Category Archives: World

Responsible 2nd Chances: Loan Modifications Addressing the Issue of Negative Equity and (Borrower) Moral Hazard

January 9, 2010 – 11:46 pm

Proactive government and bank efforts to help distressed borrowers have largely, if not exclusively, been focused on ‘home retention’ programs in 2009. On the one hand this focus makes sense: the first question that should be asked and answered when a family stops making their mortgage payment due to financial hardship is whether an change to the loan terms would make the home affordable for the same borrower (thereby avoiding all the negative effects of a pre or post foreclosure home sale) while being acceptable to the investor.

On the other hand, given constrained resources this almost exclusive focus on home retention, which has come thus far at the expense of those that could not afford to keep ownership of their home, has been a little confusing to me, a former Chief People Officer who had to layoff over 7000 people between mid-2007 and mid-2008 due to the mortgage crisis. Most of these above mentioned responsible employees of my former mortgage bank employer, unfortunately fall into the latter category of families who would not be able to afford homes they once could, and I think we have missed the boat thus far on properly providing and supporting home and life transitions for these families.

My issue with the focus of government and bank programs thus far is not that they shouldn’t focus on helping every family in trouble first try to keep their home if they want…but on the public message and conversation we are having.

America is undergoing a fundamental shift in consumer behavior and economic activity today, and as Charles Darwin said, ‘It’s not the strongest species that survive, nor the most intelligent. It’s the ones most adaptable to change’.

Americans (myself included) need to adapt to the new economy…and if this means they need to sell their home and move…so be it. (Family), jobs and financial stability are more important, in my view, than holding onto a home one cannot afford.

Notwithstanding the above gap in proactive bank and government programs till date, let’s circle back to the issue of home retention first. Early results are in on government and bank home retention efforts…and performance thus far is viewed as below expectations. Only about 20% of the families in trouble have been provided a temporary modification (mod) yet…and conversion rates of these temporary mods to permanent mods are very low thus far. 2 things should be noted before one judge’s the above too soon:

1. The number of loan modifications attempted (this is where progress starts – with a step in the right direction) is significantly larger than in the previous year/s and under the previous administration/team

2. In some ways, the problem isn’t the number of people in trial mods. While lots of effort is and will be put on solving the current problem (hopefully successfully) of converting the 75% or so performing trial mods into permanent ones (except where there was mis-statement of income, which is not kosher in my view), the real issue is improperly set expectations…and lack of enough alternate modification programs (addressing the diversity in situation among those in trouble right now).

A key flaw in most loan modifications offered today including HAMP is highlighted by the article I am including below on a recent by the New York Federal Reserve Bank: they do not address the issue of negative equity.

Since 25% of US homeowners have negative equity today, and since our national goal is to do more to help those in trouble who want to retain their home, I thought I’d resurface a simple loan modification proposal I first introduced in an April 2009 blog….which I believe could significantly expand the success of our home retention efforts.

Responsible Second Chances: A break today in exchange for some of tomorrow’s upside

For every American family who is unable to afford the payment on their primary residence, I would offer them a one page loan modification with the following terms:

1.    Reduction in loan principal down to current market value.
2.    30 year fixed mortgage at current historically low market rates.
3.    25% of any equity appreciation from the written down loan principal (the remaining 75% would go back to the investor taking the loss on the principal write-down today)…thereby reducing the bite of the loss of principal taken today.

4. Requirement that if the borrower misses more than 3 mortgage payments again and is unable to reinstate their loan, they would voluntarily exit the property within 6 months of falling behind…either via a Short Sale or Voluntary Foreclosure.

Why do I think the program above would help many not being helped today? Here’s why:

1.    It addresses the issue of negative equity…which is critical, per the article and study mentioned below
2.    It is ‘economically’ the right answer (in effect, any family that can afford their home today at current values and mortgage rates, gets to keep it)
3.    It addresses the issue of moral hazard: there’s no free lunch in America (at least not for long). The family gives up 75% future equity appreciation in exchange for the investor taking a significant loss on the loan today (via the principal write-down). This should largely eliminate, in my view, the need to collect financial hardship documentation…which is a key reason many mods are not becoming permanent today.
4.    It is simple to understand, unlike the HAMP program…which does not result in a principal reduction, as many borrowers applying for HAMP mistakenly believe it does.

5. It addresses the issue of what happens if the loan goes bad again…which is important for the investor who is making a big compromise today.

Implementability

It is likely my proposal is not implementable in many parts of the private market…particularly the securitized loan market. However, it could be implemented for government sponsored and owned enterprises…Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and FHA…which represent a large part of the market.

Article from DSNews.com: Fed Study Finds Principal Writedowns Minimize Risk of Redefault

Servicers who lower distressed homeowners’ mortgage payments by reducing the principal balance, as opposed to just making interest rate adjustments, are much more likely to see the payments keep coming in and ward off a redefault, according to a new study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

The economists found a definite pattern among modifications made since December 2005 that suggests “an intention among servicers to make the loans more affordable, while not losing any of the underlying principle.” However, their analysis shows that modifications that trim off some of the loan balance have higher rates of success and “can double the reduction in re-default rates.”

While principal writedowns essentially mean the lender or investor must eat a loss, many analysts argue that it’s a smaller loss than comes with the eventual foreclosure and the price tag of a nonperforming asset in today’s housing market, already swollen with REO inventories and vacant properties.

According to the New York Fed’s economists, when a borrower’s monthly mortgage payment is cut by 25 percent by reducing the interest rate only, the borrower is 11 percent less likely to default within one year.
But, if the monthly payment is lowered by the same 25 percent, this time by shaving 25 percent off of the outstanding loan balance, coupled with a small interest rate cut, the chances that the borrower will defaulting again within one year drops by nearly 27 percent.

The report’s authors also concluded that borrowers who have a loan-to-value (LTV) ratio of 115 percent or higher – meaning they owe 15 percent or more than their homes are worth – pose a 51 percent higher risk of redefaulting after a modification.

According to a blog by Wall Street Journal reporter Nick Timiraos, the findings of the New York Fed paper could have big implications on the administration’s Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). Timiraos explained that while the program doesn’t preclude principal forgiveness on the part of lenders, HAMP’s primary push is on lowering interest rates and extending the loan term to bring monthly payments down – exactly the types of modifications that the Fed report says have a higher chance of becoming delinquent again.

