LyrArc Article Gist
Typical of so much of what is written about the World Health Organization and its role in the pandemic, this podcast in the WSJ fails to quickly convey the critical function of the WHO as an early warning system the world has depended on, including China. The H1N1 epidemic originated in Mexico. Asian countries including China and India depended on very quick response from the country where the epidemic originated  in allowing entry into the affected area for experts from advanced countries such as the U.S. The global response was then coordinated across countries quickly with complete transparency. The head of China's CDC himself faced a problem with transparency with the provincial authorites in Wuhan. 1.    Fundamentally this quick entry was denied the U.S. Request by U.S. to China was made on Jan. 6 for U.S. team to go to Wuhan, quick permission was denied and given only about 6 weeks later on Feb 16. This delay is the crux of the problem for the U.S.. Taiwan confirmed human to human transmission on Jan. 1, the WHO was saying this was not clear as late as Jan. 14. These costly delays are what the U.S.  letter is about.  The head of the CDC China Gao Fu called Dr. Redfield head of CDC in the U.S. on the next day after he suspected Wuhan provincial authorites were vague about what was happening. Gao Fu was alarmed when scanning the internet on December 30, 2019, about rumors of a vaguely worded lung disease in internal memos of Wuhan. He called Wuhan authorites and was not getting clear answers on that day, then deciding on December 31 to send his own team to Wuhan, as reported in German magazine Der Spiegel- Hackenbroch, Zand, 05/20/2020.  Der Spiegel says in its special report on the early period in Wuhan that Gao Fu was so alarmed about what was happening enough to be in tears in his series of calls with Dr. Redfield in the immediate days that followed. The date was shortly after the GAO Fu sent the team to Wuhan, December 31 and New Years Day 2020, as reported in Der Spiegel. See the link to Lyrarc gist of Der Spiegel's "A Failed Deception: The Early Days of the Coronavirus in Wuhan."  2.  President Trump points out the standards of the WHO- in the concluding point of his letter to WHO- when a three time prime minister of Norway, Gro Brundtland was head of the WHO during the SARS crisis of 2003. She acted quickly and decisively and no time was lost. It is this failure of the early warning system under the new president of the WHO after 2017 Dr. Tedros that alarms the U.S.  with about 100,000 deaths.  3.  This failure it can now be said was partly a result of a election in 2017 for the position of WHO president which was flawed. This was the first time a WHO head, an important position was put up for an election. The Executive Board was responsible for this appointment since the founding of the WHO as part of the UN, based in Geneva, Switzerland, after World War II. This system worked. The election was clearly a bad process for appointing the president of the WHO which should be done entirely on the capabilities of the person holding this position not on a flawed voting process. It is flawed because India and Bangladesh hit by a cyclone during the coronavirus have suffered greatly, as have other countries, but had only 2 votes for 1.5 billion people, when Barbados (385,000 population) and Laos (7 million) which had less than one  hundredth the population had the same number of votes. The U.S. had one vote. The election resulted in lobbying and a process in which many candidates stayed away because they simply would not go through such a process. The position was too important to the world- most of the advanced countries had forgotten about the danger of epidemics to let this happen by 2017, as shown in the way the austerity years led to cancellation of the preparations for pandemic in France and Britain. The austerity years and neglect of public health during these tech boom years in the western world made it possible for this to happen. 3.   Along with the 1 month ultimatum action is already being taken to restore the effectiveness of the importance of the Executive Board. The head of the health ministry in India, Dr. Harsh Vardhan, has been appointed the new chairman of the Executive Board on May 22. This restores the voice of billions of people in Asia in the process, and brings the major countries with the greatest risk in a pandemic into the decision process for tackling the pandemic, this includes the rest of the world.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Proposals from the Vickers Commission on banking reforms in the UK that could be adopted in the U.S. to reduce systemic risks from proprietary trading.

LyrArc Article Gist
Federal Reserve proposals in Dec 2011 for large U.S. banks leave capital cushions at 5% of assets. This phases in the higher 7% of assets rule for capital reserves and a surcharge of upto 2.5% based on bank risk levels under new Basel III regulations for implementation in 2016.

