DEMOCRACY INACTION (SIC)

EXPLAINING MORTGAGE MELTDOWN, IRAQ AND INEQUALITY OF WEALTH AND OPPORTUNITY

The truth we don’t want to hear is the same truth we shout down as unpatriotic. It is the essence of patriotism and good journalism to speak the truth and to back it up with solid facts that are congruent with the reality we experience in our daily lives. This piece by Moyers is the one of his best, and worth reading and re-reading.

 

Moyers: ‘Democracy in America Is a Series of Narrow Escapes, and We May Be Running Out of Luck’

By Bill Moyers, Doubleday
Posted on May 17, 2008, Printed on May 18, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/85521/

The following is an excerpt from Bill Moyers’ new book, “Moyers on Democracy” (Doubleday, 2008).

Democracy in America is a series of narrow escapes, and we may be running out of luck. The reigning presumption about the American experience, as the historian Lawrence Goodwyn has written, is grounded in the idea of progress, the conviction that the present is “better” than the past and the future will bring even more improvement. For all of its shortcomings, we keep telling ourselves, “The system works.”

Now all bets are off. We have fallen under the spell of money, faction, and fear, and the great American experience in creating a different future together has been subjugated to individual cunning in the pursuit of wealth and power -and to the claims of empire, with its ravenous demands and stuporous distractions. A sense of political impotence pervades the country — a mass resignation defined by Goodwyn as “believing the dogma of ‘democracy’ on a superficial public level but not believing it privately.” We hold elections, knowing they are unlikely to bring the corporate state under popular control. There is considerable vigor at local levels, but it has not been translated into new vistas of social possibility or the political will to address our most intractable challenges. Hope no longer seems the operative dynamic of America, and without hope we lose the talent and drive to cooperate in the shaping of our destiny.

The earth we share as our common gift, to be passed on in good condition to our children’s children, is being despoiled. Private wealth is growing as public needs increase apace. Our Constitution is perilously close to being consigned to the valley of the shadow of death, betrayed by a powerful cabal of secrecy-obsessed authoritarians. Terms like “liberty” and “individual freedom” invoked by generations of Americans who battled to widen the 1787 promise to “promote the general welfare” have been perverted to create a government primarily dedicated to the welfare of the state and the political class that runs it. Yes, Virginia, there is a class war and ordinary people are losing it. It isn’t necessary to be a Jeremiah crying aloud to a sinful Jerusalem that the Lord is about to afflict them for their sins of idolatry, or Cassandra, making a nuisance of herself as she wanders around King Priam’s palace grounds wailing “The Greeks are coming.” Or Socrates, the gadfly, stinging the rump of power with jabs of truth. Or even Paul Revere, if horses were still in fashion. You need only be a reporter with your eyes open to see what’s happening to our democracy. I have been lucky enough to spend my adult life as a journalist, acquiring a priceless education in the ways of the world, actually getting paid to practice one of my craft’s essential imperatives: connect the dots.

The conclusion that we are in trouble is unavoidable. I report the assault on nature evidenced in coal mining that tears the tops off mountains and dumps them into rivers, sacrificing the health and lives of those in the river valleys to short-term profit, and I see a link between that process and the stock-market frenzy which scorns long-term investments — genuine savings — in favor of quick turnovers and speculative bubbles whose inevitable bursting leaves insiders with stuffed pockets and millions of small stockholders, pensioners, and employees out of work, out of luck, and out of hope.

And then I see a connection between those disasters and the repeal of sixty-year-old banking and securities regulations designed during the Great Depression to prevent exactly that kind of human and economic damage. Who pushed for the removal of that firewall? An administration and Congress who are the political marionettes of the speculators, and who are well rewarded for their efforts with indispensable campaign contributions. Even honorable opponents of the practice get trapped in the web of an electoral system that effectively limits competition to those who can afford to spend millions in their run for office. Like it or not, candidates know that the largesse on which their political futures depend will last only as long as their votes are satisfactory to the sleek “bundlers” who turn the spigots of cash on and off.

The property qualifications for federal office that the framers of the Constitution expressly chose to exclude for demonstrating an unseemly “veneration for wealth” are now de facto in force and higher than the Founding Fathers could have imagined. “Money rules Our laws are the output of a system which clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags. The parties lie to us and the political speakers mislead us.” Those words were spoken by Populist orator Mary Elizabeth Lease during the prairie revolt that swept the Great Plains slightly more than 120 years after the Constitution was signed. They are true today, and that too, spells trouble.

Then I draw a line to the statistics that show real wages lagging behind prices, the compensation of corporate barons soaring to heights unequaled anywhere among industrialized democracies, the relentless cheeseparing of federal funds devoted to public schools, to retraining for workers whose jobs have been exported, and to programs of food assistance and health care for poor children, all of which snatch away the ladder by which Americans with scant means but willing hands and hearts could work and save their way upward to middle-class independence. And I connect those numbers to our triumphant reactionaries’ campaigns against labor unions and higher minimum wages, and to their success in reframing the tax codes so as to strip them of their progressive character, laying the burdens of Atlas on a shrinking middle class awash in credit card debt as wage earners struggle to keep up with rising costs for health care, for college tuitions, for affordable housing — while huge inheritances go untouched, tax shelters abroad are legalized, rates on capital gains are slashed, and the rich get richer and with each increase in their wealth are able to buy themselves more influence over those who make and those who carry out the laws.

Edward R. Murrow told his generation of journalists: “No one can eliminate prejudices — just recognize them.” Here is my bias: extremes of wealth and poverty cannot be reconciled with a genuinely democratic politics. When the state becomes the guardian of power and privilege to the neglect of justice for the people as a whole, it mocks the very concept of government as proclaimed in the preamble to our Constitution; mocks Lincoln’s sacred belief in “government of the people, by the people, and for the people”; mocks the democratic notion of government as “a voluntary union for the common good” embodied in the great wave of reform that produced the Progressive Era and the two Roosevelts. In contrast, the philosophy popularized in the last quarter century that “freedom” simply means freedom to choose among competing brands of consumer goods, that taxes are an unfair theft from the pockets of the successful to reward the incompetent, and that the market will meet all human needs while government itself becomes the enabler of privilege — the philosophy of an earlier social Darwinism and laissez-faire capitalism dressed in new togs — is as subversive as Benedict Arnold’s betrayal of the Revolution he had once served. Again, Mary Lease: “The great evils which are cursing American society and undermining the foundations of the republic flow not from the legitimate operation of the great human government which our fathers gave us, but they come from tramping its plain provisions underfoot.”

