Archive for ‘Economy’

February 9, 2012

Mortgage Plan Gives Homeowners Bulk of the Benefits

Click on the link to get more news and video from original source: 
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/business/states-negotiate-26-billion-agreement-for-homeowners.html

By and

Published: February 9, 2012

After months of painstaking talks, government authorities and five of the nation’s biggest banks have agreed to a $26 billion settlement that could provide relief to nearly two million current and former American homeowners harmed by the bursting of the housing bubble, state and federal officials said in Washington on Thursday.

It is part of a broad national settlement aimed at halting the housing market’s downward slide and holding the banks accountable for foreclosure abuses.

Under the plan, federal officials said, about $5 billion would be cash payments to states and federal authorities, $17 billion would be earmarked for homeowner relief, roughly $3 billion would go for refinancing and a final $1 billion would be paid to the Federal Housing Administration.

If nine other major mortgage servicers join the pact, a possibility that is now under discussion with the government, the total package could rise to $30 billion.

Because of a complicated formula being used to distribute the money, federal officials say the ultimate benefits provided to homeowners could equal a larger sum — $45 billion in the event all 14 major servicers participate. The aid is to be distributed over three years, but there are incentives for banks to provide the money in the next 12 months.

More than just an attempt to aid consumers and stabilize the housing market, administration officials cast the settlement as an effort to finally hold banks accountable for their misdeeds, more than three years after the mortgage meltdown brought on a full-scale financial crisis.

The deal announced Thursday is about “righting the wrongs that led to the housing market collapse,” said Eric H. Holder Jr., the attorney general. “With this settlement, we recover precious taxpayer resources, fix a broken system and lay a groundwork for a better future.”

Financial shares were mixed after the announcement, but several analysts said they considered the settlement to be good news because it removed one cloud hanging over the industry. They also said the five mortgage servicers in the agreement — Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial — had already set aside most of the money.

Bank of America, which will pay the most as the nation’s biggest mortgage servicer, actually rose 1 percent in afternoon trading after a 4 percent gain Wednesday.

“I wouldn’t say it’s a panacea for the housing industry, but it is good for the banks to get this behind them,” said Jason Goldberg, an analyst with Barclays.

The amounts from individual banks were linked to their share of the servicing market. The biggest, Bank of America, would provide $11.8 billion, followed by $5.4 billion from Wells Fargo, $5.3 billion from JPMorgan Chase, $2.2 billion from Citigroup and $310 million from Ally. Bank of America would contribute an additional $1 billion for F.H.A. loans.

Despite the billions earmarked in the accord, the aid will help a relatively small portion of the millions of borrowers who are delinquent and facing foreclosure. The success could depend in part on how effectively the program is carried out because earlier efforts by Washington aimed at troubled borrowers helped far fewer than had been expected.

Still, the agreement is the broadest effort yet to help borrowers owing more than their houses are worth, with roughly one million expected to have their mortgage debt reduced by lenders or able to refinance their homes at lower rates. Another 750,000 people who lost their homes to foreclosure from January 2008 to the end of 2011 will receive checks for about $2,000.

The deal grew out of an investigation into mortgage servicing by all 50 state attorneys general that was introduced in the fall of 2010 amid an uproar over revelations that banks evicted people with false or incomplete documentation.

In the 14 months since then, the scope of the accord has widened from an examination of foreclosure abuses to a broad effort to lift the housing market out of its biggest slump since the Great Depression. Four million Americans have been foreclosed upon since the beginning of 2007, and the huge overhang of abandoned homes has swamped many regions, like California, Florida and Arizona.

In New York State, more than 46,000 borrowers will receive some form of benefit from the settlement, including an estimated 21,000 who are expected to owe less because their principal will be reduced, according to estimates by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Other multimillion-dollar settlements were announced on Thursday in connection with the years-long mortgage and foreclosure crisis:

¶ A mortgage servicing subsidiary of Bank of America agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it illegally assessed more than $36 million worth of fees against struggling homeowners, in violation of an earlier settlement with the F.T.C.

