Benjamin Franklin Isherwood (1822-1915) was a human dynamo. Before he joined the Navy in 1844, he had already worked as a railroad engineer. He worked on the Croton Aqueduct, the major source for drinking water for the City of New York, still in use today. He had an engineering job on the Erie Canal and designed and constructed lighthouses for the Lighthouse Service. During the Mexican War, he served as engineering officer on two warships supporting US forces in Mexico, where he first encountered David Dixon Porter.
After the war, Isherwood was assigned to the Washington Navy Yard, where he experimented with and designed steam engines for naval vessels. By the outbreak of the US Civil War, Isherwood had published 55 technical and scientific articles on steam engineering and vessel propulsion, as well as a two-volume tome on steam machinery. At age 39, he was appointed Engineer-in-Chief of the US Navy. When the Civil War commenced, the Navy had 28 steam vessels. By the end of the war, the Navy’s steam-powered fleet had grown to 600 under Isherwood’s direction. He organized a curriculum for steam engineering at the Naval Academy, where the engineering building is still named “Isherwood Hall” in his honor. In 1869, he ran afoul of David Dixon Porter, who was now the senior Admiral in the US Navy.
Isherwood wanted to reorganize the Navy to provide engineering officers with more rank and prestige, a concept strongly opposed by Porter, who had Isherwood banished to the Mare Island Navy Yard in San Francisco Bay. While in this “exile”, Isherwood conducted experiments that resulted in a propeller used by the Navy for the next 27 years. Before his retirement in 1884, he designed the Navy’s fast cruisers. Since his death in 1915, three Navy ships have been named for Isherwood. The Rear Admiral Benjamin F. Isherwood Award is presented by the US Navy to recognize “innovation and expertise in the effective assessment, development, execution, or deployment of technological solutions for operational Fleet needs.”
Monday, October 18, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
Hawaii residents see tourism's benefits
Pacific Business News (Honolulu) - by Chad Blair
Most Hawaii residents “appreciate and understand” the benefits that tourism brings to Hawaii, according to a survey released Friday.
But many residents do not believe that the visitor industry helps solve community problems, sustain natural resources, or preserve Hawaiian culture.
The survey, conducted by OmniTrak Group, was presented at a Hawaii Tourism Authority board meeting at the Hawaii Convention Center in Honolulu. Its purpose is to help the HTA and industry stakeholders work on areas that need improvement.
“We know we still have areas that we need to work on as an industry,” said HTA President and CEO Mike McCartney. “At HTA, we are focused on driving demand to travel to Hawaii, but we also understand our responsibility to protect Hawaii’s natural resources and perpetuate our host culture.”
For 2010, the HTA has budgeted more than $1.6 million for Hawaiian cultural and natural resource programs.
Nearly 80 percent of the 1,650 residents polled last August and September agree that tourism brings more benefits than problems to the state. That was 7 percentage points higher than in 2007, the last time the survey of resident sentiment was conducted.
Fewer residents, or 49 percent, said they believe their island was being “run for tourists at the expense of local residents.” That’s down from the 55 percent who felt that way in 2007.
Among other findings:
• Fifty-nine percent of survey respondents who identified themselves as Hawaiian expressed dissatisfaction with tourism’s support of Hawaiian language and culture, while only 36 percent of Filipinos felt that way.
• Just over half of the respondents said they were aware of the visitor industry’s support for multicultural events, while 58 percent said they were aware of sponsorships of sporting events.
• Oahu residents are least likely to see tourism as “primarily responsible for negative impacts” on issues like traffic, but more residents on Kauai and Maui “feel strongly” that tourism worsens traffic and over-development.
• Compared to other industries, tourism ranks second to defense and ahead of health care in perceptions that it contributes to the state economy.
While calling the survey results “favorable” overall, OmniTrak recommended that the HTA and other groups in the visitor industry work to improve public awareness of tourism’s contributions to the state and Native Hawaiians.
Most Hawaii residents “appreciate and understand” the benefits that tourism brings to Hawaii, according to a survey released Friday.
But many residents do not believe that the visitor industry helps solve community problems, sustain natural resources, or preserve Hawaiian culture.
The survey, conducted by OmniTrak Group, was presented at a Hawaii Tourism Authority board meeting at the Hawaii Convention Center in Honolulu. Its purpose is to help the HTA and industry stakeholders work on areas that need improvement.