Our democracy has prospered most when it was firmly anchored in the idea that “We the People” — not just a favored few — would identify and remedy common distempers and dilemmas and win the gamble our forebears undertook when they espoused the radical idea that people could govern themselves wisely. Whatever and whoever tries to supplant that with notions of a wholly privatized society of competitive consumers undermines a country that, as Gordon S. Wood puts it in his landmark book The Radicalism of the American Revolution, discovered its greatness “by creating a prosperous free society belonging to obscure people with their workaday concerns and their pecuniary pursuits of happiness” — a democracy that changed the lives of “hitherto neglected and despised masses of common laboring people.”

I wish I could say that journalists in general are showing the same interest in uncovering the dangerous linkages thwarting this democracy. It is not for lack of honest and courageous individuals who would risk their careers to speak truth to power — a modest risk compared to those of some journalists in authoritarian countries who have been jailed or murdered for the identical “crime.” But our journalists are not in control of the instruments they play. As conglomerates swallow up newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, and networks, and profit rather than product becomes the focus of corporate effort, news organizations — particularly in television — are folded into entertainment divisions. The “news hole” in the print media shrinks to make room for advertisements, and stories needed by informed citizens working together are pulled in favor of the latest celebrity scandals because the media moguls have decided that uncovering the inner workings of public and private power is boring and will drive viewers and readers away to greener pastures of pabulum. Good reporters and editors confront walls of resistance in trying to place serious and informative reports over which they have long labored. Media owners who should be sounding the trumpets of alarm on the battlements of democracy instead blow popular ditties through tin horns, undercutting the basis for their existence and their First Amendment rights.

Bill Moyers is the author of “Moyers on Democracy” (Doubleday, 2008) and the host of the PBS show, Bill Moyers Journal.

 

Statistics, Index and the Power of Information

CONVERSION FROM INDEX TO REALITY

Obama’s call for “TRUTH” is a simplified statement that calls into question the manner in which information is collected, the way it is presented and the manner in which it is disseminated to the public. 

Underlying this simple call for integrity is his assessment that information flow is fundamentally flawed and that a much needed correction will result in smarter policies that people will give credence to and lend their active support; and that the self-fulfilling negative prophecy we are all living can be turned into a positive climb in quality of life. If you already believe this and understand it, there is no need for you to read this article. If you think his statement is mere lofty rhetoric, you might want to consider my presentation here. For those who want further information, look for books by Von MIses and Rothbard.

The tools of power are all based in information. If the information seems reliable, then the policies foisted on us seem reasonable and even “right.” The basic tool in use today is the statistical index. There is something about an index that when published gains the credulity of the public and even those who know better. It is like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

American political and economic history can be viewed from many perspectives and themes. One of them is the ebb and flow of our collective perception of people, regarded sometimes as labor, sometimes as capital and sometimes not at all. 

 

The current business, economic and political environment has failed to advance or evolve very much for most of the people of the United States, even though women received the right to vote some 80 years ago, and blacks received the right to vote some 40 years ago. 

 

The tendency of certain people to accumulate great wealth and power in any society of any nature inevitably produces an inequality not only of results, but of opportunity. American voters, deprived of the education and information they need to know to make informed decisions, are easily manipulated into voting against their own interests.  An educated voter is a nightmare to any power broker, economic cartel, or political cartel.

 

When adults cannot find states, cities or even continents on a map displaying all the information with proper labeling, it is not hard to see how such people can be easily deceived. And those with power and wealth are eager to deceive them, gaming the electoral process into a utility to maintain and expand their wealth and their power.

 

The tools of power are all based in information. If the information seems reliable, then the policies foisted on us seem reasonable and even “right.” The basic tool in use today is the statistical index. There is something about an index that when published gains the credulity of the public and even those who know better. It is like a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

 

Whether it is Libor, the inter-bank lending rate index, the CPI, which supposedly measures inflation for consumers, or the indexes used to measure market dominance, we have drawn artificial lines in the sand which allow those in power to continue on their merry way while the rest of us wonder what hit us. 

 

• The reality is that Libor, bond ratings, measurements of consumer prices, measurements of those employed, measurements of those unemployed, measurements of those underemployed, productivity, and unfair trade practices are all at substantial variance with reality. Thus the mortgage meltdown, the recession, and another opening of Walmart that kills thousands of jobs, hundreds of companies, thousands of opportunities for innovation, and diminishes our choices to dangerous or inferior products with virtually no service inside the store and no assurances of fair treatment once a sale has been completed. 
• Walmart is able to achieve this feat and become one of the largest companies in the world by converting labor back into capital despite the 13th Amendment. As with all companies of great wealth they were able to purchase the rights to make their activities legal. In reality, those of us who live in the world created by this cash carry government policy making, we see that there is complete 100% market dominance by Walmart in each town it hits. 
• But statisticians for Walmart just like the statisticians for the drug companies, look for a sampling that gives them the arguable position that what we see right in front of us, just isn’t there. We are deceived, or so they say. We are not looking at the “big picture.” True, nor should we look at THEIR big picture if we want OUR lives improved. There should be a healthy competition between accumulation of wealth and quality of life. In truth, we are at the bottom of the barrel on the level of that all-important competitive “index.”
• By expanding and contracting the area “affected” by a Walmart store one can present a plausible argument that there is no significant effect on competition. We know different but there it is right there in black and white, by the numbers. 
• By contracting the sampling on a drug study to a specific period of time where nothing adverse happened to patients taking the experimental drug, the drug is pronounced safe and then tens of thousands of people die because it wasn’t safe, as the REST of the data clearly showed. Management of disinformation is the way we are manipulated into voting against ourselves. Political slogans emanate from false statements from apparently reliable sources. And we are all deceived.
• By hiring all graduates of regulatory agencies when they retire, a retailer or drug or oil company guarantees that the regulators will not look too deeply into the manner in which such an index is presented. Plausible deniability is the name of the game. The result is you and I get screwed. That is the story of antitrust, the FDA, and dozens of other agencies serving the business sector  to the nearly complete exclusion of the safety and welfare of the taxpayers in whose name they operate. It is the equivalent of a hostile takeover of government where the cash and carry system of legislation perpetuates not merely inequality but threats to the safety and welfare of our citizens.

“Inequality” (regardless of how you define the word “equal”) does and will exist in the most despotic regimes following ideology from Marx to Plato’s progeny producing the likes of John Locke and the scholars of the American Revolution. No regime can provide or assure a specific outcome for the life of one or any of its citizens. This article takes no issue with the inevitability of inequality.

 

Yet we have an innate sense of right and wrong even when we do wrong. We know that “all men are created equal” has a meaning even if we can’t all agree precisely what that means. We know that the U.S. Constitution was written to provide a framework for liberty and freedom but not for women, native Americans and slaves. Women and native Americans counted as zero and black slaves pulled slightly ahead of women at 3/5 of a person, as stated in our constitution. 

 

When the American Slaves were freed about 160 years ago it was, in an economic sense, a conversion of capital into labor. 

