New York Times Leader

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Banks Bet Greece Defaults on Debt They Helped Hide.” It compares a new dynamic regarding the possible default of Greece on its debt to the system that drove Lehman Brothers into bankruptcy.

Apparently, there’s a new demand for credit-default swaps regarding Greece as a way for hedge funds and other investors to protect themselves in case the country is unable to meet its obligations. These financial instruments, in turn, make it harder for Greece to borrow money and raise the cost of insurance for its bonds.

The article compares the situation to “the tail wagging the dog,” and traces the development to one company, the Markit Group of London, who created the iTraxx SovX Western Europe index. This index enables credit-default swaps on the solvency of Greece. Previously, there was no demand for such hedging as the possibility of a national bankruptcy in an established nation state was thought to be very remote. Now, however, as more and more traders are starting to bet against Greece, it makes it harder and harder for the country to issue new bonds to cover their existing debt.

This situation is untenable. The article compares it to betting on a four-alarm fire at your neighbor’s home and illustrates the need for financial regulation more than ever. The players, the banks, are not to blame because they are just maximizing their position within the existing system. It is the responsibility of regulatory institutions to step up and establish ground rules to bring some order and responsibility into this chaos. How long will it take for a responsible organization to act?

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Markets Routed as Worry Grows on Europe Debt.” It describes a decline in the Dow Jones stock market index after news about the weak economic situation in Greece, Portugal, Spain and Ireland.

Since these countries share a common currency with stronger nations such as France and Germany, the whole continent is affected, and now the troubles have started to impact the Dow Jones index as well. In fact, the index temporarily fell below the 10,000 mark for the first time in months.

All this reminds us about the fragility of the global economy and the fact that things remain unsettled after the recent worldwide financial crisis. For those in the United States who are predicting a double dip recession, it does little to assuage their worries.

And what effect does news like this have on the individual investor, the middle class taxpayers who have seen a rapid decline in net worth thanks to events far out of their control? It’s just one more straw on the camel’s back regarding concern for the future.

Many have remarked how this generation of Americans is the first who believe their children will be worse off than they are. This is all a sad commentary on the hope that was once endemic in this nation.

The lead story in The New York Times this morning is titled, “World Leaders Pledge $1.1 Trillion to Tackle Crisis.” The article describes an agreement to contribute substantial new support to the International Monetary Fund to assist developing countries hurt by the current financial crisis as well as less concrete steps to eliminate tax havens, avoid protectionism and other actions.

The agreement also include $250 billion in trade credits to finance world trade and regulations on hedge funds, rating agencies and compensation for bankers. Calls for international regulatory bodies and increased stimuli were largely finessed though they did create a non-binding Financial Stability Board.

Apparently, Barack Obama was a hit and delivered bigtime. It seems that the tone he created, to effect, “come let us reason together,” had a major impact on the final outcome. He soothed France and Germany, and even intervened successfully in a dispute between France and China, taking both leaders aside to resolve a dispute. I expect we’ll hear more about this incident in the near future.

The final outcome was a substantive one despite dire warnings from experts that the whole exercise could wind up in failure, just like a similar meeting in 1933. The meeting was worth having even if it did not address toxic assets or seemed to improve things on the margins.

For one thing, the majority of the world, those who struggle everyday, will be assisted by the trillion dollars donated to the IMF. A frequent quote is that while we in the United States struggle with bonuses or no bonuses as a result of the crisis, most countries are struggling with food or no food.

Sunday’s lead article in The New York Times was titled, “Obama Seeks to Increase Oversight of Executive Pay.” The article described President Obama’s plan to regulate financial institutions in light of the AIG scandal.

President Obama’s proposal was also aimed at the G-20 summit due to begin on April 2 in London. This meeting of the top 20 industrialized nations will address many issues related to the global financial crisis, and European nations are known to favor more financial regulation in lieu of the stimulus approach being applied in the United States.

The new rules on executive compensation will apply to all companies, not just those accepting bailots from the Federal government.  And it will give a large oversight role to the Federal Reserve.

Two elements of the plan seem particularly fair to me. One, that hedge funds should be under some kind of regulation. These funds typically provided annual returns up to 30 percent of the amount invested and currently operate in a no-mans land where they play fast and loose to generate a lot of money for very wealthy clients. It seems they should come under the same type of regulations as those imposed on other organizations.

The second element ties executive bonuses to performance and prohibits executives from receiving bonuses greater than a third of their annual pay. This also seems fair since it will shift compensation from large unregulated bonanzas to salaries agreed upon by a company board.

Much of this plan can be enacted without Congress through federal regulation, and I think President Obama should move rapidly to do so. This may be the only way to put AIG behind us and proceed to other economic support so essential to our recovery.

Today’s lead article in The New York Times was titled, “China’s Premier Seeks Guarantee from U.S. on Debt.” The article described the concern of the Chinese premier, Wen Jiabao, about the country’s $1 trillion of holdings in U.S. government debt.

This criticism follows remarks in January about the folly of America’s low savings and high rate of consumption.

However, we shouldn’t be concerned, paradoxically because the Chinese hold so much of our debt. If they tried to unload it all, the value of the Treasury notes would decrease precipitously, and China would sustain a big loss. The article concludes that the Chinese would have to hold their Treasury notes until maturity.

One of the apparent criticisms of U.S. policy, and by the Europeans as well, seems to be our emphasis on stimulus programs instead of stricter regulation of banks and other financial institutions.

While it’s nice to know that the Chinese, one of the world’s strongest economies, is bound to us in a circle of mutual dependency, it leaves us feeling very vulnerable as well. Americans are used to going it alone, to consider our own national security without relying on any other nation. An inability to do so suggests a decrease in our power and that’s troubling to many of us.

How can we serve as a beacon of light and a city on the hill, when we have to be careful what we say about other countries. For example, many policy experts believe that today’s Chinese criticism was a response to our earlier criticism of the way they manipulate their currency.

This is a fine mess that Mr. Bush has gotten us into.

Today’s lead story in The New York Times was titled, “A Rising Dollar Lifts U.S. But Adds to Crisis Abroad.” The article describes how the worldwide financial recession has led to more investment in the United States instead of less.

This is deeply ironic. The financial crisis started in the United States and spread to other countries, yet our currency seems to be benefiting from the situation.

One area described as particularly hard hit is Eastern Europe, though the article notes that, “The flow of private capital to the emerging market has dried up,” and it includes Africa as well.

In fact, the situation in Eastern Europe could be so bad that the ability of the area’s nations to even finance bailouts could completely evaporate.

And even though a similar experience occured in Asia during the 1990s, at that time the world economy was growing so there was demand for Asian exports and that could speed a recovery.

One is flabbergasted by the range of problems fostered by the current economic situation. This occurence is described as a third wave of the economic crisis, but how many more waves are there to come? And how far are we from total collapse?

I think we need to proactively attack each new wave of calamity immediately and not allow it to fester. The International Monetary Fund should receive assitance from first world countries as a direct means of maintaining investment in Eastern Europe and Africa.

Otherwise, Eastern Europe could go down the tubes for a very long time.