“We know we still have areas that we need to work on as an industry,” said HTA President and CEO Mike McCartney. “At HTA, we are focused on driving demand to travel to Hawaii, but we also understand our responsibility to protect Hawaii’s natural resources and perpetuate our host culture.”
For 2010, the HTA has budgeted more than $1.6 million for Hawaiian cultural and natural resource programs.
Nearly 80 percent of the 1,650 residents polled last August and September agree that tourism brings more benefits than problems to the state. That was 7 percentage points higher than in 2007, the last time the survey of resident sentiment was conducted.
Fewer residents, or 49 percent, said they believe their island was being “run for tourists at the expense of local residents.” That’s down from the 55 percent who felt that way in 2007.
Among other findings:
• Fifty-nine percent of survey respondents who identified themselves as Hawaiian expressed dissatisfaction with tourism’s support of Hawaiian language and culture, while only 36 percent of Filipinos felt that way.
• Just over half of the respondents said they were aware of the visitor industry’s support for multicultural events, while 58 percent said they were aware of sponsorships of sporting events.
• Oahu residents are least likely to see tourism as “primarily responsible for negative impacts” on issues like traffic, but more residents on Kauai and Maui “feel strongly” that tourism worsens traffic and over-development.
• Compared to other industries, tourism ranks second to defense and ahead of health care in perceptions that it contributes to the state economy.
While calling the survey results “favorable” overall, OmniTrak recommended that the HTA and other groups in the visitor industry work to improve public awareness of tourism’s contributions to the state and Native Hawaiians.
Monday, July 27, 2009
TEXAS ECONOMY FEELING RECESSION, STILL STRONGER THAN NATION'S
The Texas economy is in a deep recession but is still weathering the downturn better than the nation’s economy. The state’s economy lost 274,600 jobs from June 2008 to June 2009, an annual job loss of 2.6 percent. Over the same period, the U.S. economy lost more than 5.8 million jobs or 4.2 percent of its total nonfarm jobs.
The state’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate rose from 4.8 percent in June 2008 to 7.5 percent in June 2009. The U.S. rate rose from 5.6 percent to 9.5 percent during that time.
Only two Texas industries (education and health services and leisure and hospitality) and the government sector had more jobs in June 2009 than in June 2008. Nine industries had net job losses over the same period.
Only three Texas metro areas had positive employment growth rates from June 2008 to June 2009. Twenty-three metro areas had net job losses. Odessa ranked first in job creation followed by Killeen–Temple–Fort Hood and McAllen-Edinburg-Mission.
The state’s actual unemployment rate in June 2009 was 8 percent. Amarillo had the lowest unemployment rate followed by Lubbock, Midland, Abilene and Texarkana.
The state’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate rose from 4.8 percent in June 2008 to 7.5 percent in June 2009. The U.S. rate rose from 5.6 percent to 9.5 percent during that time.
Only two Texas industries (education and health services and leisure and hospitality) and the government sector had more jobs in June 2009 than in June 2008. Nine industries had net job losses over the same period.
Only three Texas metro areas had positive employment growth rates from June 2008 to June 2009. Twenty-three metro areas had net job losses. Odessa ranked first in job creation followed by Killeen–Temple–Fort Hood and McAllen-Edinburg-Mission.
The state’s actual unemployment rate in June 2009 was 8 percent. Amarillo had the lowest unemployment rate followed by Lubbock, Midland, Abilene and Texarkana.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
INSTANT VIEW: U.S. eases mark-to-market accounting
Thu Apr 2, 2009 11:54am EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board on Thursday agreed to give banks more flexibility in applying mark-to-market accounting to their toxic assets.
The action by FASB, an independent accounting standards-setter, came after Congressional pressure to help banks that have been forced to record billions of dollars in lower values for distressed assets because of frozen markets.
Investor groups opposed the change, saying it would let big banks conceal the real value of their toxic assets.
KEY POINTS:
* FASB allows banks to apply new mark-to-market guidance in the first quarter of 2009.
* FASB says the objective of mark-to-market accounting is to set a price that would be received by a bank in an "orderly" transaction in the current, inactive market. It says an "orderly" transaction for accounting purposes does not include the forced liquidation or a distressed sale of an asset.
* FASB agrees to drop the presumption in mark-to-market accounting that all transactions in an inactive market are distressed unless proven otherwise.
* FASB clarifies when banks are required to take write downs on impaired assets, letting them record smaller losses on their income statements.