 

Slaves had been purchased and traded like bales of cotton or rice or tobacco; they were property, they were allowed no education, no free will, and of course no bargaining power. How would anyone go about “educating” a bale of cotton? It makes no sense. While mystics ascribe a soul to everything, whether we think it is alive or not not, most of us are quite tolerant at denying rights to a bale of cotton, even if it is burned, torn apart are thrown under a bus. In a word, if the cotton “feels” anything, we don’t care and it isn’t likely that we will care anytime soon or that we should. Something in most of us “knows” that the cotton is not worthy of our sympathy, nor do we sense any obligation to it.

 

The system made perfect economic sense: the cost of production was reduced to the absolute minimum, repairs of equipment and “other capital” (like slaves) were repaired until they were of no further use at which point they were discarded. And unlike other forms of capital, slaves reproduced, thus continually expanding the potential for production without further capital expenditures. 

 

Society organized around this system in such a way that no actual person worked, without being regarded as disgraced. Plantations were worked by slaves, managed by slaves and the wealth generated went exclusively to the Plantation owner. The threat of removing this system, depriving the owners of their possession of slave capital was a threat to the entire way of life that had evolved over 200 years. 

 

It makes sense only if you look at some data and not look at other information. The slave capital system was missing a key ingredient — a prospering rising middle class. The non-slave states had it and they did far better in the long run than any of the slave states many of which are still, 160 years alter, at the bottom of the barrel economically and in quality of life. Their resistance to allowing education to a significant population of former slaves was the equivalent of shooting themselves in the head.  It was an all or nothing mentality. Either the slaves would provide free production or we won’t help them do anything. 

 

The “information” Southerners were working with was that blacks were less than human. They thus deprived themselves of the single greatest resource they had to compete in a national economy and eventually internationally. Politicians looking for power found it easy pickings to tease voters into anger and resentment about the Civil War, about slavery, and about Jim Crow segregation. The politicians objectives were simple: maintain power. The rest of the people be damned. (which at the risk of political incorrectness, makes the Reverend Wright’s comment plausible, even if ill-constructed. He wasn’t wrong in what he said. Yet he missed an important point: 40-160 years ago he would have been tortured and hung for making a statement that passed only as a news story now).

 

The importing of tens of millions of Mexican laborers who had “illegal” status is an inevitable result of big business’ realization that the lock on the poor white and poor black populations was loosening. The grip of fear of discovery gave the leverage needed to convert these workers from labor to something as close to slave capital as would be tolerated in our society.

 

The mortgaging of America’s future, with all the inevitable taxes that implies, the culture of debt rather than savings, and the withholding and diminishment of education through all walks of life in America is the policy behind the tools of our re-enslavement. The risk now is higher and more widespread than in the 1790’s when women, slaves and native Americans were already discounted capital. Now the government and the business sector have us all targeted as potential “capital” instead of unhappy black men caught like animals and transported like capital with acceptable losses at 1/3 of the cargo. 

 

And the only thing that can stop them is a reversal of the institutionalization of ignorance. We have accepted too long the notion that we don’t know anything but that’s OK nobody else does either. We should all know more than we do, We should all treat life as an opportunity to educate, train and better ourselves. If we do, then everyone wins, including the business sector which needs the rising prosperous middle class to do business, whether it is here or abroad. Why don’t they know that? Because like you, they are just people trying to get the most they can right now. That’s human nature. That is the American way.

 

Treat every index with suspicion. Test all information against your own anecdotal experience. And don’t let anyone tell you they know more about your life than you do.

Truth, Trust and Confidence

The stock and trade of all financial institutions is the same: trust. When they fail to tell the truth, when they actually actively deceive the public, and when they actively participate in a worldwide scam leading to the mortgage meltdown, trust is eroded, perhaps beyond repair.

Now trust even between financial institutions is at an all-time low and the “objective” third parties upon which banks rely to set lending standards and judge their strategies are in doubt, to say the least. Libor, the interbank rate published in London in an index used worldwide is under close scrutiny because there are many questions of how it could be so wrong in the face of reality. Moody’s and other rating agencies have been lutred by profit motive and outright corruption into negotiating ratings instead of setting them through objective analysis. 

Obama’s declaration that truth will be the standard of his Presidential administration is thus being greeted by even the most conservative pro-business, pro-bank publications with a mixture of hope and trepidation. can he really do it? Yes, if he means it. AND by all accounts, it appears as though he does indeed mean it.

That confidence in the U.S. dollar is at an all-time low is no surprise. But when countries start propping up currencies that are barely on the radar, you know that central bankers are thinking that the U.S. government is not doing enough to shore up the fundamentals of its economy. This translates to a lack of confidence that the dollar will recover. Like the price of oil headed inexorably toward $200 per barrel, the dollar is seen headed inexorably downward. This kind of thinking leads to self-fulfilling prophecy, so it needs to be taken seriously. 

The plain fact is that we have $500 trillion in derivative securities that are treated, for the most part, as cash equivalents. In the face of a half-gig behemoth of private sector money supply, central bankers understand that their impact on monetary policy, money supply, credit, and economic growth is virtually out of reach. Like it or not, economic policy is in the hands of the private sector now.

More pretense of regulation from a corrupt government will produce less rather than more instability in the financial sector. Government is providing cover for wrongdoers rather than relief for everyone. 

The dangers are obvious. The inevitable conclusion of this paradigm shift can already be seen: a massive shift in the distribution of wealth, with its attendant death grip on government policy and action.

The role of government — to be the referee in assuring a fair playing field — has been subverted beyond recognition.

The tangible results are that millions of homes are being foreclosed, tens of millions of people are being hit with economic losses, and despite even the calls of the conservative Economist magazine for a U.S. “Federal effort to streamline the states’ convoluted foreclosure laws” nothing has emerged thus far.

We are aware and I have assisted in the writing of emergency rules of civil procedure for foreclosures from initiation of proceedings through mediation and judgment. These rules have been submitted to Nevada, Florida and Arizona thus far. The Courts are warming to the idea, but it is likely that a uniform approach will not be adopted, leaving the country in a morass of hoops to jump through before borrowers and lenders and investors can be brought to the table to put a stop to the downward slide. 

Under normal conditions, we would be the first to scream for better regulation, more enforcement and criminal prosecution arising from the massive fraud that killed the residential housing market, and severely damaged the rest of the credit markets worldwide. But we are of the opinion that this is an emergency that transcends normal government response. It is akin to the emergency of war where we are fighting for our very survival. Amnesty for every participant on the investor-lender side and on the borrower loan origination side is essential even if it gives a break to “speculators” and criminal minds that irresponsibly launched this plan to nowhere.

Only then will we demonstrate to central bankers around the world that we are serious about this crisis. Only then will they lose momentum is distancing themselves from the dollar.

