LyrArc Article Gist
New risks are emerging in the shadow banking system as regulators work to make the banks safer. Banks as deposit backed financial firms are different from mutual funds, private equity and other firms that are doing more of the financing for business and home loans in the U.S. financial system. As banks deleverage responding to tighter regulation by increasing capital buffers and reducing assets, it makes the financial system safer, yet creates new risks in the shadow banking system not subject to regulation and not supported by bank deposits the way banks are. A IMF report put out in April 2015 underlines these new risks in the U.S. and European financial system. Mutual funds and exchange-traded funds now rival banks in providing financing to companies with high debt. Total bond holdings worldwide in 2014 were $9.6 trillion, increasing 25% over 2008, and the mutual funds leveraged loans increased 60% to $151 billion in the U.S., 223% in the eurozone to $126 billion, according to the IMF. The IMF points out that these mutual funds and exchange traded funds favor emerging market and corporate junk bonds, and operate in a way where they mimic each others in their investments, creating contagion. With hard to sell securities and the rapid decline in these types of funds in a panic, the effect could be to create contagion across the funds. In the mortgage lending field a similiar process of deleveraging is happening. U.S. banks share of federally guaranteed mortgages from big banks down from 61% in late 2012 to 33% in 2015, other smaller finance companies taking up 51% increasing from 24%, according to an American Enterprise Institute report. Paul Tucker, former deputy governor of the Bank of England, points out the dangers. He says policy makers and regulators are playing catchup with firms in the financial services industry who are constantly looking for gaps in the rules, a game that policymakers and regulators are likely to lose at some point....

LyrArc Article Gist
Moody's revenue model before the early 1970's was based on charging for Moody's publications. This changed in the early 1970's when Moody's and other ratings agencies began charging for opinions. And in 1975 the SEC secured the ratings agencies positions by allowing banks to base their capital requirements on the ratings of securities they held. Before the early 1970's Moody's in the words of Thomas McGuire , a former director of corporate development who left in 1996, acted like a watchdog that regarded the financial markets as its turf and barked and growled when anybody it did'nt know came near it. And its founder Moody, took his mission seriously which gave the company its stern reputation as a safeguarder of the public's interest in the integrity and character of dealings in securities. McGuire was never happy with the change made by the SEC which relied on ratings as a form of regulation, because the ratings agencies would be able to sell ratings even if they failed investors and the public interest. He even states in a speech to the SEC in 1995, that the government regulators are inadvertently putting the ratings people in an improper position because they were ordinary people with ordinary motivations, and the government regulators would have to share accountability for any scandals that result when it let these ordinary people subject to the same pressures for profit and gain assume some regulatory duties. The rest of the story is one in which just such an ordinary person with pecuniary motives turned up in the form of John Rutherford Jr., who became CEO of Moody's in 1998, and focussed the entire company on profit in a way that it had never done before, even expecting each Moody's analyst to produce at least $1 million in revenue each year. In a business with its serious watchdog role that was never intended to be meant to be a purely profit business, but a private business run for profit but not for maximinzing profit, with the singular motive of its management in safeguarding fiercely its independence and integrity as its raison-de-etre. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Samuelson of the Washington Post thinks lowering the mortgage payment to 31% through loan restructuring or allowing bankruptcy judges to make decisions about amount owed by borrowers is not the solution. He says give homeowners a10% tax credit upto $15,000 to stimulate home purchases. This is what the National Association of Home Builders is asking for. But in todays tight credit environment and job insecurity would this have any chance of working, fearful consumers and home buyers simply postpone purchases of big price items like cars and homes. This is an entirely rational decision especially when the consumer is overextended and pension funds value in stock holdings has dropped by around a third. These types of arguments have stalled any serious effort to prevent foreclosures by helping borrowers under water, as Martin Feldstein has suggested since early 2008, which only worsens the effects on home prices and on the economy.

