ANALYSIS, COMMENTS, THOUGHTS, AND OTHER OBSERVATIONS IN DR. SKOSPLES' NATIONAL INCOME AND BUSINESS CYCLES COURSE AT OHIO WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY
Saturday, April 17, 2010
33 States Reported Job Growth in March
Goldman Falls the Most in a Year, Pushing Banks Lower
Who says the economy is rebounding?
Is The Fed Normalizing MS
China Faces Broader Tariff Threat From EU Over Aid
It also emerges that China has come to a “consensus” on adjusting its exchange rate gradually and wants to avoid the impression of bowing to U.S. pressure by allowing appreciation.
Friday, April 16, 2010
After the Housing Bust, Construction Shows Life
China's economy--On the rebound
SEC accuses Goldman Sachs of civil fraud
By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 16, 2010; 2:36 PM
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed fraud charges Friday against Goldman Sachs, one of the most successful but vilified banks on Wall Street, for allegedly selling investors a financial product based on subprime mortgages that was secretly designed to lose value.
In filing the civil suit against Goldman Sachs, the agency is targeting one of the banks that largely escaped the wreckage of the financial crisis, and with the help of taxpayer bailouts, emerged stronger.
The SEC's suit strikes at a practice that was one of the main causes of the financial crisis: the creation of poisonous investments derived from home loans made to borrowers who couldn't afford the houses they were buying.
The suit also drags into a legal maelstrom Paulson & Co., the firm of legendary hedge fund manager John Paulson, who made billions of dollars by betting against the housing market in the years before it went bust. He and his firm have not been accused of wrongdoing.
Goldman Sachs denied the allegations. "The SEC's charges are completely unfounded in law and fact and we will vigorously contest them and defend the firm and its reputation," the bank said in a statement.
Paulson & Co. also had no immediate comment.
In this case, the SEC alleges that Goldman Sachs created and marketed a financial product known as a collateralized debt obligation, often referred to as a CDO, whose value was linked to that of home loans. The SEC says the bank failed to tell investors important information about the investment -- in particular that Paulson & Co. played a central role in helping Goldman assemble the CDO while the hedge fund at the same time placed bets that the CDO would lose value.
"The product was new and complex but the deception and conflicts are old and simple," said Robert Khuzami, director of the Division of Enforcement. "Goldman wrongly permitted a client that was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to include in an investment portfolio, while telling other investors that the securities were selected by an independent, objective third party."
The suit, filed in federal court in Southern District of New York, alleges that Paulson & Co. paid Goldman Sachs to create a product which would allow the firm to bet against subprime mortgage securities it believed would lose value.
The bank created the CDO, which was known as ABACUS 2007-AC1, and began to market it to investors who wanted to bet that the housing and subprime mortgage would continue to boom.
But, according to the SEC, the bank didn't tell investors that Paulson & Co. had helped formulate the CDO by encouraging the purchase of subprime mortgages that would likely lose value.
The SEC alleges that a Goldman Sachs vice president, Fabrice Tourre, was principally responsible for putting together the CDO. He also faces civil charges.
According to the SEC, the CDO was created on April 26, 2007, just as the housing market began to falter. Paulson & Co. paid Goldman Sachs $15 million for structuring and marketing the CDO. Investors in the CDO lost more than $1 billion, according to the agency.
If the conduct alleged by the SEC went beyond this specific instance and was common on Wall Street, this could upend a popular notion about the causes of the financial crisis. It would mean bankers may have been intentionally creating toxic assets, only looking to generate fees for their employers and bonuses for themselves without worrying about whether it would cost their investors or clients or pose a risk to the nation's financial markets.
The prevailing view about the roots of the financial crisis has been that Wall Street's biggest banks, perhaps ignoring common sense, bought into the widespread notion that housing prices would continue to rise for the foreseeable future, and that these firms were as surprised as anyone at the sudden collapse in the housing market. Banks and other financial firms ended up in peril because of all the toxic mortgage-related assets on their books.
But according to the SEC, Goldman knew that it was creating a toxic investment.
Company Mergers
Will the Fed's exit from the mortgage markets bring inflation?