Overseas banks save a currency

Commentary: A useful game plan if the dollar really hits the skids

By MarketWatch

Last update: 10:08 a.m. EDT May 16, 2008

LONDON (MarketWatch) – It’s official — overseas central banks stepped in Friday to prop up a beleaguered currency that’s been weighed down by an out-of-control financial sector and an economy on the rocks.

Sounds like the U.S. dollar, but actually, it’s the Iceland krona. See related story.

The central banks of Norway, Sweden and Denmark will each provide up to 500 million euros that the Central Bank of Iceland can swap for krona.

Of course, any central bank intervention to prop up the dollar would have to be done on a far larger scale than chucking in a bit more than $2 billion.

So understandably, the Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank reportedly have kept their ammunition so far to words and arm twisting. See related story.

And U.S. interest rates are just a touch lower than what’s on offer in Iceland — 2.25% compared to 15.5%.

But it’s worth noting that the intervention has worked, on the day at least – the currency is up over 4% against the euro.

If nothing else, the move by the Scandinavian central banks is a game plan that can be dusted off if the dollar really goes into meltdown mode.

– Steve Goldstein 

Mortgage Meltdown: Practical Solutions from Congress!!

Today we have a bill pending that stops the meltdown. It is a courageous and creative step that protects all parties. It requires YOUR input, so pass this along to as many other people as you can. This is much more than a step in the right direction. It would be nice to see support from the presidential contenders as well.

Write your congressmen and women and get this thing passed. The Senate and House are standing on the line between mayhem and an orderly society and have taken the right steps. The rest is up to you.

It isn’t perfect, but the bill would do more to stem the tide of foreclosures, evictions and declining home prices than anything else on the table. It will protect your home equity, it will stabilize the economy, and it will give the U.S. dollar just the shot of confidence it needs to slow the rising threat of hyper-inflation.

Call and write your congressman/woman, call and write your senators, flood them with emails.

This is not about the morality of or ideology of whether it was more the fault of one group over another. This is about the practicality of holding our society together. Nothing is more important to the your lifestyle than this bill no matter who you are.

May 2, 2008

Mortgage Aid Plan Advances in House

By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN

WASHINGTON — The House Financial Services Committee pushed forward on Thursday with an aggressive effort to help troubled homeowners, approving legislation that would make up to $300 billion in federally insured loans available to refinance the mortgages of borrowers in danger of foreclosure.

With passage of the House bill virtually assured, debate over how best to address the downturn in housing shifts back to the Senate, where Democrats drafting a similar plan are struggling to overcome the reservations, if not outright opposition, of a more robust Republican minority.

President Bush has called on Congress to pass very specific legislation to update the operations of the Federal Housing Administration, to tighten regulation of the government-sponsored financiers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and to let state and local housing authorities use tax-exempt bonds to refinance bad loans. But he opposes the more expansive legislation pursued by Democrats.

The Financial Services Committee approved the bill 46 to 21, with 10 Republicans joining the Democrats in favor of it.

Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts and the chief author of the housing legislation, said Thursday that he hoped President Bush would sign the bill if it reached the White House as part of a wider package and it contained the legislation that Mr. Bush had demanded.

The Democrats’ legislation seeks to help homeowners by requiring lenders to reduce the principal balances for borrowers at risk of default. The bad loans, typically with high adjustable rates, would be refinanced into more affordable 30-year fixed-rate loans insured by the F.H.A.

The new loans would be limited to no more than 90 percent of a property’s value, based on an updated appraisal. The government would retain a stake in any future sale of the property, worth 3 percent of the initial loan balance or 50 percent of net profit from a sale, whichever is greater.

Borrowers would have to demonstrate the ability to repay the new loan, and if they default, they will forfeit the property. Democrats say the plan could help as many as 1.5 million homeowners.

The Bush administration calls that goal unrealistic and says achieving it would require loosening underwriting rules that would put taxpayer money at too much risk. But the administration’s own effort to help troubled borrowers, called F.H.A. Secure, has so far aided only about 2,000 homeowners who were clearly behind in repaying their loans.

In an interview, Mr. Frank said that Republicans, including the president, understood that the government-sponsored lenders were playing an increasingly vital role in the stability of the economy and that they were now anxious to tighten regulation.

“Don’t underestimate the importance” of changes affecting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, he said.

As for the Senate, Mr. Frank said: “I am not going to guess.”

Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and chairman of the banking committee, had been hoping to complete work next Tuesday on a bill that would incorporate the broad expansion of federally insured loans sought by Democrats with a Senate version of the legislation sought by the Bush administration. But aides said a committee vote would be delayed to at least Thursday or perhaps the following week.

In a statement on Thursday, Mr. Dodd said he hoped to reach a deal, even as some Senate Republicans said they remained uncertain.

“Our top priority right now should be helping people keep their homes,” Mr. Dodd said, praising the House committee’s vote. “This is another step in the right direction.”

He added: “I am committed to working on bipartisan legislation with my colleagues in the Senate banking committee to reduce foreclosures and restore liquidity to the mortgage market.”

A spokesman for Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the senior Republican on the banking committee, declined to comment.

Republican support for the Democrats’ plan has waned in recent days. Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida and a member of the banking committee, who had previously advocated aggressive government action to stem foreclosures, this week said that he supported the more measured response favored by President Bush. Florida is one of the states hit hardest by foreclosures.

Mortgage Meltdown: Reality vs. Sound Bites

CLINTON — MCCAIN FORECLOSURE FREEZE GETS COLD SHOULDER BUT SOUNDS GOOD

Well here is a version (SEE ARTICLE BELOW) of what we have been pushing for months —- changing the terms of the mortgages so that the homeowner can stay in the house and the mortgage can be modified, sold or recast for capital accounting. This is a lot more sophisticated than the “mortgage freeze” proposed by Clinton and McCain and it is working already so we can’t dispute the success.

• The problem with a “mortgage foreclosure freeze” is that it is a sound bite that doesn’t really mean anything — like the gas tax holiday. It doesn’t address any of the problems but it gives rise to the illusion that the homeonwer is getting some relief.
• The problem for Obama is that he sounds like he is against providing relief because he understands the nuances of how to get that relief — without pandering for votes. People don’t like nuance and don’t have the time for complex answers. So they vote against themselves based on sound bites, hoping gas prices will go down (they won’t) and that their house will be saved by just doing one thing like a freeze on foreclosures that lasts ninety days (that won’t work either).

There is no Clinton-McCain plan for relief because no order, legislation or rule is pending that will freeze anything and nothing is pending. Hillary and John are just blathering. They haven’t ACTUALLY proposed the plan by introducing a bill on the Senate floor. The plan of these pandering politicians is get elected (the people be damned): the method is to make use of time-honored sound bites that consist of misleading statements and outright lies. The truth is that neither McCain nor Clinton has a clue about gas prices or mortgages.

