CONTRACT RULES

2009-11-02T00:02:00.001-08:00

Acer Laptop - Aspire 3000
Specifications
Processor
AMD Mobile Sempron 3000+ / 1.8 GHz
Memory
Installed Size 256 MB / 2 GB(max)
Operating System
Microsoft windows XP Home Edition
Display
15.4 inches
System Graphics
Video Graphics processor SiSM760GX
Hard Disk Drive
40 GB
Dimensions
14.3" x 11" x 1.5"
Weight
6.2 lbs
Power
4 cell Lithium ion battery
I/O Ports
Comprehensive I/O ports, including three USB 2.0 ports, a PC Card slot, modem and Ethernet ports
Compare laptops
About Aspire 3000
The Acer Aspire 3000 is one of the great values laptops. The Acer Aspire 3000 is available in inexpensive price now. This is having spectacular features in it. It is a best choice to buy such a laptop notebook pc in low price. It is included with built in devices stereo speakers. The display type is of 15 in TFT matrix with maximum resolution of 1024 x 768 XGA. The most important thing to increase the speed is cache memory is type of L2 cache with 128KB size. The hard drive with in it is of 40GB. Lot of professionals are impressed with its performance. This notebook laptop will give pleasant work experience to the users. The display color support is with 24-bit for 16.7 million colors.
In Acer Aspire 3000 the storage controller type is IDE. This Acer Laptop's audio output type is sound card, input is microphone. It is also provided by one year warranty. When it comes to design part of Acer Aspire 3000 laptop it gets maximum points compare to other laptop pcs. The processor is featured with enhanced virus protection, streaming SIMD extensions 2 and hyper transport. For any laptop pc notebook the optical storage is important. The VGA port, 56kbps modem, Ethernet jacks, three USB 2.0 ports, one type II pc card slot and headphone, line-in, microphone are the three jacks all offered by Acer Laptops exclusively. In this Acer Aspire 3000 included with CD-RW/DVD-ROM Combo as optical storage. The reading speed of CD/DVD is 24 x (CD)/8x (DVD). The write speed of CD/DVD is 24 x and rewrite speed of 24 x.

Acer Laptop - Aspire 4530
Specifications
Processor
AMD Athlon X2 Dual-Core Processor QL-60
Memory
2GB (1GB installed in each of two memory slots) DDR2 667 SDRAMUser upgradeable up to 4GB
Operating System
Genuine Windows Vista Home Premium
Display
14.1 WXGA (1280 x 800) TFT LCD with Acer CrystalBrite Technology
System Graphics
Integrated NVIDIA GeForce 9100M G graphics
Hard Disk Drive
120GB hard disk drive
Optical Drive
Integrated variable-speed Super-Multi drive (DVD+R, DVD-R, DVD-RAM)
Web Cam
integrated Acer Crystal Eye webcam
Wi-Fi
Dimensions
13.3 x 9.6 x 1.1 - 1.5 inches
Weight
5.3 lbs
Power
65-watt AC adapter
I/O Ports
DC-inRJ-11 modemRJ-45 LANVGAHeadphones/speaker/line-outMicrophoneLine-inthree USB 2.0
Compare laptops
About Acer Aspire 4530 Laptop
People aspire to succeed and thus Acer brings forth to us the Aspire series to help us realize our dreams. The Acer Aspire 4530 laptop is stylishly crafted for perfection and has the logo of Acer screaming out their achievement at the surface. The exterior concocts a tale of convenience, individuality and excitement.
There is an Empowering key on the keyboard which provides instant access to the diverse technology presented by Acer. You have a 14.1 inch screen space to enjoy your movies and videos.
You are sure to have fun in using the laptop. The hard disk provides magic to the system. It is generous in its storage, helps the system to boot at an enhanced pace and installs multimedia application in a jiffy.
The latest Acer Bio-Protection fingerprint technology adds an extra feather to the security. Your notebook has to pass the finger print test to execute the functions. This strengthens the security of your notebook.
Software from Acer like GridVista, CrystalBrite helps in multitasking and enhances your multimedia experience respectively.
The Acer notebooks entertain you in your leisure. High quality sound is sure to enthrall you. There is a 5 in 1 card reader which enhances the transfer of data from cameras, digital phones etc to provide rapid access to files piled up in SD card, Memory Stick etc.
The notebooks promise broader and efficient communication. For businessmen the video conferencing facility provided by Acer is efficient enough to mobilize communication between professionals. You have an inbuilt Bluetooth technology to make rapid exchange of data to further distances with broader coverage of profiles.