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Senate Extends Jobless Benefits
Federal aid is forestalling only a fraction of foreclosures, report says
This article discusses the problems the government is running into with their foreclosure prevention efforts. The Making Homes Affordable program is only on tract to prevent only 1 million foreclosures. Throughout the last month 230,000 U.S. homeowners have secured loans under this program. With 150,000 already dropped from the program, many are still waiting for permanent mortgage relief. An interesting note, of the 230,000 that have secured loans, 14,000 are from the Washington area.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
U.S. Must Start to Rein In Deficit, Fed Chief Says
Senators Unveil Bill Aimed at Airline Fees
Mortgage Deduction: America's Costliest Tax Break
Apple Postpones International iPad Sales
10 foreclosures for every home saved
China's Economy Grew 11.9 Percent in First Quarter: Sources
Banks Resist Plans to Reduce Mortgage Balances
By DAVID STREITFELD
In a rebuff to the Obama administration, two big banks on Tuesday drew a line in the sand on cutting the mortgage balances of beleaguered homeowners, saying that the tool would be applied sparingly.
The idea of reducing loan principals last month became a centerpiece of the administration’s efforts to help seven million households threatened with foreclosure. But an official at one of the banks, David Lowman of JPMorgan Chase, said principal reduction could reward households for consuming more than they could afford, might punish future homeowners by raising the cost of borrowing and in any case was simply unworkable.
“We are concerned about large-scale broad-based principal reduction programs,” Mr. Lowman, the bank’s chief executive for home lending, testified during a hearing of the House Financial Services committee.
Mr. Lowman’s comments were briefly echoed in more restrained form by an executive from Wells Fargo. “Principal forgiveness is not an across-the-board solution,” said the executive, Mike Heid, co-president of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage. Two other bankers who testified, from Bank of America and Citigroup, largely avoided the issue.
A Treasury Department spokeswoman declined to comment on the hearing.
The government modification program has been under attack by lawmakers and community groups for doing too little too slowly. The Congressional Oversight Panel is issuing a report Wednesday that says, “Treasury’s response continues to lag well behind the pace of the crisis.”
In response, the Treasury Department said that its latest modification report, also to be released Wednesday, showed that the number of permanent modifications grew in March to 230,000 households, an increase of 35 percent from the previous month. The Treasury also stressed it was still introducing programs, including those aimed at reducing mortgage principal.
The testimony on Tuesday, however, offered the first public acknowledgment that these latest foreclosure prevention measures might encounter some resistance among banks, ultimately rendering them less effective than hoped.
One of the new government programs will require lenders to strongly consider reducing the mortgage balance for distressed borrowers who qualify for the government’s modification plan.
A more radical plan urges lenders to refinance loans for borrowers who may be solvent but who owe much more on their homes than they are worth. Many of these loans have been securitized into investment pools but are serviced by the big banks.
The investment pool would get the mortgage off its books for the current market value of the property — less than it is owed, perhaps, but more than it would receive if the house went into foreclosure. The borrower would receive a new government-insured loan at market value, presumably making him less likely to walk away.
It is this last program that seemed to irk JPMorgan Chase.
“If we rewrite the mortgage contract retroactively to restore equity to any mortgage borrower because the value of his or her home declined, what responsible lender will take the equity risk of financing mortgages in the future?” Mr. Lowman asked in his prepared comments.
In any case, he said, Chase cannot rewrite most of these deals. The bank’s contractual arrangements with the investors do not allow for principal reduction.
Furthermore, Mr. Lowman argued, the cost of reducing principal will be built into future loans, resulting in less access to credit and higher costs for consumers.
What Chase — one of the strongest of the big banks — might be really worried about is not the primary mortgages it services but the $133 billion in home equity loans and lines of credit it carries on its own books.
The question of what happens to these secondary loans in a mortgage modification was at the heart of the Congressional hearing on Tuesday.
Investors who own the primary loans argue that the others should be second in line, getting only the money that is left over after they have been satisfied. But banks like Chase, which own the majority of second loans, want a better deal. Since they have the power to disrupt any modification, the result so far has been a standoff.