LyrArc Article Gist
For years the WSJ opinion editorials pointed out weaknesses in Fannie Mae and Fredddie Mac, and the possibility that the Government may have to bail out these companies because of their aggressive expansion and lack of adequate supervision oversight by the government or supervisory financial authorites. This time may have arrived as the 2 companies are the only ones left actively dominating the mortgage market, handling 80% of all mortgages bought by investors in the 1st quarter this year just as Wall Street retreated. This 80% is more than double their share of the market in 2006. But their combined cushion is $83 billion, capital required by regulators. And this supports a huge $ 5 trillion in debt and other financial committments. They suffered $9 billion in losses in 2006, and they are sitting on $19 billion in additional losses which have not beeen acknowledged according to analysts. These companies operate under an imbalanced arrangement where the ownership is by investors but the guarantees are from the government and the supervisory oversight is incomplete, with Congress not having authority over them. The regulators not having the authority or the charter to conduct adequate surveillance and supervision, and controls. The companies raised $13 billion from investors last year and regulatory filings show that they have $7 billion above required minimums for a safety net. But like many things in the financial system today these minimums set in another time and place may be entirely unsuited to the risks they are taking, and their is no effective supervision or controls in place. This is exactly what lays the situation ripe for a financial crisis if foreclosures throughout the country create huge losses for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that this safety net is just both unsuited and never designed to handle for the situation today. And it takes too long for a lame duck administration or Congress without effective leadership in an election year to correct the regulatory errors in the Fannie Mae Freddie Mae situation- the lack of effective controls, regulation, and the lack of clear powers and authority of a financial supervisory authority over them....

LyrArc Article Gist
Its now known that some of the money that the government used to bailout AIG is going to Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs, so that they can pay the hedge funds to whome they sold credit default swaps. The way it works is this. Hedge funds bet against the housing market that if mortgage defaults reach a certain level they would be paid a large amount. To do this they buy credit default swaps from banks like Deutsche Bank and Goldman. In turn Deutsch and Goldman go out and hedge the risks of selling these credit default swaps. Its hard to find someone to sell this insurance, but AIG becomes the dominant insurer for these credit default swaps. What does AIG get out of this. Only fractions of apenny for every dollar of insurance sold to the banks, less than $10 million for $1 billion of insurance. These swaps were sold in 2005, when some of these hedge funds saw risks in the housing markets excesses, and they were making the bets for an event that was a very plausible one, with very little risk to themselves. And the banks were passing on a lot of the risk for insurance on the cheap to AIG, which ends being the sucker holding a big part of the risk. What did have to gain from this, and why it agreed to sell this insurance is a mystery. Its this insurance that has caused AIG its biggest headache, to have to set aside money to pay the banks who in turn pay the hedge funds. When these pools of mortgage assets of companies like Countrywide Financial, which were created by Deutsche Bank and Goldman, called by names such as 'START' and 'ABACUS', went down in value AIG has to set aside money to pay the banks. As these assets fall in value from mid September to December 2008, AIG and by this the government which now owns 80% of AIG, paid $5.4 billion to Deutsche and $8.1 billion to Goldman under credit default swap contracts AIG has written. This adds up to $52 billion paid to all the banks that bought insurance for credit default swaps they sold and covered with AIG insurance. And this is a large part of the $170 billion of government money to AIG. Its for this kind of financial wizardry that makes little sense, and showed no sense of responsibility for the firm, that the Financial Products Group's 370 employees are to be rewarded with $400 million in bonuses, with binding contracts as reported in the Washington Post. The $165 million so widely reported in bonuses sent out recently, are only a part of the $400 million. While this is going on its surreal that on the other side Michigan is hurting , auto states in the midwest are hurting badly. And $17 billion barely makes it through in time to keep GM and Chrysler running in December 2008, and the money can be called in by the government in February 2009 leading to these companies ending up in bankruptcy. This puts the situation in new perspective, and Rattner who heads the group looking at the GM restructuring must be aware of this, when he said bankruptcy is not necessarily the best option and the loans would not be called in by the government. Its job losses in the economy, and the fragile nature of the economic outlook, and also the way in which money is being scandalously wasted in other places like AIG with no purpose, that Rattner must have in the back of his mind as he looks at money for GM restructuring and jobs for hurting workers. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Elizabeth Warren on the need for a new consumer protection agency as suggested by President Obama in his proposals.

LyrArc Article Gist
Moves uder discussion to help homeowners in 2008 and ease the mortgage crisis.