¶ Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo also agreed to pay a penalty of $394 million as part of a settlement over foreclosure abuses, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency said.

As more and more states signed on to the $26 billion settlement this week, the negotiations with the banks became especially intense, said one participant, who wasn’t authorized to speak publicly. Two bank officials, Frank Bisignano of JPMorgan Chase and Mike Heid of Wells Fargo, played a critical role in the talks with Shaun Donovan, the secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and Thomas J. Perrelli, the associate attorney general at the Justice Department. Bank of America, facing the largest payout, moved more cautiously, the participant said.

The settlement money will be doled out under a formula that gives banks varying degrees of credit for different kinds of help. As a result, banks are incentivized to help harder-hit borrowers with homes worth far less than what they owe.

Mortgages owned by the government’s housing finance agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, will not be covered under the deal, excluding about half the nation’s mortgages.

About one in five Americans with mortgages are underwater, which means they owe more than their home is worth. Collectively, their negative equity is almost $700 billion. On average, these homeowners are underwater by $50,000 each.

A recent estimate from the settlement negotiations put the average aid for homeowners at $20,000.

“I just don’t think it’s going to be a life-changing event for borrowers,” said Gus Altuzarra, whose company, the Vertical Capital Markets Group, buys loans from banks at a discount.

Several billion dollars would cover the direct cash payments to foreclosure victims and provide money for states’ attorneys general to services like mortgage counseling and future investigations into mortgage fraud.

Though many economists identify the moribund housing market as the greatest drag on the recovery, it is not clear how much the settlement will help.

Christopher J. Mayer, a housing expert at Columbia Business School, said the accord could give banks more certainty that they can clear their large backloads of seized homes, restoring the flow of those homes into the market.

“It may be good for individual homeowners, but if you don’t do something to help the foreclosure process, it’s not going to help the housing market,” he said.

Mark Zandi, the chief economist for Moody’s Analytics, said that while the settlement looked small compared with the scope of the problem, it was not necessary to erase all, or even most, of the nation’s negative equity to turn the market around.

About a third of houses on the market now are distressed, or have been through foreclosure, he said, and reducing that percentage by just a small amount could be enough to put a floor under housing prices.

More than the dollar figures, the settlement had been held up amid concern by New York’s attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, that it provided too broad of a release for banks for past misdeeds, making future investigations much more difficult.

Mr. Schneiderman was able to win significant concessions from the banks in recent days.

In the agreement’s expected final form, the releases are mostly limited to the foreclosure process, like the eviction of homeowners after only a cursory examination of documents, a practice known as robo-signing.

The prosecutors and regulators still have the right to investigate other elements that contributed to the housing bubble, like the assembly of risky mortgages into securities that were sold to investors and later soured, as well as insurance and tax fraud.

Officials will also be able to pursue any allegations of criminal wrongdoing. In addition, a lawsuit Mr. Schneiderman filed Friday against MERS, an electronic mortgage registry responsible for much of the robo-signing that has marred the foreclosure process nationwide, and three banks, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo, will also go forward.

Along with how broad the releases would be, California’s attorney general, Kamala Harris, also pushed for her state to be able to use the state’s False Claims Act. That would enable state officials and huge pension funds like Calpers to collect sizable monetary damages from the banks if officials could prove mortgages were improperly packaged into securities that later dropped in value.

February 9, 2012

What the Pact Means for US Homeowners

Click on the link to get more news and video from original source: 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204642604577213032296123026.html

By RUTH SIMON

The $25 billion foreclosure settlement unveiled Thursday is expected to help many borrowers who are struggling to make their loan payments, owe more than their homes are worth or have lost their homes to foreclosure.

But the rules of the deal are complicated and banks have three years to meet their obligations.

The questions and answers below should help borrowers figure out if they qualify for help and what to expect from the process.