Although this trading of mortgage obligations is obviously providing some relief, it doesn’t address the root cause of the mortgage meltdown. And much as I don’t care for the people or their methods who perpetrated this fraud on the world, there is no REAL solution unless some value is restored to the balance sheet of financial institutions and investors who purchased the collateralized mortgage obligations. Thus combining attributes of this plan with a more comprehensive plan to restore the capital reserves of financial institutions and investors would be preferable.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

HOUSING

Investors move in to save broken mortgages

Homeowners who owe more than their property is worth are offered new terms.

By E. Scott Reckard
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

May 1, 2008

Jared Lanning, struggling to pay a home loan on which he owed more than his house was worth, was thinking he might just let the lender take back the property. Then he got a call one evening from an Orange County investor who had bought his mortgage.

“I want out of your loan,” said the investor, Evan Gentry, chief executive of G8 Capital of Ladera Ranch, who offered to lower the balance and the interest rate.

Lanning, a crane operator in Englewood, Colo., was skeptical. A phone pitch, after all, had led to his getting the unaffordable loan in the first place. But Gentry was legit: He helped Lanning get a new Federal Housing Administration-insured mortgage — with a $12,000 lower balance. Gentry also paid $5,000 in closing costs for the new loan. Lanning’s new monthly payment is $200 less than before.

Investors — including big fish like former Countrywide Financial Corp. President Stanford Kurland as well as smaller fry like Gentry — are buying loans on the cheap from lenders who want them off their books. By paying less than face value for the mortgages, the new holders can modify loan terms, including shrinking the amount owed, and still make money.

With some economists projecting 2 million foreclosures this year, legislators and regulators are hoping to encourage wide use of this model. They want lenders and investors in mortgage bonds to mark down what borrowers owe and then provide them with lower-cost loans. It’s a tricky business: No one wants to be seen as bailing out speculative buyers or imprudent lenders, but they also don’t want mass foreclosures to devastate neighborhoods and the economy.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. described the problem Wednesday as “a self-reinforcing cycle of default, foreclosure, home price declines and mortgage credit contraction, the likes of which we have not experienced since the 1930s.” The agency is proposing that the government lend $50 billion to 1 million borrowers to help them replace unaffordable loans.

Sub-prime mortgages with interest rates ratcheting higher have proved less of a problem than once feared, because interest rates overall have dropped. But a “toxic combination” of falling home prices and borrowers who can’t afford even the initial low rates on adjustable loans is now the issue, FDIC Chairwoman Sheila C. Bair said in an interview this week.

“Many more borrowers are under water,” she said. “And many more are just walking away.”

Many people bought homes with nothing-down loans at the peak of the housing boom — 29% of all buyers in 2007 made no down payments, Treasury Secretary Henry S. Paulson Jr. said recently. Others have sucked all their equity out of their properties with refinancings.

According to Moody’s Economy.com, some 8.8 million Americans — more than 10% of all homeowners — owe more than their houses are worth, although a Mortgage Bankers Assn. economist contended the figure was lower, perhaps 8%. In any case, there is wide agreement that many of those troubled borrowers have proved surprisingly ready to abandon their properties, even when lenders offer to modify their loan terms as they were encouraged to do by the Bush administration.

“We are working with borrowers to keep them in their homes, but a lot of them really don’t want to stay,” said Babette Heimbuch, chairwoman of FirstFed Financial Corp. of Los Angeles, a savings and loan operator that specialized in adjustable-rate mortgages, including many that were made without full documentation of borrowers’ incomes.

FirstFed has about $6.3 billion in loans on its books. It said that $667 million of that balance, more than 10%, was delinquent or in foreclosure as of March 31, up from just $46 million a year earlier. FirstFed said Wednesday that it lost $69.8 million, or $5.11 a share, during the first quarter this year compared with a profit of $8.4 million, or 61 cents, a year earlier. It set aside $150.3 million for loan losses during the quarter, up from $3.8 million during the first quarter of 2007.

Because FirstFed kept most of its loans on its books rather than selling them, it should have been easier for the company to work with borrowers to modify the loans. Heimbuch said FirstFed forecloses only after analyzing 10 other options to offer the borrower, including lowering the interest rate; changing to a five-year, fixed-rate loan requiring payment of interest only; and writing down the loan balance.

Still, she said, up to 50% of borrowers who miss payments don’t respond to letters and repeated telephone calls to see if something can be worked out.

Some customers had acquired second mortgages and couldn’t make new arrangements with the other lender, she said. “I think some know they told us the wrong income and are afraid to come clean, though we would still work with them . . . to keep them in their homes if possible.”

For struggling borrowers, it’s a big mistake not to return such calls these days, said Gus A. Altazurra, a veteran mortgage executive who recently raised $10 million from private investors to buy and modify loans for which homeowners are still making payments.

“They’re probably going to help you, given the current situation,” said Altazurra, whose Irvine-based Vertical Fund Group has been negotiating with lenders of all sizes to buy loans. He said “a flood” of mortgages went up for sale in April after lenders closed their books on a horrendous first quarter.

Altazurra, who has paid as little as 31 cents on the dollar for some loans, said the terms of some mortgages made at the peak of the boom were hard to believe. One loan he bought from a Texas bank was to a borrower with a very low credit score — 484 — who refinanced and cashed out 100% of the equity in the property, he said.

Gentry, the other Orange County loan buyer, said he had obtained commitments from investors to provide $100 million in capital for workouts on loans that have stopped paying, current loans that can no longer be sold and foreclosed properties. He has bought nearly $50 million in mortgages and property so far.

Gentry purchased Lanning’s loan in a pool of mortgages from a San Diego lender that was going out of business. He said that on average his private venture was paying 70 cents to 80 cents on the dollar for loans like Lanning’s that were still current, and “less if the loans are nonperforming.”

Lanning had no home equity left — and thus had little incentive to keep sacrificing to make payments — before he got the smaller, cheaper FHA loan. Now his outlook has changed.

“We can’t do anything frivolous now,” he said. “But if we do it right, we have enough. That other loan was just pushing us over the top.”

Mortgage Meltdown: Cries for Help

Dear Sir/Madam,
 
I need an attorney who will fight for me, would you watch my short documentary video on the predatory lending that I fell victim to. If you can assist me in any area of the subject matter, I would greatly appreciate it time is very short for me.  
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCsRr61qZJQ
 
Thanks in advance,
Ernie Paul Young
5573 Burr Hill Rd 
Rhoadesville, Va 22542
Cell 540-308-5894

Mortgage Meltdown: New Regulation?

