The sooner we wipe out the equity of the insolvent banks, the better. Convert the debt holders and large depositors to equity. This should provide a reasonable equity base from which to conduct business. There's no reason for mercy on these executives either. Any pay over some number should be in restricted stock. If they don't like it, they can leave.

Homeowners - I'm against this right to rent idea beyond say 2-3 years. I think a short term right could help us through the crisis, and the right should be tied to a quick and easy deed-in-lieu process to minimize wasteful expenses for everybody. But after 2-3 years, let's get back to normal. The value of these houses will be reduced with these long leases. I don't want to protect the banks, but I don't want to be punitive the other way either. Especially when the homeowners being foreclosed are not innocent bystanders either.

i do not think there is any protection to ordinary folks let it be war or an economic down turn the punishment is for the civilians.why the people are not informed properly when the information can be so important to them.stop protecting the banks.distribute special currencies to deal with crisis (presumably with a validity) flush the money to the main stream ,make some laws to avoid buying the assets.take back the amount from the public without imposing any intrest.
'stay in their home as a renter'is an excellent concept.

Dean, I like your suggestions. This would give homeowners a maximal number of choices who can't afford the mortgage:

1) Allow the foreclosure process to occur, pay market rent and stay in the home.
2) Allow the foreclosure process to occur, and move to cheaper digs with some assistance.
3) Proceed with bankruptcy and cram down the principal and stay in the home.

There would be fewer homes that are vacant and fewer bank-owned properties that the banks would have to dispose of.

Dean, You are beginning to convince me of the merits of this idea.

Dean,

When you say costless, you mean costless to taxpayers? Because it obviously costs the banks something, and future borrowers too. The knowledge that the government could impose this cost upon banks writing mortgages will increase the risk, and therefore the rate, of future mortgages. Future higher mortgage rates cost future home buyers at the expense of current home buyers. Those sounds like costs to me.

I don't know that the "own to rent" plan would raise mortgage costs very much. What it would do is encourage bankers and mortgage brokers to make sure that the price being paid for the house was within the realm of reason and that the borrower had some reasonable chance of paying it back.

Any plan that relies on an appraisal is doomed. I've worked in commercial real estate all my life and the quality of the appraisals is abominable. Residential is worse. Just look at the appraisals on all the loans going bad to know that appraisals are ..... (the words escape me). If the rent is wrong by 20% for 2 years, it's not the end of the world. But for 10 years...? We're just compounding the disaster.

bill wrote, Any plan that relies on an appraisal is doomed.

I only have one data point: I bought my first house in June.

LO and behold, it appraised at exactly the contract price! Fancy that!

"costless"?

Seriously?

An economist is trying to tell us that the abandonment of the concept of private property is going to be costless? I think we might be able to point to a number of economies around the world as refutations of this point.

If, as and when a house goes into foreclosure then it belongs to the bank. They might not actually want it, they might want to sell it, they might even be happy to rent it, give it away or burn it to the ground. But it belongs to them, it is not something that Beltway groupies get to tell them what to do with.....unless we are indeed abandoning the concept of private property.

And that abandonment would most certainly not be "costless".

Tim,

That's funny. Really. In case you haven't noticed, the taxpayers' personal property is being forcibly removed from them (in the form of increased national debt) and given to bankrupt bankers who then hoard it in their vaults. A temporary moratorium on the rights of corporate giants to hoard taxpayer money without consequences is not abandoning personal property rights, it is a temporary readjustment of the balance between the rights of taxpayers and those of corrupt bankers.

i am beginning to think that all of the complex proposals for supporting the housing market and restructuring mortgages are misguided. the govt should focus on helping homeowners foreclosed out of their homes. if we can do something to allow them to stay and rent for a a few years we should. otherwise we can provide funds to help them move, provide security deposits for new rental housing and possibly some rental assistance for a short period of time. this would probably be less expensive than all the schemes to force mortgage restructuring. let them file chapter 7 bankruptcies to discharge their mortgage deficiencies and other debts if they want. the real estate market can then seek its own level.

sr--

Do you know anything about the rental market for tenants with "blemished" credit? Most of the rental market is closed to them--and a foreclosure will only make that worse. In many cases the foreclosed owners rent, at very high cost, from landlords who are about to let their rentals go into foreclosure. The rental assistance would be essentially lifetime support.