Alan M. White, an assistant professor at Valparaiso University School of Law who has closely studied the various modification plans, said, “Chase and Wells are attacking a straw man. Nobody is arguing for across-the-board principal reduction. But I think that they feel a need to push back hard on any attempts to get them to write down the troubled second mortgages and home equity lines of credit in their portfolios.”
Mr. Lowman emphasized the moral side of the issue. Mandating write-downs in home equity loans would be a particularly bad idea, he said, because these loans were simply used to consume rather than pay for housing.
Plan Would Require Homeless to Work to Qualify for Rent Subsidies
By JULIE BOSMAN
The Bloomberg administration is planning to require more homeless families to get jobs in order to qualify for rent subsidies, city officials said Tuesday.
For the last three years, the city had provided certain homeless families with vouchers good for one or two years of free or steeply discounted rent. Since the program began, more than 18,000 families, and some single adults, have received the so-called Advantage vouchers, more than 7,500 of them last year.
Most of those families qualified for the vouchers because they had already found work, and as a result were eligible to pay only $50 toward their rent each month for up to two years. But families who had become the subject of child welfare investigations were granted an even-more-generous voucher, good for up to two years of free rent — because of their vulnerability.
Now the Bloomberg administration is seeking to require that nearly all families have at least one member with a job before they receive a rent subsidy. Participants would also pay more toward their rent — rather than $50 a month, they would be required to pay 30 percent of their income during the first year of the subsidy. During the second year, they would pay 50 percent of the total rent.
The administration’s proposal is awaiting approval by the state, which pays half the cost. The city pays 37 percent and the federal government the rest.
“The goal here is to create a rental assistance program that helps people move out of shelter and provides an appropriate government subsidy,” said Linda I. Gibbs, the deputy mayor for health and human services. “Anybody who can work, is capable of working, and we should help them work.”
Ms. Gibbs added that the administration also planned to reinstate a requirement that homeless families who have income pay rent while they are in shelters.
There are more than 36,000 people in the city shelter system, including nearly 8,500 families with children.
Ms. Gibbs said it was unclear whether the change would save money in the $141.8 million plan, but she said she hoped that it would help more families find jobs and permanent homes. She added that New York has an “extraordinarily generous” shelter system and housing subsidy program.
But some of the organizations that run homeless shelters for the city said they were worried that the new rules might keep families in shelters even longer — particularly families with children who have been deemed to be at risk of neglect or abuse. Those families, monitored by the city’s child welfare office, would now be required to find jobs to qualify for a subsidy.
“In general, it may make moveouts slower because it’s difficult to find work out there,” said Colleen K. Jackson, the executive director of the West End Intergenerational Residence, a shelter for young mothers. “Jobs are not easy to come by.”
This is the second time in three years that the city has made significant changes to its rental assistance program. A previous and short-lived version, called Housing Stability Plus, required participants to be on welfare. The Advantage program, which began in 2007, has a stronger focus on work.
“From a family perspective, if a parent or caregiver is employed, the family is that much more likely to remain stable and stay in permanent housing,” said Gordon J. Campbell, president and chief executive of United Way of New York City, a former homeless services commissioner.
Some advocates for the homeless were quick to criticize the second change announced on Tuesday: the administration’s plans to revive the state-mandated requirement that working homeless families pay rent while they are in shelters. City officials said they expect to issue notices to families in September that they will be charged rent.
The plan was first attempted a year ago, but halted after only three weeks because of what a city official called “technical issues.” When it is revived again, the Human Resources Administration, instead of the shelter providers, will handle rent collection.
Steven Banks, the attorney in chief of the Legal Aid Society, who is a frequent critic of the administration, said its approach to the issue “seems to elevate ideology or philosophy over reality.”
“In the midst of an extraordinary economic downturn, to be going after families who are earning minimum wages to pay the cost of shelter instead of encouraging them to save their meager wages so they can move out, in the end, is going to cost more,” Mr. Banks said.
State Senator Daniel L. Squadron, a Democrat representing a Brooklyn and Manhattan district, said that he supported adding a provision to the state budget that would prevent the city from charging rent in shelters.