2009-11-02T00:01:00.005-08:00

Ancient JordanThe most prominent early roots of Jordan , as an independent state, can be traced to the Kingdom of Petra, which was founded by the Nabataeans(Arabic: الأنباط, Al-Anbāt) an ancient Semitic people from Arabia who developed the North Arabic Script that evolved into the Modern Arabic script. During its glory, the Nabataean Kingdom controlled regional trade routes by dominating a large area southwest of the fertile crescent, which included the whole of modern Jordan extending from Syria in the North to the northernArabian Peninsula in the south. As a result, Petra enjoyed independence, prosperity and wealth for hundreds of years until it was absorbed by the Roman Empire which was still expanding in 100 A.D.Jordan also witnessed many other smaller ancient kingdoms having sovereignty for centuries, in addition to the Nabataeans. These included the Kingdom of Edom, the Kingdom of Ammon, the Kingdom of Moab, theKingdom of Judah, and the Hasmonean Kingdom of the Maccabees, which are all mentioned in the Bibleand other ancient Near Eastern documents.[39]During the Greco-Roman period of influence, a number of semi-independent city-states also developed in Jordan under the umbrella of the Decapolis including: Gerasa (Jerash), Philadelphia (Amman), Raphana(Abila), Dion (Capitolias), Gadara (Umm Qays), and Pella (Irbid).Later, Jordan became part of the Arabic Islamic Empire across its different Caliphates stages including Rashidun Empire, Umayyad Empire andAbbasid Empire. After the decline of the Abbasid, Jordan was ruled by several conflicting powers including the Mongols, the Crusaders, theAyyubids and the Mamluks until it became part of the Ottoman Empire in the 16th century.[edit]Modern JordanWith the break-up of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I, the League of Nations and the occupying powers chose to redraw the borders of the Middle East. The ensuing decisions, most notably the Sykes–Picot Agreement gave birth to the French Mandate of Syria andBritish Mandate of Palestine. More than 76% of the British Mandate of Palestine was east of the Jordan river and was known as "Transjordan".The country was called "Transjordan", under British supervision until after World War II. In 1946, the British requested that the United Nationsapprove an end to British Mandate rule in Transjordan. Following this approval, the Transjordanian Parliament proclaimed King Abdullah as the first ruler of the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan. Abdullah I continued to rule until a Palestinian Arab assassinated him in 1951 as he was departing from the al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.During the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, Jordan captured the area of Cisjordan now called the West Bank, which it continued to control in accordance with the 1949 Armistice Agreements. Abdullah thereupon took the title King of Jordan, and he officially changed the country's name to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in April 1949. The following year he annexed the West Bank, but only two countries recognized this annexation: Britain and Pakistan.[40][41] Approximate image showing the land exchanged between Jordan (green) and Saudi Arabia (red). The Jordan salient. June 5–7 during the Six Day War. Jordanian parachute flares illuminate Jerusalem during the Arab-Israeli war in 1948Jordan and Iraq united in 1958 to form the Arab Federation of Iraq and Jordan under the Hashemite crowns in Amman and Baghdad. A coup later that year would end the union with the execution of the Hashemite crown in Baghdad. The United Arab Republic consisting of Egypt, Syria, and Yemen quickly moved to antagonize Jordan's young King Hussein with Soviet support. King Hussein asked for British and American assistance. The RAF and the USAF was sent to patrol Jordanian airspace and British troops were deployed in Amman. The UAR backed off but then turned to Lebanon. The Americans would later be deployed inBeirut to support Lebanon's pro-Western government.In 1965, there was an exchange of land between Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Jordan gave up a large area of inland desert in return for a small piece of sea-shore near Aqaba.Jordan signed a military pact with Egypt in May 1967, and following an Israeli air attack on Egypt in June 1967, Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq continued the Six Day War against Israel. During the war, Israel captured the West Bank and East Jerusalem. In 1988, Jordan renounced all claims to the territory now occupied by Israel but its 1994 treaty with Israel allowed for a continuing Jordanian role in Muslim and Christian holy places in Jerusalem. The severance of administrative ties with the West Bank halted the Jordanian government's paying of civil servants and public sectoremployees' salaries in the West Bank.The period following the 1967 war saw an upsurge in the activity and numbers of Arab Palestinian paramilitary elements (fedayeen) within the state of Jordan. These distinct, armed militias were becoming a "state within a state", threatening Jordan's rule of law. King Hussein's armed forces targeted the fedayeen, and open fighting erupted in June 1970. The battle in which Palestinian fighters from various Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) groups were expelled from Jordan is commonly known as Black September.The heaviest fighting occurred in northern Jordan and Amman. In the ensuing heavy fighting, a Syrian tank force invaded northern Jordan to back the fedayeen fighters, but subsequently retreated. King Husseinurgently asked the United States, Great Britain and Israel to intervene against Syria. Consequently, Israel performed mock air strikes on the Syrian column at the Americans' request. Soon after, Syrian President Nureddin al-Atassi, ordered a hasty retreat from Jordanian soil.[42][43][44]By September 22, Arab foreign ministers meeting in Cairo arranged a cease-fire beginning the following day. However, sporadic violence continued until Jordanian forces, led by Habis Al-Majali, with the help of Iraqi forces,[45] won a decisive victory over the fedayeen on July 1971, expelling them, and ultimately the PLO's Yasser Arafat, from Jordan.At the Rabat summit conference in 1974, Jordan was now in a more secure position to agree, along with the rest of the Arab League, that the PLO was the "sole legitimate representative of the [Arab] Palestinian people", thereby relinquishing to that organization its role as representative of the West Bank.In 1973, allied Arab League forces attacked Israel in the Yom Kippur War, and fighting occurred along the 1967 Jordan River cease-fire line. Jordan sent a brigade to Syria to attack Israeli units on Syrian territory but did not engage Israeli forces from Jordanian territory.Although Jordan did not directly participate in the Gulf War of 1990–91, following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, King Hussein was accused of supporting Saddam Hussein when he attempted to persuade Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait. As a result of the alleged support, the United States and Arab countries cut off monetary aid to Jordan, and 700,000 Jordanians who had been working in Arab countries were forced to return to Jordan. In addition, millions of Iraqi refugees fled to Jordan placing a strain on the country's social services.In 1991, Jordan agreed, along with Syria, Lebanon, and Arab Palestinian fedayeen representatives, to participate in direct peace negotiations with Israel at the Madrid Conference, sponsored by the U.S. and Russia. It negotiated an end to hostilities with Israel and signed a declaration to that effect on 25 July 1994 (see Washington Declaration). As a result, an Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty was concluded on 26 October 1994. King Hussein was later honored when his picture appeared on an Israeli postage stamp in recognition of the good relations he established with his neighbor. Since the signing of the peace treaty with Israel, the United States not only contributes hundreds of millions of dollars in an annual foreign aid stipend to Jordan, but also has allowed it to establish a free trade zone in which to manufacture goods that will enter the US without paying the usual import taxes as long as a percentage of the material used in them is purchased in Israel.King Hussein died in 1999. His son, King Abdullah II succeeded him.Following the outbreak of fighting between Israel and Palestinians in the Second Intifada in September 2000, the Jordanian government offered its offices to both parties. Jordan has since sought to remain at peace with all of its neighbors. Particularly good relations have been maintained between the Jordanian royal family and Israel, with the Jordanian government frequently dispersing rallies and jailing demonstrators protesting against Israeli actions. The government also censors anti-Israeli views from the Jordanian news media.The last major strain in Jordan's relations with Israel occurred in September, 1997, when two Israeli agents entered Jordan using Canadian passports and poisoned Khaled Meshal, a senior leader of the Palestinian group Hamas. Under threat of cutting off diplomatic relations, King Hussein forced Israel to provide an antidote to the poison and to release dozens of Jordanians and Palestinians from its prisons, including the spiritual leader of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. Sheikh Yassin was later assassinated by Israel in a targeted bombing in early 2004 in the West Bank.On 9 November 2005 Jordan experienced three simultaneous terrorist bombings at hotels in Amman. At least 57 people died and 115 were wounded. "Al-Qaeda in Iraq", a group led by terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a native Jordanian, claimed responsibility.Recently, Jordan has revoked the citizenship of thousands of Palestinians in an attempt to thwart any attempt by Israel of permanetly re-settling West Bank Palestinians in Jordan. West Bank Palestinians with family in Jordan or with previous Jordanian citizenship would be issued yellow cards which guaranteed them all the rights of Jordanian citizenship. Palestinians working for the Palestinian Authority or the PLO were among those who have had their Jordanian passports taken from them, in addition to anyone who did not serve in the Jordanian army. Palestinians living in Jordan with family in the West Bank would also be issued yellow cards. All other Palestinians wishing such Jordanian papers would be issued a green card which would facilitate travel into Jordan and give them temporary Jordanian passports in order to make travel easier. In addition, no Palestinians from the Gaza Strip are given any such privileges because Jordanian authority never extended into the Gaza Strip.[46][edit]Geography Map of JordanMain article: Geography of Jordan Mount Nebo is an elevated ridge that is approximately 817 meteres (2680 feet) above sea level in Western Jordan.Jordan is a Southwest Asian country, bordered by Syria to the north, Iraq to the northeast, Saudi Arabia to the east and south andIsrael to the west. All these border lines add up to 1,619 km (1,006 mi). The Gulf of Aqaba and the Dead Sea also touch the country, and thus Jordan has a coastline of 26 km (16 mi).Jordan consists of arid forest plateau in the east irrigated by oasis and seasonal water streams, with highland area in the west of arable land and Mediterranean evergreen forestry. The Great Rift Valley of the Jordan River separates Jordan, the west bank and Israel. The highest point in the country is Jabal Umm al Dami, it is 1,854 m (6,083 ft) above sea level, its top is also covered with snow, while the lowest is the Dead Sea -420 m (−1,378 ft). Jordan is part of a region considered to be "thecradle of civilization", the Levant region of the Fertile Crescent.Major cities include the capital Amman in the northwest, Irbid and Az Zarqa, both in the north. Madaba, Karak and Aqaba in the south.The climate in Jordan is semidry in summer with average temperature in the mid-30°C (mid-90°F) and relatively cold in winter averaging around −1.3 °C (30 °F). The western part of the country receives greater precipitation during the winter season from November to March and snowfall in Amman (756 m (2,480 ft) ~ 1,280 m (4,199 ft) above sea-level) and Western Heights of 500 m (1,640 ft). Excluding the rift valley the rest of the country is entirely above 300 m (984 ft)(SL).[47][edit]Climate Snow in AmmanThe major characteristic of the climate is humid from November to March and semi dry weather for the rest of the year. With hot, dry, uniform summers and cool, freezing variable winters during which practically all of the precipitation occurs, the country has a Mediterranean-style climate. In general, the farther inland from the Mediterranean Sea a given part of the country lies, the greater are the seasonal contrasts in temperature and the less rainfall. Atmospheric pressures during the summer months are relatively uniform, whereas the winter months bring a succession of marked low pressure areas and accompanying cold fronts. These cyclonic disturbances generally move eastward from over the Mediterranean Sea several times a month and result in sporadic precipitation.Most of the East Bank receives less than 620 mm of rain a year and may be classified as a semi dry region. Where the ground rises to form the highlands east of the Jordan Valley, precipitation increases to around 300 mm in the south and 500 or more mm in the north. The Jordan Valley, lying in the lee of high ground on the West Bank, forms a narrow climatic zone that annually receives up to 900 mm of rain in the northern reaches; rain dwindles to less than 120 mm at the head of theDead Sea. Spring in AmmanThe country's long summer reaches a peak during August. January is usually the coldest month. The fairly wide ranges of temperature during a twenty-four-hour period are greatest during the summer months and have a tendency to increase with higher elevation and distance from the Mediterranean seacoast. Daytime temperatures during the summer months frequently exceed 29 °C and average about 32 °C. In contrast, the winter months—September to March—bring moderately cool and sometimes very cold weather, averaging about 3.2 °C. Except in the rift depression, frost is fairly common during the winter, it may take the form of snow at the higher elevations of the north western highlands. Usually it snows a couple of times in the winter in northern Jordan.For a month or so before and after the summer dry season, hot, dry air from the desert, drawn by low pressure, produces strong winds from the south or southeast that sometimes reach gale force. Known in the Middle East by various names, including the khamsin, this dry, sirocco-style wind is usually accompanied by great dust clouds. Its onset is heralded by a hazy sky, a fallingbarometer, and a drop in relative humidity to about 10 percent. Within a few hours there may be a 10 °C to 15 °C rise in temperature. These windstorms ordinarily last a day or so, cause much discomfort, and destroy crops by desiccating them.The shamal, another wind of some significance, comes from the north or northwest, generally at intervals between June and September. Remarkably steady during daytime hours but becoming a breeze at night, the shammal may blow for as long as nine days out of ten and then repeat the process. It originates as a dry continental mass of polar air that is warmed as it passes over the Eurasian landmass. The dryness allows intense heating of the Earth's surface by the sun, resulting in high daytime temperatures that moderate after sunset.[edit]Administrative divisionsMain articles: Governorates of Jordan and Nahias of JordanAdministratively, Jordan is divided into 12 provinces called governorates, each headed by a governor appointed by the king. They are the sole authorities for all government departments and development projects in their respective areas. The Governorates are:Province Population (2008 est.)[48]Capital city Population (Metropolitan, 2008 est)[49]