The Congressional Oversight Panel and the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) have criticized the government’s mortgage modification efforts on numerous occasions for not addressing the issue of negative equity, which would ultimately involve trimming LTV ratios by shaving off outstanding mortgage balances.

A growing number of mortgage experts and foreclosure counselors agree with the federal watchdogs and the New York Fed economists that principal reduction is a powerful incentive for borrowers to keep up with their restructured payments, particularly now, when such a large number of mortgages are underwater.
First American CoreLogic says that nearly 10.7 million, or 23 percent, of the residential mortgages in the United States had negative equity at the end of the third quarter of 2009, with the homeowner owing more on the home than it was worth.

A modification is only worthwhile if it induces borrowers who would otherwise default to continue paying, the New York Fed’s economists noted, and they argue in their analysis that borrowers with positive equity in their properties have a strong incentive to keep current on their mortgage, since delinquency and foreclosure will ultimately lead to a loss of the asset.

“In fact,” they wrote, “borrowers with positive equity (that is, borrowers whose house is worth more than the balance on their mortgage) should rarely default, since refinancing the mortgage or selling the property are better options than foreclosure, which may cause the borrower to lose [their] equity.”

Tags foreclosure prevention, HAMP, home retention, loan modification, Making Home Affordable, negative equity, principal writedowns | Comment (0)

Business Los angeles People Public Policy Real Estate World World Affairs

Who should get to keep their home and who shouldn’t? Simplicity is key for success

April 23, 2009 – 1:54 am

There are a lot of people who have gotten “unlucky” recently, in one way or another, and are finding themselves unable to make payments on their debt because their income and expense equation is no longer what it used to be (i.e., their income is down, or their expenses are up). Of the millions of homeowners currently not making their full monthly mortgage payments, it’s hard to tell which ones were unlucky, who got defrauded or lied to, and who just plain made a stupid (intentional or unintentional) mistake and bought something they couldn’t really afford.

So who – of the large number of people that aren’t able to make their currently monthly housing payments – should get to keep their home and who shouldn’t? This is more than a million dollar question and we’re having a helluva time as a nation trying to answer this question, in policy and in practice, fairly, systematically and timely.

There are currently a myriad home retention programs implemented across dozens of servicers nationwide, and if I had to pick one word to describe the current landscape of options made available to troubled borrowers, I would pick “complicated”.

I think if we could come up with a simple common sense rule of thumb to answer this key question, we would be much further ahead in stabilizing our housing market. So in the spirit of proposing solutions instead of criticizing current approaches, here’s my simple solution to this problem:

If you can afford the home you currently live in at its current market price with loan terms based on current (historically low) market housing rates….you should get to keep it. If you can’t, you should move on and find rental housing that you can afford based on your current financial reality.

How would I achieve the above if I were designing our national housing programs? I’d keep it pretty simple (although I acknowledge that making it so would be rather complicated and time consuming…with no guarantee of success):

1. Do principle write-downs to current market value for all troubled borrowers who can afford their home on current market terms…but in return for this (massive) accommodation…require them to give up 75% of future home equity appreciation back to the investors who took the loss resulting from the initial principal write-down…until the investors are made whole. After that point, allow the homeowner to keep any remaining equity upside.

2. Allow every other owner occupied troubled borrower to sell their property via a servicer offered short sale accompanied by a cash payment to help the family move to affordable rental housing. Forgive the “deficiency” for these borrowers including any tax that might be owed on the amount forgiven (most families in trouble can’t afford a hefty tax payment anyways, so this would only push them further into the hole)

3. Allow every other non-owner occupied borrower to sell their property via a servicer offered short sale, but with no cash payment and no automatic forgiveness of deficiency

Would we likely require a new governmental entity/group to track the details on the principal write-downs and resulting future home equity appreciation share on behalf of impacted investors? Yes.

Is this simple proposal difficult to gain agreement on? Yes…very difficult. But no more difficult than it will be to deal with the millions of avoidable foreclosures that we will experience otherwise.

Tags foreclosure crisis, foreclosure prevention policies, housing crisis, short sales, systematic short sales, US housing market | Comment (0)

Life Politics World World Affairs

Contrarian View: Tough Times All Around Will Raise America’s Reputation Abroad

March 12, 2009 – 7:20 pm

Most everyone knows that America is not very popular abroad right now, and hasn’t been for the past several years. Just ask any American who has travelled abroad recently. From Davos to Delhi, the general current perspective is that America is on the decline and other countries (such as China and India) will be the global leaders of tomorrow.

While I certainly agree that countries like India and China will continue to gain importance and power as their economic power increases to levels consistent with their massive populations, I disagree with this pessimistic view of the future of America.

I am an Indian born immigrant to America myself and based on what I’ve learned and seen of the world and America, I believe the American framework of life, liberty and opportunity is superior to the socio-economic frameworks in place most anywhere else.

The election of Barack Obama as US President is but one example of the beauty of the American framework….and this example is repeated daily, in ways small and big, by those who weren’t born into money or power but who gain opportunity and success in America as a result purely of their hard work and smarts.

As the economic crisis works it’s way around the world and once fast developing countries slow down and deal with the now-more-apparent weaknesses in their own social, economic and legal frameworks….I actually think America’s reputation abroad will improve.

Tags america's reputation, america's reputation abroad, american views abroad, criticism of America, developing countries, emerging economies | Comment (0)

Business Life Los angeles People Public Policy Real Estate World World Affairs

A Roof Over Every American’s Head: Addressing the Core of our Current Crisis of Confidence

January 12, 2009 – 4:50 pm

What is the #1 worry that most Americans have when they get laid off? I believe it is that they might lose the roof over their and their families’ heads in a worst case scenario (i.e., if they are unable to find adequate alternate sources of income).

Now imagine if the government of this country was able to promise all of its lawful citizens this: “No matter what, you and your family will always have a roof over your head. We know we are in the middle of the greatest economic downturn since the 1930’s and we also know that there has been overbuilding in the housing sector. We have put these two realities together to make a unique promise to all Americans today so that you may feel secure and confident about their family’s safety.”

