Archive for June 29th, 2009

Buoyed by low-earners, Obama’s PAI back to zero …

June 29, 2009

Sunday’s Rasmussen tracking poll showed Pres. Obama’s Presidential Approval Index at zero … 32% strongly approved of the job he’s doing as president; 32% strongly disapprove – netting to a zero.

image

 Things get more interesting when you dive down into the numbers.  Previously, I posted that virtually all blacks strongly approve; he runs about a 10 point PAI deficit among whites; and he roughly breaks even with all others.

By income, low earners (under $20,000 per year) give him a plus 34 PAI; folks earning $60,000 (about where income taxes kick in these days) to $100,000 give him double digit negatives; he breaks even among the rest.

TakeAway: nation is increasingly split by taxpayers staus – if you don’t pay income taxes (or are so rich that it doesn’t matter). Obama’s likely to be your man. 

image

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

* * * * *

Buoyed by low-earners, Obama’s PAI back to zero …

June 29, 2009

Sunday’s Rasmussen tracking poll showed Pres. Obama’s Presidential Approval Index at zero … 32% strongly approved of the job he’s doing as president; 32% strongly disapprove – netting to a zero.

image

 Things get more interesting when you dive down into the numbers.  Previously, I posted that virtually all blacks strongly approve; he runs about a 10 point PAI deficit among whites; and he roughly breaks even with all others.

By income, low earners (under $20,000 per year) give him a plus 34 PAI; folks earning $60,000 (about where income taxes kick in these days) to $100,000 give him double digit negatives; he breaks even among the rest.

TakeAway: nation is increasingly split by taxpayers staus – if you don’t pay income taxes (or are so rich that it doesn’t matter). Obama’s likely to be your man. 

image

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

* * * * *

That thud you hear: the government toxic asset plan … see a pattern ?

June 29, 2009

Ken’s Take: The foreclosure program didn’t slow foreclosures, the stimulus program hasn’t stimulated anything, and the toxic asset program hasn’t bought any toxic assets.  Are these guys ever going to be held accountable for their free-spending and ineffective programs?

* * * * *

WSJ, “Wary Banks Hobble Toxic-Asset Plan”, June 29, 2009

The Obama administration’s plan to enable banks to dump troubled assets is facing troubles.

In March, Treasury Secretary Geithner announced  a two-pronged plan to offer favorable government financing to entice investors to buy bad loans and toxic securities from banks.
But that initiative — called the Public-Private Investment Program, or PPIP — has lost momentum.

Big banks worried about having to sell at fire-sale prices while small banks feared they would be shut out.

Potential buyers balked at the risk of doing business with the government, concerned that politicians might demonize them for making big profits.

Early this month, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. essentially shelved one arm of PPIP — the government-financed buying of bad bank loans.

Mr. Geithner recently said the other part — to facilitate the buying from banks of troubled securities, many backed by real-estate loans — could be scaled back because investors are “reluctant to participate.” This week, the government is expected to name investment firms to manage this securities-buying portion

Full article with lots of detail:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124622976702566007.html#mod=testMod

* * * * *

That thud you hear: the government toxic asset plan … see a pattern ?

June 29, 2009

Ken’s Take: The foreclosure program didn’t slow foreclosures, the stimulus program hasn’t stimulated anything, and the toxic asset program hasn’t bought any toxic assets.  Are these guys ever going to be held accountable for their free-spending and ineffective programs?

* * * * *

WSJ, “Wary Banks Hobble Toxic-Asset Plan”, June 29, 2009

The Obama administration’s plan to enable banks to dump troubled assets is facing troubles.

In March, Treasury Secretary Geithner announced  a two-pronged plan to offer favorable government financing to entice investors to buy bad loans and toxic securities from banks.
But that initiative — called the Public-Private Investment Program, or PPIP — has lost momentum.

Big banks worried about having to sell at fire-sale prices while small banks feared they would be shut out.

Potential buyers balked at the risk of doing business with the government, concerned that politicians might demonize them for making big profits.

Early this month, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. essentially shelved one arm of PPIP — the government-financed buying of bad bank loans.

Mr. Geithner recently said the other part — to facilitate the buying from banks of troubled securities, many backed by real-estate loans — could be scaled back because investors are “reluctant to participate.” This week, the government is expected to name investment firms to manage this securities-buying portion

Full article with lots of detail:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124622976702566007.html#mod=testMod

* * * * *

Gov’t Motors agrees to assume legal responsibility for defect-related injuries drivers suffer … well, kinda.

June 29, 2009

Ken’s Take: First, the gov’t tossed contract and bankruptcy laws out the window and screwed the secured creditor (i.e. bondholders) by subordinating their claims beneath unsecured UAW claims.

What I missed was that the gov’t was also tossing product liability claims out, too.  For example, if you’re driving a Chrysler car and the engine blows up because of a defect, your family gets zilch from the New Chrysler.

GM was trying to pull the same trick.  But, since GM is bigger and folks had time to think about the details of the gov’t orchestrated settlement, a ruckus broke out.

Now, the New GM will altruistically accept responsibility for claims that might arise from Old GM cars that are still on the road.  Big of them.

Question: why in the world would anybody buy a bond issued by New Chrysler and New GM, knowing that their security is, well, unsecured.

And, why would anybody take a chance buying a car from those companies.  You’ve gotta have a high risk tolerance, for sure.

* * * * *

Excerpted from WSJ, “GM to Take On Future Product-Liability Claims”, June 28, 2009

GM under pressure from state attorneys general, has agreed to assume legal responsibility for injuries drivers suffer from vehicle defects after the auto maker emerges from bankruptcy protection.

The concession means consumers who are injured in car accidents after GM emerges from Chapter 11 protection will be able to bring product-liability claims against the new government-owned auto maker.

Under GM’s original bankruptcy plan, the auto maker planned to leave such liabilities behind after selling its “good” assets to a “New GM” owned by the government. That meant future GM car-accident victims who believed faulty manufacturing caused their injuries would be unable to sue the New GM. Instead, they would have been treated as unsecured creditors, fighting over the remains of GM’s old bankruptcy estate.

In court papers, GM maintained it was not legally-required to take on the claims, saying “federal-preemption” meant the bankruptcy code overrode state laws governing the rights of car-accident victims to sue the new GM. It also noted that Chrysler, which recently emerged from bankruptcy in a deal with Fiat, would not be responsible for such claims.

But the auto maker said it agreed to take on future product-liability claims “to alleviate certain concerns that have been raised on behalf of consumers.”

Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124614495545265019.html#mod=testMod

* * * * *