“The goal for homeless families is moving out of homelessness,” Mr. Squadron said. “Charging rent is beyond perverse.”
Ms. Gibbs described the rent requirements as modest. A family with an annual income of $10,000, for example, would pay $36 a month to live in a shelter; however, a family with $25,000 in annual income would pay $926 a month. Eighty percent of homeless families would be exempt from the requirement.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
What to do with taxes?
U.S. Economy: Trade Gap Widens More Than Anticipated on Imports
Monday, April 12, 2010
Jobless one step closer to regaining benefits
A final vote will be taken later on this week by the Senate to determine the passage of a $9.2 billion deal that would give the unemployed the benefits they have enjoyed to date. Republicans delayed the vote on the bill, saying it needed to be paid for. This bill would effect over a million people, and they would stop receiving checks if the bill does not pass.
China’s Currency Reserves Jump, Showing Bets on Yuan
More than 200,000 jobless counting on an extension
More than 200,000 jobless Americans are anxiously waiting for the Senate to restore their extended unemployment insurance. Federal unemployment benefits, which last up to 73 weeks, kick in after state-funded 26 weeks of coverage expire. These federal benefits are divided into tiers, and the jobless must apply each time they move into a new tier. A million people could lose their unemployment benefits this month if the Senate doesn't act to extend it. To date, lawmakers have already approved two short-term extensions since December which extends the length of benefits. As around 11.2 million people now receive unemployment insurance, while 6 million are collecting extended benefits, consumer advocates have been urging lawmakers to quickly approve extending unemployment insurance as the unemployment rate remains stuck at 9.7% with the average duration of unemployment at 31.2 weeks.
Interest Rates Have Nowhere to Go but Up
The impact of higher rates is likely to be felt first in the housing market, which has only recently begun to rebound from a deep slump. The rate for a 30-year fixed rate mortgage has risen half a point since December, hitting 5.31 last week, the highest level since last summer.
Along with the sell-off in bonds, the Federal Reserve has halted its emergency $1.25 trillion program to buy mortgage debt, placing even more upward pressure on rates.
Stocks rise on more signs of growth; Dow tops 11K
Steel Firms Feel Bite of U.S. Mine Disaster
The Upper Big Branch mine disaster takes supply off the market at time of strong Asian demand for the higher-quality coal and a rebound in steel production in the U.S., Brazil and Europe.
Massey was scheduled to ship 1.6 million tons of metallurgical coal from the Upper Big Branch mine this year, which is about 3% of total U.S. production last year. Massey said it will increase production at other mines, but doubts it will be able to replace all of the lost production from Upper Big Branch this year. The company sis not positive when the mine might reopen.
Light At the End of the Bailout Tunnel
The treasury is planning to sell its $32 billion stake in Citigroup. GM plans to repay its $6.7 billion government investment. Both companies may be free of government strings within the year.
It was only a year ago that the Congressional Budget Office and Office of Management and Budget estimated that the overall bailout would cost more than $250 billion dollars. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said last month that the bailout will cost less than 1% of GDP. The $89 billion projection is less than the cost of the savings-and-loan crisis in the 1980s and early 1990s which amounted as much as $3.2 of GDP.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
EU set to offer Greece 30 billion euros in aid
Greece today in such a situation as US had been a year ago. So it can be predicted that it will take a bit time to get the economy moving once again. But the good news is from now on there will be no falling down; the rise might be slow but it won't be worse.
Satire Article
Long Run Well Being
Second Mortgages Vex Borrowers
Myrtle Beach Bank Fails, Year's 42nd
The failing of the Myrtle Beach bank is expected to cost the FDIC's deposit insurance fund $130.3 million. 140 banks failed this year, twenty five in 2008, and only three in 2007. The number of banks on the FDIC's confidential "problem'' list rose to 702 in the fourth quarter from 552 three months earlier.