LyrArc Article Gist
HDFC Bank CEO, Aditya Puri, has succeeded with conservative practices in lending. It is now India's second biggest lender by market value, after the government owned State Bank of India. HDFC's lending to consumers has doubled since 2008 under Puri. He believes in prudent lending and keeps an autographed copy of Michael Lewis's The Big Short in his office. This has enabled Puri to avoid the losses experienced by other banks such ICICI, and with India's growing economy HDFC has profit increases of over 30% for the last decade. HDFC is adding 2 million customers a year, says Puri. The bad loan ratio is estimated to be 0.2% in the third quarter of 2011, one tenth of that at State Bank of India. India's largest mortgage lender, Housing Development Finance Corporation, is the largest shareholder with 23%. Puri says he will focus on growth in India, and will continue to avoid taking the kind of risks that would make depositor's lose sleep at night.

LyrArc Article Gist
Because not much money is being spent the velocity of money as measured by the ratio of GDP to M2 money supply is at a low not seen since 1991, in the 4th quarter 2008. If GDP shrinks in the 1st quarter 2009 at 6% annualized rate as expected, then M2 velocity will be the lowest since 1987, even with the accelerating growth of money supply growth. The M2 money supply, a measure of money in the system including time deposits has grown by $767 billion or 10% in the past year accoding to the Fed. Money that is not being spent is building up in amountain of cash reserves. Banks have about $679 billion in reserves of cash, and this matches the $653 billion by which money supply has increased during that time as aresult of the Fed's repeated infusions. This suggests that inflation is not the risk that it would appear to be, even with the governments huge spending plans and the Fed's efforts to add so much liquidity. Says one economist, the money multiplier is just not working and is broken. Will consumers start borrowing and spending again. Not as long as they are so overstretched and with job losses mounting. And will banks continue to cautious and slow to led? Most likely as long as the bank's balnce sheets are broken, and the bad assets remain on them. This may explain last weeks efforts by the Fed to buy Treasury bonds upto $300 billion and more efforts to get credit flowing again by buying up mortgage securities and raising the ceiling to $1.25 trillion for purchases. cash...

LyrArc Article Gist
Gregory Mankiw would like to see the Fed's Ben Bernanke and his colleagues and staff do the job they are doing and not see Congress intervene with fiscal stimulus or other intervention. The Fed and the ECB are led by a good team of economic risk managers and they should be allowed to take care of the economy as it enters 2008 through rate cuts and other moves to help restore growth and overcome the housing and mortgage crisis.See the link to December 6, 2007, BW for an interview with Martin Feldstein. Feldstein thinks a tax cut may be necessary in 2008 and takes a much more serious view of the current situation.

LyrArc Article Gist
The administration hopes to seize the initiative on the regulatory framework agenda before the G20 meeting on April 2, 2009. Broad outlines of the approach will be laid out. One of them is to give the Fed the authority to oversee the regulatory framework and oversee systemic risk. It includes stronger capital requirements for banks especially in good times, give regulators power to take over financial firms that are failing. Also included will be consumer protections, and strict enforecement of consumer protection laws opn credit cards and mortgages, and giving the government comprehensive authority over all financial products marketed to consumers.

LyrArc Article Gist
This is an adaptation in the Washington Post from the book by Neil Irwin- "The Alchemists: Three Central Bankers and a World on Fire," published by Penguin Press in April 2013.