Ajlun Governorate118,496 Ajlun8,161Amman Governorate1,939,405 Amman1,135,733Aqaba Governorate107,115 Aqaba95,408Balqa Governorate349,580 As-Salt87,778Irbid Governorate950,700 Irbid650,000Jerash Governorate156,680 Jerash39,540Karak Governorate214,225 Karak22,580Ma'an Governorate103,920 Ma'an30,050Madaba Governorate135,890 Madaba83,180Mafraq Governorate245,670 Mafraq56,340Tafilah Governorate81,000 Tafilah
Zarqa Governorate838,250 Zarqa447,880The Governorates are subdivided into approximately fifty-two nahiyas.[edit]Demographics Graph showing the population of Jordan from 1960 to 2005.Main article: Demographics of JordanThe Jordan National Census for the year 2004, which was released on October 1 of the same year, gave the following results:1. As of October 1 2004, Jordan had a population of 5,100,981. The census estimated that there are another 190,000 who were not counted (for being out of the country at the time the census was taken, or did not turn in their forms).2. The census showed that the national growth rate was 2.5% (at maximum) compared to 3.3% of the 1994 census.3. The census of 2004 also shows that males made up 51.5% of Jordan's population (2,628,717). Females: 2,472,264 (48.5%).4. Jordanian citizens made up 93% of the population (4,750,463), while non Jordanians made up 7% (349,933). However, it is estimated that most of those who did not turn in their forms were immigrants from neighboring countries, or non Arabic-speaking foreigners.5. There were 946,000 families in Jordan in 2004, with an average of 5.3 persons/family (compared to 6 persons/family for the census of 1994).[50] The next census is scheduled to take place in 2014.During the years 2004–2007, Jordan saw a rapid increase in its population due to the heavy migration of Iraqi refugees, an independent census carried in 2007, estimated that there are 700,000 Iraqis residing in Jordan. Most estimates put the population of Jordan slightly over 6,000,000 as of the year 2007.Approximately 95 to 98% of Jordan's population are "Arabs", that is, Arabic-speaking Arab-identified people. Among "Arabs", 60 to 80% are of Palestinian and Syrian origin, only a minority are indigenous Jordanians. Of the non-Arab population, most are Circassians, Chechens,Armenians, Kurds, and Gypsies, which have all maintained separate ethic identities, but have integrated into mainstream Jordanian and Arab culture.[51][52]The number of Lebanese permanently settling in Jordan since the 2006 Lebanon War has not been established, and is estimated to be very little. According to Labour Ministry figures, the number of guest workers in the country now stands just over 300,000, most are Egyptians who makeup 227,000 of the foreign labor, and the remaining 36,150 workers are mostly from Bangladesh, China, Sri Lanka and India. Since the Iraq War many Christians (Assyrians and Chaldeans) from Iraq have settled permanently or temporarily in Jordan.About 92% of Jordanians are Muslims. The majority are Sunni.Jordanian Christians permanently residing in Jordan form approximately 6% of the population and are allocated respective seats in parliament (The Department of Statistics released no information about the religion distribution from the census of 2004). Most Jordanian Christians belong to the Greek Orthodox faith (locally called "Ruum Urthudux" in Arabic). The remainder include Roman Catholics (locally called "Lateen"), the Eastern Catholic Melkites (locally called "Ruum Katoleek") and distinct from other "Western Catholics", as well as various Protestant denominations including Baptists. Most Jordanian Christians are indigenous Arabs, hold services in the Arabic language, and share the culture of Jordan and the broader East Mediterranean Levantine Arab Identity. Expatriate Christians in Jordan include many nationalities, as evinced, for example, by some Catholic masses being celebrated in English, French, Italian, Spanish, Tagalog and Sinhala, and Iraqi dialects of Arabic.Other Jordanians belonging to religious minorities include adherents to the Druze and Bahá'í Faith. The Druze are mainly located in the EasternOasis Town of Azraq and the city of Zarka, while the Village of Adassiyeh bordering the Jordan Valley is home to Jordan's Bahá'í community.The official language is Arabic, but English is used widely in commerce and government and among educated people. Arabic and English are obligatory learning at public and private schools. French is taught at some public and private schools but is not obligatory. However, a vibrantFrancophone community has emerged in modern Jordan.[citation needed] Radio Jordan offers radio services in Arabic, English and French.A portion of the people are registered as Palestinian refugees and displaced persons reside in Jordan, most as citizens. Since 2003 many Iraqis fleeing the Iraq War have settled in Jordan; latest estimates indicate between 700,000 and 1.7 million Iraqis living in Jordan;[53] mainly in Amman, the capital.[54][edit]Politics King Abdullah II, Jordanian Head of State.Main article: Politics of Jordan Queen Rania in the Yellow Oval Room in the White House Residence.Jordan's most executive power is the King although it is aconstitutional monarchy with a representative government. The King traditionally has held substantial power, however the democratically-elected Parliament holds significant influence and power in national governance.[edit]ConstitutionJordan is a constitutional monarchy based on the constitutionpromulgated on 8 January 1952. Executive authority is vested in the king and his council of ministers. The king signs and executes all laws. His veto power may be overridden by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the National Assembly. He appoints and may dismiss all judges by decree, approves amendments to the constitution, declares war, and commands the armed forces. Cabinet decisions, court judgments, and the national currency are issued in his name. The council of ministers, led by a prime minister, is appointed by the king, who may dismiss other cabinet members at the prime minister's request. The cabinet is responsible to the Chamber of Deputies on matters of general policy and can be forced to resign by a 50% or more of vote of "no confidence" by that body.The constitution provides for three categories of courts: civil, religious, and special. Administratively, Jordan is divided into twelve governorates, each headed by a governor appointed by the king. They are the sole authorities for all government departments and development projects in their respective areas.[edit]Legal system and legislationJordan's legal system is based on Islamic law and French codes. Judicial review of legislative acts occurs in a special High Tribunal. It has not accepted compulsory International Court of Justice jurisdiction.Jordan has multi-party politics. There are over 30 political parties in the Jordan from a wide range of positions ranging from extreme left (Jordanian Communist Party) to extreme right (Islamic Action Front).Article 97 of Jordan’s constitution guarantees the independence of the judicial branch, clearly stating that judges are 'subject to no authority but that of the law.' While the king must approve the appointment and dismissal of judges, in practice these are supervised by the Higher Judicial Council.The Jordanian legal system draws upon civil traditions as well as Islamic law and custom. Article 99 of the Constitution divides the courts into three categories: civil, religious and special. The civil courts deal with civil and criminal matters in accordance with the law, and they have jurisdiction over all persons in all matters, civil and criminal, including cases brought against the government. The civil courts include Magistrate Courts, Courts of First Instance, Courts of Appeal, High Administrative Courts and the Supreme Court.The religious courts include shari’a (Islamic law) courts and the tribunals of other religious communities, namely those of the Christian minority. Religious courts have primary and appellate courts and deal only with matters involving personal law such as marriage, divorce, inheritance and child custody. Shari’a courts also have jurisdiction over matters pertaining to the Islamic waqfs. In cases involving parties of different religions, regular courts have jurisdiction.[55]Specialized courts involve various bodies. One such body is the Supreme Council which will interpret the Constitution if requested by either the National Assembly or the prime minister, according to Dew et al.: "...such courts are usually created in areas that the legislator deems should be governed by specialized courts with more experience and knowledge in specific matters than other regular courts."[56] Other examples of special courts include the Court of Income Tax and the Highest Court of Felonies.The strictly military courts of the martial law period have been abolished and replaced with a State Security Court, which is composed of both military and civilian judges. The court tries both military and civilians and its jurisdiction includes offenses against the external and internal security of the state as well as drug-related and other offenses. The findings of this court are subject to appeal before the High Court.Both Article 102 of the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure mandate the right of an accused person to a lawyer of his or her own choice during the investigation and trial period. Article 22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also provides that a lawyer has the right to attend the interrogation unless the investigation is confidential or urgent. Article 28 of the Code of Criminal Procedure declares that detainees should be brought before a court within 48 hours of arrest, even in special security cases, giving them an opportunity to have full access to legal counsel.[55]Prior to 2002 Jordan’s legal system only allowed men to file for divorce, however, during this year the first Jordanian woman successfully filed for divorce;[57] this was made possible from a proposal by a royal human rights commission which had been established by King Abdullah who had vowed to improve the status of women in Jordan.Despite being traditionally dominated by men the number of women involved as lawyers in the Jordan legal system has been increasing. As of mid-2006 Jordan had 1,284 female lawyers, out of a total number of 6,915, and 35 female judges from a total of 630. In Jordan, between 15 and 20 women are murdered annually in the name of "honour" and at least eight such killings have been reported in 2008, according to Jordanian authorities. In 2007 17 such murders were recorded.[edit]Kings of Jordan and political eventsKing Abdullah I ruled Jordan after independence from Britain. After the assassination of King Abdullah I in 1951, his son King Talal ruled briefly. King Talal's major accomplishment was the Jordanian constitution. King Talal was removed from the throne in 1952 due to mental illness. At that time his son, Hussein, was too young to rule, and hence a committee ruled over Jordan.After Hussein reached 18, he ruled Jordan as king from 1953 to 1999, surviving a number of challenges to his rule, drawing on the loyalty of his military, and serving as a symbol of unity and stability for both the Bedouin-related and Palestinian communities in Jordan. King Hussein endedmartial law in 1991 and legalized political parties in 1992. In 1989 and 1993, Jordan held free and fair parliamentary elections. Controversial changes in the election law led Islamist parties to boycott the 1997 elections.King Abdullah II succeeded his father Hussein following the latter's death in February 1999. Abdullah moved quickly to reaffirm Jordan's peace treaty with Israel and its relations with the United States. Abdullah, during the first year in power, refocused the government's agenda on economic reform.Jordan's continuing structural economic difficulties, burgeoning population, and more open political environment led to the emergence of a variety of political parties. Moving toward greater independence, Jordan's parliament has investigated corruption charges against several regime figures and has become the major forum in which differing political views, including those of political Islamists, are expressed. While the King remains the ultimate authority in Jordan, the parliament plays an important role.[edit]ReligionReligion in Jordan[51]
Religion Percent Sunni Muslims 92%Christian 6%Shia Muslims, Druze 2%
Main article: Religion in Jordan