It is startling to see how little anyone knows about the mess we are in. First they don’t understand how bad this is going to get. Second they don’t understand how it happened because they don’t understand the financial system. And third, they have no clue how to prevent this from happening again. They don’t even realize that it has happened before several times right here in this country. 

The Country, the States and even the Counties and cities are more or less organized around the concept of bicameral legislatures, with checks and balances from the executive and judicial branches of government.

In all of those governmental entities there is not one person who has the knowledge or the authority or the accountability for the Mortgage Meltdown. It is impossible to imagine any smart regulation coming out of our current approach, so the inevitable conclusion is that the Mortgage Meltdown, the dot com meltdown, etc., will all happen again. The players will change but the game is the same.

So the first thing is to throw out all the proposals for future regulations or simply accept the fact that they won”t perform the basic purpose of government: to preserve society and protect the citizens from harm. 

Let’s get specific about the mortgage meltdown: it happenned because the private sector was able to create the equivalent of money using investor cash under false pretenses. It also happened because the participants were able to do it without perceiving any risks or negative consequences to themselves.

While you might say that the mortgage meltdown has had plenty of negative consequences to the financail institutions and intermediaries who participated in this fraud, the fact is that very few of the decision-makers have suffered any negative outcome. They walked away with bonuses and golden parachutes. People who worked for them suffered loss of jobs and themselves are in difficult financial straits, but not the real decision-makers (the movers and shakers).

If you want this scenario to stop (yes it is still happening) then three things must be true:

1. Full disclosure to government must be filed with a governmental agency on any program that involves a loan. Visa and MasterCard require every card issuance program to be individually approved. If they understand this simple concept, certainly government can learn something from the private sector. No lender should be able to act as a pure conduit for a loan without losing their status as a financial institution. If that is what they want to do, they are a broker not a lender. Every lender should have risk or they should not get paid a dime and the borrower should be told that the lender has no interest in the loan other than getting the borrower’s signature so that the lender can make a profit. If the fair market value of the house is stated incorrectly then all parties who had knowledge, despite plausible deniability, should be accountable for the difference.

2. The risk of imperfect disclosure and failure to perform in accordance with the fiduciary duties of a lender should be substantial and obvious and should be felt by the decision-makers. The same holds true for the seller of securitized products to investors. The simple test is this: if the borrower or investor knew what the lender or securities seller knew, would they have done the deal? If not, the full loss should fall on the companies and individuals who created these flawed programs.

3. Securitization of loans is not a good thing unless the investor fully understands the security he or she is buying. Allowing plausible deniability through reliance on rating agencies and insurers will always leave the investors holding an empty bag. The sellers, the rating agencies and the insurers should be required to file in the public record everything they know about the security and what they did to assure themselves that the facts were true. Later, if the deal falls apart, investors have defendants who are in clear violation of their duties and government has a clear case for prosecution.

 

Mortgage Meltdown COntinues, Getting Worse

• Somehow, the housing trouble has to at least flatten out. As long as that is going on, I think the pressure on the credit system is going to persist. It is kind of the leading indicator. It is where the trouble started. We have to underpin the consumer. That is why this is different. That is why this is like nothing we have had before.

Here is a man who has “seen it all” and who doesn’t like what he sees. Echoing our continuous please for creating an atmosphere of safety or “amnesty”, Bernstein sees a long haul without much lift unless we address the etnire spectrum of risk-taking. Confidence levels are so low that it hard to imagine, each month, that they could go lower. But they they keep sinking. Bernstein’s vision is one of reality, encouraging us to “snap out of it” and hope, if we get our act together without tripping over ideological differences. 

One Guy Who Has Seen It All 
Doesn’t Like What He Sees Now

By E.S. BROWNING

April 26, 2008; Page B1

Peter Bernstein has witnessed just about every financial crisis of the past century.

As a boy, he watched his father, a money manager, navigate the Depression. As a financial manager, consultant and financial historian, he personally dealt with the recession of 1958, the bear markets of the 1970s, the 1987 crash, the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s and the 2000-2002 bear market that followed the tech-stock bubble.

 

One of Peter Bernstein’s worries: ‘If China goes into a recession, God knows.’

Today’s trouble, the 89-year-old Mr. Bernstein says, is worse than he has seen since the Depression and threatens to roil markets into 2009 and beyond — longer than many people expect.

Mr. Bernstein, whose books include “Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk,” sees two culprits. One is the abuse of securitization — the trend for banks to hold fewer loans on their books and instead turn them into securities that were sold to other investors. The other is simply years of overborrowing by financial institutions and consumers alike.

Mr. Bernstein is hopeful that Federal Reserve intervention will prevent deflation and depression, but he says there is no guarantee.

Excerpts of a recent interview:

WSJ: Aside from securitization, what were the main causes of the problem?

Mr. Bernstein: You don’t get into a mess without too much borrowing. It was sparked primarily by the hedge funds, which were both unregulated by government and in many ways unregulated by their owners, who gave their managers a very broad set of marching orders. It was a real delusion. It was like [former New York Gov. Eliot] Spitzer: “I am doing something dangerous, but because of who I am, and how smart I am, it is not going to come back to haunt me.”

When you think about how all of this will work out in the long run, we are going to have an extremely risk-averse economy for a long time. The lesson has painfully been learned. That’s part of the problem going forward. You don’t have a high-growth exit from this, as you’ve had from other kinds of crises. We won’t have a powerful start, where the business cycle looks like a V. Here, the shape of the business cycle is like an L, where it goes down and doesn’t turn up. Or like a U, a flat U. The reason for that is that people aren’t going to get caught in this bind again. They will tell themselves, “I’m too smart to do that again.” And everyone else is going to be saying the same thing. It is, in fact, going to be a wonderful environment in which to take risk, because there aren’t going to be any excesses.

I’m a child of the Depression, and I am thinking about what the early years were like after World War II. It took a very long time to get the memory of the Depression out of business decisions, and certainly banking decisions. I think this is going to be the same. The Fed, too, is going to be less decisive and is going to feel that what it should do is less clear. One of the things that gave people a sense that they could afford to take risks was the sense that the central bankers more or less know what they are doing. But I don’t think we are going to feel that way going forward.

WSJ: You said that it could turn out that the smart thing to do is to take more risk, because everyone will be so risk-averse. What kinds of investments do you see as the big winners coming out of this?

Mr. Bernstein: You could say: the things that have been beaten down the most, which would be real estate. But I think real estate is going to be under a cloud for so long, and you can’t buy real estate with cash, it is too much money. I think you should go with the stock market. If things are better, the stock market will go up, and if things are awful, the stock market is going to be way down. But it is a place where, if you want to take risks, you’ve got a wide range of choices. This is why I own stocks [in addition to other investments], because I don’t know where the bottom is going to come, and I want to be exposed to every kind of possibility I can think of. And, at least, if you pick the stock market and you are wrong, you can change your mind. There is some liquidity there. Stocks never became cheap, but they didn’t become crazy, the way other assets were.