LyrArc Article Gist
This is an indepth article on Donald Trump's financial holdings, looking at the debt that Trump has built up in his real estate dealings, by Susanne Craig of the NYT. To get a detailed look of this the NYT inquiry into the holdings engaged RedVision Systems, a national property information firm to search publicly available data. Much of Trump's business is shrouded in mystery. But it is well known that Trump has used debt to build his business in a way that is not considered good practice in business, having led to three bankruptcies. Trump says he "is the king of debt." And "he loves debt." The recovery of real estate values during a rescue effort for the country's financial system also helped Trump tackle debt in a way that was not available to other entrepreneurs who suffered from the oil price collapse- one of them McClendon also used debt aggressively and his business collapsed leading to suicidal car crash. You can love excessive debt only if the government supports you with some sort of financial guarnatee misplaced, or you are lucky to get away with it- just ask McClendon. The irony is that the rescue of the financial system led to the low interest rates that hurt savings of the middle and working class, and the lack of help to Main Street in the home foreclosure crisis also hurt the same people disproportionately. The Obama administration policies in this regard rescued the very same business interests such as the New York real commercial estate symbolized by Trump, that are now appealing to those hurt as president Obama worked to let the financial system recover. The intention was never to support excessively overleveraged banks or overleveraged real estate built on debt, but in reality this is what happened. A nation cannot run its financial affairs in this manner of overleveraging to extract high profits that an investment bank such as Lehman or Goldman Sachs does, or a real estate company such as Trump's does- if regulators let them do this. Normally after the financial crisis of such dimensions that it shook the world economy in 2008-2009 leading to fears of a collapse as happened in the 1930's, the same faces would not still be there. But this is a strange period or a transition period where things are being sorted out, and the same faces Blankfein at Goldman Sachs and Trump in New York commercial real estate are with us.  And though the bashing of Goldman Sachs connection to Clinton is evident in the campaigns of Trump and Sanders, the bashing of Trump real estate and finance companies with its overleveraging and bankruptcies is evident in the campaign of Clinton against one posing as a representative of the working class. John Paulson who benefitted by shorting mortgage securities that caused the financial crisis of 2008 is on Trump's top economic advisory team, including the hedge funds and financial interests on Wall Street that Trump is saying support Clinton. No one, not the NYT or WSJ, can answer this, its just the paradox of today's situation. Hillary Clinton can say she has learned her lesson, with her Methodist upbringing and her own supporters such as Robert Reich and others, and break with the past especially as it in no way contributes to her success as president, not one bit. In fact rebuilding the middle class and infrastructure require entirely different connections and views on life, a different imagination.  Trump has billions of dollars and a real estate business that is so complex that even the NYT and property information firms can only say that in the end it is shrouded in mystery. Companies owned by Trump says the NYT from this inquiry have debt of $650 million. Other Trump business activities through 3 passive partnerships owe an additional $2 billion. It is a lot easier for Hillary Clinton to put the speech fees behind her as they have little to do with what she is as a Methodist and a proponent of improving women's lives, than it is for Donald Trump- for whom his business is everything that he is including his art of the deal- to reject who he is. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Government data show that the German GDP declined by 0.5% in the thrid quarter after declining 0.4% in the second quarter. IMF predicts GDP decline of 0.8% in 2009. Germany's recession look like the worst in Europe except for the UK which has many of the same problems as the US economy. Germany's housing market has seen prices grow by almost zero in the last 10 years and German consumers are not in debt so Germany felt fairly immune to the troubles facing the US and the UK and Spain. But Germany is a big exporter and it has become more dependent on exports in the last 10 years. Exports account for 41% of GDP and CHina sucked up alot of machinery exports from Germany and China is in the midst of a drastic slowdown. In fact for the first time China is seeing a decline in monthly electricity output. And China's GDP growth rate may go from 12% to the range of somewhere around 6% in 2009, considering that Chinese export factories are closing down as the USA its main export market is seeing a rapid slowdown. Its already reached 9% and the slowdown is just beginning as the US market is also at the beginning of its slowdown. As the US market declines further in 2009 China's export factories will face a further decline in orders. Comparing the US at 10%, Japan at 20% and Germany at 41% of GDP one can see how heavily dependent the Germans have become on exports, especially with Asia's booming economies sucking up German exports. New orders for German goods declined by 18% from their peak in November 2007. And this is just the beginnning. So German unemployment is expected to increase. Its true that German banks invested heavily in mortgage related securities and other risky assets abroad, and the international financial crisis has led to a bailout fund of 500 billion euros setup by the German government. But Bundesbank figures show that what is causing the drastic contraction is the drop in investment spending as loan demand has dropped. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Did U.S. Treaury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, ignore a key request by President Obama to present plans for the restructuring of Citigroup after the government bailout of Citigroup? Ron Suskind says this is what happened in his book on the Obama administration and how the White House operated to make key decisions. Ron Suskind, intervewed key members of the Obama White House economic policy team, Lawrence Summers, Christina Romer, Peter Orszag. In all Suskind conducted 700 hours of interviews for his new book in Sept 2011: "Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington and the Education of a President." According to the book, in early 2009 after Obama authorized a series of stress tests for banks he told Geithner to develop a plan for restructuring Citigroup. A month later at a meeting not attended by Geithner Obama raised a question about the status of the plan. He was told by Romer that no restructuring plan had been developed for Citi. Suskind says Geithner disagreed about a plan to restructure Citi and decided to ignore the request. Geithner and the Treasury Department say Obama asked Geithner to develop a backup plan to overhaul banks if the government was forced to keep a big ownership stake in the companies, and "there was fortunately never a need to put them in place." Geithner told Suskind that he doesn't slow-walk the President on any matter. Other aspects of the operation of the economic policy team that Suskind covers are a series of memos from top aide Pete Rouse raising questions that ongoing communication between some members of the economic team and Summers was giving Summers power to shape policy. Summers, Director of the National Economic Council, is shown as trying to keep out the views of Romer and budget director Orszag from reaching the President without going through him. When Orszag gives a private report to the president on the deficit, Summers objects saying that this was immoral. Obama lacked the fresh ideas needed to tackle the problems created by the mortgage and banking crisis of 2008, when he used the Clinton administration economic policy team of the 1990's- Rubin, Bernanke, Summers and Geithner. Fresh approaches were needed two decades after Clinton's election in 1992, and the Bush administration that followed, as many of the problems developed during this period. The similiar embedded thinking was shared during the Clinton and Bush administrations and the economic advisors about dealings with the banking sector, but the situation for deficits, unemployment, housing, and the economy had completely changed requiring fresh approaches. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Thomas Hoenig was Governor of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank for 20 years. Here he talks about the dangers of "too big to fail" with Gretchen Morgenson of the New York Times. He is due to retire at the age of 65 in 2011. Hoeinig has stood for conservative safe financial practices for U.S. financial institutions throughout his 20 year old career, and cautioned against extending the government safety net for banks that engage in risky financial activities including derivatives trading. And essential element of safe financial practice and part of necessary market discipline, he has pointed consistently, is the fear that taking on risky activities or acting recklessly has a price- creditors can take out their funds if they see a banks as unsafe, and the financial institution may have to be broken up or closed. He joins Alan Meltzer in his criticism of Federal Reserve policies under first Greenspan and then Bernanke that take on the job of stimulating the economy and creating jobs through a very loose monetary policy after the collapse of a bubble. Hoenig sees the role of the Fed in such situations as a neutral player. The reason say Meltzer and Hoenig is that the Fed has not given enough thought and attention to the long term consequences of its policies. What were the consequences of the low rate policies in 2003 asks Hoenig? It promoted another bubble and the mortgage meltdown of 2008. What were the consequences of QE II asks Meltzer in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal on August 11, 2011, "The Folly of Economic Short-Termism?" It has failed to revive the economy or reduce unemployment. Hoenig also points to questions of fairness and equity that arise when banks are treated differently and farmers, seniors and other groups are asked to make sacrifices....