2009-11-02T00:01:00.003-08:00

Jordan (Arabic: الأردنّ‎ al-'Urdunn), officially the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, is a country inWestern Asia spanning the southern part of the Syrian Desert down to the Gulf of Aqaba. Jordan shares borders with Syria to the north, Iraq to the northeast, Saudi Arabia to the east and south, the Gulf of Aqaba to the southwest, and Israel and the West Bank to the west. It shares control of the Dead Sea with Israel. Much of Jordan is covered by desert, particularly the Arabian Desert; however the north-western area, with the Jordan River, is regarded as part of the Fertile Crescent. The capital city of Amman is in the north-west.During its history, Jordan has seen numerous civilisations, including such ancient eastern ones as the Canaanite and later other Semitic peoples such as the Edomites, and the Moabites. Other civilisations possessing political sovereignty and influence in Jordan were: Akkadian, Assyrian,Judean, Babylonian, and Persian empires. Jordan was for a time part of Pharaonic Egypt, theHasmonean Dynasty of the Maccabees, and also spawned the native Nabatean civilisation which left rich archaeological remains at Petra. Cultures from the west also left their mark, such as theMacedonian, Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman Turkish empires. Since the seventh century the area has been under Muslim and Arab cultures, with the exception of a brief period when the west of the area formed part of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem and a short time under British rule.The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is a constitutional monarchy with representative government. The reigning monarch is the head of state, the chief executive and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The king exercises his executive authority through the prime ministers and the Council of Ministers, or cabinet. The cabinet, meanwhile, is responsible before the democratically elected House of Deputies which, along with the House of Notables (Senate), constitutes the legislative branch of the government. The judicial branch is an independent branch of the government.Jordan is a modern Arab nation with a predominantly middle class population that lacks the vast wealth of some of its neighbors. Jordan's population is 92% Sunni Muslim with a small Christian minority. Jordanian society is predominantly urbanized and very ethnically diverse. Jordan is classified as an emerging market by the CIA factbook. Jordan is a pro-Western regime that has very close relations with the West especially with the United States, the United Kingdom andFrance. Jordan became a major non-NATO ally in 1996. Jordan is one of only two Arab nations, the other being Egypt, that has relations with Israel[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. It is a founding member of the Arab League[12][13] and the CAEU, a member of the OIC[14][15], theWTO[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24], the AFESD[25], the Arab Parliament[26], the AIDMO[27], theAMF[28], the IMF[29][30], the International Criminal Court[31], the UNHRC[32], the GAFTA, theESCWA[33], the ENP[34][35][36] and the United Nations[37]. Jordan is also currently undergoing close integration with the European Union and the Gulf Cooperation Council. Jordan expects to receive "advanced status" with the EU by 2011. [38]

2009-11-02T00:01:00.001-08:00

 Tracking the Global Recession accurate and useful information from Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Sjostrom, Jr., William K.. "The AIG Bailout". (2009) In depth: Global financial crisis from the Financial Times Stimulus Watch, U.S. Budget Watch, an interactive database which tracks all economic recovery efforts Woods, Thomas (2009). Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse. Washington, DC: Regnery. ISBN 1596985879. Erollover on housing bubble A view from inside the financial world. Deeper analysis and part of the solution ? Eddy Vanderlinden ILO Job Crisis Observatory [8] Financial Crisis-IMF [9] Financial Crisis-World Bank Group [10] From Global Financial Crisis-Asian Development Bank [11] Financial Crisis -Theological Responses and Resources [12] 2008-2009 Global Financial Crisis (useful links)[hide]v • d • eFinancial crisis of 2007–2009 Late 2000s recession • 2008 G-20 Washington summit • APEC Peru 2008 • 2009 G-20 London summit • 2009 G-20 Pittsburgh summit
Specific issues United States housing market correction • World food price crisis • Energy crisis (Central Asia) •Subprime mortgage crisis (timeline, List of writedowns) • Automotive industry crisis • Future of newspapers •List of entities involved (Bankrupt or acquired banks, Bankrupt retailers) • Effects upon museums • Banking revelations in Ireland •Resurgence of Keynesianism
By country (or region) Belgium • Iceland • Ireland • Latvia • Russia • Spain • Ukraine • (Europe • Africa • Americas • Asia • Australasia)
Legislation and policy responses Banking and financestability and reform Banking (Special Provisions) Act 2008 • Commercial Paper Funding Facility • Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 •Troubled Assets Relief Program • Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility • Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program •2008 United Kingdom bank rescue package • 2008 East Asian meetings • Anglo Irish Bank Corporation Bill 2009 •2009 G-20 London summit • Irish emergency budget, 2009 • National Asset Management Agency
Stimulus and recovery National fiscal policy response to the late 2000s recession • Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 •Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 • 2008 Chinese economic stimulus plan • 2008 European Union stimulus plan •American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 • Green New Deal
Companies and banking institutions Companies in bankruptcy,administration,or other insolvencyproceedings; or in failureNew Century Financial Corporation • Woolworths • American Freedom Mortgage • American Home Mortgage •Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC • Charter Communications • Lehman Brothers (bankruptcy) • Linens 'n Things • Mervyns •NetBank • Terra Securities (scandal) • Sentinel Management Group • Washington Mutual • Icesave • Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander •Yamato Life • Circuit City • Allco Finance Group • Waterford Wedgwood • Saab Automobile • BearingPoint • Tweeter •Babcock & Brown • Silicon Graphics • Conquest Vacations • General Growth Properties • Chrysler (bankruptcy) •Thornburg Mortgage • Great Southern Group • General Motors (bankruptcy) • Eddie Bauer • Nortel • BI-LO (United States) •Arena Football League • DSB Bank
Government bailoutsand takeovers Northern Rock (nationalisation) • Bear Stearns • IndyMac Federal Bank • Fannie Mae (takeover) • Freddie Mac (takeover) • AIG •Bradford & Bingley • Fortis • Glitnir • Hypo Real Estate • Dexia • CL Financial • Landsbanki • Kaupthing • Straumur • ING Group • Citigroup •General Motors • Chrysler • Bank of America • Anglo Irish Bank (nationalisation) • Parex Bank • Bank of Antigua •ACC Capital Holdings (reorganization) • U.S. Central Credit Union • Bank of Ireland • Allied Irish Bank
Company acquisitions Ameriquest Mortgage • Countrywide Financial • Bear Stearns • Alliance & Leicester • Merrill Lynch • Washington Mutual •Derbyshire Building Society • Cheshire Building Society • HBOS • Wachovia • Sovereign Bank • Barnsley Building Society •Scarborough Building Society • National City Corp. (details) • Dunfermline Building Society
Other topics Alleged fraudsand fraudsters Stanford Financial Group (Allen Stanford) • Fairfield Greenwich Group • UBS AG • Sean FitzPatrick (Anglo Irish Bank) •Kazutsugi Nami (Enten controversy) • Nicholas Cosmo • Arthur Nadel • Paul Greenwood • Stephen Walsh • Laura Pendergest-Holt •Angelo Mozilo • Barry Tannenbaum
Proven or admittedfrauds and fraudsters Bernard Madoff (Ponzi scheme)(Frank DiPascali) • Satyam Computer Services (accounting scandal) (Ramalinga Raju) •Marc Stuart Dreier • Norman Hsu • Joseph S. Forte • Du Jun
Related entities Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation • Federal Reserve System • Federal Housing Administration • Federal Housing Finance Agency •Federal Housing Finance Board • Government National Mortgage Association • Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight •Office of Financial Stability • UK Financial Investments Limited • Federal Home Loan Banks
Securities involvedand financial markets Auction rate securities • Collateralized debt obligations • Collateralized mortgage obligations • Credit default swaps •Mortgage-backed securities • Secondary mortgage market
Related topics Bailout • Bank run • Credit crunch • Economic bubble • Error account • Financial contagion • Financial crisis • Interbank lending market •Liquidity crisis • Ponzi scheme • Prison consultant • Tea Party protests
[show]v • d • eUS Subprime mortgage crisis
[show]v • d • eBanking panics in the United States
[show]v • d • eStock market crashes
Categories: Late 2000s global financial crisis 2000s economic history 2008 in economics Economic bubbles Economic crises Financial crises Stock market crashes Real estate crises• article • discussion • edit this page • history• Try Beta • Log in / create account
navigation Main page Contents Featured content Current events Random articlesearch interaction About Wikipedia Community portal Recent changes Contact Wikipedia Donate to Wikipedia Helptoolbox What links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Printable version Permanent link Cite this pagelanguages Česky Dansk Deutsch Ελληνικά Español فارسی Français 한국어 Hrvatski Bahasa Indonesia Latviešu Lëtzebuergesch Nederlands 日本語 Norsk (bokmål) Ripoarisch Română Русский Suomi Tiếng Việt 中文  This page was last modified on 24 October 2009 at 16:16.  Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.  Privacy policy  About Wikipedia  Disclaimers