Who does the settlement cover?
The settlement covers borrowers who have loans that are serviced by one of the five big banks: Ally Financial Inc./GMAC Mortgage, Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co. These banks handle payments on 55% of U.S. mortgages, according to Inside Mortgage Finance.

My mortgage is with one of these banks. How do I know if I qualify for help?
It’s going to take some time to figure that out because the settlement has so many wrinkles. One group who will be excluded: borrowers from Oklahoma. They won’t be eligible for relief because the state’s attorney general opted not to join the deal.

What if my loan isn’t with one of the banks?
For now, the settlement covers only the five big banks. Government officials hope to strike a similar deal with nine additional banks.

How long is it going to take for me to get help?
Government officials advise borrowers to be patient. Over the next 30 to 60 days, settlement negotiators will pick an administrator to handle the logistics of the deal. Over the next six to nine months, the administrator, attorneys general and mortgage servicers will work to identify which borrowers get help. Servicers expect to begin reaching out to borrowers in the coming weeks, but they have three years to provide the required help.

How will I find out if I qualify?
Borrowers will get letters from their mortgage company. Each of the five servicers also has a website and a toll-free number for borrowers to get more information. Government officials are encouraging borrowers to contact their mortgage company to see if they qualify for aid.

Here are the links for each servicer:

Ally/GMAC

https://www.gmacmortgage.com/finform/hhstart.htm

800-766-4622

Bank of America

http://homeloanhelp.bankofamerica.com/en/index.html?cm_sp=CRE-Mortgage-Refi-_-Home%20Loan%20Assistance%20Q3-_-MR16000S_marketing%20strip_%20ooo-123_hp_lahUmbrella-o

877-488-7814 (Available Monday to Friday from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Central time, and Saturdays from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Central time)

Citigroup

https://www.citimortgage.com/Mortgage/displayHomeOwnerAssistance.do?page=overview
866-272-4749

J.P. Morgan Chase

https://www.chase.com/chf/mortgage/keeping-your-home
866-372-6901

Wells Fargo

https://www.wellsfargo.com/homeassist/

800-288-3212 (Available M-F 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. CST)

What are the rules for the principal reduction program?
To qualify for a principal reduction, borrowers have to clear several hurdles. For one thing, borrowers have to be behind on their payments or at “imminent risk” of default. The owner of your loan also makes a difference. Most of the principal reductions are expected to go to borrowers whose loans are owned by the banks, though some borrowers whose loans were packaged into securities may also qualify. The settlement calls for principal reductions on both first and second mortgages.

The deal doesn’t cover loans owned or backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, the government-controlled mortgage companies.

You can go to these websites to find out if you have a Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac loan:


http://www.fanniemae.com/loanlookup


http://www.freddiemac.com/mymortgage

What about the refinance program?
The refinance program applies only to loans owned by the banks. Also, borrowers have to be current on their loan payments and owe more than their home is worth.

I’ve already lost my home to foreclosure. Can I get any help?
Borrowers who were foreclosed on between 2008 and 2011 are eligible for cash payments. The amount of the payment will depend on how many people file claims, but is expected to be around $1,500 to $2,000.

How do I file a claim?
The settlement administrator will mail notices to eligible borrowers once the process is up and running. Borrowers will have to fill out a simple form, but won’t have to prove they were foreclosed on and shouldn’t have been. Borrowers who are concerned they will be hard to locate can also contact their state attorney general.

That doesn’t sound like a lot of money. Shouldn’t I get more money if I was foreclosed on and shouldn’t have been?
Government officials say they wanted to create a streamlined process that would quickly get aid to borrowers. Borrowers who think they have been wronged can still file a claim with bank regulators or pursue other options.

Write to Ruth Simon at ruth.simon@wsj.com

Related:

February 4, 2012

Who’s to blame for Burma’s economic misery

Click on the link to get more news and video from original source:
http://transitions.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/01/31/whos_to_blame_for_burmas_economic_misery

Posted By Min Zin Tuesday, January 31, 2012 – 10:44 AM

Last week the International Monetary Fund (IMF) released a statement saying that Burma has a chance to become “the next economic frontier in Asia.” But the IMF went on to note that the country can realize its potential only “if it can turn its rich natural resources, young labor force, and proximity to some of the most dynamic economies in the world” to its advantage.

