Mr DeMarco, Would you consider a debt-equity swap?

From Bloomberg:

The U.S. government has spent $190 billion to shore up the companies since they were taken into federal conservatorship in 2008 after their investments in risky loans soured. DeMarco said adding to the firms’ costs would be a violation of his legal responsibility to restore them to financial health.

Using principal forbearance instead of forgiveness so far has been better for taxpayers, DeMarco said. Forbearance reduces monthly payments while requiring borrowers to pay back the full amount of the loan when they sell the house.

“If the borrower is successful on the modification, allows them to stay in their house and they stay in their house and start making mortgage payments, the taxpayer gets to share in the upside of that borrower’s success,” DeMarco said in the Bloomberg Television interview. “If we forgive the principal up front and the borrower is successful, that upside all goes to the borrower and is not shared with the taxpayer.”

There is another way to allow taxpayers to get the upside of borrowers' success--replace the debt they owe with a shared equity arrangement.  The taxpayer may be better off with principal forbearance for houses that are 10 percent underwater, because through amortization people can get themselves right-side up in a relatively short time (particularly if they can get a refinance at a low rate of interest).

But for places like Las Vegas and the Central Valley of California, where many people are 40-70 percent underwater,  it is hard to see how default and large losses aren't inevitable.  A debt-equity swap would allow people to move freely, which aligning incentives between lenders and borrowers.

  

Andrew Zimbalist on Frank McCourt's sale of the Dodgers

From ESPN:

"It's problematic," Zimbalist said. "He was looking for some kind of ongoing income stream and he got it. Here's a guy who borrowed practically all the money to buy the team for $430 million and now he's selling it for $2.15 billion and he's coming out with a healthy capital gain -- it's repulsive. This is someone who doesn't deserve to walk away with a healthy profit after eight years of running the Dodgers in the most egregious, the most inefficient, the most self-interested, and the most vainglorious, idiotic way possible. It really is repulsive that he will still be making a profit in some way."

If ever there were a parable about how some people can thumb their nose at the rules and make out like bandits, the story of McCourt's ownership of the Dodgers is it. 

A poignant moment from a poor country

The laundry here "ruined" a couple of my shirts--whoever ironed tore the collars a bit from the bodies of the shirts. Being an American, I threw them in my trash basket. 


The man who cleans my room, upon discovering them in the trash, asked if he could have them. I said, "of course." 


He then asked me to write a note, saying that I had explicitly told him he could have them, lest anyone think he might have stolen them. Of course I did that as well. He seemed extremely happy to have the shirts.

When liberals undermine liberalism

I consider myself a liberal.  On social issues, I am very liberal; on economic issues, while in general I like markets, I think governments can and should correct large market failures (such as failures in private insurance markets and negative externalities), that the one percent (maybe even the ten percent) should pay higher taxes than they do now, and that there should be a floor on living standards.

It therefore drives me crazy when liberals embrace waste and hypocrisy.  So the following paragraph in the LA Times caught my eye:

Instead, the rail authority has agreed to run fewer trains at slower speeds on tracks shared with commuter rail systems, Amtrak and freight trains. In the early years, passengers will probably have to transfer trains to get from one end of the system to the other. The concept, known as the blended approach, was pushed last year by Bay Area politicians, who fought the original plan to run high-speed trains through the region on 60-foot high viaducts over local neighborhoods. The idea has attracted support in Southern California as well.

So places that will rail against the automobile are doing everything possible to make sure "bullet train" service (whose potential for success I am skeptical about anyway) cannot possibly be a competitive transport mode. The "blended" system will also make freight rail relatively less competitive with trucks, and will waste a lot of money that could be better spent on places California really needs to spend money, such as K-12 education and state universities (and no, I do not work at one).

The whole thing reminds me of perhaps my all time favorite Onion headline.

Mark Twain on Monetary Policy (h/t Patricia Harris)

First published in 1879 as "Mark Twain as a Presidential Candidate."

My financial views are of the most decided character, but they are not likely, perhaps, to increase my popularity with the advocates of inflation. I do not insist upon the special supremacy of rag money or hard money. The great fundamental principle of my life is to take any kind I can get.

New data since I posted yesterday

From this morning's Economic Times (one of India's leading newspapers).

NEW DELHI: The number of India's poor fell to 29.8% of its population in 2009-10 from 37.2% in 2004-05, one of the sharpest falls ever. This suggests India has not only grown faster than the world economy, but that this growth has lifted millions out of poverty. 

In absolute terms, the number of poor in the country declined by around 13% to 354 million during the fiveyear period with rural poverty falling faster thanurban poverty. During the period, rural poverty declined by 8 percentage points to 33.8%, almost double the decline of urban poor by 4.8 percentage points to 20.9%. 

"This is not surprising. Such an outcome is on expected lines as this is the period when the government increased the expenditure on flagship programmes substantially. We gave money to the people and the result is a direct impact of that," said Mihir Shah, member, Planning Commission. 
The numbers also re-affirm the impact of the government's flagship Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme that entitles 100 days of work at a minimum rate of Rs 100 per day to all rural households. The scheme was launched in 2006 and has single-handedly transformed rural India. 

It is interesting that India started a war on poverty in 2006, and it seems to be winning.  Not that one thing necessarily caused the other, but it is some coincidence.

What would Rawls say?

Since India liberalized its economy in 1991, PPP GDP per capita has increased from about 1400 in 1992 to about 3200 in 2009 (see Penn World Tables, I am using only two significant digits because the exact numbers depend on definition).  That is 5 percent per capita per year; by any standard this is an impressive performance.  Eyes, moreover, don't lie--I have been coming to India for eight years now, and one can see living standards improving.  This is gratifying.

But in an enormously important dimension, India has not improved at all.  According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the share of undernourished people in India moved from 20 percent in 1992 to 19 percent in 2008; the number of hungry rose from 177 million to 224 million. 

China has done much better, having cut the rate of hunger nearly in half over the same time period (from 18 to 10 percent), despite the fact that its GINI coefficient is higher.