COMMENTS:
ANDY ENGEL, CO-MANAGER OF CORE INVESTMENT FUND, LEUTHOLD GROUP IN MINNEAPOLIS
"I think it's something that on a near term basis is obviously positive for the stock market -- being able to allow these financials to put what maybe a more realistic price on their assets is a good thing
"Long term there maybe some problems with that. It's a good thing to be able to value some of these things at a realistic price. Right now you're looking ahead and saying their depressed. If you continue to allow people to project what they think these might be worth in the future I think it could lead to some problems.
"Near term its a good adjustment I think I'd like to see them at the end of this crisis going back to instituting that again. You'd get to the point where you have people inflating asset values beyond what they are actual worth
RALPH COLE, PORTFOLIO MANAGER AT FERGUSON WELLMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, IN PORTLAND, ORE:
"Whoever voted against this is probably thinking we don't want to give too much leeway to management teams, that we want to be as conservative as possible in pricing these assets, and darn it we need to get on with this."
"It will lengthen this process that has already felt like forever. It allows people to play a lot more games and maybe not recognize what they need to recognize as quickly. So that's definitely a downside to it."
"Now you're going to leave pricing back in the hands of management teams that may not have done a great job over this cycle, and you're going to have to trust them that they really are marking these things to a model and a price that is reasonable. It takes us back to the same thing: We're probably going to give more leeway to the management teams that you trust ... than those you don't."
"It will be interesting how quickly it can be implemented in this quarter's earnings, and does it change the market's opinion of the stocks just because they write up some assets."
JOSEPH BATTIPAGLIA, MARKET STRATEGIST, STIFEL NICOLAUS, YARDLEY, PENNSYLVANIA
"The mark-to-market rules have been and always will be imperfect. The value of mark-to-market is that it brings some information to the marketplace about what various securities are worth.
"For banks, they already had the most lenient treatment because in effect, mark-to-market was only applied for those assets designated by the banks as being held for sale within a year. So
"I look at the loosening up of mark-to-market -- which was a political effort by Congress against the FASB -- the TALF and the Geithner plan, as all reinforcing the zombie bank concept for America, particularly as it relates to Citicorp and Bank of America, that they will continue to be allowed to exist from a book-keeping point of view, on support from the federal government, for years to come. Which doesn't engender great enthusiasm in my judgment and it certainly sends mixed pricing signals to the marketplace."
ROBERT WILLENS OF ROBERT WILLENS LLC, AN ANALYST WHO SPECIALZIES IN TAX AND ACCOUNTING ISSUES
"This may end up being a dark day in history before it's all said and done. It's a Pyrrhic victory.
"This certainly helps banks cosmetically. It will increase capital levels quite a bit. Yet I'm finding the investors I speak to are mostly disappointed because it doesn't change the reality of the banks.
"Most of these assets are still losing value at a rapid clip. The fact that banks will not have to reflect that loss from an accounting point of view doesn't change the reality."
"More importantly, investors are dismayed that FASB was persuaded to come out with this proposal, that they did it under protest and that FASB doesn't believe in the changes. That this proposal was the result of Congressional threats to its independence."
SCOTT TALBOTT, CHIEF OF GOVERNMENT AFFIARS FOR THE FINANCIAL SERVICES ROUNDTABLE:
"The guidance removes uncertainty of pricing assets in an inactive or illiquid market. The guidance will remove artificially downward pressure on asset value and actually help restore the economy."
EDWARD KETZ, ACCOUNTING PROFESSOR, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, STATE COLLEGE, PENNSYLVANIA
"It is a huge mistake by FASB. FASB had had a principled view toward fair value, and has compromised it to allow companies to massage and manipulate balance sheet values."
"The impact will be twofold. In the short-term, there could be higher stock prices, and investors may feel better about banks. Longer-term, it will probably be negative because of the realization that numbers are being manipulated."
"People so much want to get past the recession that they may make the foolish move of interpreting the decision as good news."
TOM SOWANICK, CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER AT CLEARBROOK FINANCIAL, WITH $22 BILLION UNDER MANAGEMENT, PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY:
"Today's action by FASB to ease the mark-to-market accounting rule could have a tremendous impact on financial stocks from this point forward. This change can be applied to first-quarter earnings and it is estimated that net income may be increased by as much as 20 percent or more."
STEPHEN MASSOCCA, MANAGING DIRECTOR AT WEDBUSH MORGAN IN SAN FRANCISCO
"It would benefit any bank that is having issues because their stated tangible common equity is creating some problem for them.