Geithner visits China as currency plan appears to take shape
Bernanke Says Central Bankers Must Act Strongly to Stem Crises
March jobs report shows growth
Oil Prices Find a Sweet Spot for World Economy
A breath of fresh air
Moreover, it is said that the sale of 318 branches of the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) could be a first step to end the oligopoly enjoyed by Britain’s big four: RBS, HSBC, Barclays and Lloyds. The potential new competitors, who are ambitious to gain a significant share of the market, include Santander, a big Spanish bank; Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Money; Metro Bank, backed by Vernon Hill, an American bank founder; and there are another two potential contenders are the Post Office and Tesco, Britain’s biggest retailer. And it is predicted that, the main challenge for the new contenders may be to persuade the customers to shop around, because the failure of Northern Rock demonstrated the dangers of banks relying on the wholesale markets for their funding. Therefore, they are now more interested in taking deposits from the public.
Obama Touts Tax Breaks
Japan's Debt-Ridden Economy: Crisis in Slow Motion
European Nations Offer $40 Billion to Greece
In summary, from this article, one can see most of the euro zone countries believe the that Greece will be a credible loaners, since they do not require any special change of Greece’s government policies.
China Reports Rare Monthly Trade Deficit
Generation Y Poised to Take Over Marketplace
Interest Rates must go up
Myrtle Beach Bank Fails, Year's 42nd
The closing of Beach First National Bank of Myrtle Beach made the bank the 42nd U.S. lender to fail this year as well as the first South Carolina failure in more than a decade. Victory State Bank of Columbia was the last bank to close in South Carolina (March 26, 1999). The Bank of North Carolina will take over the seven branches.
Bernanke Says Central Bankers Must Act Strongly to Stem Crises
Obama showcases advantages of stimulus tax benefits
Interest rate hikes to hit consumers
Ten Myths About China
I found myth #2 the most interesting:
Myth No. 2: China could surpass the U.S. as the largest economy in 10 years.
Truth: There is a reasonable chance that China will never surpass the U.S.
China will might never pass the U.S. if the government makes the right moves to cut the federal deficit, keeping steady interest rates, expand trade, and reduce government regulation, especially taxes. These policy reforms may prevent China from passing the US economy. Furthermore, some economists take a look at the past 30 years and assume the next 30 years will be the same in economic progress. This is a fundamental mistake in analysis of any economy. For example, the USSR relied on its population to support its industrial economy, which the USSR put considerable emphasis on. Thus, with the increased pollution and decline in life expectancy, the nation collapsed. China is in a similar situation.
Japan's debt problem Sleepwalking towards disaster
1. The Japanese are depleting all their savings on government bonds and not investing in businesses', also known as the crowd out effect. Eventually, Japan will need to rely on foreign investors to buy government bonds.
2. Japan is deflating its currency in order to stop inflation from occurring. However, this pushes the debt to GDP ratio inexorably higher. And prices will continue to stay the same or lower as the standard of living stays the same. Thus, deflation leads to less consumption by consumers.
3. In the contemporary global situation, the country cannot rely heavily on export to fuel their economic growth; instead they must rely on domestic growth to fuel GDP advancement.
These problems will be fixed by electing bolder policymakers who will create structural reforms to raise productivity, fiscal reforms to boost growth and a strong monetary stimulus, all at once, to shock the economy back to life.
U.S. Steps Up Probe Of Hiring In Tech
The Justice Department is stepping up its investigation into hiring practices at some of America's biggest companies, including Google Inc., Intel Corp., International Business Machines Corp., Apple Inc. and IAC/InterActiveCorp., people familiar with the matter said.The inquiry is focused on whether companies, particularly in the technology sector, have agreed not to recruit each others' employees in ways that violate antitrust law. Specifically, the probe is looking into whether the companies' hiring practices are costing skilled computer engineers and other workers opportunities to change jobs for higher pay or better benefits.But the leadership of the antitrust division hasn't yet decided whether—or how—to challenge the hiring practices, these people said. About a dozen companies are meeting with top antitrust officials at the Justice Department this week and next, some to defend their practices, others to provide information.Antitrust experts say the Justice Department could argue that an agreement between competitors that holds down labor costs is as much a violation of antitrust laws as an agreement to fix prices.