Because it obviously costs the banks something, and future borrowers too.

That's business, that's the market. Those bankers, investors, and borrowers claim to love them some market forces; give them some.

I thought you're idea sounded reasonable at first, but letting the banks "eat their losses" means your comfortable with allowing the banks to fail. In a normal economy, I would have no problem with that. A failed bank is usually gobbled up by another bank. But who would gobble up all these failed banks? If no one steps in to buy their assets and deposits, what happens to all of the depositor's with assets in excess of FDIC limits and protections? Estimates, put this class of depositors in excess of 30% of the value of many of these banks assets.

It would seem your solution would have potentially catastrophic consequences for more than just the bank execs. Ultimately, your solution is overly simplistic.

Excellent points ...

I would just add that full, not partial, cramdowns should be in the mix.

I don't think changing a homeowner into a renter is a costless solution.

For one, the biggest issue is the size of the mortgage payments, not the mortgage payments themselves. So, if you took the same mortgage payment, property taxes, payments for annual maintenance, etc and called it "rent", you'd still have the same problem, which is people in the properties can't afford it.

http://www.spreadsoncredit.com

I'm glad to see some thinking here along with what I kicked around on my 2/11 post: The foreclosure auctions have to stop. Not the foreclosures, but the foreclosure auctions. Proceed with foreclosures, but allow banks to set up real estate holding companies, hire property management firms, and rent these homes back to the original owners or to other interested parties, thus creating cash flow in the interim. Provide generous tax breaks for these holding companies. Allow these assets to clear off the bank’s main books. Although I’m not in favor of dropping mark-to-market rules for the sake of expediency, perhaps suspend MtM rules but make it applicable only to the holding companies. On the back end, establish a plan for an orderly sell off of these assets when home prices finally stabilize, the only government intervention I suggest here.

This holding-company plan involves much less government intervention, and certainly at far less costs to the taxpayers, as well as taking a large step to immediately stabilize home prices.

So what am I missing?

In a land of NO good choices this renter idea is not too bad. I think it would work.

Tim Worstall wrote, An economist is trying to tell us that the abandonment of the concept of private property is going to be costless?

LOL! We're talking banks here, entities which are granted the right to create money out of thin air by guvmint.

I was swayed by this idea for a while, but isn't there also a "cost" to homeowners in the surrounding area? Sure the foreclosed are allowed to stay in their homes, but the foreclosure drives down further housing values in the area. Yes, I realize that a burst housing bubble means more realistic housing values, but the combination of an uncertain employment outlook and further declines in home values is not going to do much to end the recession. Nor will the blow to these peoples' credit ratings. Nothing is free. Also, it seems to me that only the (former) homeowner is punished, not the bank which will continue to receive rents.

And why is there so little discussion (and none in this article) about the larger banks being reorganized by the FDIC? The FDIC process seems to be very effective and it is already in place. They have been very active in the last year and must be very experienced by now.

If we just let the process take over, it will be the most advantageous in the long term. Overvalued assets will be revalued.

This doesn't solve the short term foreclosure problems, but addresses the underlying insolvency of the nations largest banks. Until the banking system is solvent, no real progress can be made to reverse the underlying problems in the economy today.

The public policy justification for getting involved in the private mortgage market is twofold: firstly, foreclosing a house hurts owners of neighboring houses, by depressing property values. Empty houses depress property values even more, so there is a public good to having former owners reside in their foreclosed homes, rather than leaving them empty. And secondly, FDIC/FSLIC insurance for depositors can get called upon when banks lose enough money to become insolvent.

So there is cause to act.

Bankruptcy cram-down and the mandatory renting discussed here both seem like they'd help keep people occupying housing, and there is good in that.

John wrote, Also, it seems to me that only the (former) homeowner is punished, not the bank which will continue to receive rents.

The bank is punished, because presumably the rent will be market-valued, which will be quite a bit less than the mortgage payment was.

U.S. economists, money writers, politicians have criticized that Japan and China failed to force their banks to write down the inflated assets.