"Now, via the waving of the wand, they're going to be able by virtue of a journal entry increase their stated equity.
"I see good from the standpoint that they are able to claim they have greater equity. That helps them be more stable, changes the tone of the conversation.
"It's potentially bad if that now promotes procrastination with regard to cleaning up these 'toxic' assets. If it somehow slows down the process of dealing with that, of disposing of them and moving things forward on that front, then that's a bad thing."
LEE OLVER, FIXED INCOME STRATEGIST, SMH CAPITAL, HOUSTON
"Overall I would think it would help the market in the short run. In the long run, it will cause doubts about the accuracies of financial statements when you don't know what value of the assets in financial institutions. It's a short-term fix that will create long-term problems."
JOSHUA SHAPIRO, CHIEF U.S. ECONOMIST, MFR, INC., NEW YORK
"Our reaction is that this decision decreases transparency and allows financial institutions to use fictional valuations on many of their toxic assets. Whatever "write-ups" result from this are unlikely to be valued very highly by markets, and this decision further obscures the true position of banks and other financial institutions."
"Shenanigans such as this do nothing to resolve the many problems facing the financial system; indeed this decision is more likely to delay necessary reform and restructuring than it is to create a positive outcome."
STEVE GOLDMAN, MARKET STRATEGIST, WEEDEN & CO IN GREENWICH, CONNECTICUT
"This was anticipated, given the politics behind it. It is a sigh of relief since people had been expecting it for the past 2-3 weeks, though again there's some political influence behind it.
"If we look back from the last 30's and into the late 90's I believe there was no such thing as mark-to-market. When you're forcing prices in a market where there's structural imbalances in terms of credit flows, and investors know that, it can lead to a continuous downward cycle.
"If they allow this, it puts pressure on a lot of businesses, including banks. If this was in place in the 90s I think a lot of banks would've imploded. It's quite a restriction.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board on Thursday agreed to give banks more flexibility in applying mark-to-market accounting to their toxic assets.
The action by FASB, an independent accounting standards-setter, came after Congressional pressure to help banks that have been forced to record billions of dollars in lower values for distressed assets because of frozen markets.
Investor groups opposed the change, saying it would let big banks conceal the real value of their toxic assets.
KEY POINTS:
* FASB allows banks to apply new mark-to-market guidance in the first quarter of 2009.
* FASB says the objective of mark-to-market accounting is to set a price that would be received by a bank in an "orderly" transaction in the current, inactive market. It says an "orderly" transaction for accounting purposes does not include the forced liquidation or a distressed sale of an asset.
* FASB agrees to drop the presumption in mark-to-market accounting that all transactions in an inactive market are distressed unless proven otherwise.
* FASB clarifies when banks are required to take write downs on impaired assets, letting them record smaller losses on their income statements.
COMMENTS:
ANDY ENGEL, CO-MANAGER OF CORE INVESTMENT FUND, LEUTHOLD GROUP IN MINNEAPOLIS
"I think it's something that on a near term basis is obviously positive for the stock market -- being able to allow these financials to put what maybe a more realistic price on their assets is a good thing
"Long term there maybe some problems with that. It's a good thing to be able to value some of these things at a realistic price. Right now you're looking ahead and saying their depressed. If you continue to allow people to project what they think these might be worth in the future I think it could lead to some problems.
"Near term its a good adjustment I think I'd like to see them at the end of this crisis going back to instituting that again. You'd get to the point where you have people inflating asset values beyond what they are actual worth
RALPH COLE, PORTFOLIO MANAGER AT FERGUSON WELLMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, IN PORTLAND, ORE:
"Whoever voted against this is probably thinking we don't want to give too much leeway to management teams, that we want to be as conservative as possible in pricing these assets, and darn it we need to get on with this."
"It will lengthen this process that has already felt like forever. It allows people to play a lot more games and maybe not recognize what they need to recognize as quickly. So that's definitely a downside to it."
"Now you're going to leave pricing back in the hands of management teams that may not have done a great job over this cycle, and you're going to have to trust them that they really are marking these things to a model and a price that is reasonable. It takes us back to the same thing: We're probably going to give more leeway to the management teams that you trust ... than those you don't."
"It will be interesting how quickly it can be implemented in this quarter's earnings, and does it change the market's opinion of the stocks just because they write up some assets."
JOSEPH BATTIPAGLIA, MARKET STRATEGIST, STIFEL NICOLAUS, YARDLEY, PENNSYLVANIA
"The mark-to-market rules have been and always will be imperfect. The value of mark-to-market is that it brings some information to the marketplace about what various securities are worth.
