LyrArc Article Gist
Zombrun describes the effect of low interest rates on savings for the bottom half of households in the U.S., the pressure to invest in stocks without the skills and experience of the better educated part of households in the top 20% of households by wealth and income. This resulted in a negative effect, a depletion of savings compared to an increase under a higher interest rates scenario with less pressure to take risks in a volatile stock market. This is the direct cost of the crises in stock and financial markets of 2000 caused by a internet bubble, and the larger crisis of 2008-2009 caused by the bubble in mortgages and housing. The secondary effects of the mortgage price bubble and faulty mortgage securities was in the millions of homeowners who went into foreclosure in 2009-2013, which further depleted wealth and savings of households in the bottom half lacking the experience and skills to navigate this type of housing market. The failure of the Obama administration to stem the foreclosures with practical steps which would have helped not hurt the banking sector, as suggested by FDIC's Sheila Bair and Harvard economist Martin Feldstein in many WSJ op-eds in 2010-2012, added to the erosion of savings and wealth of the bottom half. Minorities in particular were hit hard. A third effect is of communities across America that are feeling the effects of job migration to emerging markets such as China that has been underway as part of the globalization of the last three decades. A fourth effect in the rising cost of education, particularly since 2000, has reduced the opportunities for struggling working class people to enter the middle class and enjoy the higher incomes in precisely the very period when the divergence of incomes between less educated, less killed people and the more educated and better skilled people was taking place. The last two effects were neutral as part of the overall process of emergence of a globalized economy with a premium on more skills and education, requiring action by the government, universities and business for a concerted effort to mitigate in some places the negative effects and enhance in other places the positive effects. The first two effects were man made crises which required managing in constructive and positive ways for the entire American people, taking risks where necessary such as fears about the financial system if foreclosures did not go through. The risks of a long period of extremely low interest rates for savers and the middle as well as working class were poorly understood by the Fed since 2000. A similiar crisis is being faced in Europe with extremely low interest rates. Janet Yellen was only doing the honest thing by acknowledging how far and how different the situation is now compared to the period of three decades following 1945- a question not just of values cherished in America, also of the need for societies to advance through creation of wealth across all sectors of society or regress, as described by Smith in the Wealth of Nations....

LyrArc Article Gist
Questions about how Mr Geithner has handled his job at the New York Fed and at Treasury during the bailouts of financial firms. Were there close relationships with bankers, hedge fund managers, and others that compromised the Fed's ability to regulate the financial industry? Why was Geithner advocating loosening standards for the reserves financial institutions have to hold to insure against potential future losses, as late as 2007? Inherent in the design of the job of New York Fed President was a conflict of interest, as the institution is supposed to be a watchdog over the financial industry, but the President of the NY Fed reports to a board that is comprised of the heads of banks and financial instituitons. These financial leaders also participate in the selection of the new President. Geithner was a quick learner and a listener, who asked questions, but he was an outsider coming from work at AID, the IMF and Treasury. He is described by one bank executive Sanford Weill as "a baby face," and lacked experience in dealing with the financial industry. He was brought in by Rubin and Summers, two mentors at Treasury. These two had close ties to the financial industry, and did not question practices of overleveraging and risk taking in the financial industry. Was it too much to ask of Geithner, under the circumstances, that he would rock the boat and ask the tough questions about risk and leveraging. On the other hand did he miss things completely when he was asking for even looser capital standards for banks in 2007, less than a year before the crisis hit, which were never adopted. And was he too close to the financial industry and aggressive in the wrong sort of way when advocating in a meeting as President of the New York Fed, that the government back up all the debt in the financial system. Did he too casually overlook the conditions that could easily be put in place for the government to be able to recover some of the money put into the bailouts. And was he too close to Goldman Sachs, that he brought Goldman in for advice in the AIG bailout, even though there were conflicts of interest and money that would never be recovered from the $182 billion bailout of AIG, some of which went to banks including Goldman. If Geithner had seen some of the problems in risk taking why had he not supported FDIC's Bair in her opposing view for capital reserves, and government conditions on bailouts that enabled some recovery of capital put into failing financial institutions. And did he get too close to Citi, that at one point Sanford Weill tried to bring him in as CEO even when he was already President of the New York Fed. Does it go to show that -the very idea that this was even possible- the design of the New York Fed with the President reporting to the Board of the very same bank presidents that he was supposed keep in check, makes for an incomprehensible position of regulation at odds with the structure of reporting and selection....

LyrArc Article Gist
The largest U.S. bank holding companies, including Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase and Citigroup, and two foreign banks Deutsche Bank and Barclays PLC must submit initial plans for "living wills" by July 1, 2012. The Dodd-Frank legislation requires financial firms to develop plans that lay out how they could be liquidated if they went under in a crisis. This legislation gives the FDIC and other regulators the power to seize and dismantle a failing financial firm, to help mitigate the problems of "too-big-to-fail" firms. The FDIC and U.S. regulators lacked such powers at the time of the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008. The FDIC and the U.S. Fed co-wrote the living will rule for "comprehensive and coordinated resolution planning." In all, 124 banks, including 100 foreign banks with U.S. affiliates, which have over $50 billion in assets worldwide, must submit plans and update on a regular basis. Smaller banks will have the deadline extended to December 2013.

LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. FDIC voted on March 29, 2011, to propose new rules that will require banks to hold at least 5% of the credit risk on securities backed by mortgages. During the mortgage crisis banks were able to sell packages of risky mortgages to investors without having some stake in the loans, leading to speculative behaviours. This proposal was mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act and was voted unanimously at the FDIC. Because the proposal does not apply to securities carrying a government guarantee, which is 90% of the market today, this will not have an immediate impact. Some mortgages are excluded- under one proposal mortgages where a borrower puts a 20% down payment would be excluded, and borrowers would have to meet an income threshold, and be current on all loans. The proposal is a joint effort of the FDIC, and the Securities and Exchange Commission. The idea is to have securitization to occur in an environment where the issuers of securities backed by mortgages have some skin in the game. Securities experts commented favorably on the rule and the proposals. The presence of such a rule would clearly have changed the behaviour of mortgage securities issuers in the U.S. 2008 subprime financial crisis....