2009-11-02T00:00:00.003-08:00

Official economic projectionsOn November 3, 2008, the EU-commission at Brussels predicted for 2009 an extremely weak growth of GDP, by 0.1 percent, for the countries of the Euro zone (France, Germany, Italy, etc.) and even negative number for the UK (-1.0 percent), Ireland and Spain. On November 6, the IMF at Washington, D.C., launched numbers predicting a worldwide recession by -0.3 percent for 2009, averaged over the developed economies. On the same day, the Bank of England and the Central Bank for the Euro zone, respectively, reduced their interest rates from 4.5 percent down to three percent, and from 3.75 percent down to 3.25 percent. Economically, mainly the car industry seems to be involved. As a consequence, starting from November 2008, several countries launched large "help packages" for their economies.The U.S. Federal Reserve Open Market Committee release in June 2009 stated: "...the pace of economic contraction is slowing. Conditions in financial markets have generally improved in recent months. Household spending has shown further signs of stabilizing but remains constrained by ongoing job losses, lower housing wealth, and tight credit. Businesses are cutting back on fixed investment and staffing but appear to be making progress in bringing inventory stocks into better alignment with sales. Although economic activity is likely to remain weak for a time, the Committee continues to anticipate that policy actions to stabilize financial markets and institutions, fiscal and monetary stimulus, and market forces will contribute to a gradual resumption of sustainable economic growth in a context of price stability."[136] Economic projections from the Federal Reserve and Reserve Bank Presidents include a return to typical growth levels (GDP) of 2-3% in 2010; an unemployment plateau in 2009 and 2010 around 10% with moderation in 2011; and inflation that remains at typical levels around 1-2%.[137][edit]Responses to financial crisis[edit]Emergency and short-term responsesMain article: Subprime mortgage crisis#ResponsesThe U.S. Federal Reserve and central banks around the world have taken steps to expand money supplies to avoid the risk of a deflationary spiral, in which lower wages and higher unemployment lead to a self-reinforcing decline in global consumption. In addition, governments have enacted large fiscal stimulus packages, by borrowing and spending to offset the reduction in private sector demand caused by the crisis. The U.S. executed two stimulus packages, totaling nearly $1 trillion during 2008 and 2009.[138]This credit freeze brought the global financial system to the brink of collapse. The response of the USA Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, and other central banks was immediate and dramatic. During the last quarter of 2008, these central banks purchased US$2.5 trillion of government debt and troubled private assets from banks. This was the largest liquidity injection into the credit market, and the largest monetary policy action, in world history. The governments of European nations and the USA also raised the capital of their national banking systems by $1.5 trillion, by purchasing newly issued preferred stock in their major banks.[100]Governments have also bailed-out a variety of firms as discussed above, incurring large financial obligations. To date, various U.S. government agencies have committed or spent trillions of dollars in loans, asset purchases, guarantees, and direct spending. For a summary of U.S. government financial commitments and investments related to the crisis, see CNN - Bailout Scorecard.[edit]Regulatory proposals and long-term responsesFurther information: Regulatory responses to the subprime crisis and Subprime mortgage crisis solutions debateAmerican President Barack Obama and key advisers introduced a series of regulatory proposals in June 2009. The proposals address consumer protection, executive pay, bank financial cushions or capital requirements, expanded regulation of the shadow banking system andderivatives, and enhanced authority for the Federal Reserve to safely wind-down systemically important institutions, among others.[139][140][141]A variety of regulatory changes have been proposed by economists, politicians, journalists, and business leaders to minimize the impact of the current crisis and prevent recurrence. However, as of April 2009, many of the proposed solutions have not yet been implemented. These include: Ben Bernanke: Establish resolution procedures for closing troubled financial institutions in the shadow banking system, such as investment banks and hedge funds.[142] Joseph Stiglitz: Restrict the leverage that financial institutions can assume. Require executive compensation to be more related to long-term performance.[143] Re-instate the separation of commercial (depository) and investment banking established by the Glass-Steagall Act in 1933 and repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.[144] Simon Johnson: Break-up institutions that are "too big to fail" to limit systemic risk.[145] Paul Krugman: Regulate institutions that "act like banks " similarly to banks.[58] Alan Greenspan: Banks should have a stronger capital cushion, with graduated regulatory capital requirements (i.e., capital ratios that increase with bank size), to "discourage them from becoming too big and to offset their competitive advantage."[146] Warren Buffett: Require minimum down payments for home mortgages of at least 10% and income verification.[147] Eric Dinallo: Ensure any financial institution has the necessary capital to support its financial commitments. Regulate credit derivatives and ensure they are traded on well-capitalized exchanges to limit counterparty risk.[148] Raghuram Rajan: Require financial institutions to maintain sufficient "contingent capital" (i.e., pay insurance premiums to the government during boom periods, in exchange for payments during a downturn.)[149] A. Michael Spence and Gordon Brown: Establish an early-warning system to help detect systemic risk.[150] Niall Ferguson and Jeffrey Sachs: Impose haircuts on bondholders and counterparties prior to using taxpayer money in bailouts. In other words, bondholders with a claim of $100 would have their claim reduced to $80, creating $20 in equity. This is also called a debt for equity swap. This is frequently done in bankruptcies, where the current shareholders are wiped out and the bondholders become the new stockholders, agreeing to reduce the company's debt burden in the process. This is being done with General Motors, for example.[151][152] Nouriel Roubini: Nationalize insolvent banks.[153] Reduce mortgage balances to assist homeowners, giving the lender a share in any future home appreciation.[154][edit]See also Subprime mortgage crisis Subprime crisis impact timeline Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 2008 Chinese economic stimulus plan John Maynard Keynes - Keynesian resurgence of 2008 2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence List of acquired or bankrupt banks in the late 2000s financial crisis List of acquired or bankrupt United States banks in the late 2000s financial crisis List of economic crises List of entities involved in 2007–2008 financial crises 2009 G-20 London summit protests 2008 Greek riots 2009 Icelandic financial crisis protests 2009 May Day protests 2009 Moldova civil unrest 2009 Riga riot Bank failure List of largest U.S. bank failures 2008-2009 bank failures in the United States Allen Stanford Bernie Madoff Deflation Dotcom bubble FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data) The Great Depression Low-Income Countries Under Stress (LICUS) (World Bank program) Mark-to-market accounting Deposit insurance Private equity in the 21st century The Second Great Depression (book) United States v. Winstar Corp. United States housing bubble A Failure of Capitalism (book)
[edit]References1. ^ Three top economists agree 2009 worst financial crisis since great depression; risks increase if right steps are not taken. (2009-2-29). Reuters. Retrieved 2009-9-30, from Business Wire News database.2. ^ Brookings-Financial Crisis3. ^ Bernanke-Four Questions4. ^ Obama-Regulatory Reform Speech June 17 20095. ^ Roubini-10 Risks to Global Growth6. ^ "Episode 06292007". Bill Moyers Journal. PBS. 2007-06-29. Transcript.7. ^ Lahart, Justin (2007-12-24). "Egg Cracks Differ In Housing, Finance Shells". WSJ.com (Wall Street Journal). Retrieved 2008-07-13.8. ^ Confer Thomas Philippon: "The future of the financial industry", Finance Department of the New York University Stern School of Business at New York University, link to blog [1]9. ^ Bernanke-Four Questions About the Financial Crisis10. ^ Krugman, Paul (March 2, 2009). "Revenge of the Glut". nytimes.com (New York Times).11. ^ IMF Loss Estimates12. ^ a b c Geithner-Speech Reducing Systemic Risk in a Dynamic Financial System13. ^ Greenspan-We Need a Better Cushion Against Risk14. ^ "CSI: credit crunch". 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-19.15. ^ Ben Steverman and David Bogoslaw (October 18, 2008). "The Financial Crisis Blame Game - BusinessWeek". Businessweek.com. Retrieved 2008-10-24.16. ^ a b Greenspan Kennedy Report - Table 217. ^ a b Equity extraction - Charts18. ^ a b Reuters-Spending Boosted by Home Equity Loans19. ^ a b c Fortune-The $4 trillion housing headache20. ^ [2]21. ^ "Economist-A Helping Hand to Homeowners". Economist.com. 2008-10-23. Retrieved 2009-02-27.22. ^ "U.S. FORECLOSURE ACTIVITY INCREASES 75 PERCENT IN 2007". RealtyTrac. 2008-01-29. Retrieved 2008-06-06.23. ^ "RealtyTrac Press Release 2008FY". Realtytrac.com. 2009-01-15. Retrieved 2009-02-27.24. ^ "MBA Survey".25. ^ "Federal Reserve Board: Monetary Policy and Open Market Operations". Retrieved 2008-05-19.26. ^ "The Wall Street Journal Online - Featured Article". 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-19.27. ^ Fed Historical Data-Fed Funds Rate28. ^ National Review - Mastrobattista29. ^ CNN-The Bubble Question30. ^ Business Week-Is a Housing Bubble About to Burst?31. ^ "Bernanke-The Global Saving Glut and U.S. Current Account Deficit". Federalreserve.gov. Retrieved 2009-02-27.32. ^ "[http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20070911a.htm Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, At the Bundesbank Lecture, Berlin, Germany September 11, 2007: Global Imbalances: Recent Developments and Prospects]". Federalreserve.gov. Retrieved 2009-05-03.33. ^ "Economist-When a Flow Becomes a Flood". Economist.com. 2009-01-22. Retrieved 2009-02-27.34. ^ Roger C. Altman. "Altman-Foreign Affairs-The Great Crash of 2008". Foreignaffairs.org. Retrieved 2009-02-27.35. ^ NY Times-The Reckoning-Agency 04 Rule Lets Banks Pile on Debt36. ^ NYT-The Reckoning-Pressured to Take More Risk, Fannie Reached Tipping Point37. ^ FDIC-Guidance for Subprime Lending38. ^ "How severe is subprime mess?". msnbc.com (Associated Press). 2007-03-13. Retrieved 2008-07-13.39. ^ Ben S. Bernanke. "The Subprime Mortgage Market" Chicago, Illinois (2007-05-17). Retrieved on 2008-07-13.40. ^ Harvard Report-State of the Nation's Housing 2008 Report41. ^ NY Times - The Reckoning - Agency 04 Rule Lets Banks Pile on Debt42. ^ Chicago Federal Reserve Letter August 200743. ^ Bernanke-Mortgage Delinquencies and Foreclosures May 200844. ^ Mortgage Bankers Association - National Delinquency Survey45. ^ What Got Us Here?, December 2008.46. ^ Holmes, Steven A. (September 30, 1999). "Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending". The New York Times: pp. section C page 2. Retrieved 2009-03-08.47. ^ The Community Reinvestment Act After Financial Modernization, April 2000.48. ^ Portfolio-Michael Lewis-"The End"-December 200849. ^ http://banking.senate.gov/docs/reports/predlend/occ.htm50. ^ http://thinkdebtrelief.com/debt-relief-blog/money-news/bofa-modifies-64000-home-loans-as-part-of-predatory-lending-settlement/51. ^ http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/media/pdfs/20090319FriendsofAngelo.pdf52. ^ a b c Road to Ruin: Mortgage Fraud Scandal Brewing May 13, 2009 by American News Project hosted by The Real News53. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/opinion/01krugman.html54. ^ Stiglitz-Capitalist Fools55. ^ Ekelund, Robert; Thornton, Mark (2008-09-04). "More Awful Truths About Republicans". Ludwig von Mises Institute. Retrieved 2008-09-07.56. ^ "SEC Concedes Oversight Flaws".57. ^ "The Reckoning".58. ^ a b c d Krugman, Paul (2009). The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008. W.W. Norton Company Limited. ISBN 978-0-393-07101-6.59. ^ Bloomberg-Bank Hidden Junk Menaces $1 Trillion Purge60. ^ Bloomberg-Citigroup SIV Accounting Tough to Defend61. ^ Healy, Paul M. & Palepu, Krishna G.: "The Fall of Enron" - Journal of Economics Perspectives, Volume 17, Number 2. (Spring 2003), p.1362. ^ Greenspan, Alan. "Government regulation and derivative contracts" Coral Gables, FL (1997-02-21). Retrieved on 2009-10-22.63. ^ Summers, Lawrence; Alan Greenspan, Arthur Levitt, William Ranier (1999-11). Over-the-Counter Derivatives Markets and the Commodity Exchange Act: Report of The President’s Working Group on Financial Markets. p. 1. Retrieved 2009-07-20.64. ^ Forbes-Geithner's Plan for Derivatives65. ^ The Economist-Derivatives-A Nuclear Winter?66. ^ BBC-Buffet Warns on Investment Time Bomb67. ^ "The End of the Affair". Economist. 2008-10-30. Retrieved 2009-02-27.68. ^ FT-Wolf Japan's Lessons69. ^ "Agency's ’04 Rule Let Banks Pile Up New Debt, and Risk".70. ^ "AEI-The Last Trillion Dollar Commitment". Aei.org. Retrieved 2009-02-27. American Enterprise Institute is a conservative organization with a right- of-center political agenda .71. ^ "Bloomberg-U.S. Considers Bringing Fannie & Freddie Onto Budget". Bloomberg.com. 2008-09-11. Retrieved 2009-02-27.72. ^ NPR-The Giant Pool of Money73. ^ CDO Explained74. ^ Portfolio-CDO Explained75. ^ "Declaration of G20". Whitehouse.gov. Retrieved 2009-02-27.76. ^ http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/paulw/2009/03/the-power-of-belief.php77. ^ "Bloomberg-Credit Swap Disclosure Obscures True Financial Risk". Bloomberg.com. 2008-11-06. Retrieved 2009-02-27.78. ^ Business Week-Who's Who on AIG List of Counterparties79. ^ http://moneyfeatures.blogs.money.cnn.com/2009/02/27/the-financial-crisis-why-did-it-happen/80. ^ a b c Salmon, Felix (2009-02-23). "Recipe for Disaster: The Formula That Killed Wall Street". Wired Magazine (17.03). Retrieved 2009-03-08.81. ^ Floyd Norris (2008). News Analysis: Another Crisis, Another Guarantee, The New York Times, November 24, 200882. ^ Soros, George (January 22, 2008). "The worst market crisis in 60 years". Financial Times (London, UK). Retrieved 2009-03-08.83. ^ FT Martin Wolf - Reform of Regulation and Incentives84. ^ Light Crude Oil Chart85. ^ Soros - Rocketing Oil Price is a Bubble86. ^ Mises Institute-The Oil Price Bubble87. ^ http://www.ismea.org/INESDEV/AMIN.eng.html88. ^ http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1109989. ^ http://monthlyreview.org/080401foster.php90. ^ Bogle, John (2005). The Battle for the Soul of Capitalism. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11971-8.91. ^ Battle for the Soul of Capitalism92. ^ Bezemer, Dirk J (June 2009). "“No One Saw This Coming”: Understanding Financial Crisis Through Accounting Models". Munich Personal RePEc Archive. Retrieved 2009-10-23.93. ^ Businessweek Magazine94. ^ [3]"Dr. Doom", By Stephen Mihm, August 15, 2008, New York Times Magazine95. ^ [4] Emma Brockes, "He Told Us So," The Guardian, January 24, 2009.96. ^ "Recession in America," The Economist, November 15, 2007.97. ^ Richard Berner, "Perfect Storm for the American Consumer," Morgan Stanley Global Economic Forum, November 12, 2007.98. ^ Kabir Chibber, "Goldman Sees Subprime Cutting $2 Trillion in Lending," Bloomberg.com, November 16, 2007.99. ^ HM Treasury, Bank of England and Financial Services Authority (September 14, 2007). "News Release: Liquidity Support Facility for Northern Rock plc".100. ^ a b Roger C. Altman. "Altman - The Great Crash". Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 2009-02-27.101. ^ NYT-102. ^ "3 year chart" TED spread Bloomberg.com "Investment Tools"103. ^ NYT The Reckoning - As Crisis Spiraled, Alarm Led to Action104. ^ Raum, Tom (October 3, 2008) Bush signs $700 billion bailout bill. NPR105. ^ Search Site. "Nicole Gelinas-Can the Fed's Uncrunch Credit?". City-journal.org. Retrieved 2009-02-27.106. ^ Brookings Institute - U.S. Financial and Economic Crisis June 2009 PDF Page 14107. ^ Roger C. Altman. "The Great Crash, 2008 - Roger C. Altman". Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 2009-02-27.108. ^ Americans' wealth drops $1.3 trillion. CNNMoney.com. June 11, 2009109. ^ Government Support for Financial Assets and Liabilities Announced in 2008 and Soon Thereafter ($ in billions). Page 7. FDIC Supervisory Insight Publication. Summer 2009.110. ^ Baker, Dean (November 29, 2008). "It's Not the Credit Crisis, Damn It!". Retrieved 2009-03-08.111. ^ Uchitelle, Louis (September 18, 2008). "Pain Spreads as Credit Vise Grows Tighter". The New York Times: pp. A1. Retrieved 2009-03-08.112. ^ "Lehman Files for Bankruptcy; Merrill Is Sold" article by Andrew Ross Sorkin in The New York Times September 14, 2008113. ^ "Lloyds Bank Is Discussing Purchase of British Lender" article by Julia Werdigier in The New York Times September 17, 2008114. ^ Norris, Floyd (2008-10-24). "United Panic". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-10-24.115. ^ Evans-Pritchard, Ambrose (2007-07-25). "Dollar tumbles as huge credit crunch looms". Telegraph.co.uk (Telegraph Media Group Limited). Retrieved 2008-10-15.116. ^ Central banks act to calm markets, The Financial Times, September 18, 2008117. ^ Landler, Mark (2008-10-23). "West Is in Talks on Credit to Aid Poorer Nations". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-10-24.118. ^ Fackler, Martin (2008-10-23). "Trouble Without Borders". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-10-24.119. ^ Goodman, Peter S. (September 26, 2008). "Credit Enters a Lockdown". The New York Times: pp. A1. Retrieved 2009-03-08.120. ^ Cho, David; Appelbaum, Binyamin (2008-10-07). "Unfolding Worldwide Turmoil Could Reverse Years of Prosperity". The Washington Post: pp. A01. Retrieved 2009-03-08.121. ^ Since 1934, FDIC has closed more than 3,500 banks. More than 82% failed during the savings-and-loan crisis (chart)."Bank on this: bank failures will rise in next year". Associated Press. 2008-10-05.122. ^ UBS AG. "Recession". There is no alternative. Daily roundup for 2008-10-06. Retrieved 2008-10-12. 'global growth at 2.2% yoy (previously 2.8%). The IMF brands 2.5% yoy a "recession".' 'global collapse is inevitable' ... 'at least two years before we can talk of a normalisation in economic activity'123. ^ UBS AG. A plan to save the world. Daily roundup for 2008-10-09. Retrieved 2008-10-13. "The actions yesterday can not stop a significant economic downturn."124. ^ UBS AG. Fears of recession loom. Daily roundup for 2008-10-09. Retrieved 2008-10-17. "short by historical standards"125. ^ [5]126. ^ UBS AG.The IMF in March, 2009 forecast that it would be the first occasion since the great depression that the world economy as a whole would contract. Be afraid. Be very afraid. Daily roundup for 2008-10-31. Retrieved 2008-11-02. "NEGATIVE growth in 2009 for the US, UK, Euro area and Canada. Japan is the fastest growing G7 economy at 0.1% growth. Global growth in 2009 forecast at 1.3%."127. ^ Brookings-Baily and Elliot-The U.S. Financial and Economic Crisis-June 2009128. ^ Following crisis, Arab world loses $3 trillion129. ^ Unemployment in Arab world is a 'time bomb'130. ^ UN reports drop in foreign investment in Mideast-2008131. ^ World Bank predicts tough year for Arab states132. ^ Recession costs Arab banks $4B133. ^ BEA Press Releases134. ^ BLS-Historical Unemployment Rate Table135. ^ Business Week-Unemployed lose with hour and wage cuts136. ^ FOMC Statement June 24 2009137. ^ Minutes of the FOMC April 2009138. ^ "BBC - Stimulus Package 2009". BBC News. 2009-02-14. Retrieved 2009-02-27.139. ^ [6]140. ^ Washington Post - Geithner & Summers - A New Financial Foundation141. ^ Treasury Department Report - Financial Regulatory Reform142. ^ "Bernanke Remarks". Federalreserve.gov. 2008-12-01. Retrieved 2009-02-27.143. ^ "Stigliz Recommendations".144. ^ Stiglitz - Vanity Fair - Capitalist Fools145. ^ WSJ-Economists Seek Breakup of Big Banks146. ^ Greenspan-We need a better cushion against risk147. ^ Warren Buffet-2008 Shareholder's Letter Summary148. ^ Dinallo-We Modernized Ourselves Into This Ice Age149. ^ The Economist-Rajan-Cycle Proof Regulation150. ^ "PIMCO-Lessons from the Crisis". Pimco.com. 2008-11-26. Retrieved 2009-02-27.151. ^ Jeffrey Sachs-Our Wall Street Besotted Public Policy152. ^ FT-Ferguson-Beyond the Age of Leverage153. ^ Roubini-Charlie Rose Interview154. ^ Risks to Global GrowthThe initial articles and some subsequent material were adapted from the Wikinfo article "Financial crisis of 2007-2008"http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php?title=Financial_crisis_of_2007-2008 released under the GNU Free Documentation License Version 1.2[edit]External links and further reading Reuters: Times of Crisis - multimedia interactive charting the year of global change Stewart, James B., "Eight Days: the battle to save the American financial system", The New Yorker magazine, September 21, 2009. Testing the Efficiency of the Commercial Real Estate Market: Evidence from the 2007-2009 Financial Crisis - Paper by Otto Van Hemert, NYU Stern & AQR Capital Management Princeton Economist Alan Blinder Lecture - Origins of the Financial Mess PBS Frontline - Inside the Meltdown Economic Crisis and Stimulus from UCB Libraries GovPubs Credit Crisis — The Essentials topic page from The New York Times Credit Crisis Indicators (Updated daily) - Five ways to measure recent market disruption, from the New York Times Gjerstad, Steven; and Vernon L. Smith (2009-04-06). "From Bubble to Depression? Why the Housing Bubble Crashed the Financial System but the Dot-com Bubble Did Not". Wall Street Journal. p. A15. John C. Hull, The Credit Crunch of 2007: What Went Wrong? Why? What Lessons Can Be Learned?, Rothman School Research Paper, available here The Global Financial Crisis and Responses by the Churches (Arnold Neufeldt-Fast, PhD, Tyndale Seminary, Toronto) Impact of the Financial Crisis Towers Perrin Thought Leadership NYU Stern on Finance - Understanding the Financial Crisis Davis Polk Financial Crisis Manual How nations around the world are responding to the global financial crisis from