"For banks, they already had the most lenient treatment because in effect, mark-to-market was only applied for those assets designated by the banks as being held for sale within a year. So
"I look at the loosening up of mark-to-market -- which was a political effort by Congress against the FASB -- the TALF and the Geithner plan, as all reinforcing the zombie bank concept for America, particularly as it relates to Citicorp and Bank of America, that they will continue to be allowed to exist from a book-keeping point of view, on support from the federal government, for years to come. Which doesn't engender great enthusiasm in my judgment and it certainly sends mixed pricing signals to the marketplace."
ROBERT WILLENS OF ROBERT WILLENS LLC, AN ANALYST WHO SPECIALZIES IN TAX AND ACCOUNTING ISSUES
"This may end up being a dark day in history before it's all said and done. It's a Pyrrhic victory.
"This certainly helps banks cosmetically. It will increase capital levels quite a bit. Yet I'm finding the investors I speak to are mostly disappointed because it doesn't change the reality of the banks.
"Most of these assets are still losing value at a rapid clip. The fact that banks will not have to reflect that loss from an accounting point of view doesn't change the reality."
"More importantly, investors are dismayed that FASB was persuaded to come out with this proposal, that they did it under protest and that FASB doesn't believe in the changes. That this proposal was the result of Congressional threats to its independence."
SCOTT TALBOTT, CHIEF OF GOVERNMENT AFFIARS FOR THE FINANCIAL SERVICES ROUNDTABLE:
"The guidance removes uncertainty of pricing assets in an inactive or illiquid market. The guidance will remove artificially downward pressure on asset value and actually help restore the economy."
EDWARD KETZ, ACCOUNTING PROFESSOR, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, STATE COLLEGE, PENNSYLVANIA
"It is a huge mistake by FASB. FASB had had a principled view toward fair value, and has compromised it to allow companies to massage and manipulate balance sheet values."
"The impact will be twofold. In the short-term, there could be higher stock prices, and investors may feel better about banks. Longer-term, it will probably be negative because of the realization that numbers are being manipulated."
"People so much want to get past the recession that they may make the foolish move of interpreting the decision as good news."
TOM SOWANICK, CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER AT CLEARBROOK FINANCIAL, WITH $22 BILLION UNDER MANAGEMENT, PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY:
"Today's action by FASB to ease the mark-to-market accounting rule could have a tremendous impact on financial stocks from this point forward. This change can be applied to first-quarter earnings and it is estimated that net income may be increased by as much as 20 percent or more."
STEPHEN MASSOCCA, MANAGING DIRECTOR AT WEDBUSH MORGAN IN SAN FRANCISCO
"It would benefit any bank that is having issues because their stated tangible common equity is creating some problem for them.
"Now, via the waving of the wand, they're going to be able by virtue of a journal entry increase their stated equity.
"I see good from the standpoint that they are able to claim they have greater equity. That helps them be more stable, changes the tone of the conversation.
"It's potentially bad if that now promotes procrastination with regard to cleaning up these 'toxic' assets. If it somehow slows down the process of dealing with that, of disposing of them and moving things forward on that front, then that's a bad thing."
LEE OLVER, FIXED INCOME STRATEGIST, SMH CAPITAL, HOUSTON
"Overall I would think it would help the market in the short run. In the long run, it will cause doubts about the accuracies of financial statements when you don't know what value of the assets in financial institutions. It's a short-term fix that will create long-term problems."
JOSHUA SHAPIRO, CHIEF U.S. ECONOMIST, MFR, INC., NEW YORK
"Our reaction is that this decision decreases transparency and allows financial institutions to use fictional valuations on many of their toxic assets. Whatever "write-ups" result from this are unlikely to be valued very highly by markets, and this decision further obscures the true position of banks and other financial institutions."
"Shenanigans such as this do nothing to resolve the many problems facing the financial system; indeed this decision is more likely to delay necessary reform and restructuring than it is to create a positive outcome."
STEVE GOLDMAN, MARKET STRATEGIST, WEEDEN & CO IN GREENWICH, CONNECTICUT
"This was anticipated, given the politics behind it. It is a sigh of relief since people had been expecting it for the past 2-3 weeks, though again there's some political influence behind it.
"If we look back from the last 30's and into the late 90's I believe there was no such thing as mark-to-market. When you're forcing prices in a market where there's structural imbalances in terms of credit flows, and investors know that, it can lead to a continuous downward cycle.