LyrArc Article Gist
Peter Eavis, in the Heard on the Street column, says something similiar to what Krugman said when the Geithner plan (for troubled assets to be bought by private investors with cheap money from the government,) was announced March 23, 2009. His point is similiar to Krugman's in that if the market is experiencing just ashortfall in confidence and liquidity Geithner's plan might work, but if the underlying properties are not worth that much, the government engaging in agame of price support can't really win. The securitizztion of mortgages ocurred in a period of easy money. Now that that period is gone the basic underlying structure that supported it is gone. With more job losses at the rate of half amillion a month does anyone think the government can make the underlying mortgages for these securities profitable even with the government putting in its money to leverage the returns? He is right in pointing out that investors would need to build abig margin or error and will likely bid well below what banks are willing to sell at. CreditSights projects collective losses of the 4 biggest US banks through the end of 2010 of $250 to $450 billion....

LyrArc Article Gist
By July 2013 only about 40% of the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation rules were completed, 60% of deadlines were missed, according to law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP. A singular aspect of the Dodd-Frank legislation was that rule making was left to regulators in different agencies and open to lobbying by the financial industry. This has the effect of delaying the rule making until a consensus is reached, diluting some of the original intent as financial firms jockey for advantage, and making it voluminous in many cases because of the wording designed to achieve consensus and account for objections by various interests. Reform legislators such as Barney Frank openly said they had no interest in learning enough about the financial industry to do the rule making, and may have left an excessive amount of the rule making to regulators in the future. A consumer protection agency was established under the new law and derivatives are required to be traded on exchanges. The Volcker Rule to separate investment banking from deposit taking and a requirement that banks hold onto a portion of mortgage securities marketed are not completed. The S.E.C. has to write the rule on how much money brokerages must set aside for losses on swap trades. Another bubble in financial markets would leave the U.S. and European economies vulnerable to problems similiar to the global financial crisis of 2008, which is why the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Bank of England and the European regulatory authorites are requiring large banks to set aside more capital reserves. The S.E.C. under its new chief is also taking a more active role in overseeing the banks for violations of securities laws, including a series of actions taken against JP Morgan Chase bank in 2013. This has a deterrent effect as the huge monetary easing by the U.S. Federal Reserve to reduce unemployment also creates bubble conditions in financial markets, according to Fed governor, Jeremy Stein. Former FDIC chief, Sheila Bair, says the lack of leadership in this area is simply astonishing....