Do you think the above promise would help the nation stabilize (and possibly even start an economic recovery)? I believe it might because it addresses the very heart of the problem in America today: a lack of confidence in our future and a deep worry (almost and actually a panic in many people) about what this future will bring.

Now, I am not one who believes that every American can and should own a home (even though I do strongly believe in the societal and familial benefits of home ownership). Nor do I believe that we should subsidize home ownership for current home owners any more than we would subsidize it for new homeowners. But we do have plenty of housing available in America today….and the government can and should do more to help those Americans who suddenly find themselves in an economically precarious situation.

The US government already provides rent subsidy at varying levels to the lowest income in our society…primarily through the Section 8 and public housing programs (Disclosure: I am on the Board of the Los Angeles Public Housing Authority, which owns/administers both programs in Los Angeles). So why not expand this concept to stabilize our families in a manner that is sensible, fair and proactive? This might just be the type of bold action we need given the times we are experiencing currently.

Tags crisis of confidence, economic crisis, economic recovery, foreclosures, housing crisis | Comment (1)

Business Health care Life Public Policy World World Affairs

Transparency and Tradeoffs: The Missing T’s in The Healthcare Industry

December 23, 2008 – 10:30 pm

AV’s recent inpatient surgery experience – she had a cervical dystectomy (relatively common neck surgery) – reminded of how fundamentally flawed our US healthcare system is. Almost every industry/market that’s “efficient” functions on some basic common principles/dynamics: Customers make purchasing decisions based on cost, quality and service and producers/companies compete on the basis of these 3 core product/service “differentiation” dimensions.

Let’s take the retail industry as an example. Walmart is all about being low cost and has build a business model that continuously wrings cost out of the entire supply chain for the goods they sell. A store like Nordstrom on the other hand tries to be more upscale, so it competes on service and to a lesser extent quality (by carrying brands perceived to be higher quality). And Louis Vitton, Tiffany, and other luxury brands compete largely on quality only (with quality being defined as a combination of style/perception, brand value, material, cut, etc.).

The key to the above tradeoffs occuring, of course, is information (transparency) about the 3 differentiating dimensions, particularly quality and cost….to enable consumers to evaluate different companies and make their decision based on what matters most to them. But none of this is possible in healthcare – an industry that is almost a fifth of US GDP!

In healthcare, you make a decision with no idea of what it will cost you and really no way/system of getting such a cost estimate without significant effort. And quality is an entirely different matter. Where cost is difficult but not impossible to assess, quality is. There is absolutely no data available to consumers to help them understand the experience level and output/performance (aka “outcomes” in healthcare) of the doctor they choose to go with. And did I mention there’s no systematic way of finding a doctor that meets your needs? The whole system of finding a doctor is primitive – you ask around to see if anyone you know (including other doctors one might know) have a recommendation (which is again, largely based on perception/reputation and not facts).

I am definitely a believer that government led investment in infrastucture is a key tool to help get the US out of the current economic crisis (while making sensible investments which will pay off and are required for our long term health). I would love to see the Obama administration address some of the issues above to help get the US healthcare industry more nimble, competitive and no doubt efficient.

Tags health outcomes, healthcare, healthcare cost, healthcare efficiency, healthcare quality, tradeoffs | Comment (0)

Capital and Risk-Sharing: Smart Crisis Fighting Tools That Should Be Used Much More

November 30, 2008 – 10:23 pm

I’m glad to see the government is finally using 2 “smart” tools – capital and risk sharing – to help address the financial institution panic and resulting failures we have seen since earlier in 2008 which have seriously escalated the financial and economic crisis facing the US and global economies today. While these tools don’t comprehensively address the myriad of financial and economic issues facing the US or the world today, they:

· Help stabilize Banks when no other 3^rd party can/will do so: this is critical to stabilizing consumer sentiment, the markets and economy

· Are leveraged in their impact to the real economy: Because Banks typically lend $10 to $20 for every dollar in capital they hold

· Help minimize the tax-payer bill from all this government investing and intervention: by acknowledging the uncertainty around where the housing and credit/financial markets will bottom out, and putting a “cap” on the maximum losses a private investor can incur on an investment

· Help establish a floor for asset values (by limiting downside risk for investors): and therefore support and encourage the return of private investors into the capital markets

The need for government provided capital was obvious to me months ago at Indymac since such a significant capital infusion would likely have prevented the Bank’s failure and no private capital was available for the job. Every investor who had invested capital into any financial institution in the 12 months leading up to Indymac’s failure had lost all or a big portion of their money by the summer of 2008, so this lack of private capital was a rational market outcome. And risk sharing can and should reduce the size of the loss the government creates by selling Indymac’s assets as it will help mitigate the negative financial impact of the fact that Indymac’s assets are being sold by the government into the worst housing asset market since the Great Depression.

A wise man once said it was possible to “transform a breakdown into a breakthrough” and I think the tools above can be powerfully applied to the global economy today. After all, no large company is just a “US” company today. All major American companies are generally global in the markets they serve, the organizations they work with, and the workforces they leverage (even “little Indymac” which only operated in the US supported over 1000 employees in India). So by supporting US Banks and Financial Institutions the US government is already supporting the global economy (not just the US economy).

Why not do this more directly and on a bigger scale worldwide? As someone who is optimistic about the global economy’s long term prospects, I think we should. The US taking an ownership stake in a wide array of businesses all over the world could indeed help turn this breakdown into a breakthrough.

Tags economic crisis, financial crisis, government capital, government risk sharing, indymac | Comment (0)

Life People Politics Public Policy World World Affairs

Redefining the War on Terror

November 28, 2008 – 10:33 pm

The Mumbai “terrorist” attacks are a clear message to President Elect Obama, us, and the rest of the world. The problems of the world aren’t just economic….they are equally urgent, social and extend deeply into our homes and places of worship.