"If they allow this, it puts pressure on a lot of businesses, including banks. If this was in place in the 90s I think a lot of banks would've imploded. It's quite a restriction.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Realtors® Pledge Assistance for Obama Guidelines on Foreclosure Fixes
WASHINGTON, March 04, 2009
Mary Trupo 202/383-1007 mtrupo@realtors.org
The following is a statement by National Association of Realtors® President Charles McMillan:
“NAR’s 1.2 million members are eager to help make President Obama’s Making Home Affordable plan a reality. We are pleased that the president released the guidelines today for refinancing and mortgage loan modifications and that the guidelines will be implemented immediately to help struggling homeowners as well as millions of eligible homeowners who have stayed current in their mortgage payments.
“Housing stabilization must be the key component of any federal recovery plan. Helping families keep their homes is critical to this effort and for the health of our economy and communities across the country.
“NAR has long called for a multipronged approach to address the housing and economic crisis. Allowing eligible homeowners to refinance or modify their loans will help millions of families avoid foreclosure. This in turn will support the housing recovery by slowing the growth in inventory due to foreclosures. Lowering unsold inventory will help stabilize home prices and values. We believe that the incentives the loan modification plan offers to borrowers and loan servicers will encourage additional loan modifications, reducing the default rate.
“Moving forward, we must not only work to prevent foreclosures, but also bring financially healthy home buyers to the market to further reduce unsold inventory. Toward this end, we hope that the president and his administration will continue to look for new and creative approaches that will lower interest rates for all homeowners and buyers.”
Review the Plan's Guidelines
For more detailed information on the Making Home Affordable plan, visit www.financialstability.gov.
Mary Trupo 202/383-1007 mtrupo@realtors.org
The following is a statement by National Association of Realtors® President Charles McMillan:
“NAR’s 1.2 million members are eager to help make President Obama’s Making Home Affordable plan a reality. We are pleased that the president released the guidelines today for refinancing and mortgage loan modifications and that the guidelines will be implemented immediately to help struggling homeowners as well as millions of eligible homeowners who have stayed current in their mortgage payments.
“Housing stabilization must be the key component of any federal recovery plan. Helping families keep their homes is critical to this effort and for the health of our economy and communities across the country.
“NAR has long called for a multipronged approach to address the housing and economic crisis. Allowing eligible homeowners to refinance or modify their loans will help millions of families avoid foreclosure. This in turn will support the housing recovery by slowing the growth in inventory due to foreclosures. Lowering unsold inventory will help stabilize home prices and values. We believe that the incentives the loan modification plan offers to borrowers and loan servicers will encourage additional loan modifications, reducing the default rate.
“Moving forward, we must not only work to prevent foreclosures, but also bring financially healthy home buyers to the market to further reduce unsold inventory. Toward this end, we hope that the president and his administration will continue to look for new and creative approaches that will lower interest rates for all homeowners and buyers.”
Review the Plan's Guidelines
For more detailed information on the Making Home Affordable plan, visit www.financialstability.gov.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Tampa Bay Business Journal
John Williams March 3, 2009 4:48PM EST
Mandy, let's get it straight. It wasn't 8 yrs. of Bush policies that lead to this mess. It mostly started with President Clinton.While President Carter in 1977 signed the Community Reinvestment Act, which pushed Fannie and Freddie to aggressively lend to minority communities, it was Clinton who supercharged the process.
After entering office in 1993, he extensively rewrote Fannie's and Freddie's rules.In so doing, he turned the two quasi-private, mortgage-funding firms into a semi-nationalized monopoly that dispensed cash to markets, made loans to large Democratic voting blocs and handed favors, jobs and money to political allies. This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and the Fannie-Freddie collapse.Despite warnings of trouble at Fannie and Freddie, in 1994 Clinton unveiled his National Homeownership Strategy, which broadened the CRA in ways Congress never intended.
Addressing the National Association of Realtors that year, Clinton bluntly told the group that "more Americans should own their own homes." He meant it.Clinton saw homeownership as a way to open the door for blacks and other minorities to enter the middle class.Though well-intended, the problem was that Congress was about to change hands, from the Democrats to the Republicans. Rather than submit legislation that the GOP-led Congress was almost sure to reject, Clinton ordered Robert Rubin's Treasury Department to rewrite the rules in 1995.The rewrite, as City Journal noted back in 2000, "made getting a satisfactory CRA rating harder."