2009-11-02T00:00:00.001-08:00

Economist Dean Baker explained the reduction in the availability of credit this way:"Yes, consumers and businesses can't get credit as easily as they could a year ago. There is a really good reason for tighter credit. Tens of millions of homeowners who had substantial equity in their homes two years ago have little or nothing today. Businesses are facing the worst downturn since the Great Depression. This matters for credit decisions. A homeowner with equity in her home is very unlikely to default on a car loan or credit card debt. They will draw on this equity rather than lose their car and/or have a default placed on their credit record. On the other hand, a homeowner who has no equity is a serious default risk. In the case of businesses, their creditworthiness depends on their future profits. Profit prospects look much worse in November 2008 than they did in November 2007 (of course, to clear-eyed analysts, they didn't look too good a year ago either). While many banks are obviously at the brink, consumers and businesses would be facing a much harder time getting credit right now even if the financial system were rock solid. The problem with the economy is the loss of close to $6 trillion in housing wealth and an even larger amount of stock wealth. Economists, economic policy makers and economic reporters virtually all missed the housing bubble on the way up. If they still can't notice its impact as the collapse of the bubble throws into the worst recession in the post-war era, then they are in the wrong profession."[110]At the heart of the portfolios of many of these institutions were investments whose assets had been derived from bundled home mortgages. Exposure to these mortgage-backed securities, or to the credit derivatives used to insure them against failure, caused the collapse or takeover of several key firms such as Lehman Brothers, AIG, Merrill Lynch, and HBOS.[111][112][113][edit]Global contagionThe crisis rapidly developed and spread into a global economic shock, resulting in a number of European bank failures, declines in various stock indexes, and large reductions in the market value of equities[114] and commodities.[115] Moreover, the de-leveraging of financial institutions, as assets were sold to pay back obligations that could not be refinanced in frozen credit markets, further accelerated the liquidity crisis and caused a decrease in international trade.World political leaders, national ministers of finance and central bank directors coordinated their efforts[116] to reduce fears, but the crisis continued. At the end of October 2008 a currency crisis developed, with investors transferring vast capital resources into stronger currencies such as the yen, the dollar and the Swiss franc, leading many emergent economies to seek aid from the International Monetary Fund.[117][118][edit]Effects on the global economy Global impact of the crisisMain article: Late-2000s recession[edit]Global effectsA number of commentators have suggested that if the liquidity crisis continues, there could be an extended recession or worse.[119] The continuing development of the crisis prompted fears of a global economic collapse.[120] The financial crisis is likely to yield the biggest banking shakeout since the savings-and-loan meltdown.[121] Investment bank UBSstated on October 6 that 2008 would see a clear global recession, with recovery unlikely for at least two years.[122] Three days later UBS economists announced that the "beginning of the end" of the crisis had begun, with the world starting to make the necessary actions to fix the crisis: capital injection by governments; injection made systemically; interest rate cuts to help borrowers. The United Kingdom had started systemic injection, and the world's central banks were now cutting interest rates. UBS emphasized the United States needed to implement systemic injection. UBS further emphasized that this fixes only the financial crisis, but that in economic terms "the worst is still to come".[123] UBS quantified their expected recession durations on October 16: the Eurozone's would last two quarters, the United States' would last three quarters, and the United Kingdom's would last four quarters.[124] Theeconomic crisis in Iceland involved all three of the country's major banks. Relative to the size of its economy, Iceland’s banking collapse is the largest suffered by any country in economic history.[125]At the end of October UBS revised its outlook downwards: the forthcoming recession would be the worst since the Reagan recession of 1981 and 1982 with negative 2009 growth for the U.S., Eurozone, UK and Canada; very limited recovery in 2010; but not as bad as the Great Depression.[126]The Brookings Institution reported in June 2009 that U.S. consumption accounted for more than a third of the growth in global consumption between 2000 and 2007. "The US economy has been spending too much and borrowing too much for years and the rest of the world depended on the U.S. consumer as a source of global demand." With a recession in the U.S. and the increased savings rate of U.S. consumers, declines in growth elsewhere have been dramatic. For the first quarter of 2009, the annualized rate of decline in GDP was 14.4% in Germany, 15.2% in Japan, 7.4% in the UK, 9.8% in the Euro area and 21.5% for Mexico.[127]By March 2009, the Arab world had lost $3 trillion due to the crisis.[128]In April 2009, unemployment in the Arab world is said to be a 'time bomb'.[129]In May 2009, the United Nations reported a drop in foreign investment in Middle-Eastern economies due to a slower rise in demand for oil.[130]In June 2009, the World Bank predicted a tough year for Arab states.[131]In September 2009, Arab banks reported losts nearly to $4 billion since the global financial crisis onset.[132][edit]U.S. economic effectsReal gross domestic product — the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States — decreased at an annual rate of approximately 6 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008 and first quarter of 2009, versus activity in the year-ago periods.[133] The U.S. unemployment rate increased to 9.5% by June 2009, the highest rate since 1983 and roughly twice the pre-crisis rate. The average hours per work week declined to 33, the lowest level since the government began collecting the data in 1964.[134][135]

2009-11-01T23:59:00.002-08:00

Role of economic forecastingDirk Bezemer in his research [92] credits 12 economists with predicting (with supporting argument and estimates of timing) the crisis: Dean Baker (US), Wynne Godley (US), Fred Harrison (UK), Michael Hudson (US), Eric Janszen (US), Stephen Keen (Australia), Jakob Brøchner Madsen & Jens Kjaer Sørensen (Denmark), Kurt Richebächer (US), Nouriel Roubini(US), Peter Schiff (US), Robert Shiller(US).A cover story in BusinessWeek Magazine claims that economists mostly failed to predict the worst international economic crisis since theGreat Depression of 1930s.[93]. The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania online business journal examines why economists failed to predict a major global financial crisis [7]. An article in the New York Times informs that economist Nouriel Roubini warned of such crisis as early as September 2006, and the article goes on to state that the profession of economics is bad at predicting recessions.[94] According toThe Guardian, Roubini was ridiculed for predicting a collapse of the housing market and worldwide recession, while The New York Times labelled him "Dr. Doom".[95] However, there are examples of other experts who gave indications of a financial crisis.[96][97][98][edit]Financial markets impacts[edit]Impacts on financial institutions 2007 bank run on Northern Rock, a UK bankOne of the first victims was Northern Rock, a medium-sized British bank.[99] The highly leveraged nature of its business led the bank to request security from the Bank of England. This in turn led to investor panic and a bank run in mid-September 2007. Calls by Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor Vince Cable to nationalise the institution were initially ignored; in February 2008, however, the British government (having failed to find a private sector buyer) relented, and the bank was taken into public hands. Northern Rock's problems proved to be an early indication of the troubles that would soon befall other banks and financial institutions.Initially the companies affected were those directly involved in home construction and mortgage lending such as Northern Rock and Countrywide Financial, as they could no longer obtain financing through the credit markets. Over 100 mortgage lenders went bankrupt during 2007 and 2008. Concerns that investment bank Bear Stearns would collapse in March 2008 resulted in its fire-sale to JP Morgan Chase. The crisis hit its peak in September and October 2008. Several major institutions either failed, were acquired under duress, or were subject to government takeover. These included Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG.[100]See also: Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac[edit]Credit markets and the shadow banking system TED spread and components during 2008During September 2008, the crisis hits its most critical stage. There was the equivalent of a bank run on the money market mutual funds, which frequently invest in commercial paper issued by corporations to fund their operations and payrolls. Withdrawal from money markets were $144.5 billion during one week, versus $7.1 billion the week prior. This interrupted the ability of corporations to rollover (replace) their short-term debt. The U.S. government responded by extending insurance for money market accounts analogous to bank deposit insurance via a temporary guarantee[101] and with Federal Reserve programs to purchase commercial paper. The TED spread, an indicator of perceived credit risk in the general economy, spiked up in July 2007, remained volatile for a year, then spiked even higher in September 2008,[102] reaching a record 4.65% on October 10, 2008.In a dramatic meeting on September 18, 2008 Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke met with key legislators to propose a $700 billion emergency bailout. Bernanke reportedly tells them: "If we don't do this, we may not have an economy on Monday."[103] The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act also called the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is signed into law on October 3, 2008.[104]Economist Paul Krugman and U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner explain the credit crisis via the implosion of the shadow banking system, which had grown to nearly equal the importance of the traditional commercial banking sector as described above. Without the ability to obtain investor funds in exchange for most types of mortgage-backed securities or asset-backed commercial paper, investment banks and other entities in the shadow banking system could not provide funds to mortgage firms and other corporations.[12][58]This meant that nearly one-third of the U.S. lending mechanism was frozen and continued to be frozen into June 2009.[105] According to theBrookings Institution, the traditional banking system does not have the capital to close this gap as of June 2009: "It would take a number of years of strong profits to generate sufficient capital to support that additional lending volume." The authors also indicate that some forms of securitization are "likely to vanish forever, having been an artifact of excessively loose credit conditions." While traditional banks have raised their lending standards, it was the collapse of the shadow banking system that is the primary cause of the reduction in funds available for borrowing.[106][edit]Wealth effectsThere is a direct relationship between declines in wealth, and declines in consumption and business investment, which along with government spending represent the economic engine. Between June 2007 and November 2008, Americans lost an estimated average of more than a quarter of their collective net worth. By early November 2008, a broad U.S. stock index the S&P 500, was down 45 percent from its 2007 high. Housing prices had dropped 20% from their 2006 peak, with futures markets signaling a 30-35% potential drop. Total home equity in the United States, which was valued at $13 trillion at its peak in 2006, had dropped to $8.8 trillion by mid-2008 and was still falling in late 2008. Total retirement assets, Americans' second-largest household asset, dropped by 22 percent, from $10.3 trillion in 2006 to $8 trillion in mid-2008. During the same period, savings and investment assets (apart from retirement savings) lost $1.2 trillion and pension assets lost $1.3 trillion. Taken together, these losses total a staggering $8.3 trillion.[107] Since peaking in the second quarter of 2007, household wealth is down $14 trillion.[108]Further, U.S. homeowners had extracted significant equity in their homes in the years leading up to the crisis, which they could no longer do once housing prices collapsed. Free cash used by consumers from home equity extraction doubled from $627 billion in 2001 to $1,428 billion in 2005 as the housing bubble built, a total of nearly $5 trillion over the period.[16][17][18] U.S. home mortgage debt relative to GDP increased from an average of 46% during the 1990s to 73% during 2008, reaching $10.5 trillion.[19]To offset this decline in consumption and lending capacity, the U.S. government and U.S. Federal Reserve have committed $13.9 trillion, of which $6.8 trillion has been invested or spent, as of June 2009.[109] In effect, the Fed has gone from being the "lender of last resort" to the "lender of only resort" for a significant portion of the economy. In some cases the Fed can now be considered the "buyer of last resort."

2009-11-01T23:59:00.001-08:00

Commodity bubbleA commodity price bubble was created following the collapse in the housing bubble. The price of oil nearly tripled from $50 to $140 from early 2007 to 2008, before plunging as the financial crisis began to take hold in late 2008.[84] Experts debate the causes, which include the flow of money from housing and other investments into commodities to speculation and monetary policy [85] or the increasing feeling of raw materials scarcity in a fast growing world economy and thus positions taken on those markets, such as Chinese increasing presence in Africa. An increase in oil prices tends to divert a larger share of consumer spending into gasoline, which creates downward pressure on economic growth in oil importing countries, as wealth flows to oil-producing states.[86][edit]Systemic crisisAnother analysis, different from the mainstream explanation, is that the financial crisis is merely a symptom of another, deeper crisis, which is a systemic crisis of capitalism itself. According to Samir Amin, an Egyptian economist, the constant decrease in GDP growth rates in Western countries since the early 1970s created a growing surplus of capital which did not have sufficient profitable investment outlets in the realeconomy. The alternative was to place this surplus into the financial market, which became more profitable than productive capital investment, especially with subsequent deregulation.[87] According to Samir Amin, this phenomenon has led to recurrent financial bubbles (such as theinternet bubble) and is the deep cause of the financial crisis of 2007-2009.[88]John Bellamy Foster, a political economy analyst and editor of the Monthly Review, believes that the decrease in GDP growth rates since the early 1970s is due to increasing market saturation.[89]John C. Bogle wrote during 2005 that a series of unresolved challenges face capitalism that have contributed to past financial crises and have not been sufficiently addressed: "Corporate America went astray largely because the power of managers went virtually unchecked by our gatekeepers for far too long...They failed to 'keep an eye on these geniuses' to whom they had entrusted the responsibility of the management of America's great corporations." He cites particular issues, including:[90][91] "Manager's capitalism" which he argues has replaced "owner's capitalism," meaning management runs the firm for its benefit rather than for the shareholders, a variation on the principal-agent problem; Burgeoning executive compensation; Managed earnings, mainly a focus on share price rather than the creation of genuine value; and The failure of gatekeepers, including auditors, boards of directors, Wall Street analysts, and career politicians.