The Bombay attacks are highly symbolic in their location/s, organization-level and timing. And they hit home. I definitely feel the significance of these particular attacks personally. The violence was directed at the heart of India’s financial system where my (our) friends hang out, my (our) colleagues stay when they visit India, and our companies establish offices when they enter the Indian market (the 5 star hotels Taj and Oberoi in Bombay have been the India office for many a blue chip multi-national corporation). The targeting of westerners by the attackers is particularly galling since it targets a big source of support and growth for India and it’s democracy, philosophies and people. India is getting more integrated with the west and the global economy, and the attacks sought to strike at the core locations and symbols of this progress.

So what? Since change is in the air, here’s the 2 key changes I’d like to see made immediately in our”war on terror”:

1. Rename it in a way that reflects what it is. In some ways I think we have glorified what is really going on, by allowing this global problem to be named a “War on Terror” fought against Terrorists. Certainly the acts can and do bring terror into people’s hearts. But why not (at least) try to take away this terrible power? There is clearly no moral equality in this war, and the battleground is people’s minds and hearts (not a physical battlefield). The truth is these so called terrorists are generally pathetic (and often unlucky) losers perpetrating violence in the name of God. Calling their movement what it is will go a long way towards accelerating it’s end, in my view…and also helping make it less and ultimately non-violent.

2. Acknowledge that this is not only about Islam and is truly global/multi-national. Violent Islamic fundamentalists are certainly creating massive problems worldwide, but the problems extend beyond Islam. In my (our) lifetime the forces of religious fundamentalism have risen dramatically across the globe in reaction to the forces of globalization, westernization and modernity….and many outside Islam are also perpetrating violence in the name of their God. Broadening the focus beyond Islam will, I think, help address it more quickly in Islam also…as it will remove the ego and pride barrier created by the perceptions of denouncing an entire (and majorly important and large) religion.

Tags india and pakistan, islam, mumbai attacks, terrorists, war on terror | Comment (0)

Public Policy World World Affairs

A New Focus for American Foreign Policy: Human Rights

October 24, 2008 – 10:40 pm

One of the fatal flaws of the Bush approach/policy framework that I would love to see Barack Obama change…is this idea that it is America’s job to spread Democracy around the world. As a student of Democracy and child of the largest Democracy in the world (India), I do believe in and love Democracy. However, just like Capitalism….Democracy, too, is a flawed, chaotic, and imperfect system and I just don’t think it’s America’s job to tell other countries what political system is best for them.

In fact from a purely theoretical standpoint, I believe a ‘benevolent autocracy’ is likely the best political system to help efficiently/quickly advance a society economically and socially. The only issue is, those benevolent/enlightened autocrats are really difficult (virtually impossible) to come by….and power corrupts, so this too is a slippery slope.

In any event, to get back to the original point of this blog….I believe America needs to officially change this stated policy of spreading Democracy….and focus primarily on spreading/ensuring basic human rights for every human being. Even if you disagree with my point on Democracy….I think most should agree safety comes before politics…and the problems the people of the world face in so many countries (including the Middle East) are still about safety.

Let’s work on the basics, and get to politics later.

Tags democracy, foreign policy, international affairs, middle east, obama, Politics | Comment (0)

Education Life Politics Public Policy World World Affairs

Fighting and debating the wrong “war”

March 30, 2007 – 10:49 pm

I find myself quite uncomfortable with the near consensus I see in America today (as reflected in the media and recent policy coming out of the House and Senate) on the belief that “the war” on terror is going poorly, and the answer to this problem is for America and the world to pull out and leave the Middle East to solve it’s own civil and societal issues.

My two main contentions/concerns are as follows:

1. I feel everyone is missing the forest (the real war), as they are focused on the trees (Iraq, and sometimes Afghanistan). The war, and I do believe, we are in the midst of “the third world war” is much broader than just the conflicts in these 2 countries….and I fear “pulling out” of Iraq, may reflect a broader pull back on any sustained attack or defence against the root cause of the war….which I believe is largely, if not fully, unaddressed today (more than 5 years after 9/11).

2. The real war we have is not a physical war at all. It is a virtual or mental war….a war of beliefs and values (largely Islamic beliefs and values on key issues, but broadly religious fundamentalism and the violation of basic human rights using religious beliefs/edicts as a justification).

This real war is the ultimate untraditional war. Yet, the world has largely responded to it with traditional tactics….i.e., physical attack and defence. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent already, on physical conflicts in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Imagine what this money could achieve if appropriately redirected into fighting the real war….the war of beliefs.

I think it’s time to take a step back, somehow firmly but fairly extricate ourselves out of Iraq over time (I know this in itself is a huge issue, but I’ll leave my thoughts on Iraq specifically for a separate discussion. I will say I think it’s key despite all the past mistakes….to leave Iraq a much better and more peaceful place than it was and is), redefine and understand the real war against terror, and get cracking using more “untraditional” means such as economic policy, incentives, education, TV and the internet, opportunity and basic common sense and logic….to help the muslim world adopt a more moderate version of their religion (as has happened with other religions, including Christianity over the past few hundred years).

It won’t be easy for people to ignore the actual words from the Quran that are used by some to justify killing, discrimination against women, and other inhumane and backward practises….but this is religion….and muslims must adopt moderating changes themselves after debate and discussion….if they are to retain their pride….which is paramount when you are talking about religion and culture.

Tags Education, george bush, iraq, middle east, obama, Politics, Public Policy, war on terror | Comment (0)

Education Life People Politics Public Policy World World Affairs

How the middle east will be liberated

May 13, 2006 – 10:53 pm

Ultimately, I believe true ‘liberation’ and ‘freedom’ for the oppressed in the middle east (those that are denied opportunity and freedom….particularly youth, women and children) will have to be achieved by the people in the middle east for themselves.

Perhaps I am biased, being Indian (given our history of achieving freedom from the British through struggle). This freedom will be achieved on the ground over time with education, knowledge and a taste for how it feels to be able to determine one’s own future. Check out this great article from last week’s Wall Street Journal. To me, the media is the most important tool in helping bring information to people….so their own minds and hearts are changed. We should be spending billions on this….not mere millions. Look what TV, knowledge/information and opportunity have done for post-liberation India!!
Lastly, to clarify, I am talking about true internal change….not just a change in the broad, high level framework of government (which the US has facilitated in places like Iraq). The high level framework too is important…but not nearly enough in an of itself.Liberty TV

By KENNETH Y. TOMLINSON
May 6, 2006; Page A8

In recent weeks, we’ve heard a great deal in Washington about how we ought to be broadcasting to Iran. But it might be instructive to examine what U.S. international broadcasting is already doing.