Banks were given strict new numerical quotas and measures for the level of "diversity" in their loan portfolios. Getting a good CRA rating was key for a bank that wanted to expand or merge with another.Loans started being made on the basis of race, and often little else."Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group and race, to rate banks on performance," wrote Howard Husock, a scholar at the Manhattan Institute.But those rules weren't enough.Clinton got the Department of Housing and Urban Development to double-team the issue. That would later prove disastrous.Clinton's HUD secretary, Andrew Cuomo, "made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country's current crisis," the liberal Village Voice noted.
Among those decisions were changes that let Fannie and Freddie get into subprime loan markets in a big way.Other rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks.Since they could borrow at lower rates than banks due to implicit government guarantees for their debt, the government-sponsored enterprises boomed.With incentives in place, banks poured billions of dollars of loans into poor communities, often "no doc" and "no income" loans that required no money down and no verification of income.By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market — a staggering exposure.Worse still was the cronyism.Fannie and Freddie became home to out-of-work politicians, mostly Clinton Democrats.
An informal survey of their top officials shows a roughly 2-to-1 dominance of Democrats over Republicans. Then there were the campaign donations. From 1989 to 2008, some 384 politicians got their tip jars filled by Fannie and Freddie.Over that time, the two GSEs spent $200 million on lobbying and political activities. Their charitable foundations dropped millions more on think tanks and radical community groups.Did it work? Well, if measured by the goal of putting more poor people into homes, the answer would have to be yes. From 1995 to 2005, a Harvard study shows, minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new homeowners.
The problem is that many of those loans have now gone bad, and minority homeownership rates are shrinking fast. Fannie and Freddie, with their massive loan portfolios stuffed with securitized mortgage-backed paper created from subprime loans, are a failed legacy of the Clinton era.Thus the collapse of the economy.Now it is "fare economic politics" running the economy besides intelligent economics.
Mandy, let's get it straight. It wasn't 8 yrs. of Bush policies that lead to this mess. It mostly started with President Clinton.While President Carter in 1977 signed the Community Reinvestment Act, which pushed Fannie and Freddie to aggressively lend to minority communities, it was Clinton who supercharged the process.
After entering office in 1993, he extensively rewrote Fannie's and Freddie's rules.In so doing, he turned the two quasi-private, mortgage-funding firms into a semi-nationalized monopoly that dispensed cash to markets, made loans to large Democratic voting blocs and handed favors, jobs and money to political allies. This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and the Fannie-Freddie collapse.Despite warnings of trouble at Fannie and Freddie, in 1994 Clinton unveiled his National Homeownership Strategy, which broadened the CRA in ways Congress never intended.
Addressing the National Association of Realtors that year, Clinton bluntly told the group that "more Americans should own their own homes." He meant it.Clinton saw homeownership as a way to open the door for blacks and other minorities to enter the middle class.Though well-intended, the problem was that Congress was about to change hands, from the Democrats to the Republicans. Rather than submit legislation that the GOP-led Congress was almost sure to reject, Clinton ordered Robert Rubin's Treasury Department to rewrite the rules in 1995.The rewrite, as City Journal noted back in 2000, "made getting a satisfactory CRA rating harder."
Banks were given strict new numerical quotas and measures for the level of "diversity" in their loan portfolios. Getting a good CRA rating was key for a bank that wanted to expand or merge with another.Loans started being made on the basis of race, and often little else."Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group and race, to rate banks on performance," wrote Howard Husock, a scholar at the Manhattan Institute.But those rules weren't enough.Clinton got the Department of Housing and Urban Development to double-team the issue. That would later prove disastrous.Clinton's HUD secretary, Andrew Cuomo, "made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country's current crisis," the liberal Village Voice noted.
Among those decisions were changes that let Fannie and Freddie get into subprime loan markets in a big way.Other rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks.Since they could borrow at lower rates than banks due to implicit government guarantees for their debt, the government-sponsored enterprises boomed.With incentives in place, banks poured billions of dollars of loans into poor communities, often "no doc" and "no income" loans that required no money down and no verification of income.By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market — a staggering exposure.Worse still was the cronyism.Fannie and Freddie became home to out-of-work politicians, mostly Clinton Democrats.