LyrArc Article Gist
The Public-Private Investment Program of the U.S. Treasury Department has not had a good start. With most banks passing the U.S.government's stress tests and raising $50 billion in the markets, PPIP which was intended to to help resolve the situation of all the toxic securites siting on the bank's books, has gone the way of all the prior efforts to solve this problem. Simply postponed this time hoping that the housing market recovers. With the Rogoff-Reinhardt study showing that it takes about 6 years or longer before housing recovers from such aserious crisis as this one, it would be 2012, before one sees an improvement. See the link to the Business Week analysis that shows housing markets in the USA having some aspect of normalcy in 2012. Yet even this analysis is using an optimistic scenario, because it assumes Moodys Economy.com estimates of economic growth for GDP of 4-5% in 2011- 2012. This assumes the consumer debt that has reached over 100% of GDP will be reversed quickly in 2010, and the the factory capacity utilization currently at 68% and expected to drop further in 2009- with more automobile manufacturing capacity remaining to be scrapped -will recover quickly in 2010-2011. This is unrealistic considering the combination of factors at work. Here Devin Leonard talks to PIMCO chief Bill Gross, who with Warren Buffett and PIMCO CEO Mohammed El-Erian, are key proponents of the PPIP program. Both El-Erian and Warren Buffett say they conceived independently of such a program, in which toxic securties are taken off bank's books with government help. As PIMCO is one of the largest traders of mortgage bonds in the country and has years of successful experience in dealing with mortgage bonds, the New York Fed under Geithner turned to PIMCO for advice in 2008. By this time PIMCO was under ownership of Allianz, a German insurer, which bought PIMCO for $3.3 billion in 2000, with $233 million and a $40 million retention bonus going to Bill Gross. Bill Gross describes how the program would function. PIMCO puts up $500 million, and Treasury matches this with $500 million. Analysts estimate that this partnership would be able to attract as much as $ 4 billion in low interest financing from Treasury and the Fed. Gross says that some of these securities pay as much as 14% interest, and even with a 70% default rate, this partnership could make $250 million a year on the $5 billion partnership, or a 5% return, with PIMCO making a 25% return on its original investment. This isn't exactly pro bono work as Buffett had originally suggested to Bill Gross in the midst of the crisis. But a more fundamental concern is that no one really knows exactly how much of toxic securties the banks have on their books, even though estimates have been made. If this is closer to $1 trillion, PIMCO's expertise and efforts will simply fall short of dealing with a problem of this size, and the window dressing of a problem of this magnitude could only hurt efforts for the eventual resolution of this problem. If housing does not recover as is expected till 2012 at the earliest, and the economy continues to deteriorate in unemployment and factory utilization, then the toxic securities on the bank's balance sheets may pose a bigger problem that will require serious action....

LyrArc Article Gist
Bernanke's speech at the annual Fed Jackson Hole meeting put any future policy action off for the September meeting of the Fed's Open Market Committee, which will meet for 2 days to allow lengthy discussion of issues. He repeated his focus made in earlier statements that other actions are needed to reduce the headwinds facing the U.S., actions other than the Fed's monetary policy. He called for "good, proactive housing policy," which has been a major missing piece in the jigsaw puzzle of the American economy. Specifically, "families with mortgage debt bigger than the value of their homes facing unusual financial hardship which is also hurting the banks." Martin Feldstein and other experts have repeatedly called for action to help homeowners under water since the mortgage financial crisis hit in 2008. And the government's response has been tepid at best. Most evaluations of the Home Affordable Modification program and other programs to help prevent foreclosures consider them a serious failure of the Obama administration. Higher unemployment has only increased the urgency for government action in this area and good proposals were made by Feldstein and other experts. On the deficit and debt issues Bernanke would like to see debt to GDP ratios "at least stable, or preferably, declining over time." He also cautions that this be done bearing in mind "the fragility of the current economic recovery." He says his estimate for the U.S. economy's growth rate is 0.7% annual rate for the second half, and 'looks likely to improve." His prediction is for inflation to settle at around 2%. His main concern is that the there will be "an erosion of skills and loss of attachment to the labor force" for the long term unemployed....