2009-11-01T23:58:00.005-08:00

Increased debt burden or over-leveraging Leverage Ratios of Investment Banks Increased Significantly 2003-2007U.S. households and financial institutions became increasingly indebted or overleveraged during the years preceding the crisis. This increased their vulnerability to the collapse of the housing bubble and worsened the ensuing economic downturn. Key statistics include: USA household debt as a percentage of annual disposable personal income was 127% at the end of 2007, versus 77% in 1990.[67] U.S. home mortgage debt relative to gross domestic product (GDP) increased from an average of 46% during the 1990s to 73% during 2008, reaching $10.5 trillion.[19] In 1981, U.S. private debt was 123% of GDP; by the third quarter of 2008, it was 290%.[68] From 2004-07, the top five U.S. investment banks each significantly increased their financial leverage (see diagram), which increased their vulnerability to a financial shock. These five institutions reported over $4.1 trillion in debt for fiscal year 2007, about 30% of USA nominal GDP for 2007. Lehman Brothers was liquidated, Bear Stearns andMerrill Lynch were sold at fire-sale prices, and Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley became commercial banks, subjecting themselves to more stringent regulation. With the exception of Lehman, these companies required or received government support.[69] Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two U.S. Government sponsored enterprises, owned or guaranteed nearly $5 trillion in mortgage obligations at the time they were placed into conservatorship by the U.S. government in September 2008.[70][71]These seven entities were highly leveraged and had $9 trillion in debt or guarantee obligations, an enormous concentration of risk, yet were not subject to the same regulation as depository banks.[edit]Financial innovation and complexity A protester on Wall Street in the wake of the AIG bonus payments controversy is interviewed by news media.The term financial innovation refers to the ongoing development of financial products designed to achieve particular client objectives, such as offsetting a particular risk exposure (such as the default of a borrower) or to assist with obtaining financing. Examples pertinent to this crisis included: the adjustable-rate mortgage; the bundling of subprime mortgages into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) or collateralized debt obligations (CDO) for sale to investors, a type of securitization; and a form of credit insurance calledcredit default swaps(CDS). The usage of these products expanded dramatically in the years leading up to the crisis. These products vary in complexity and the ease with which they can be valued on the books of financial institutions.[edit]Credit RatingsIn a Peabody Award winning program, NPR correspondents argued that a "Giant Pool of Money" (represented by $70 trillion in worldwide fixed income investments) sought higher yields than those offered by U.S. Treasury bonds early in the decade. Further, this pool of money had roughly doubled in size from 2000 to 2007, yet the supply of relatively safe, income generating investments had not grown as fast. Investment banks on Wall Street answered this demand with the MBS and CDO, which were assigned safe ratings by the credit rating agencies. In effect, Wall Street connected this pool of money to the mortgage market in the U.S., with enormous fees accruing to those throughout the mortgage supply chain, from the mortgage broker selling the loans, to small banks that funded the brokers, to the giant investment banks behind them. By approximately 2003, the supply of mortgages originated at traditional lending standards had been exhausted. However, continued strong demand for MBS and CDO began to drive down lending standards, as long as mortgages could still be sold along the supply chain. Eventually, this speculative bubble proved unsustainable.[72]The CDO in particular enabled financial institutions to obtain investor funds to finance subprime and other lending, extending or increasing the housing bubble and generating large fees. A CDO essentially places cash payments from multiple mortgages or other debt obligations into a single pool, from which the cash is allocated to specific securities in a priority sequence. Those securities obtaining cash first received investment-grade ratings from rating agencies. Lower priority securities received cash thereafter, with lower credit ratings but theoretically a higher rate of return on the amount invested.[73][74]For a variety of reasons, market participants did not accurately measure the risk inherent with this innovation or understand its impact on the overall stability of the financial system.[75] For example, the pricing model for CDOs clearly did not reflect the level of risk they introduced into the system. The average recovery rate for "high quality" CDOs has been approximately 32 cents on the dollar, while the recovery rate for mezzanine CDO's has been approximately five cents for every dollar. These massive, practically unthinkable, losses have dramatically impacted the balance sheets of banks across the globe, leaving them with very little capital to continue operations.[76]Another example relates to AIG, which insured obligations of various financial institutions through the usage of credit default swaps. The basic CDS transaction involved AIG receiving a premium in exchange for a promise to pay money to party A in the event party B defaulted. However, AIG did not have the financial strength to support its many CDS commitments as the crisis progressed and was taken over by the government in September 2008. U.S. taxpayers provided over $180 billion in government support to AIG during 2008 and early 2009, through which the money flowed to various counterparties to CDS transactions, including many large global financial institutions.[77][78]The limitations of a widely-used financial model also were not properly understood.[79][80] This formula assumed that the price of CDS was correlated with and could predict the correct price of mortgage backed securities. Because it was highly tractable, it rapidly came to be used by a huge percentage of CDO and CDS investors, issuers, and rating agencies.[80] According to one wired.com article[80]: "Then the model fell apart. Cracks started appearing early on, when financial markets began behaving in ways that users of Li's formula hadn't expected. The cracks became full-fledged canyons in 2008—when ruptures in the financial system's foundation swallowed up trillions of dollars and put the survival of the global banking system in serious peril... Li's Gaussian copula formula will go down in history as instrumental in causing the unfathomable losses that brought the world financial system to its knees."As financial assets became more and more complex, and harder and harder to value, investors were reassured by the fact that both the international bond rating agencies and bank regulators, who came to rely on them, accepted as valid some complex mathematical models which theoretically showed the risks were much smaller than they actually proved to be in practice [81]. George Soros commented that "The super-boom got out of hand when the new products became so complicated that the authorities could no longer calculate the risks and started relying on the risk management methods of the banks themselves. Similarly, the rating agencies relied on the information provided by the originators of synthetic products. It was a shocking abdication of responsibility." [82]Certain financial innovation may also have the effect of circumventing regulations, such as off-balance sheet financing that affects the leverage or capital cushion reported by major banks. For example, Martin Wolf wrote in June 2009: "...an enormous part of what banks did in the early part of this decade – the off-balance-sheet vehicles, the derivatives and the 'shadow banking system' itself – was to find a way round regulation."[83][edit]Boom and collapse of the shadow banking systemIn a June 2008 speech, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, then President and CEO of the NY Federal Reserve Bank, placed significant blame for the freezing of credit markets on a "run" on the entities in the "parallel" banking system, also called the shadow banking system. These entities became critical to the credit markets underpinning the financial system, but were not subject to the same regulatory controls. Further, these entities were vulnerable because they borrowed short-term in liquid markets to purchase long-term, illiquid and risky assets. This meant that disruptions in credit markets would make them subject to rapid deleveraging, selling their long-term assets at depressed prices. He described the significance of these entities: "In early 2007, asset-backed commercial paper conduits, in structured investment vehicles, in auction-rate preferred securities, tender option bonds and variable rate demand notes, had a combined asset size of roughly $2.2 trillion. Assets financed overnight in triparty repo grew to $2.5 trillion. Assets held in hedge funds grew to roughly $1.8 trillion. The combined balance sheets of the then five major investment banks totaled $4 trillion. In comparison, the total assets of the top five bank holding companies in the United States at that point were just over $6 trillion, and total assets of the entire banking system were about $10 trillion." He stated that the "combined effect of these factors was a financial system vulnerable to self-reinforcing asset price and credit cycles."[12]Nobel laureate Paul Krugman described the run on the shadow banking system as the "core of what happened" to cause the crisis. "As the shadow banking system expanded to rival or even surpass conventional banking in importance, politicians and government officials should have realized that they were re-creating the kind of financial vulnerability that made the Great Depression possible—and they should have responded by extending regulations and the financial safety net to cover these new institutions. Influential figures should have proclaimed a simple rule: anything that does what a bank does, anything that has to be rescued in crises the way banks are, should be regulated like a bank." He referred to this lack of controls as "malign neglect."[58]

2009-11-01T23:58:00.003-08:00

Predatory lendingPredatory lending refers to the practice of unscrupulous lenders, to enter into "unsafe" or "unsound" secured loans for inappropriate purposes.[49] A classic bait-and-switch method was used by Countrywide, advertising low interest rates for home refinancing. Such loans were written into extensively detailed contracts, and swapped for more expensive loan products on the day of closing. Whereas the advertisement might state that 1% or 1.5% interest would be charged, the consumer would be put into an adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) in which the interest charged would be greater than the amount of interest paid. This created negative amortization, which the credit consumer might not notice until long after the loan transaction had been consummated.Countrywide, sued by California Attorney General Jerry Brown for "Unfair Business Practices" and "False Advertising" was making high cost mortgages "to homeowners with weak credit, adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) that allowed homeowners to make interest-only payments."[50]. When housing prices decreased, homeowners in ARMs then had little incentive to pay their monthly payments, since their home equity had disappeared. This caused Countrywide's financial condition to deteriorate, ultimately resulting in a decision by the Office of Thrift Supervision to seize the lender.Countrywide, according to Republican Lawmakers, had involved itself in making low-cost loans to politicians, for purposes of gaining political favors.[51].Former employees from Ameriquest, which was United States's leading wholesale lender,[52] described a system in which they were pushed to falsify mortgage documents and then sell the mortgages to Wall Street banks eager to make fast profits.[52] There is growing evidence that such mortgage frauds may be a cause of the crisis.[52][edit]DeregulationFurther information: Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisisCritics have argued that the regulatory framework did not keep pace with financial innovation, such as the increasing importance of the shadow banking system, derivatives and off-balance sheet financing. In other cases, laws were changed or enforcement weakened in parts of the financial system. Key examples include: In October 1982, President Ronald Reagan signed into Law the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act, which began the process of Banking deregulation that helped contribute to the savings and loan crises of the late 80's/early 90's, and the financial crises of 2007-2009. President Reagan stated at the signing, "all in all, I think we hit the jackpot".[53] In November 1999, President Bill Clinton signed into Law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. This repeal has been criticized for reducing the separation between commercial banks (which traditionally had a conservative culture) and investment banks (which had a more risk-taking culture).[54][55] In 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission relaxed the net capital rule, which enabled investment banks to substantially increase the level of debt they were taking on, fueling the growth in mortgage-backed securities supporting subprime mortgages. The SEC has conceded that self-regulation of investment banks contributed to the crisis.[56][57] Financial institutions in the shadow banking system are not subject to the same regulation as depository banks, allowing them to assume additional debt obligations relative to their financial cushion or capital base.[58] This was the case despite the Long-Term Capital Management debacle in 1998, where a highly-leveraged shadow institution failed with systemic implications. Regulators and accounting standard-setters allowed depository banks such as Citigroup to move significant amounts of assets and liabilities off-balance sheet into complex legal entities called structured investment vehicles, masking the weakness of the capital base of the firm or degree of leverage or risk taken. One news agency estimated that the top four U.S. banks will have to return between $500 billion and $1 trillion to their balance sheets during 2009.[59] This increased uncertainty during the crisis regarding the financial position of the major banks.[60] Off-balance sheet entities were also used by Enron as part of the scandal that brought down that company in 2001.[61] As early as 1997, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan fought to keep the derivatives market unregulated.[62] With the advice of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets,[63] the U.S. Congress and President allowed the self-regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives market when they enacted the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Derivatives such as credit default swaps (CDS) can be used to hedge or speculate against particular credit risks. The volume of CDS outstanding increased 100-fold from 1998 to 2008, with estimates of the debt covered by CDS contracts, as of November 2008, ranging from US$33 to $47 trillion. Total over-the-counter (OTC) derivative notional value rose to $683 trillion by June 2008.[64] Warren Buffett famously referred to derivatives as "financial weapons of mass destruction" in early 2003.[65][66]