LyrArc Article Gist
Barry Ritholtz lists the causes of the financial crisis, He says New York Mayor Bloomberg's exoneration of the financial industry is simply false- what he calls "the Big Lie"- even though Congress, regulators and the Greenspan Fed acted irresponsibly and created favorable conditions for the actions of the financial industry.

LyrArc Article Gist
Friedman compares the anti-corruption movements in India and the U.S., the world's two largest democracies. The Occupy Wall Street anti-corruption movement in the U.S. focusses on the excessive influence of banks on lawmakers, regulators, and the government, through the use of campaign money, revolving door for government officials and regulators to join banks, and intense lobbying. The anti-corruption movement focusses on corruption in government at higher levels, such as the handling of government licenses, and at the basic levels of needing to bribe officials for something as simple as getting a birth certificate or other government document. Both have pernicious effects, in the U.S. excesssive bank influence leads to taking excessive risk for higher bonuses, putting the entire financial system at risk and creating a crisis in housing that delays the economic recovery. And in India the corruption leads to retarded progress, as funds to invest in infrastructure and development are siphoned off, business and entrepreneurs are required to pay bribes at each step, and ordinary people face the need to pay bribes for the most routine interactions with government officials. In the process this creates more unequal societies by skewing the distribution of benefits from wealth created to groups that are better equipped to game the system. The economic system once distorted in these ways has tendencies to take talent away from productive activity and innovation which create wealth, and direct it towards speculative activities....

LyrArc Article Gist
Volcker says that even with all the fuss about the length of the Volcker Rule, its important to remember that the regulation itself is only 35 pages. And he says that lawyers for the banks are not honest when it comes to this, because they spent a lot of time finding holes in the rule and were working to add complications to it, and now they are turning around and saying that the Volcker Rule is too complicated. Asked about Dodd-Frank, Volcker says that it does make the U.S safer in a financial crisis because of the crisis resolution process set up under Dodd-Frank legislation. A bank fails and the resolution is clearly laid out- the government takes over and liquidates it, or merges it or sells it. Stockholders don't get a bail out, management is fired, and creditors have to take losses. A lot still depends on having vigorous and alert regulators. He sees two large problems, the Euro crisis and the U.S. deficit, which need strong action. Volcker remains perplexed by why the situation of huge disparities in income growth has not been expressed to a greater extent- on one side the lack of growth in income for the average family in 10-15 years and the other side having the huge increase in incomes at the top end. He does not know of any years when this was as big as it is now- except 1928, 1929....

LyrArc Article Gist
Paul Volcker before the U.S. Senate Banking Committee on May 9, 2012, before the announcement of the $2 billion trading losses by J.P. Morgan Chase. The following day Chase announced the losses from trades made by JP Morgan trader Bruno Iksil- nicknamed the "London Whale"- who made a complex hedge on a group of corporate bonds, betting $100 billion that the bonds would not default. The Volcker rule as it is currently written would not prevent such a transaction. The problem as Volcker pointed out before the Banking Committee is that under "too big to fail," "the losses would be socialized with the potential gains all private."

LyrArc Article Gist
Eisinger says the Federal Reserve's staff plays an important role in regulatory reform. He quotes Cornell law professor, Robert Hockett, who says the general counsels tend to become more conservative over time and inclined to support the status quo. This makes required regulatory changes such as increasing the capital reserves at banks and reducing leverage more difficult. Eisinger describes the position of the U.S. Federal Reserve's general counsel, Scott Alvarez, on disclosure of lending by the Fed during the banking crisis, and on capital reserves, which veered more to the position of the banks which preferred less information be released and capital reserves be left at the 5% level than the 6% proposed by the FDIC and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Comments by Alvarez in nonpublic hearings to Congressional staff members on May 18, 2012, about the JP Morgan London Whale trading losses, according to Eisinger, shows lack of awareness of the overall implications of the breakdown in financial controls and supervision inside the bank....