What are we trying to do now? Propping up the assets prices...just we have villified for years.

esl - not many depositors have deps exceeding the FDIC limit, which is $250,000 for a single account and is more if you have different types of accounts at the SAME bank. Well, maybe you do.

Major media often talk about "market discipline." So if a manufacture worker lost his job. Well, go get some updated training bc his job is no longer needed.

Well, people who couldn't afford to stay at their home, go rent & probably be paying at "risk-adjusted" rent.

So what? If every homeowners who could not afford will get help, people with 401(K) should get help too.

peon in chief

1. the market is glutted with properties. most landlords are happy to have tenants, particularly if the government is providing security deposit assistance

2. even at the higher rents for tenants with poor credit, the rents will be lower than the mortgage payments the former homeowners have been paying-that has been one of the signs that housing was way overpriced.

3. there are federal rent subsidy programs which could be used where prevailing rents are too high as a percentage of tenants income. these should be expanded if necessary

One comment from liberal here points out that private banks create money instead of the "govmint".

Please pay attention to that folks. Until we renationalize our money supply, we'll just be setting ourselves up for another bubble, though perhaps the economy will just collapse first.

In any case, the only way to expand money supply and prevent hyper-inflation is for the new money to be spent into existence by the government, interest free and debt free.

The quality of spending must be high. It must be on things that provide a worthy return. Massive conversion to Renewable energy at the same time we cut demand massively through energy efficiency are the smartest things to do first and at the greatest scale.

However I'm sure progressive economists could prove the ROI value of intelligent spending on health care for all Americans and on good education.

Yes - nationalize banks for a time.

And when we reprivatize them, do NOT reprivatize control of our money supply!

Could anyone explain to me why unaffordable housing is considered a part of the American dream? We had a nationwide Ponzi scheme in which housing prices increased 250% over 7 years and this was not in any way based on economic fundamentals. Why is the collapse of this racket something to be avoided? I say let the whole thing collapse so that housing can return to its true economic value. And I have no sympathy for those who are "losing" their houses. The only people "losing" their houses have mortgages that are no more than 3 or 4 years old, and most of them are only 1 or 2 years old. Let them rent like the rest of us saps who can't afford the unaffordable house racket prices.

Interesting discussion.

Does anybody know what really happened in Holland after the sailor ate the tulip bulb?

Apparently the banks aren't too worried about the mortgage loan crisis. The impression I have is that home prices are declining rapidly in many markets. In such a situation, you would think banks would be willing to negotiate with homeowners to avoid foreclosure. If the market value of a home declines 20% in the course of a year, aren't the banks' shareholders better served by a bank officer cutting a timely deal with a homeowner to reduce the mortgage principal by say 15% and cutting the interest rate a bit so that a troubled debtor can continue to make payments?

The anecdotal evidence suggests that the banks aren't at all interested in negotiating with mortgage debtors.

Is it possible that the banks sense that their best course of action is to hold out for a better offer from the federal government? Mr. Obama apparently is willing to pay something in addition to payments made by the homeowner.

I suspect that until Congress grants the bankruptcy courts jurisdiction to modify mortgages or to stay foreclosure for a substantial period conditioned on payment of rent, the banks will continue to hold out for a better offer from the federal government.

Die LGT Bank fehler

von Raivo Pommer

Der Chef der skandalumwobenen Liechtensteiner LGT-Bank spricht über Fehler seiner Zunft, falsche Regulierung und eine Amnestie für Steuersünder.

Rheinischer Merkur: Spätestens seit die Affäre Zumwinkel öffentlich ist, glauben die Deutschen, dass die LGT-Bank hilft, Steuern zu hinterziehen …

Max von und zu Liechtenstein: Das tun wir natürlich nicht. Unser Fokus liegt seit mehr als zehn Jahren auf dem Aufbau lokaler Banken in verschiedenen Märkten. So haben wir viel Geld investiert, um unter anderem in Deutschland eine Bank mit sieben Niederlassungen zu errichten. Hier werden wir von der deutschen Finanzaufsicht reguliert, und für die Kunden gilt das deutsche Steuerrecht

Euro geht langsam

von Raivo Pommer

Ulrich Nußbaum wird neuer Finanzsenator

Der frühere Bremer Finanzsenator Ulrich Nußbaum (parteilos) wird neuer Finanzsenator in Berlin. Das gab der Regierende Bürgermeister Klaus Wowereit (SPD) bekannt. Der 51 Jahre alte Jurist war von 2003 bis 2007 Finanzsenator in Bremen. Er war außerdem als Rechtsanwalt tätig und ist Vizepräsident der Handelskammer Bremerhaven. Er folgt Thilo Sarrazin nach, der zum 1. Mai in den Vorstand der Bundesbank in Frankfurt/Main wechselt.