In a word, it’s up to the government.

Contrary to what you might think from the headlines, it’s not western sanctions that are causing Burma’s economic woes. It’s government policy. The Burmese government’s Industry Minister, attending the World Economic Forum in Davos last week, admitted as much when he responded to a journalist who asked whether the country has done enough to get U.S. sanctions lifted: “We have a lot of things to reform and lots of things have to change: laws, regulations and institutions, not only in the political sector but also in the economic sectors. But sanctions are up to them.”

In 2004, the well-known U.S. economist Jeffrey Sachs wrote that sanctions against Burma had “systematically weakened the economy by limiting trade, investment and foreign aid.” It’s an argument that many critics of sanctions have made.

The media love to use terms like “pariah,” “isolated,” and “closed” whenever they describe Burma and the effects of sanctions on the country.

If the term “pariah” denotes a country that utterly disregards international norms and behavior, and correspondingly meets with unrelenting censure from the international community, then that’s a pretty good fit for Burma. But when the word is used in a way that’s supposed to characterize the country’s overall economic position (invariably in combination with words like “closed” and “isolated”), then it doesn’t describe the situation at all.

According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, in 2010 Burma’s exports and imports stood at $8.7 billion and $4.9 billion respectively. That’s higher than the data for some of the comparable members of the Association of Southeast Asia Nations (ASEAN), such as Cambodia and Laos. Meanwhile, many experts caution that the official figures for Burma’s exports fall far short of the real numbers because they don’t cover the value of timber, gems, narcotics, rice, and other products smuggled to neighboring countries.

As far as foreign direct investment (FDI) is concerned, Burma reached a record high in 2010-11 of almost $20 billion. That’s more than the figure in the same year for Southeast Asia’s latest investment darling, Vietnam.

These facts suggest that Burma’s exposure to trade and FDI is higher today than ever before, and even higher than that of some comparable ASEAN countries. In this light it becomes extremely hard to argue that sanctions have deprived Burma of FDI and trade, much less that Burma is “isolated” or “closed.” (This also offers an eloquent commentary on how ineffective the sanctions regime has actually been.)

Of course, sanctions do have negative effects on the economy (for instance, job losses in garment industry after the 2003 sanctions imposed by the U.S.), and there are many spillovers to other sectors, ranging from education to the growth of civil society. But the government cannot use sanctions as an excuse for its mismanagement and kleptocratic corruption.

Given this extent of economic involvement with the outside world, Burma should boast a good growth rate and corresponding improvements in the lives of its citizens. But the socioeconomic indicators tell a different story. For instance, since 1988 Burma’s GDP has grown at an annual average rate of 2.9 percent, the lowest in the Greater Mekong Subregion. The 2010 UNDP Human Development Index ranked Burma 132 out of 169 countries. The country is the lowest in Southeast Asia (Laos and Cambodia ranked 122 and 124 respectively). What’s wrong with this picture?

The problems are twofold. First, the regime has tailored trade liberalization policy to benefit the natural resource extraction sector. The FDI that has come into the country has also focused on natural resource extraction and hydropower. Agriculture and manufacturing received a mere one percent of FDI because of the many problems that plague these sectors, including poor infrastructure, unfavorable exchange rates, electricity shortages, the lack of skilled workers, and so on and so forth. Since the natural resource extraction sector is capital intensive, most of the benefits go to those who own the capital. And that means the military conglomerates, which control almost all the capital in a society that is starved of private capital. As result, the distribution of income is highly uneven. The military takes the biggest share and most of the population never sees any benefit.