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
Steven Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs executive is the new Treasury Secretary in the Trump administration. His ties to Goldman Sachs go beyond his own work at the firm. His father joined Goldman in 1957, and worked for his entire career at the investment bank. Steven's brother Alan also worked at Goldman. During the campaign Trump was severe in his criticism of his opponents Cruz and Clinton's ties to the bank. Ironies abound, not only is the new Treasury Secretary from Goldman, his connections go back a generation. The Treasury Secretary under Clinton was Goldman Sachs executive Robert Rubin. Under Bush who followed Clinton the Treasury Secretary was Goldman Sachs executive Henry Paulson. Under Republican and Democratic administrations Goldman Sachs executives have held key positions. Mr Mnuchin was campaign finance chairman for Trump for 6 months leading to him being chosen for Treasury Secretary. Mnuchin joined Goldman in 1985. During the campaign Trump was also severe in his criticism of financier George Soros, making this a key point in a debate with Clinton for taking Soros's support. This report by Das and Ensign points out that in 2002 Mnuchin left Goldman to run a credit fund set up by George Soros. In 2004 Mnuchin founded hedge fund Dune Capital Management LP with Soros support.  When IndyMac bank collapsed a deal with the government was arranged that covered a part of any future loan losses being taken by FDIC, and Dune was one of several hedge funds and private equity funds including Soros funds that acquired it for $1.5 billion. The renamed IndyMac bank was called OneWest with Mnuchin as chairman. OneWest was sold in 2014 at a large profit to CIT Group Inc. This report says CIT Group took a $230 million charge in July 2015 for accounting problems at OneWest.  During the latter part of the Trump campaign after he joined it in May 2016, Mnuchin set up a joint fundraising agreement with the Republican National Committee. This made it possible for major donors to give to the Republican party and Mr Trump. The head of the Republican National Committee is Mr. Lewis Eisenberg. Having run the technology division at Goldman, Mnuchin was prominent in Goldman and investment banking circles in New York.    ...

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. president elect Trump meets with the heads of tech businesses on Dec. 14, 2016. CEO's of Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft were present. Trump was exuberant about the advantages secured by U.S. tech companies in global business, saying- "there's nobody like you in the world. Anything that the government can do to help this go along, we're going to be there for you." The discussions covered need for more vocational education, advantages and disadvantages of trade with China, and immigration. Quarterly meetings of this type are now planned with a smaller group organized by Jared Kushner to cover immigration and education.  Jeff Bezos of Amazon described the meeting as "very productive." Bezos says he told the group that the best way was to use innovation to create jobs outside of tech in agriculture, infrastructure, manufacturing elsewhere, to create large number of jobs. Ginni Rometty, CEO of IBM, and other executives are part of the Strategic and Policy Forum set up to provide business input to the president. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Schmemann ponders over the situation in Spain with Catalonia and Scotland with Britain, where national identity arouses pride and there is a strong sentiment for autonomy or independence. He says the situation in Slovakia which sought its own identity and separated from Czechoslovakia, but sought an otherwise peaceful status in the EU, should not be confused with the nationalism that has aroused conflicts in other regions and periods. He puts Scots interest in autonomy or independence in this light, as simply seeking its own future in the EU, with closer attention being paid to the local interests in Scotland.

LyrArc Article Gist
Brexit and Scotland's referendum both have similar consequences economically for Britain and Scotland. This hurts both countries in unwinding relationships built over many years, unwinding 44 year membership for Britain, and 310 year union for Scotland. Britain exports to EU are 45% of total exports, and for Scotland the number is 63% for exports to the rest of the UK.  Scots benefit about 1200 British pounds more for average citizen than a average citizen of UK, and pay 400 pounds less to the government. Scotland would start with a 90% debt to GDP ratio if it takes a proportionate share of UK government debt from the beginning of independence. Fidler correctly points out the economic risks to Britain and Scotland which are being ignored or not fully taken into account by politicians.

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
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
Stiglitz wants to put money in places where it will be spent immediately, unemployment compensation, in state and local governments hands to build critical infrastructure, state education budgets and environment spending for benefits in the long run, only limited help in the mortgage mess to the deserving and to reduce foreclosures, and no money to upperclass Americans who won't be spending much of it anyway.

LyrArc Article Gist
James Pressley, in this review of Joseph Stiglitz's new book- "Freefall: America, Free Markets and the Sinking of the World Economy," says Stiglitz's advice should be taken into account by the new administration. Stiglitz, says, the Obama administration has so far offered no alternative vision of capitalism and is only "mudddling through." It is simply following the course the Bush administration had taken. And has retained as key economic advisors, Geithner, Ben Bernanke and Summers, all from previous administration's economic teams, thus largely removing the possibillity of serious change. And by doing so, says Stiglitz, the Obama administration has "squandered the opportunity," to fix things that needed to be fixed in the economy. Stiglitz, says Pressley, urges Americans to think what kind of America they want to see, what kind of society they want to make, and then what kind of economy will get them there. Stiglitz wants to see banks back to where they they only make loans, and act as an efficient payments system, and not engaged in risk taking. At a meeting of the American Economic Association, Stiglitz, presented a paper that suggested that between globalization for integrating world financial markets and keeping them separate, the latter is the better course. Financial markets he believes, need circuit breakers to not bring down the whole system....