LyrArc Article Gist
This Wall Street Journal editorial comes out in favor of higher capital reserve requirements similiar to that suggested by Federal Reserve Board governor Daniel Tarullo. The Journal says that if regulators are serious in the U.S. about controlling systemic risk, then the 14% rule or a 15% rule for assets held in reserve by banks should be adopted. Daniel Tarullo had suggested a 14% capital reserve requirement. These requirements would be phased in gradually over several years. Basel III requirements require only a 7% requirement and is phased in over many years. Capital standards are likely to be gamed. For this reason the requirement for only Tier 1 capital to be eligible is essential. What about the Basel III standards and the European banks? Would this put them in a better position to earn higher returns. This should be a problem left for European taxpayers to tackle says the Journal. As long as U.S. taxpayers are supporting U.S. banks with an implicit subsidy to take on larger amounts of risk -because they will be saved in a crisis with taxpayer dollars- the Journal says it makes sense to require 10-14% in capital reserves. It cites the Japanese banks which were highly overleveraged with lower capital reserves compared to American banks, and fared poorly. The Dodd-Frank bill imposes a complicated set of regulatory requirements with regulators required to write new sets of rules. The editorial concludes that it is far better to tackle the problems in the banking system with a sufficiently high requirement for capital reserves to manage risks than to have the detailed rule making on every subject that Dodd-Frank suggests....

LyrArc Article Gist
Bank of England Governor warns that British banks are undercapitalized in Nov. 2012 and need to add to reserves for additional losses.

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 Frank writing about the public outrage about executive compensation quotes Bill Black, a Professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, who makes an important point. Beyond the size of this compensation there was something else happening that was perverse in its design and in its effects. Black says that at each point in the development of the disaster of mortgage securitization, it was the pay for performance systems that sent the wrong signals to loan officers, real estate appraisers, accountants, and bond rating agencies. The compensation or reward systems actually encouraged wrong, unethical and ultimately disastrous behaviours for the companies and the economy. Another way to look at it, the way it happened on Wall Street- especially at Merrill Lynch and some other financial institutions- the bonuses and other compensation was a way for executives to recklessly milk (loot is the other word) the companies for all they could yield regardless of the results afterwards. And as Black says, to do this through normal corporate mechanisms. A whole range of behaviours of this type took place in the final years of the boom. See other articles by Thomas Frank. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Ann Lee a former investment banker and now adjunct Professor at New York University, gives us facts that show the smaller banks that lend to small and medium sized businesses in the country are being closed by the FDIC. According to ADP small business that employs between 1 to 49 people, accounts for 48 million jobs, those between 50 and 499 employees account for 42 million jobs, and large business for only 17 million jobs. Without access to capital these small and medium sized businesses will continue to layoff employees, creating a vicious cycle of falling credit and demand. According to Automatic Data Processing's August employment report large business shed 60,000 jobs, medium sized business 116,000 jobs and small businesses shed 122,000 jobs. These smaller banks says Lee have done most of the lending to small and medium sized businesses. And overall lending has dropped from pre-crisis levels. Treasury's Capital Purchase Monthly Lending Report shows that banks that received government money actually reduced loan balance by $54 billion. According to reports issued by major credit rating agencies $700 billion of asset backed securities were underwitten in 2007. In 2009 only $10 billion was issued. This has a significant impact in every area. Banks have no incentive to lend with all the bad nonperforming loans on their books. They only hope that over time renegotiated loan terms would enable to recover these loans. But this might take a decade says Lee, if this is similiar to other crises like the one in Japan. She says what the banks do to make money is to borrow virtually unlimited amounts from the Fed at near zero rates and earn money from the spread when they lend to the Treasury. Does our current banking system make sense she asks. Banks are not investing in economic activity, in real products and services,but engaged in agovernment backed shell game that enriches bankers at the expense of everyone else. She says that the banking lobby may prevail in preventing the nationalization of the banking system, but this will not prevent questions about the status quo and its assumptions from arising if the recovery and regulatory reforms fail. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
J.P. Morgan Chase announces $2 billion in trading losses in May 2012. The Chief Investment Office unit made a bet with a trading strategy that CEO Jamie Dimon said had grown very complex. These losses could grow or shrink during the rest of the year.