Sarrazin war sieben Jahre Finanzsenator in Berlin. Der Regierende Bürgermeister Wowereit sagte, Nußbaum kenne sichals früherer Finanzsenator von Bremen mit Problemen wie Verschuldungund Länderfinanzausgleich bestens aus.

From a legal point of view, this proposal defeats the whole point of foreclosure.

A foreclosure is a legal action to foreclose (eliminate) the debtor's and any other lower priority property interests in the realty. It quiets title and permits a sale/liguidation of the collateral.

Giving the debtor a leasehold in the property would be to create a whole new legal interest, eliminating the point of foreclosure and destroying the bank's ability to liquidate the collateral.

If tenants didn't harm market value, why do banks always evict the tenants of rental properties? Banks aren't in the business of property management, and would face duties to the new tenants, like heat and repairs.

The mortgage serviciers are terrible creditors. They would be nightmare landlords.

First, many landlords will leave buildings vacant rather than rent to tenants who have faced eviction. A landlord can subsist on the tax breaks for a year without renting the property.

Second, bank trust departments manage rental property all the time, either by having their own property manager or hiring a property management company.

I agree fully.

Protect flesh-and-blood people not fictitious legal ones.

I proposed a solution 6 months ago to this problem, which having read many since then I believe to still be the best, both for simplicity and cost.

The problem is not the 'underwater' houses, and property values are not something that can be artificially propped up. The greatest percentage of foreclosures is caused by one problem; family cash flow: the size of the payments due on the readjusting ARM loans. That is the problem that needs to be solved.

The solution is to simply have the government OR PRIVATE ENTITY become a partner as in any commercial deal. The owner who wants to stay in his house becomes a partner with an investor (again, gov't or private) who pays the difference between the pre-adjustment payment and the post-adjustment... by calculation that number is about $590 (rate jumps average of 5%). In exchange, they give up any right to appreciation on the value of the house over and above the mortgage at some point in the future when they sell... which is the right the new 'partner' is buying. If all ARM loans currently in trouble and those due to reset were subsidized on this basis, the total cost annually would be around $36 billion per year...chump change in a $1.5 trillion dollar budget. After that stabilized both the housing
AND the financial markets (it would guarantee payment of nearly ALL mortgages, thereby lifting the threat of credit default swaps being called, and recreating faith and a market in all of the mortgage and mortgage based instruments).

Scotland Bank ist krisis

von Raivo Pommer

Die verstaatlichte britische Großbank Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) will sich Medienberichten zufolge von zahlreichen Unternehmensteilen trennen und bis zu 20 000 Jobs abbauen.

Der neue RBS-Chef Stephen Hester will sich künftig auf das Kerngeschäft der Bank konzentrieren und die übrigen Geschäfte für einen späteren Verkauf zunächst in eine Unterabteilung der Bank auslagern, wie mehrere britische Medien am Wochenende berichteten. Zuvor war war bereits spekuliert worden, dass RBS bis zu 20 000 Stellen abbauen werde. Das wären etwa 10 Prozent der weltweit Beschäftigten.

Zu den ausgelagerten RBS-Sparten sollen die Geschäfte in Asien und Australien gehören. Außerdem will sich RBS den Berichten zufolge aus der Hälfte der 60 Länder zurückziehen, in denen die Bank derzeit Geschäfte betreibt. Zudem werde erwartet, dass RBS ein neues Rettungsprogramm der Regierung in Anspruch nimmt und faule Kredite in Höhe von mindestens 200 Milliarden Pfund (225 Mrd Euro) auf Kosten der Steuerzahler gegen Zahlungsausfälle versichert.