An informal survey of their top officials shows a roughly 2-to-1 dominance of Democrats over Republicans. Then there were the campaign donations. From 1989 to 2008, some 384 politicians got their tip jars filled by Fannie and Freddie.Over that time, the two GSEs spent $200 million on lobbying and political activities. Their charitable foundations dropped millions more on think tanks and radical community groups.Did it work? Well, if measured by the goal of putting more poor people into homes, the answer would have to be yes. From 1995 to 2005, a Harvard study shows, minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new homeowners.
The problem is that many of those loans have now gone bad, and minority homeownership rates are shrinking fast. Fannie and Freddie, with their massive loan portfolios stuffed with securitized mortgage-backed paper created from subprime loans, are a failed legacy of the Clinton era.Thus the collapse of the economy.Now it is "fare economic politics" running the economy besides intelligent economics.
Friday, February 27, 2009
5 Texans Buried in Reefs
On Monday, November 8th, five Texans will be buried at sea in Eternal Reefs artificial reef balls off the coast of South Padre Island, Texas. This will mark the second memorial reef burial at the Port Isabel reef site.
Atlanta, GA (PRWEB) October 26, 2004 -- Families will attend the viewing and reef placement ceremonies for Austin and Houston, Texas natives Nene Sims, Glenn Rowe Pollard, Charles Pratt, Iris Schaa and Lola Kate Van Cleave.
Eternal Reefs is the only company in the United States to offer underwater burial at sea in artificial reef balls. For families and individuals that choose cremation rather than burial, Eternal Reefs offers a new memorial option that replaces cremation urns and ash scattering with a permanent environmental living legacy.
As reef systems have declined from natural disasters, Eternal Reefs will supply South Padre with memorial reef balls to develop local environmental ecosystems. Healthy coral reef systems are vital to both fishing and scuba enthusiasts, providing a fundamental undersea habitat that attracts diverse marine life. Establishing new reefs is a tool that is used to take the pressure off the natural reef systems and help repair the damage that has been done by mankind. As a fishing and diving reef site, South Padre will provide a nurturing environment for fish and other forms of sea life that are critical to the environment.
An astonishing 45 percent of families that have chosen cremation still have the remains at home sitting on a shelf or in a closet. An Eternal Reef is a permanent memorial option that takes the remains and creates new life in the form of reef habitat for fish, turtles and other forms of sea life. Cremation is growing dramatically in the United States, and by 2010, the procedure may be included in 40 percent of funerals, according to the Cremation Association of North America.
About Eternal Reefs Inc.
Eternal Reefs, Inc is an Atlanta-based company that provides creative environmentally enhancing means to memorialize the cremated remains of a loved one. The company incorporates cremated remains into a concrete mixture used to cast artificial reef formations. The artificial reefs are dedicated as permanent memorials while also bolstering natural coastal reef formations. Contact Eternal Reefs Inc. at: http://www.eternalreefs.com/
Atlanta, GA (PRWEB) October 26, 2004 -- Families will attend the viewing and reef placement ceremonies for Austin and Houston, Texas natives Nene Sims, Glenn Rowe Pollard, Charles Pratt, Iris Schaa and Lola Kate Van Cleave.
Eternal Reefs is the only company in the United States to offer underwater burial at sea in artificial reef balls. For families and individuals that choose cremation rather than burial, Eternal Reefs offers a new memorial option that replaces cremation urns and ash scattering with a permanent environmental living legacy.
As reef systems have declined from natural disasters, Eternal Reefs will supply South Padre with memorial reef balls to develop local environmental ecosystems. Healthy coral reef systems are vital to both fishing and scuba enthusiasts, providing a fundamental undersea habitat that attracts diverse marine life. Establishing new reefs is a tool that is used to take the pressure off the natural reef systems and help repair the damage that has been done by mankind. As a fishing and diving reef site, South Padre will provide a nurturing environment for fish and other forms of sea life that are critical to the environment.
An astonishing 45 percent of families that have chosen cremation still have the remains at home sitting on a shelf or in a closet. An Eternal Reef is a permanent memorial option that takes the remains and creates new life in the form of reef habitat for fish, turtles and other forms of sea life. Cremation is growing dramatically in the United States, and by 2010, the procedure may be included in 40 percent of funerals, according to the Cremation Association of North America.
About Eternal Reefs Inc.
Eternal Reefs, Inc is an Atlanta-based company that provides creative environmentally enhancing means to memorialize the cremated remains of a loved one. The company incorporates cremated remains into a concrete mixture used to cast artificial reef formations. The artificial reefs are dedicated as permanent memorials while also bolstering natural coastal reef formations. Contact Eternal Reefs Inc. at: http://www.eternalreefs.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