Second, the regime does not re-invest that revenue in education, health care, or necessary infrastructure. Instead, for example, it has plowed money into building the wasteful new capital Naypyidaw at a cost of about 1 to 2 percent of GDP, according to the IMF. By the government’s own official statistics, it allocated 23.6 percent ($2 billion) of the 2011 budget to military spending, while the country spends a mere 1.3 percent on health ($110 million) and 4.13 percent ($349 million) on education. Some experts estimate that actual military spending amounts to as much as 60 percent of the overall budget. No wonder the country is mired in poverty.

The IMF’s statement calls on the Burmese government to use revenues from natural resources “to build human capital and infrastructure.” The Fund describes these as the “key priorities to alleviate poverty and reduce bottlenecks to industrialization.”

Burma’s third session of Parliament, which opened last Thursday in Naypyidaw, is now set to discuss the budget for the 2012/2013 fiscal year. This will be a litmus test for the new pseudo-civilian government. We will soon see whether it is willing to “redefine national spending priorities and bring fiscal transparency,” as the IMF suggests, or whether, instead, everything stays the way it’s been until now.

October 4, 2011

Senate bill punishes China over undervalued money

Click on the link to get more news and video from original source: 
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9Q4VMT81.htm

By JIM ABRAMS

The Associated Press October 3, 2011, 2:14PM ET

WASHINGTON

The Senate is advancing legislation to punish China for undervaluing its currency and taking away American jobs. At issue is whether the measure would boost the American economy or initiate a damaging trade war with a major trading partner.

The legislation has bipartisan backing and on Monday evening is expected to garner the 60 votes needed to move it to the Senate floor. But the bill faces considerable hurdles. The Obama White House is leery of taking bilateral action against China, and House Republican leaders have shown no interest in bringing it to a vote.

Supporters of the bill say the value of the yuan is as much as 40 percent below what it should be, keeping the prices of Chinese goods artificially low and U.S. products excessively high.

US Senate takes up China currency bill

Click on the link to get more news and video from original source: 
http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/world-news/us-senate-takeschina-currency-bill_593518.html

Published on Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 08:46 |  Source : PTI

Updated at Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 08:48

The US Senate today takes up a bill to punish China for its alleged currency manipulation, a blow at a global economic rival 13 months before elections shaped by voter anger at high joblessness.

The legislation — backed by Democrats and Republicans in the polarised Congress, but opposed by Beijing and potent US business groups — was expected to clear a procedural hurdle in a vote set for 5:30 pm (0300 IST).

The bill, which has divided the Republican presidential field and put the White House in a bind, sets the stage for retaliatory duties on Chinese goods if Beijing is found to keep its currency and thus its exports artificially cheap.

But the bill faces an uphill fight in the House, where Republican leaders have no plans to bring it up for a vote unless the issue flares up as a core dispute in the November 2012 presidential races, several aides said.

Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor warned an “escalation” in trade tensions could have painful “unintended consequences” and said President Barack Obama should use existing powers “if there are unfair practices going on.”

That makes top Republicans unlikely allies of the White House, which claimed to be “reviewing” the bill even as top Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer and congressional aides have said Obama opposes it.

“We share the goal that it represents, which is to achieve further appreciation of China’s currency,” Obama spokesman Jay Carney said, adding that there had been “some appreciation” of the yuan, “but not enough.”

September 9, 2011

Laos to Start Building Mekong Dam This Year, Testing Neighbors

 

View Original Source: 
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-08/laos-to-start-building-mekong-dam-this-year-testing-neighbors.html

By Bloomberg News – Sep 9, 2011 12:05 AM ET

 

Laos wants to start construction this year on the $3.8 billion Thai-financed Xayaburi hydropower plant on the Mekong River after changing the design to placate neighboring countries opposed to the project.

Laos completed a review of the dam initiated in April to ease concerns that it would harm rice production and fish catches downstream, said Viraphonh Viravong, director-general of the ministry of energy and mines’ Department of Electricity. Vietnam earlier recommended a 10-year delay for all hydropower projects on the river, which also runs through Myanmar, Thailand and Cambodia from its source in China’s Tibetan plateau.