Die Pläne sollen am Donnerstag vorgestellt werden, wenn RBS seine Zahlen für das abgelaufene Geschäftsjahr präsentiert, hieß es in den Berichten weiter. RBS hatte bereits einen Rekordverlust in der britischen Unternehmensgeschichte von 28 Milliarden Pfund in Aussicht gestellt. Die Bank war im Strudel der Finanzkrise ins Schlingern geraten, auch weil 2007 Teile der niederländischen Bank ABN Amro übernommen worden waren. Mittlerweile befindet sich RBS zu 68 Prozent in Staatsbesitz.

USA Grosbank IN KRIZE

von Raivo Pommer -Eesti

Die bisher in der Finanzkrise stets profitable US-Großbank J.P. Morgan Chase streicht ihre Dividende drastisch zusammen. Die Quartalsausschüttung werde um fast 90 Prozent auf lediglich noch 0,05 Dollar je Aktie gekürzt, teilte der Konzern mit.

Der Bank blieben so pro Jahr fünf Milliarden Dollar (4 Mrd Euro) mehr in der Kasse. Im laufenden ersten Quartal sieht sich J.P. Morgan weiter in der Gewinnzone. Die Reserven etwa für faule Kredite hätten allerdings nochmals aufgestockt werden müssen, hieß es am Montagabend (Ortszeit) nach US-Börsenschluss in New York. Mit ihren Zahlen sieht sich die Bank derzeit im Rahmen der Analystenerwartungen. Experten gehen bisher von einem Ergebnis je Aktie von 0,35 Dollar aus im Vergleich zu noch 0,68 Dollar ein Jahr zuvor.

Hamlet-bin oder nein

von raivo pommer-raimo1@hot.ee-Eesti

So zwischen 40 und 60 Veranstaltungen absolviert Klaus Michael Groll im Jahr. Zuletzt informierte der Präsident des Deutschen Forums für Erbrecht die Menschen in Nordhorn, Bad Nenndorf und Stuttgart über die neue Erbschaftsteuer. "Die Säle sind nach wie vor proppenvoll", berichtet Groll. Die Menschen wüssten zwar, dass nun neue Regeln bei der Erbschaftsteuer gelten. "Viele sind aber verunsichert und wollen wissen, was denn nun genau auf sie zukommt", ergänzt der Düsseldorfer Erbrechtsanwalt Claus-Henrik Horn. Hier die Fragen, die den beiden Fachleuten am häufigsten gestellt werden:

Für welche Fälle gilt das neue Recht überhaupt?

Zunächst einmal für alle Erbfälle und Schenkungen nach dem 31.Dezember 2008. Beim Erben gilt stets der Todestag des Erblassers als Stichtag, bei Schenkungen ist es der Schenkungstag. Aber es gibt eine Ausnahme: Ist ein Erbfall zwischen dem 1. Januar 2007 und dem 31. Dezember 2008 eingetreten, haben die Erben ein Wahlrecht. Sie können entscheiden, ob für sie das neue oder das alte Recht gilt. "In bestimmten Fällen kann es sinnvoll sein, einen bereits abgeschlossenen Erbfall neu aufzurollen und dafür das neue Recht in Anspruch zu nehmen", sagt Anwalt Groll.

Eurokrize
von Raivo Pommer-Eesti-raimo1@hot.ee

L'euro poursuit son repli ce mardi face au dollar. Vers 18h45, un euro s'échangeait ainsi contre 1,32 dollar, après voir touché 1,3168 dollar, au plus bas depuis le 11 décembre. Lundi soir, un euro valait 1,3362 dollar. Les cambistes spéculent sur une probable baisse des taux européens à l'issue de la réunion du Conseil des gouverneurs de la Banque centrale européenne (BCE), ce jeudi à Francfort.

Face au ralentissement économique, l'institution présidée par Jean-Claude Trichet devrait opter pour un nouvel assouplissement monétaire. La majorité des économistes parient sur une baisse de 50 points de base du taux directeur européen, qui serait ainsi ramené à 2%.