WSJ: How long do you think this whole process will take, before we get back to normal?

Mr. Bernstein: Longer than people think. The people who think we will have turned in 2009 are wrong. There has to be a respite along the way. Nothing goes in one direction forever. But it will take longer than people think. If that weren’t the case, I would be talking entirely differently. I would be saying, “What an opportunity we have got.” And I just can’t believe that the opportunity is here yet. There is too much to unwind.

WSJ: Can you explain the reason you think it will take a long time?

Mr. Bernstein: We have to go back to a moment when people have the courage to borrow and lenders have the courage to lend. Until credit is going up instead of down, you can’t have growth. Housing has got to be a very important part of that; it always has been. You have to reach a point where somebody says, “This house is cheap, I am going to buy it,” or where some businessman says, “This is a great opportunity for us to expand our business. Everything is available to us.”

If China goes into a recession, God knows. The Iraq war and the whole situation with terrorism, we really don’t know where that is going to come out. There are so many things that have got to get buttoned down before you say that the future looks good enough to take a risk.

WSJ: What kind of indications are you looking for as signs that the economy is about to get better and that the stock market and the investment world are about to turn the corner?

Mr. Bernstein: Somehow, the housing trouble has to at least flatten out. As long as that is going on, I think the pressure on the credit system is going to persist. It is kind of the leading indicator. It is where the trouble started. We have to underpin the consumer. That is why this is different. That is why this is like nothing we have had before.

Before, it was investment that made the V at the bottom of the business cycle. I don’t see real investment turning enough without some sign from the consumer side. Maybe the foreign countries will do it for us. That is a substitute for consumption here. Maybe. But I think that they won’t do enough for us, and maybe will be too infected by us to do it. But maybe growth in Asia will help us. The Asian thing is tremendously exciting.

RELATED ARTICLES FROM ACROSS THE WEB

Related Articles from WSJ.com

•  Recession? Think Stocks for Recovery  Apr. 07, 2008

•  U.S. Stocks Are Doing Better Than Most  Mar. 30, 2008

•  China Takes Steps To Ease Transfer Of Funds Overseas  Mar. 20, 2008

•  Commentary: The Weekend Interview  Mar. 15, 2008

Related Web News

•  What Warren thinks… – Apr. 14, 2008  Apr. 14, 2008  money.cnn.com

More related content Powered by Sphere 

New Politics for Moral Constipation

I would give credit for the term “moral constipation” but I can’t remember where I heard it. I invite all who read this to give me the creator’s name so I can correct this blog and give him the attribution he deserves. 

It appears that we can all agree on one thing regardless of which candidate, party or ideology we subscribe to — The United States of America is on a path of moral bankruptcy, where ethical concerns and choices between right and wrong have been shoved off the table and instead convenience and self-aggrandizement is accepted by “we the people” with far more tolerance than is acceptable to me.

There is practically nothing so dear to me as my own opinion of my own intelligence. And yet I am dumfounded by the lack of outrage as corporate America and Government join hands in our pockets, in our lives, in our families, and in our minds. Protests erupt about the Olympic flame — but where is the outrage, the “I’m mad as hell and I won’t take it anymore” about the following:

1. Diesel fuel is $4 per gallon here but across the border in Mexico it is $2. Anyone care?
2. Real inflation for the Average American is in excess of 15% and climbing. Anyone interested?
3. Exxon made $11 billion last quarter. The rest of us made less at the end of the month because the money went to Exxon. Is there any connection between that fact and the Presence of an Oil man in the White House/ How about a vice President that headed up the very company that profited the most from the Iraq war? Is this so boring that MSM should be ignoring it just because nobody seems to want to anything about it?
4. By 2009, 1 person in 10 will be on food stamps in the United States. Shouldn’t that be interesting to both sides of the “Aisle?”
5. The average person in the United States is in debt on credit cards and other consumer and real estate loans in an amount that they can never repay, whereas no other modern country has that problem. Why?
6. Interest on debt accounts for more expenditure by government and individuals than anything else in the United States. Trillions of dollars of transfered wealth from those who now can’t eat to those who don’t know what to do with the money. What is being done about interests rates that guarantee non-payment and assure financial enslavement? (By the way medical care is second is now touted to be the “employer of last resort”).
7. Houses were appraised at $500,000 and within days were revealed to have values of less than 70% of that. People were prompted, tricked and coerced into signing mortgage documents they didn’t understand, in violation of law (not that anyone has been prosecuted), and now the borrowers are blamed for a scheme they still don’t understand. Now millions of American citizens are or will be broke, homeless and jobless. We know who did it and how it happened but MSM doesn’t care about that.
8. All of MSM (Main Street Media) is now controlled by a handful of people who let us hear only the things they want us to hear and only in the ways they want us to hear it. If you want news, go to the Internet, if you want infotainment watch TV or listen to radio. 
9. How many flag draped coffins can be hidden from view to keep the Iraq war “sanitary” and keep the public distanced from the gruesome reality of war, death, disfigurement, famine, disease and moral decrepitude? And why is MSM going along with  the ban on pictures of coffins? Isn’t the death of young loved members of families who made the ultimate sacrifice worth reporting?
10. How many veterans need to be homeless and wandering through the streets with head injuries before we think to ourselves “you know, there is something not quite right about this.”
11. We have outsourced the most sensitive manufacturing of top secret defense components to China which just happens to be the only real military threat to our national security. And we have financed their military expansion by encouraging their economic growth to the point where they now have a  stranglehold on our country — they own most of our debt, they manufacture most of our goods, they process most of our food, and they are the most prolific source of spying in the United States. Thus whatever they don’t get legally, they get illegally. 
12. MSM (main Street Media) has virtually eliminated their staff of reporters, because they get everything off the newswires and they make up the rest. Most of the time spent on “news” channels consists of opinions about gossip. Interesting, perhaps, but useless for those of us who would like to evaluate our options on voting on issues and candidates.
13. It is illegal to counterfeit money unless you are a foreign country (North Korea for example) or you are a Wall Street investment banking firm that creates money supply by calling them “derivatives, collateralized debt obligations” and such. Between North Korea’s supernote and and the $500 trillion (yes with a “T”) in derivatives, credit swaps etc. out there it can be no surprise that no government can control the effects on world monetary supply —- that has been outsourced to the private sector as well. 
14. MSM (Main Street Media) now presents us with pretty faces, some nice looking legs, a tempting bust line, and a teleprompter written by people who have not researched the validity of the reports in 10 years.
15. Prescription medications are “so dangerous” that you can’t get them without seeing a doctor, but they are advertised directly to consumers. Is this what we want our children to hear and see? You can get a Bud Lite or a Absolute martini without a doctor’s prescription and drink all you want. It’s only when you kill or main people with your driving or other physical abuse that you are held accountable. 
16. MSM (Main Stream Media) provides us with pundits and moderators who are undereducated, and inculcated with the sole core value of saying something that will increase the ratings and thus revenues of the media in which their comments appear. 
17. Prescription medications cost $20 per pill here and as little as $0.50 in other countries easily accessible from the U.S.
18. The total expenditures for medical care, drugs, products and associated services is around 2-3 times the amount spent by any other country or group of countries. The average U.S. Citizen is in constant danger of dying for lack of medical care because he/she is probably not covered entirely for the medical event, because he/she was never given a preventative regimen that is regularly followed in other countries, or because they are simply barred from access to medical system. 
19. Despite the amount we spend per person, we get less care, and suffer from shorter longevity, higher infant mortality, shorter height, than at least a dozen other countries and sometimes as high as 40 other countries depending upon which metric you are interested in. To say we lost our “lead” is not the point. 
20. The average person educated in the U.S. has slipped from 1st in world ranking to around 20th. Does that bother anyone?
21. Bullying has spread through every school, public and private and is spreading into the marketplace. Hello? Anyone there?
22. We have lost our way. We worship money in all its forms more than we worship God. Every day we perform acts that involve our worship, use and belief in money. Most of us spend at best one day per week for a couple hours worshipping God.
23. MSM (Main Street Media) thrives on conflict over minutia (bullets in Bosnia, a flag pin probably made with lead in China, and statements of “associates” that are made into controversial “positions”) rather than actual issues and characteristics about the candidates themselves. We allow this by talking about that the pundits tell us to talk about. And what we talk about causes us to vote against our own interests.  
24. When we tried importing from China and India the prescription drugs at a fraction of the cost that the drug companies were charging us, the government stepped in and said it was unsafe and  could result in tainted drugs. Now the drug companies have eliminated American jobs and outsourced the manufacture of the drugs to where? — India and China — and we have what — tainted, deadly drugs of dubious value to begin with and with side effects that include anal leakage and death. 
25. How many times do we need to hear that pharmaceutical companies spend $5,000 on every man or woman doctor in the U.S. to push their stuff before we make THAT an issue?
26. The war on drugs is making a fortune for people on both sides of the law, including the privatization of prisons and huge profits from private ownership of prisons, 75% of the inmates of which are there because of minor drug charges. There is no war on drug use and there is no war on drug supply. That is why we have drugs in America.
27. How many times do we need to be disappointed in a politician, whom we knew was taking money from the medical- pharma complex, insurance companies, oil companies and credit card companies? What makes us vote for these people?
28. Where is MSM “keeping them honest” by reporting discrepancies between promises and action?
29. How many dogs need to die before we accept that they are the canary in the mine shaft and that the rest of us are just as much at risk because the tainted, poisoned food is all coming from the same place now?