LyrArc Article Gist
The S&P 500 was down 41.9% in 1931 and 38.6% in 1937. In 1974 it was down 29.7%. What was it down by in 2008. In 2008 the S&P 500 was down 45.5%. This matched what happened in the Great Depression and we are not through 2008 yet as one can see from what is happening to the share price of Citigroup, other banks and the Detroit automakers. It a hell of a year and the errors during the Great Depression were different but there are errors in policy and in managing the crisis in this one also. For example the announcement by the Treasury Secretary Paulson that none of the money in the bailout will go towards buying mortgage securites may have led to renewed doubts about Citigroup's portfolio of toxic assets. The failure of the banks and other companies to get the uptick rule reinstated also ends up causing a run on the stocks of faltering companies exaggerating the impact of any doubts and creating a need for government help. Whern the history of this is rewritten the management of this crisis and the policy making will also be faulted in amanner that the Great Deprtession policies were faulted but for different reasons. The failure to address foreclosures early in 2008 as Martin Feldstein repeatedly urged in the WSJ since the early months of 2008 and continues to do so, and as other policymakers like Sheila Bair at FDIC have urged repeatedly, will be one of these major errors. Any failure to address the automakers cash funds crisis for operating expenses both with money and with the proper conditions could also go out of control and cause a major unemployment crisis in the midwest that could spread to the rest of the country. The NYT editorial took note of this on November 22, 2008, asking for funds however distasteful the behaviour of the automakers management may be. See this link. And public opinion could get the managemnt to resign or this could be a condition for signing onto the bridge loan from the government. In this particular issueof automakers Detroit automaker's management's serious errors will be written about years from now which combined with any indecision or slippage on the part of awmakers could lead to the economy and unemployment spiralling out of control, because so much is happening at the same time. It comes at atime when the storm is shifting to the consumer side to credit card and other consumer loans even as it is continuing to take its toll on the housing sector in the USA and on exports and the auto industry and other sectors around the world. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Experts say this is the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and it has gradually accelerated since October 2007 from a gradually unfolding housing crisis into a full blown credit markets crisis with the lack of transparency in mortgage securitization and the loss of confidence in the credit markets as mortgage securities values collapsed. The worst is still ahead as home prices have only fallen to a small extent so far and experts expect another 20% drop in prices this year and 2009. In the face of this crisis Immelt can be faulted for not using caution in his promises to the analyst community but to be so unforgiving for GE shares to fall 13% in one day and calls for breaking up the company or frustration at GE's inability to overcome what were clearly extremely unusual financial and real estate market conditions that may be a first in 40 years, is clearly overdone. Jack Welch who said he would be shocked beyond belief and shoot Immelt if he doesn't make what he promises now is also expressing some of that frustration, but beyond this is the inability to grasp the true extent of the situation in the markets that Welch never experienced first hand as he demanded and got his managers to deliver on results quarter after quarter or be fired for credibility problems ,because Welch's batting averages reflected a stretch of years where there were no crises of the magnitude of what Immelt is facing today. Upon further reflection Welch still stands by Immelt saying that this business about breaking up GE and Immelt's in trouble is crazy. And Immelt is building GE around the growth engines of the next big success stories in the growth engines of the future in Asia and the Middle East and emerging market countries of infrastructure, energy, aviation, health and environment, which would also be supported by the smaller but still significant growth of industrialized countries. And these things take time to put together a collection of winning businesses to be well positioned for future growth. Can GE accelerate sales or are there any shortcuts? Immelt doe not think so. Can he change things in a "severe and protracted" economic downturn as the Fed put it last month? Its beyond even large companies like GE....

LyrArc Article Gist
Fannie Mae's top management paid lobbyists from both political parties to reduce any government or congressional oversight of the company. Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner describe the situation that led to the financial crisis of 2008 in their new book "Reckless Endangerment."