La tendance baissière de la devise européenne est par ailleurs renforcée par les craintes sur la dette de plusieurs gouvernements de la zone euro après que l'agence de notation Standard & Poor's a placé la note de la dette à long terme de l'Etat espagnol sous surveillance négative. Cette dernière pourrait ainsi perdre son rang "AAA".

De son côté, le billet vert a été soutenu par les propos de, Ben Bernanke. Le président de la Réserve fédérale américaine qui a estimé mardi que son institution disposait encore "d'outils puissants" contre la crise.

Österreich Erste Bank

von Raivo Pommer-raimo1@hot.ee

In der Nacht zum Freitag ist die börsenotierte Erste Group mit der Republik Österreich zur Staatshilfe handelseins geworden. Demnach wird die Bank im April insgesamt 2,7 Mrd. Euro Kernkapital aufnehmen. Bis zu 1,89 Mrd. Euro werden davon vom Staat kommen, voraussichtlich über Partizipationskapital (PS), für das 8 Prozent Zinsen im Jahr bezahlt werden. 30 Prozent der Gesamtsumme will die Erste Group privat aufbringen, entweder über PS-Kapital oder über eine Hybridanleihe. Dividendenbeschränkungen gibt es nicht.

Raivo Pommer
Spanische Banken
-raimo1@hot.ee

Die Erste Bank hat überraschend einen neuen Großaktionär aus Spanien bekommen. Die größte spanische Sparkasse, Criteria CaixaCorp, teilte am Montag bei einer Pressekonferenz in Barcelona mit, dass sie über die Börse 4,9 Prozent der Erste-Aktien erworben hat. Die Zukäufe seien schon im Vorjahr erfolgt, sagte Criteria-Chef Ricardo Forensa. Den Kaufpreis bezifferte der Banker mit 628 Mio. Euro.

Die Spanier dürften damit durchschnittlich zwischen 35 und 40 Euro pro Aktie hingelegt haben. Inzwischen ist der Kurs der Erste Bank an der Börse eingebrochen. Am Montagnachmittag kostete das Papier 7,46 Euro

Raivo Pommer
raimo1@hot.ee

Holland 5 krise

Wer den tagesaktuellen Zinsschwankungen entgehen möchte und sein Geld längerfristig parken kann, sollte über eine Festgeld- oder Sparbriefanlage nachdenken. Auch hier gibt es interessante Offerten. Bei einem Anlagehorizont von zwölf Monaten markiert der niederländische Neuling NIBC-Direct mit 5,25 Prozent aktuell die Bestmarke (Mindeteinlage 1.000 Euro), einen geringfügig niedrigeren Zinssatz erhalten Sparer bei der Amsterdam-Trade-Bank (5,20 Prozent, Mindesteinlage 5.000 Euro). Die Bankhäuser Credit-Europe und Yapi-Kredi verzinsen Festgeldanlagen bei einem Jahr Laufzeit mit fünf Prozent. Die Mindesteinlagen betragen hier 2.500 Euro bzw. 5.000 Euro.

Mitunter noch lukrativer können mehrjährige Anlagen sein. Allerdings erhalten Sparer derzeit nennenswert höhere Renditen nur, wenn sie ihr Geld für zwei Jahre anlegen. Laufzeiten darüber werden im Schnitt sogar schlechter verzinst. Für 24 Monate gelten folgende Zinssätze: Credit-Europe-Bank (5,50 Prozent), NIBC-Direct (5,30 Prozent) sowie Amsterdam-Trade-Bank (5,25 Prozent). Einzige Ausnahme ist die Yapi-Kredi-Bank, sie bietet Kunden den gleichen Zinssatz wie beim einjährigen Festgeld, fünf Prozent. Die Mindesteinlagen sind identisch der genannten Festgeldanlagen.

Für alle genannten Termingeldanbieter gilt die europäische Einlangensicherung holländischer Prägung, also – vorerst bis zum 6. Oktober 2009 – sind 100.000 Euro pro Person abgesichert, was beachtet werden sollte, wenn man längerfristige Anlagen erwägt. Über eine Anschlussregel

raivo pommer
raimo1@hot.ee

Ostgeld krisis

Länder vor der Pleite: Der ungarische Forint, der polnische Zloty, die tschechische Krone und der rumänische Lei stehen massiv unter Druck. EU-Währungskommissar Almunia warnt bereits vor dem Schlimmsten.