I could go on, but I invite you to add your own comments to the list. And while you are at it, why not answer this question: What specifically are you going to say to your friends and family about these issues and how will you vote?

Mortgage Meltdown: Central Bankers Miss Reality

 

EDITOR’S NOTE: As long as Central banks focus on the currency instead of the cause, these measures will at best delay an inevitable collapse. At the core of the problem is that unless people are kept in their homes, trillions of dollars of assets will fail. This is NOT an inevitable consequence. Plans abound to keep people in their homes, provide a foundation for recovery of these assets, and stabilize currency and the credit markets. It is much simpler than what they are making it. The only inevitable consequence is that if central bankers maintain their current course, the ripples will spread to doubt about the more than $500 trillion in Global derivative securities, many of which are solid.

 

CURRENCIES

Dollar under pressure after Bank of America misses

Pound pressured as Bank of England details swap plan

By William L. Watts, MarketWatch

Last update: 11:19 a.m. EDT April 21, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — The dollar extended losses against most major counterparts Monday, after Bank of America Corp.’s earnings shortfall reminded investors that the U.S. financial sector is not out of the woods yet.

Bank of America Corp.’s first-quarter profit fell 77% as credit-loss provisions jumped $4.78 billion, driven by weakness in home-equity loans as well as credit extended to small businesses and home builders. See full story.

Hawkish comments from European Central Bank Governing Council member Axel Weber also supported the euro. Weber reportedly said inflation is likely to remain elevated and suggested the ECB might have to hike rates.

“Hawkish ECB rhetoric has underpinned the euro of late, though with the pairing so far unable to post new record highs, and the market seen as a bit overextended on the long side of the ledger currently, downside potential may be on the rise in the near term,” wrote currency analysts at Action Economics.

The dollar bought 103.25 yen, down from 103.47 yen in London earlier Monday, and the euro was at $1.5915, up from $1.5864. See real-time currency prices.

The dollar index, which tracks the greenback against a basket of six major currencies, was at 71.650, down 0.5%.

But the British pound sterling was under pressure itself, after the Bank of England announced details of a plan to let commercial banks use mortgage-backed securities as collateral for loans in an effort to thaw frozen credit markets. The pound was last trading at $1.9808, down from $1.9825 in London earlier Monday.

The pound fell prey to profit-taking, after the Bank of England announced details of a plan to let commercial banks use mortgage-backed securities as collateral for loans in an effort to thaw frozen credit markets.

If the effort manages to unclog credit markets it would presumably remove some of the impetus for aggressive cuts in response to tightening credit conditions, said Trevor Williams, chief economist at Lloyds TSB.

Commercial banks can tap the Bank of England over the next six months for around 50 billion pounds ($99.85 billion) in Treasury bills by swapping AAA-rated mortgage-backed securities. The swaps are set to last a year and can be renewed for up to three years. See full story.

Strategists said profit-taking pressures in the wake of the BOE announcement contributed to sterling’s softer tone.

The currency was buoyed late last week in anticipation of the program, briefly re-touching the $2 level against the greenback while sending the euro back below 80 pence after the single currency notched new all-time highs above that level.

Meanwhile, another house price index showed further weakness in the U.K. housing market. Rightmove said annual house price inflation, without seasonal adjustments, slowed to 1.3% in April from 5%, the slowest pace since July 2005.

The dollar was also buoyed late last week as equity markets gained ground after massive first-quarter losses by U.S. banking giants Citibank and Merrill Lynch weren’t any worse than expected, strategists said.

Still, the euro found support against the dollar after slipping into the low $1.57 area Friday, noted economists at KBC Bank. And the hawkish tone maintained by European Central Bank officials in the face of surging inflation pressures is likely to continue to make traders reluctant to press the dollar lower, they said, while a break above $1.60 will be difficult to achieve without help from weak economic data or another round of bad news from the credit markets. 

William L. Watts is a reporter for MarketWatch in London.