LyrArc Article Gist
Five rules the editors of the WSJ say should be followed when working on cleaning up the banking system. A clear no, as Krugman and other experts point out is for the government to make the rather imprudent move to take on all the debts of the banks as in Ireland. A second rule is not to underestimate the size of the problem and delay action till the problem gets much worse, when its harder to deal with. ECB president, Mario Draghi, pointed out the problem at Spain's handling of Bankia bank as a clear example, telling the European parliament recently: "There is a first assessment, then a second, a third, a fourth. This is the worst possible wayof doing things. Everyone ends up doing the right thing, but at the highest cost." A third rule is to set clear rules about banks, who gets rescued and who gets closed and why- so that its not left upto the discretion of officials. On this rule Spain's outgoing Zapatero administration gets good marks from WSJ for settting clear rules to the cajas svings banks. A fourth rule applicable to Europe is to first setup the expertise and conditions for a European banking regulator before setting up a banking union and direct injection of funds by the EFSF into banks of individual countries. A fifth rule is to avoid creating even larger mega banks by consolidating failing banks with large banks, and continuing the government's implicit guarantee of the bank because it is "too big to fail" and creates systemic risk- this is the situation after action by the U.S. Federal Reserve, regulators and the U.S. Treasury....

LyrArc Article Gist
An internal IMF document that estimates Europe's banks are short of capital by $273 billion. IMF managing director, Christine Lagarde, tries to downplay the report by saying this is not from a stress test that the IMF conducts. In August, Lagarde, called for an "urgent recapitalization" of European banks. As France's finance minister, Lagarde, steadfastly insisted French banks were well capitalized. France worked hard to prevent requirements for significant capital reserves under the Basel III rules. The higher capital requirements were supported by the U.S.. Simon Johnson said in his blog, that as long as European banks had inadequate capital to act as a buffer against losses, European countries had no safe route for restructuring their debts.

LyrArc Article Gist
EpiPen's price has jumped 550% over 8 years. Mylan Pharmaceuticals is dominant in the $1 billion market for treating serious allergic reactions. Mylan acquired reights to sell EPiPen in late 2007. A pack of two list price is now $608.61. Last Nov. Sanofi's competing product Auvi-Q was recalled giving Mylan price dominance. A problem for consumers is that EpiPen expires in one year. Mylan launched a campaign to make parents aware of the product for children with peanut and other allergies, and also lobbied the governments to make ready supply of EpiPens available in schools and other public places. Now the controversy over price increases, with Hillary Clinton citing this as an example of exorbitant pharmaceutical pricing, is likely to change the environment around EpiPen and other overpriced drugs or healthcare products.

LyrArc Article Gist
Systemic risks from "too big to fail" and the pushback on capital reserve requirements that leave banks with lower reserves. Ewing describes the role of the president of the Swiss Central Bank, Mr Hildebrand, in setting rules for higher capital reserves for Swiss banks than that of other countries and the pushback from the banks resisting the new regulations. "He will never find another job in Switzerland," a Swiss newspaper Der Sonntag quoted one banker saying this about Mr. Hildebrand. Losses at Swiss bank UBS during the financial crisis and the $2 billion loss at a UBS trading desk in 2011 have created a new awareness of systemic risk at banks. During the financial crisis banks used an optimistic estimate of "risk weighted assets" which led to insufficient capital reserves in a crisis even as the banks were shown to be well capitalized. A sense that banks in Europe and the U.S. will continue to have insufficient capital reserves at 3-4% of assets under new rules and with the longer phase in times for the new Basel III regulations of reserves at 7% of assets to after 2016....

LyrArc Article Gist
Wall Street Journal analysis shows top earners at 38 U.S. banks and securities firms will get $145 billion in 2009, an 18% increase over 2008. This even after increasing public anger about exceedingly high levels of executive compensation with no relation to performance, and at a time of high unemployment.

LyrArc Article Gist
In its May 2011 special report on international banking the Economist points out the need for banking regulators to take stronger action than they have so far. What it calls "pre-emptive insurance" it says is needed - stronger regulation, larger capital cushions, and some form of separation of different kinds of banking. Without this the dangers of excessive risk taking and banks that are "too big to fail" will continue to threaten the world's economy. Banks that are smaller and better capitalized says the Economist can fail more gracefully than the large mega banks that exist at this time. In fact the banks today in the U.S. are larger than at the time of the 2008 crisis. Other analysts also point to the lack of major changes in banking and financial structures today compared to the situation before the 2008 crisis, both in Europe and the U.S.