Die Europäische Union wappnet sich gegen mögliche Staatsbankrotte in einzelnen Mitgliedsländern. "Wir sind politisch und wirtschaftlich darauf eingerichtet, uns diesem Krisenszenario zu stellen", sagte EU-Währungskommissar Joaquin Almunia am Dienstag in Brüssel. Die Kommission plant kein generelles Hilfspaket, sondern will von Fall zu Fall entscheiden.

Raivo Pommer
raimo1@hot.ee

EZB krise

"Zu spät, zu zögerlich"

Der DGB ging die EZB dagegen scharf an. "Sie reagiert zu spät und zu zögerlich auf die historische Wirtschaftskrise", sagte der Chefvolkswirt der Deutschen Gewerkschaftsbundes (DGB), Dierk Hirschel.

"Sie hätte sich ein Beispiel an den angelsächsischen Banken nehmen und die Zinsen schnell und drastisch senken sollen." In den USA liegt der Leitzins nahe null Prozent.

Vor der EZB hatte am Mittag bereits die Bank von England ihren Leitzins auf das historische Tief von 0,5 Prozent gekappt und den Ankauf von Staatsanleihen angekündigt um zusätzlich Milliarden in die Wirtschaft zu pumpen.

Raivo Pommer
raimo1@hot.ee

Caos und Arbeitslos

Der Machtkampf zwischen Continental und Schaeffler eskaliert. Conti-Aufsichtsratschef Hubertus von Grünberg trat jetzt mit sofortiger Wirkung zurück.

«Es zeichnet sich ab, dass Continental weiter Schaden nimmt«, sagte der 66-Jährige gestern in Frankfurt nach einer Sitzung des Aufsichtsrats des Autozulieferers. «Wir laufen Gefahr, in das Schaeffler-Problem hineingezogen zu werden.« Von Grünberg kritisierte, die schwer angeschlagene Schaeffler-Gruppe sei der Forderung nach einem tragfähigen Zukunftskonzept nicht nachgekommen und stattdessen auf Konfrontationskurs gegangen.

Der Herzogenauracher Autozulieferer, der wegen der auf Pump finanzierten Conti-Übernahme hoch verschuldet ist, wies die Vorwürfe von Grünbergs zurück. Grünberg habe das Vertrauen im Aufsichtsrat verloren, hieß es. Die Besprechung eines Zukunftskonzeptes habe bei der Sitzung in Frankfurt überhaupt nicht auf der Agenda gestanden.

Raivo Pommer
raimo1@hot.ee

HEDGE-FOND

Die Kapitalabflüsse gestalteten sich in der Branche in Europa und den Vereinigten Staaten allerdings sehr unterschiedlich: Während amerikanische Hedge-Fonds in großem Umfang juristische Sperren nutzten, die eine sofortige Rückzahlung von Anlagegeld an die Kunden beschränkten oder hinauszögerten (Gates), ist dies bei europäischen Hedge-Fonds weniger üblich. Auch gibt es in Europa mehr Dachfonds, in die Privatinvestoren investieren. Diese hatten die erste Kündigungswelle bei Hedge-Fonds im Herbst 2008 ausgelöst. Die Kapitalabflüsse aus Hedge-Fonds waren daher in der zweiten Jahreshälfte vor allem in Europa relativ hoch. Die Mittel europäischer Hedge-Fonds schrumpften nach Einschätzung von Morgan Stanley um 25 bis 30 Prozent.

In den Vereinigten Staaten beliefen sich die Mittelabflüsse zunächst „nur“ auf 15 bis 20 Prozent. Dies erklärt, warum der weltweite Verband der Hedge-Fonds, die Alternative Investment Management Association (AIMA), kürzlich bekanntgab, dass das Anlagekapital der 1200 bei der AIMA registrierten Mitglieder jetzt zum Großteil von institutionellen Investoren gehalten werde und nicht mehr von vermögenden Einzelpersonen, wie dies früher der Fall gewesen war.

If you don't know about jewelry knowledge, but want to action you can see jewelry fashion review,then maybe you can save your money!