Very recently, on a Persian-language satellite television broadcast from the United States, the people of Iran learned that Iran’s oldest and largest student organization, Tahkim Vahdat, urged the government to suspend uranium enrichment and to cooperate with the international community by restricting nuclear development to peaceful uses. The group called the government’s behavior “irrational and confrontational.” Needless to say none of this appeared in Iran’s government-controlled media; few rulers on earth exercise the degree of censorship enforced by the Iranian government.

Another program featured the story of Hossein Derakhshan, once jailed in Iran for starting an Internet blog. Upon his release, he managed to get to Canada where he now runs the most popular blog — in Iran.

Or consider this exchange that occurred on our nightly Persian-language news and current affairs program on the Voice of America.

Moderator, Ms. Setareh Derakshesh: “Our guests today are Mr. Bijan Kian, a businessman associated with the American Council on Foreign Relations, and Dr. Abbas Maleki of Sharif University in Tehran, who is currently a Harvard Research Fellow in the United States. Dr. Maleki, how do you see the possibility of direct negotiations between Washington and Tehran on Iran’s nuclear policies?”

Dr. Maleki: “From the beginning, direct talks have been part of Iran’s agenda. From Iran’s point of view, the nuclear issue is not a real problem. This is part of the overall process of development which is going on in all parts of our society, like nanotechnology, biotechnology, IT and so on . . .”

Mr. Kian: “It is amazing to hear about such claims as progress in nanotechnology in a country where there is widespread unemployment, poverty, drug addiction, prostitution, so many women’s issues and, finally, political repression and coercion. The real dispute is not between our two countries. It is between the Iranian people and the government of the Islamic Republic . . .”

Dr. Maleki: “Well! Using polemic language and slogans talking about political coercion is very easy. Even in the U.S., that technologically speaking is the most advanced country in the world, you still have poverty everywhere, unemployment and so on. Tehran is so much cleaner than New York. You can go and check the trash-ridden streets of New York. Go and have a look at poor people there. . . . Just look at the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and now this atmosphere of war the U.S. government is creating about Iran . . .”

Ms. Derakshesh: “Dr. Maleki: The majority of the people in Iran live under the poverty line — and Iran’s prisons are filled with political prisoners . . .”

Dr. Maleki: “Excuse me! You are the moderator yet you are passing a wild judgment.”

Ms. Derakshesh: “This is not my personal opinion, sir . . .”

Dr. Maleki: “Whose facts are these, where did you get them — that there are political prisoners in Iran?”

Ms. Derakshesh: “These are facts reported by credible international human rights organizations.”

Mr. Kian: “Whenever we talk about what is really going on in Iran, what we say will be branded as slogans by supporters by the regime. I have to emphasize that the American government is not in favor of war with Iran. Just look at what has been said by President Bush and his secretary of state.”

* * *
In VOA and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the U.S. has a model illustrating how broadcasting news and information (i.e., the truth) can lead to the liberation of a people.

That certainly occurred in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Recognizing that fact, the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors moved to increase television and radio to Iran long before the current crisis in that country. In early 2003 we launched Farda, a round-the-clock, youth-oriented radio service to Iran. A few months later we began broadcasting daily Persian news and current affairs satellite television.

The television launch may have been modest — $1.9 million for 30 minutes daily with repeats. But we have come to recognize that satellite television is to the future what shortwave radio was to the past.

That daily program today is an hour (with repeats), and by September, thanks to better than $9 million from the Bush administration and Congress, we will be broadcasting four original television hours — with news, debates and call-in shows — daily. Funds in a supplemental now before Congress could increase these broadcasts even more — and strengthen our coverage.

Small satellite dishes are proliferating in Iran and there are strong indications that VOA’s nightly programming is becoming a staple for large numbers of Iranians. Telephone polling (which tends to undercount audiences living under repressive regimes) show that better than one-in-five adult television viewers say they regularly watch VOA’s satellite television programs.

As was the case with RFE/RL and VOA in the Cold War, it is important that our broadcasts are provocative — and credible. Intense journalistic supervision is critical to achieving this goal. Truth does not lie half way between the views of Washington and Tehran. But talk and debate programs give Iranians a taste of freedom — and enlightenment.

Ultimately, the future of Iran rests with the people of Iran. Just as in the Cold War when the people ultimately prevailed over their oppressors, it will be the people of Iran who will deliver their country from the tyrants who rule them now. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, we can give them the tools — information the mullahs don’t want them to hear and debate challenging the lies of mullah-sympathizers — and the people of Iran can finish the job.

Mr. Tomlinson is chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees U.S. international broadcasting.

Tags culture, freedom, media, middle east, Politics, Public Policy, World Affairs | Comment (0)

Business World World Affairs

GM, France and Albany

April 8, 2006 – 10:54 pm

I couldn’t agree more with the conclusions and similarities this article from today’s Wall Street Journal draws about unions. If organizations can’t fire easily, they definitely don’t hire easily. Did you know that Michigan had the lowest rate of home price appreciation of all 50 US states last year? This theme also rings true in the Indian context….labor reform is key to a vibrant future India. I, personally, have observed the impact of unions on 2 of my former clients. At a mining client, we had a really tough time implementing pay for performance on the front line…as unions are generally anti performance based differentiation (which I’m definitely for!). At a hospital client, I saw how expenses grew uncontrollably due to unions…forcing prices up and/or profits down (usually into the red).

Here’s the article:

At first glance, they seem to have little in common. But the riots in France over labor reform, the slow-motion suicide of General Motors, and the continuing decline of the New York economy all share one defining trait: entrenched and unchangeable union power.

These columns have always favored the right to collectively bargain, and any private company that allows a union to organize its workers deserves what it gets. But that doesn’t mean we should fail to appreciate the consequences when unions become entrenched inside any organization. On the evidence throughout business and politics today, unions do not provide individual job or income security. On the contrary, they undermine security by contributing to broader business and economic decline.

At the national level, the French example is clear enough. While the French private sector is less unionized than America’s, it must cope with mandated work rules that make it all but impossible to fire someone; so naturally companies are also reluctant to hire. The jobless rate is double America’s, while youth unemployment is 23%. More significant is that the political clout of public-sector unions has blocked all but minor changes in these rules. Public-sector workers account for more than a quarter of the entire French work force (6.4 million of out 24.6 million), and their salaries and pensions made up 45% of the entire state budget as recently as 2003.

Is General Motors Unraveling? The current French protests are in response to a modest change that would allow employers to fire people under age 26 more easily. So entrenched has the politics of union entitlement become in France that even at the onset of their careers these young protesters are demanding security over opportunity. In the global economy, this means they will end up with less of both.

France remains a wealthy country, and its economic decline can be masked for a time as it lives off accumulated capital. But already the promises that its unions have extracted from the government seem unlikely to be kept. A growth rate of between 1% and 2% a year won’t be enough to finance the pensions and health care of an aging nation. And facing up to those facts will require an increasingly painful political reckoning.

* * *
Here in the U.S., the same burden is slowly crippling New York, once a bulwark of American industry. Power in the state capital of Albany is shared by Republicans and Democrats. But both parties bow before the public-sector unions, especially the teachers, and the health-care workers led by perhaps the most powerful man in the state, Dennis Rivera.

Thanks to his political clout, New York’s Medicaid costs are higher than those of Texas and Florida combined; a health-care insurance premium for a young family of four is roughly six times what it is across the border in Connecticut; and high-deductible health-savings accounts that can help the self-employed afford insurance can’t even be offered in the state. New York is also a rare state that actually taxes private health insurance, to the tune of about $2.4 billion a year.

Another union-driven business cost is workers’ compensation, and in New York the average cost per claim is second highest in the nation (after Louisiana) and 72% higher than the national average. Governor George Pataki has proposed a reform that would lower costs while actually raising the average payout for the truly disabled, but he’s run up against a French-like union roadblock in the legislature.

Thanks to immigration, as well as America’s continuing advantage in financial services, New York City has so far been able to avoid another fiscal collapse of the kind it had in the 1970s. But upstate is a different story, with jobs and young people fleeing to better business climes. New York manufacturing employment fell by 41% between 1990 and 2005, or double the national rate.

Even Eliot Spitzer recently referred to upstate New York as “Appalachia.” Alas, the Attorney General shows no sign of understanding that the heart of the problem lies in Albany. One reason he hasn’t pursued the state’s rampant Medicaid fraud with any vigor is because it would get him crosswise with Mr. Rivera.

As for GM, its management mistakes are legion and its weak product line well-known. But the root of its problem is that it long ago became a corporate version of the welfare state, with the same entrenched union interests. Yes, as a private company it has had to answer to shareholders. But the size of its market dominance going back to its heyday 40 years ago allowed its managers to avoid confronting its uncompetitive wages, benefits and work rules even as they saw Toyota and Honda gaining in the rearview mirror.

In retrospect, GM management should have provoked a union showdown. Yet only a very brave CEO would have been willing to risk a potentially catastrophic strike on his watch for the sake of making the company more competitive after he retired. In any case, would the United Auto Workers really have budged? In 1998, young executive and future CEO Rick Wagoner endured a 54-day UAW wildcat strike at two plants in Flint, Michigan, after GM had tried to change some production rules. The strike shut down most GM production in North America and cost the company some $2 billion. In the end GM caved and the UAW escaped, having made virtually no concessions.

Even now at auto-parts maker Delphi — which is already in Chapter 11 — the UAW is declaring it will take a strike that could destroy both Delphi and GM rather than agree to Delphi’s proposed job cuts and work changes. As in France and New York, these union leaders would rather sink the company than make concessions that would reduce their own power.

This pattern has repeated itself again and again — in the steel and textile industries attacked by foreign competition, or the unionized grocery chains routed by Wal-Mart. The union answer has rarely been to work with a company to allow more job flexibility to become more competitive. The answer has typically been to seek a ruinous strike or lobby for political intervention that might stave off disaster for at best a few more years.

We recount all this because, even amid GM’s decline and France’s economic turmoil, most of America’s liberal elites refuse to draw the right lesson. They cling to the belief that if only the Democrats can retake Congress, or the union movement can once again organize more of the American labor force, the old economy of union-backed job security and egalité will return. Or, worse, they propose seceding from global competition via protectionism. It is all a delusion. Down that road lies France — a nice place to vacation, but you wouldn’t want to work there.

Tags Business, capitalism, labor laws, publis policy, unions | Comment (0)

Business Life People Politics Public Policy Real Estate World World Affairs

If you don’t know it, you can’t fix it? Unsexy but critical: Data/Metrics

November 15, 2005 – 10:58 pm

I was reading an article about the french riots and the core liberal philosophy underlying french society and government. The french believe (rightly) that all people are equal and that race, color, ethnicity shouldn’t matter. As a result, they don’t measure any of their social outcomes by race, color or ethnicity.

No data on whether there are particular ethnic or racial segments of society that are having major problems? No way to fix these problems. If you’ve read the papers at all in the last few weeks, you know what I’m talking about.

Not sexy, but true (to me anyways). You achieve what you articulate and focus on. You fix problems you see. You improve metrics you measure and report regularly.

So why the hell is this the subject of a blog? Well, I’m not sure this is going to be a crowd-puller, but I was reading an article my boss sent me from the Wall Street Journal and I’m feeling validated (enough to share anyways!). The article is about Michael Walker, founder of the Fraser institute in Canada. A few snippets from the article which I totally agree with:

“A debate about government policy isn’t likely to be settled around values. But when there is objective measurement, resolution emerges”

“The dirty little secret of Canada’s single payer health system: that care is rationed through time rather than price”

“I firmly believe that you become what you think about, and that is as true for countries as it is for individuals”

Tags Business, data management, economics, measurement, Public Policy | Comment (0)

Business Education Public Policy World World Affairs

Knowledge Creation

October 20, 2005 – 11:01 pm

I just received my latest edition of the McKinsey Quarterly, a pretty interesting business journal mailed regularly to me by my former employer. I get about 6 a year, which I loyally place on a bookshelf at home for future knowledge seeking moments. But this one caught my attention: Fulfilling India’s Promise.

The various articles analyze (and offer a ton of facts about) many business/economic aspects of India: the view of foreign and indian executives, the indian consumer, marketing to the masses, when to make india a manufacturing base, india’s offshoring future, reforming india’s financial system, securing india’s energy needs, an interview with manmohan singh (the prime minister) on india’s economic agenda. the recommendations in the aggregate could transform the economy i.e., the lives of the population!

The sheer power of the knowledge creation I was witnessing amazed me. Echoing Gotham’s recent optimistic post, although problems do sometimes seem to abound, there are some things that are amazing about what’s going on in this new, developing, evolving world of ours!

Tags Business, content, knowledge creation, mckinsey | Comment (0)

Life People Politics Public Policy World World Affairs

Fitting yourself into a neat box: The problem with bundling opinions

September 21, 2005 – 11:03 pm

Some on this blog have complained about the use of labels to denote ‘bundles of opinions’. Liberal. Conservative. Democrat. Republican. Gay. Straight. Pro or Anti-Hindu. These complaints struck a cord with some of the feelings I have on this issue. Why do we need someone else…a political party, a social group etc to tell us which opinions and views ‘belong together’?

I have a practical answer to this question: most people don’t have or want to take the time to think through how they really feel about each issue that is important to our society, particularly if their own life is ‘OK’ in that particular area. So, they align broadly with a group or party…and vote based on this broad choice, thinking most of the time they will vote ‘right’ (i.e., consistent with a more thought through personal choice on any particular topic).

This practical consideration, however, doesn’t make me feel better about the choices available, as I believe they significantly (and potentially adversely) impact legislation ‘on the margin’ (i.e., active legislation today).

A few examples:

1. Why does a pro-free trade stance belong with an anti-gay rights stance? Trade doesn’t have much to do with religion.
2. Why can’t you be pro-teacher and pro meritocracy and pay-for-performance in education (charter schools in America)?
3. Why can’t you be pro-Hindu (one of the greatest, and most flexible religions in the world!) without being anti-Muslim?
4. Why can’t you be pro-business and pro-gay rights or pro-choice? Who do you vote for if this is the case?

I think it’s time we started voting for issues, not parties!!

Tags parties, partisanship, Politics, public affairs, voting | Comment (0)

Business Education Life People Politics World

Actions are all that matter

September 1, 2005 – 11:04 pm

Almost everything I, and we, do at work or in life revolves around people and our relationships with them. I am fascinated by what makes relationships meaningful and what makes some people more successful than others in life. I have come to the conclusion that separating people’s actions from their words is the key to answering some of these questions. In fact, I believe actions are all that matter!

Having said that, I’ll caveat my statement by acknowledging the importance of communication, and education in our lives and for society. But at the end of the day, I’ve found that the only way to ‘cut through the crap’ and get to the heart of what’s right and valuable is to look at actions not words.

How many of you know people who claim to be bleeding heart liberals and who are vehemently anti-globalization? I know a few, who immigrated to America and stay here. How many of these folks have moved back to India (if that’s their home country) and stopped working their high paying corporate jobs? None.

How many people do you know who go to the temple everyday and discuss the importance of religion in their lives and decision making? I know a few. Many of these folks drive lavish cars and have a lot of money but would pass by a hungry homeless person without offering them a bite to eat. Also, most don’t engage in any significant charitable activity.

How many people do you know who are against allowing legal rights for same sex couples in multi-year relationships (as they believe this is anti-family) but are divorced or engaged in extra marital affairs themselves? I know many…and know there are even more I don’t know..most of whom voted for Mr Bush.

Tags culture, human behavior, relationships, spirituality | Comment (0)

Business Politics Public Policy World World Affairs

Capitalism: Imperfect, but our best available option

August 21, 2005 – 11:06 pm

I can’t help but offer an alternate view to the ‘critique of capitalism’ posted here a few days ago. Many critics of capitalism (including the author of the post above) compare the outcomes of capitalism (quoting the various ills in the world today e.g., inequality) to an imagined ‘ideal state’ that has never existed in the history of the world.

I’m a realist, focused on practical executable solutions (i.e., what should we do differently based on what we have learned) and believe the current outcomes of capitalism should be compared to the outcomes of pre-capitalistic and non-capitalistic socieities and economies.

This, more real, analysis reveals that although capitalism is by no means perfect (there are winners and losers in capitalism, just as there have been winners and losers in the evolution of our world. I believe the role of government is to mitigate the brutal ‘survival of the fittest’ results of capitalism), it is by far the best option available to countries and socieities seeking to improve their peoples standard of living.

Just go ask any Indian who tried to improve his or her families lot in life in the pre-1991 ‘socialist-democracy’ era and who has been trying to do the same post the 1991 liberalization of India’s economy. I think the answer is crystal clear. Non-capitalistic societies end up being extraordinarily political, with power, opportunity and information controlled by a few. Capitalism is an objective, fair system with the best (although not perfect) outcomes. I believe the best answer economically is a capitalist economy, balanced by government supported equality of opportunity (as much as possible – e.g., by ensuring equal access to education) and government provided ‘safety nets’ for those that fall to the bottom of the totem pole in capitalism.

Tags capitalism, economics, globalization, inequality, money, Politics | Comment (0)

Life People Politics Public Policy World World Affairs

Value of life

August 16, 2005 – 11:07 pm

The ‘value of a life’ is a recurring topic of conversation in our home. It has always confounded (and impressed) me how much americans value a single american life. I’m told a whole bunch of marines will go in and risk their life to try and save just one of their brethren during war.

I find this most fascinating, being part of a generation of Indians who grew up reading almost daily about dozens if not hundreds of deaths in Sri Lanka (the LTTE problem), Andhra Pradesh (the Naxalites), Punjab (the terrorism/secession problem there in the late ’80s and into the ’90s), Kashmir (you all know this one, I’m sure), Assam..and the list goes on (and this doesn’t even include violence outside of India!!).

There was nary a day when one didn’t hear of a ‘brown bag’ exploding and killing all the people on a bus…or some story similar to that. Most of us got used to this over the years, and became relatively immune to the violence and death.

I’ll blog some other time about my hypotheses on what drives this dramatic difference in how a human life is viewed in different parts of the world.

Today I’m wondering and thinking of how one values a dogs life?

Yesterday, our beloved Great Dane Lara got ‘bloat’ – a relatively common but life-threatening condition that large breed dogs (particularly deep chested ones) are prone to. Here, for seemingly no reason, the dogs stomach gets filled with gas and twists on itself. Immediate surgery is required to reverse the condition, and many dogs die either during or soon after surgery. Aside from the emotional stress and pain, there’s also the issue of expense. We’re $1500 bucks down already (for the surgery) and just dropped her off at a 24 hour hospital which is going to cost another $500 or so per night. We’re lucky that we can afford the expense, and she’s lucky that we love her like crazy…but it does bring up the question: how far do we take this? What is the value of a dog’s life? Here we are trying desperately to save this beloved dog, who we got from a rescue 3 years ago (she was already sick, and has had orthopedic problems since)….should we be saving a human life instead?

I’ll tell the dog-lovers before I sign off that despite all the debates and questioning, the path forward is clear. We’ll do whatever it takes to have some more time with Lara. She is special, with a gentleness and human-like emotional quality we’ve never found before. What if we weren’t this lucky and didn’t have this choice to make?

Tags death, dogs, human life, Life, living, relationships, value of life | Comment (0)

Business Life People Politics Public Policy World

perception is reality

August 14, 2005 – 11:10 pm

people, to me, are the most interesting and important thing in the world. priority number one, above work, above all the things i want to and need to get done in my life (in a macro sense, all said and done). personal relationships follow, then, as a key driver of my personal happiness and satisfaction…and people watching (and thinking about what i see) follows as an absorbing hobby.

so i’ve noticed, and often think about this: how we perceive a particular situation or incident seems to differ quite a bit from person to person. not surprising, i guess, since we view the world through the lens of our individual prior experiences and what we have personally learned through these experiences.

but perception, i believe, is reality (after all, our perceptions drives personal decisions and actions, which are real and tangible). but how can it be that there are over 6 billion people in the world walking around each with their own slightly and sometimes not so slightly different view of what’s real? isn’t the world we live in fascinating?

Tags behavior, culture, People, perception | Comment (0)

Education Life People Politics Public Policy World World Affairs

Information and Opportunity

August 14, 2005 – 11:09 pm

I’m falling in love with blogging. I’ve never kept a personal diary, but always wanted to. The opportunity to share my thoughts (even if the line of thinking isn’t always ‘complete’ i.e., there’s no clean resolution at the end of each thought) and have others comment, provide feedback, and tell me theirs is invaluable. I can’t help but believe that over time, in aggregate, I will find more answers than I would have on my own. Certainly, I have already found a different kind of community.

So back to the theme of this one. I see information and opportunity as two of the key (if not the key) drivers of a lot of what I observe around me.

First, information: control of information is critical in most Indian families – information is power, and those in power limit access to information for those they want to keep less powerful than themselves. This could be husbands keeping wives less informed than themselves (a common occurance), the arab rich keeping information out of the hands of the common arab, the chinese government controlling information access to the common chinese…the list goes on. What we’re seeing globally is the loss of control over information. The media are key to this loss of control..the internet, print media, satellites, globalization etc. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I’m waiting to see what happens as the billions of Indians, Chinese, Africans and Latin Americans who do not have open access to information get it more and more over the coming decades.

Second, opportunity: I think the root cause of a lot of the ‘violence’ we see in the world is lack of opportunity. And I specifically mean economic opportunity – the opportunity to rid yourself of hunger, thirst, disease and other basic human needs. A person without opportunity has no hope. This is where faith steps in. Because religions brings back some form of hope (the hope of salvation, nirvana, etc). Lack of opportunity combined with lack of information leads to billions of people following the words of those who control them. Typically, this is religious and political leaders who promise some form of ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ if those listening do what they are told.

So how do we spread opportunity to those that don’t have it? And what role can an individual play in this?

Opportunity, to me, is the key to America’s dominant global position right now. I came here for it. So did almost everyone I know who wan’t born here.

I will be writing more on this topic over time as I think a lot of the public policy and foreign policy ‘answers’ lie in laws/policies/rules that in some way impact opportunity for the common man.

Tags development, foreign policy, information, opportunity, Public Policy | Comment (0)

Business Education Life People Politics Public Policy World World Affairs

The missing link in education

July 30, 2005 – 11:13 pm

Education as a topic is of immense interest to me. I have seen what it has done for India i.e., created an educated populace that was primed for the opening of the capitalist pump in 1991, and positioned to harness economic opportunity to create immense economic growth and social value for India and Indians (e.g., great accumulation of wealth in American Indians, increased living standards, more jobs, hopefully an eventual reduction in poverty).

But as I go about my day to day life and interact with people both at work and socially, I can’t help but protest at the missing link in education worldwide: the lack of education on personal financial management and communication skills.

I feel the average individual I meet is relatively unequipped in both these skill sets which I believe have a disproportionate correlation with personal financial and professional success. Shouldn’t we be lobbying hard to get these courses included in both at the high school and college level?

Tags communications, Education, money management, personal finance | Comment (0)

rayman mathoda

Category Archives: World

Responsible 2nd Chances: Loan Modifications Addressing the Issue of Negative Equity and (Borrower) Moral Hazard

Who should get to keep their home and who shouldn’t? Simplicity is key for success

Contrarian View: Tough Times All Around Will Raise America’s Reputation Abroad

A Roof Over Every American’s Head: Addressing the Core of our Current Crisis of Confidence

Transparency and Tradeoffs: The Missing T’s in The Healthcare Industry

Redefining the War on Terror

A New Focus for American Foreign Policy: Human Rights

Fighting and debating the wrong “war”

How the middle east will be liberated

GM, France and Albany

If you don’t know it, you can’t fix it? Unsexy but critical: Data/Metrics

Knowledge Creation

Fitting yourself into a neat box: The problem with bundling opinions

Actions are all that matter

Capitalism: Imperfect, but our best available option

Value of life

perception is reality

Information and Opportunity

The missing link in education

Pages

Recent Posts

Categories

Blogroll

Archives