“We would like to start toward the end of this year when the dry season comes,” Viraphonh said in an interview in Hanoi yesterday. “We want to explain and make the other countries comfortable. If they are still very negative about it, of course we will spend some more time on it.”

The hydropower plant is the first among eight that Laos plans to build on the Mekong to expand Southeast Asia’s smallest economy by selling electricity to neighboring countries. The landlocked nation may have about 38,000 megawatts of installed capacity supply by 2020, about 15 times greater than its domestic needs, according to a presentation by state-owned Electricite du Laos at a conference in Hanoi yesterday.

Independent Review

Laos presented the project review conducted by Switzerland- based Poyry Energy AG to Vietnam and plans to meet separately with Thai and Cambodian officials to discuss recommendations, Viraphonh said. The government can decide whether to proceed with the project at any point.

In April, Laos proposed to end a review of Xayaburi called for under a 1995 agreement between the Mekong countries requiring prior consultations before building hydropower plants on the river. Officials agreed then to hold a ministerial meeting to discuss the project, a gathering that has yet to take place.

“Laos has no right to go forward on the project by itself,” said Ame Trandem, Southeast Asia program director for International Rivers, a Berkeley, California-based nonprofit group that aims to protect rivers and human rights. “By doing so it will violate the 1995 Mekong agreement and the spirit of regional cooperation.”

Meeting Guidelines

Poyry’s review found that Xayaburi’s design was in accordance with the preliminary design guidelines from the Mekong River Commission, an intergovernmental body, and other international design manuals, Viraphonh said in a presentation. The company recommended improvements for sediment transport and fish-passing facilities, he said.

Poyry is confident “any potential long-term trans-boundary impacts on the downstream region would be insignificant” if the recommended design changes are implemented, according to the presentation.

“Look, this has been reviewed by an independent engineer, very famous in the world,” Viraphonh said yesterday. “And if they say ’yes, you can go ahead,’ why not?”

Thailand agreed in December to buy 95 percent of the electricity from the plant, which will have a capacity of 1,285 megawatts. Ch. Karnchang Pcl, Thailand’s third-biggest construction company by market value, owns a 57.5 percent stake in Xayaburi.

Supamas Trivisvavet, an executive vice president at the company, declined to comment when reached by phone today.

Clinton Concern

PTT Pcl (PTT), Thailand’s biggest energy company, has a 25 percent stake, while Bangkok-based Electricity Generating Pcl owns 12.5 percent, according to company filings. The 115 billion baht ($3.8 billion) project is expected to start commercial operations in January 2019, PTT told the Thai stock exchange on March 1.

The proposed alterations would slightly increase the cost of the project, Viraphonh said, without providing figures. The plant would be able to meet its target completion date if work started later this year, he said.

The Mekong and its tributaries provide food, water and transportation to about 60 million people in the four countries. In a July meeting with counterparts from Mekong nations in Bali, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for a pause in construction of dams on the river “until we are all able to do a better assessment of the likely consequences.”

Food Security

Vietnam officials in January recommended delaying the project and moving it to a Mekong tributary because it would affect “the safety of water sources and food security for Vietnam as well as for the whole world,” according to notes of the meetings. Thailand and Cambodia also favored more studies on the dam, the notes show.

A technical review in March by the Mekong River Commission found that the dam may lead to the extinction of species like the Mekong giant catfish and “gaps in knowledge” mean the full extent of the downstream impact on fisheries is hard to estimate. The dam “will not materially affect” the quantity and timing of river flows to Cambodia and Vietnam, it said.

Laos has about six million people and a gross domestic product of $5.6 billion, according to statistics from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Hydropower and mining projects are set to underpin GDP growth that may reach 7.7 percent this year, the Asian Development Bank said in an April 7 report.

To contact the reporters on this story: Nick Heath in Hanoi at nheath2@bloomberg.net; Daniel Ten Kate in Bangkok at dtenkate@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Peter Hirschberg at phirschberg@bloomberg.net

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 236 other followers

%d bloggers like this: