserve requirement. Bank of America would need $68 billion and Citigroup $48 billion to reach the 9.5% target.

LyrArc Article Gist
A study by Prof. Joseph Gyourko, of the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, shows that the FHA risks having $50 billion in losses over the next couple of years. Analysts say the largest banks could face billions of dollars in losses if the FHA were to push defaulted mortgages back into the hands of the banks that originated these mortgages. If home prices continue their decline, a restructuring at FHA and a taxpayer bailout will be inevitable.

LyrArc Article Gist
Pearlstein lists the names of insider investors for Facebook- Peter Theiel and Founders Fund, Jim Breyer and Accel Partners, Greylock Partners, Microsoft, Li-Ka-shing, Bono and Elevation Partners, Alisher Usmanov and DSL. For full disclosure he states Washington Post Co. chairman, Donald Graham, is on the board of Directors of Facebook. Venture capitalists are leveraging their position in Facebook to get new investors, share prices of companies involved are up. Goldman benefits by the $60 millon for placing client money in Facebook, a cut of 5% from any profit they earn, and the hundreds of millions of dollars from being a lead underwriter for Facebook's IPO. What all this does is create the conditions for a bubble for internet stocks similiar to the bubble in late 1990's, with insiders reaping most of the benefits and the public taking on most of the risk as the internet stock loses its dominant position with the entry of new technologies and competitors in the market or a change in consumer preferences. As was evident in the earlier bubble this is not hard to create. Some of these bubbles are in fact already taking place for Chinese internet stocks on US stock exchanges, with investigation staking place into accounting practices of some of these companies. With the financial electronic media and analysts doing their part in the hype and sell such a bubble is underway, just when the debt burdened US middle class can ill-afford any losses that may take place. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A recent poll by Forsa, independent polling institute, shows the governing parties in German chancellor Merkel's coalition have only 34% support. Forsa does surveys for German magazine Stern. By contrast the Social Democrats and the Greens have 47% support. Merkel lost an election in May 2010 in North Rhine-Westphalia. Merkel has three years remaining in her term.

LyrArc Article Gist
Germany's chancellor Angela Merkel said the government will follow the recommendations of the government appointed Ethics Comission to close eight nuclear reactors immediately, and close most of the other reactors by 2021. Three plants may be kept online into 2022 for reserve power. About 70% of the German public by some estimates opposes nuclear power. Nuclear energy provides 23% of German energy supplies, and coal fired plants 42.4%. In 2002 a coalition government of Social Democrats and the Green party made a decision to phase out nuclear energy. Already Germany has the highest targets of any country in the world for alternative energy. German renewable energy targets are for the country to generate 80% of energy supply from sources such as wind, solar and other renewable energy by 2050. Currently Germany produces 16.9% of electricity consumption through renewable energy. And Germany has a thriving energy industry with solar energy companies SolarWorld AG, solar cellmaker Q-Cells SE and wind turbine maker Nordex. Germany sees the challenge as both reducing the risks of nuclear energy and an opportunity to become the world leader in renewable energy with growing markets overseas. Merkel vioced this by saying - "This path sets a great challenge for Germany, but we can be the first industrial country to make the transition ino an age of highly efficient and renewable energy." ...

LyrArc Article Gist
WSJ Lingling Wei's interview with Ding Xuedong, chairman of China Investment Corporation on its plans and strategies for 2015-2016, and future years. China's government formed CIC in 2007 to improve the returns on its foreign exchange reserves, estimated at $3.8 trillion in 2015. China Investment Corporation had largely stayed with low yields on U.S. Treasury debt till 2007. CIC has about $650 billion in assets in 2015. Its strategies provide insights into how China sees the outlook for the global economy. Ding sees opportunities in real estate and infrastructure, with a focus on the U.S. and Europe for steady cash flows. He singles out the U.S. as of particular interest as its economy rebounds. Strategies also include paring down of energy holdings. Foreign holdings are now $220 billion and have increased by 16.6% since 2009. A special unit CIC Capital was formed recently to more directly participate in managing foreign holdings with a long term view. Earlier focus of CIC on natural resources and commodities is now shifting as the commodities crisis has reduced long term prospects in that sector. The plan for the future is to shift to an allocation where financial products such as stocks and bonds are about 50%, and long term assets such as infrastructure investments, real estate and other investment take up the other 50%. At the end of 2013 equities and fixed income represented 57.4% of CIC global assets, and 28.2% were in long term assets. Ding wants to see China as the No. 2 engine for the global economy after the U.S. as No. 1. He sees the prospects for Brazil, Russia and South Africa as poor, and is optimistic about good performance from India, Mexico and Nigeria. On Japan Ding is skeptical of prime minister Abe's plans because he sees the lack of structural reforms in the efforts leading to a kind of lazy effort in his view. CIC is learning from the experience of other national investment funds and improving its in-house investment and management capabilities. Ding has many years of experience with China's Finance Ministry, the Cabinet, and the State Council. ...