2009-11-01T23:58:00.001-08:00

Easy credit conditionsFrom 2000 to 2003, the Federal Reserve lowered the federal funds rate target from 6.5% to 1.0%.[25] This was done to soften the effects of the collapse of the dot-com bubble and of the September 2001 terrorist attacks, and to combat the perceived risk of deflation.[26] The Fed then raised the Fed funds rate significantly between July 2004 and July 2006.[27] This contributed to an increase in 1-year and 5-year adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) rates, making ARM interest rate resets more expensive for homeowners.[28] This may have also contributed to the deflating of the housing bubble, as asset prices generally move inversely to interest rates and it became riskier to speculate in housing.[29][30] U.S. Current Account or Trade DeficitIn 2005, Ben Bernanke addressed the implications of the USA's high and rising current account (trade) deficit, resulting from USA imports exceeding its exports.[31] Between 1996 and 2004, the USA current account deficit increased by $650 billion, from 1.5% to 5.8% of GDP. Financing these deficits required the USA to borrow large sums from abroad, much of it from countries running trade surpluses, mainly the emerging economies in Asia and oil-exporting nations. The balance of payments identity requires that a country (such as the USA) running a current account deficit also have a capital account (investment) surplus of the same amount. Hence large and growing amounts of foreign funds (capital) flowed into the USA to finance its imports. This created demand for various types of financial assets, raising the prices of those assets while lowering interest rates. Foreign investors had these funds to lend, either because they had very high personal savings rates (as high as 40% in China), or because of high oil prices. Bernanke referred to this as a "saving glut."[32] A "flood" of funds (capital or liquidity) reached the USA financial markets. Foreign governments supplied funds by purchasing USA Treasury bonds and thus avoided much of the direct impact of the crisis. USA households, on the other hand, used funds borrowed from foreigners to finance consumption or to bid up the prices of housing and financial assets. Financial institutions invested foreign funds in mortgage-backed securities. USA housing and financial assets dramatically declined in value after the housing bubble burst.[33][34][edit]Sub-prime lending U.S. Subprime lending expanded dramatically 2004-2006In addition to easy credit conditions, there is evidence that both government and competitive pressures contributed to an increase in the amount of subprime lending during the years preceding the crisis. Major U.S. investment banks and government sponsored enterprises like Fannie Mae[dubious – discuss] played an important role in the expansion of higher-risk lending.[35][36]The term subprime refers to the credit quality of particular borrowers, who have weakened credit histories and a greater risk of loan default than prime borrowers.[37] The value of U.S. subprime mortgages was estimated at $1.3 trillion as of March 2007,[38] with over 7.5 million first-lien subprime mortgages outstanding.[39]Subprime mortgages remained below 10% of all mortgage originations until 2004, when they spiked to nearly 20% and remained there through the 2005-2006 peak of the United States housing bubble.[40] A proximate event to this increase was the April 2004 decision by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to relax the net capital rule, which encouraged the largest five investment banks to dramatically increase their financial leverage and aggressively expand their issuance of mortgage-backed securities. This applied additional competitive pressure to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which further expanded their riskier lending.[41] Subprime mortgage payment delinquency rates remained in the 10-15% range from 1998 to 2006[42], then began to increase rapidly, rising to 25% by early 2008.[43][44]Some, like American Enterprise Institute fellow Peter J. Wallison[45], believe the roots of the crisis can be traced directly to sub-prime lending by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are government sponsored entities. On 30 September 1999, The New York Times reported that the Clinton Administration pushed for sub-prime lending: "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people...In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s."[46]In 1995, the administration also tinkered with President Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 by regulating and strengthening the anti-redlining procedures. The result was a push by the administration for greater investment, by financial institutions, into riskier loans. A 2000 United States Department of the Treasury study of lending trends for 305 cities from 1993 to 1998 showed that $467 billion of mortgage credit poured out of CRA-covered lenders into low and mid level income borrowers and neighborhoods.[47]Others have pointed out that there were not enough of these loans made to cause a crisis of this magnitude. In an article in Portfolio Magazine,Michael Lewis spoke with one trader who noted that "There weren’t enough Americans with [bad] credit taking out [bad loans] to satisfy investors’ appetite for the end product." Essentially, investment banks and hedge funds used financial innovation to synthesize more loans using derivatives. "They were creating [loans] out of whole cloth. One hundred times over! That’s why the losses are so much greater than the loans."[48]

2009-11-01T23:57:00.005-08:00

Background and causesThe immediate cause or trigger of the crisis was the bursting of the United States housing bubble which peaked in approximately 2005–2006.[6][7] High default rates on "subprime" and adjustable rate mortgages (ARM), began to increase quickly thereafter. An increase in loan incentives such as easy initial terms and a long-term trend of rising housing prices had encouraged borrowers to assume difficult mortgages in the belief they would be able to quickly refinance at more favorable terms. However, once interest rates began to rise and housing prices started to drop moderately in 2006–2007 in many parts of the U.S., refinancing became more difficult. Defaults and foreclosure activity increased dramatically as easy initial terms expired, home prices failed to go up as anticipated, and ARM interest rates reset higher. Share in GDP of U.S. financial sector since 1860.[8]In the years leading up to the start of the crisis in 2007, significant amounts of foreign money flowed into the U.S. from fast-growing economies in Asia and oil-producing countries. This inflow of funds made it easier for the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates in the United States too low (by the Taylor rule) from 2002–2006 which contributed to easy credit conditions, leading to the United States housing bubble. Loans of various types (e.g., mortgage, credit card, and auto) were easy to obtain and consumers assumed an unprecedented debt load.[9][10] As part of the housing and credit booms, the amount of financial agreements called mortgage-backed securities (MBS), which derive their value from mortgage payments and housing prices, greatly increased. Such financial innovation enabled institutions and investors around the world to invest in the U.S. housing market. As housing prices declined, major global financial institutions that had borrowed and invested heavily in subprime MBS reported significant losses. Falling prices also resulted in homes worth less than the mortgage loan, providing a financial incentive to enter foreclosure. The ongoing foreclosure epidemic that began in late 2006 in the U.S. continues to drain wealth from consumers and erodes the financial strength of banking institutions. Defaults and losses on other loan types also increased significantly as the crisis expanded from the housing market to other parts of the economy. Total losses are estimated in the trillions of U.S. dollars globally.[11]While the housing and credit bubbles built, a series of factors caused the financial system to both expand and become increasingly fragile. Policymakers did not recognize the increasingly important role played by financial institutions such as investment banks and hedge funds, also known as the shadow banking system. Some experts believe these institutions had become as important as commercial (depository) banks in providing credit to the U.S. economy, but they were not subject to the same regulations.[12] These institutions as well as certain regulated banks had also assumed significant debt burdens while providing the loans described above and did not have a financial cushion sufficient to absorb large loan defaults or MBS losses.[13] These losses impacted the ability of financial institutions to lend, slowing economic activity. Concerns regarding the stability of key financial institutions drove central banks to provide funds to encourage lending and restore faith in thecommercial paper markets, which are integral to funding business operations. Governments also bailed out key financial institutions and implemented economic stimulus programs, assuming significant additional financial commitments.[edit]Growth of the housing bubbleMain article: United States housing bubbleBetween 1997 and 2006, the price of the typical American house increased by 124%.[14] During the two decades ending in 2001, the national median home price ranged from 2.9 to 3.1 times median household income. This ratio rose to 4.0 in 2004, and 4.6 in 2006.[15] This housing bubble resulted in quite a few homeowners refinancing their homes at lower interest rates, or financing consumer spending by taking out second mortgages secured by the price appreciation.Free cash used by consumers from home equity extraction doubled from $627 billion in 2001 to $1,428 billion in 2005 as the housing bubble built, a total of nearly $5 trillion dollars over the period, contributing to economic growth worldwide.[16][17][18] U.S. home mortgage debt relative to GDP increased from an average of 46% during the 1990s to 73% during 2008, reaching $10.5 trillion.[19]By September 2008, average U.S. housing prices had declined by over 20% from their mid-2006 peak.[20][21] Easy credit, and a belief that house prices would continue to appreciate, had encouraged many subprime borrowers to obtain adjustable-rate mortgages.[dubious – discuss]These mortgages enticed borrowers with a below market interest rate for some predetermined period, followed by market interest rates for the remainder of the mortgage's term. Borrowers who could not make the higher payments once the initial grace period ended would try to refinance their mortgages. Refinancing became more difficult, once house prices began to decline in many parts of the USA. Borrowers who found themselves unable to escape higher monthly payments by refinancing began to default. During 2007, lenders had begun foreclosure proceedings on nearly 1.3 million properties, a 79% increase over 2006.[22] This increased to 2.3 million in 2008, an 81% increase vs. 2007.[23]As of August 2008, 9.2% of all mortgages outstanding were either delinquent or in foreclosure.[24]

2009-11-01T23:57:00.003-08:00

• 1 Background and causeso 1.1 Growth of the housing bubbleo 1.2 Easy credit conditionso 1.3 Sub-prime lendingo 1.4 Predatory lendingo 1.5 Deregulationo 1.6 Increased debt burden or over-leveragingo 1.7 Financial innovation and complexityo 1.8 Credit Ratingso 1.9 Boom and collapse of the shadow banking systemo 1.10 Commodity bubbleo 1.11 Systemic crisiso 1.12 Role of economic forecasting• 2 Financial markets impactso 2.1 Impacts on financial institutionso 2.2 Credit markets and the shadow banking systemo 2.3 Wealth effectso 2.4 Global contagion• 3 Effects on the global economyo 3.1 Global effectso 3.2 U.S. economic effectso 3.3 Official economic projections• 4 Responses to financial crisiso 4.1 Emergency and short-term responseso 4.2 Regulatory proposals and long-term responses• 5 See also• 6 References• 7 External links and further reading

2009-11-01T23:57:00.001-08:00

Financial crisis of 2007–2009From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. WikiProject Economics or theEconomics Portal may be able to help recruit one. (September 2009)
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on thetalk page. Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since July 2009. It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. Tagged since July 2009. It may not present a worldwide view of the subject. Tagged since July 2009. Its tone or style may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Tagged since July 2009. It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since July 2009.This article is about background financial market events dating from July 2007. For an overview of all economic problems during the late 2000s, see Late 2000s recession.Part of a series on:2007–2009 financial crisisMajor dimensions[show]
By country[hide] Belgium Iceland Ireland Latvia Russia Spain
Summits[show]
Legislation[show]
Company bailouts[show]
Company failures[show]
Causes[show]
Solutions[show]
v • d • e
The financial crisis of 2007–2009 has been called the worst financial crisis since the one related to the Great Depression by leading economists,[1] and it contributed to the failure of key businesses, declines in consumer wealth estimated in the trillions of U.S. dollars, substantial financial commitments incurred by governments, and a significant decline in economic activity.[2] Many causes have been proposed, with varying weight assigned by experts.[3] Both market-based and regulatory solutions have been implemented or are under consideration,[4] while significant risks remain for the world economy.[5]

2009-11-01T23:56:00.003-08:00

Outside AsiaAfter the Asian crisis, international investors were reluctant to lend to developing countries, leading to economic slowdowns in developing countries in many parts of the world. The powerful negative shock also sharply reduced the price of oil, which reached a low of $8 per barreltowards the end of 1998, causing a financial pinch in OPEC nations and other oil exporters. This reduction in oil revenue contributed to the 1998 Russian financial crisis, which in turn caused Long-Term Capital Management in the United States to collapse after losing $4.6 billion in 4 months. A wider collapse in the financial markets was avoided when Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York organized a $3.625 billion bail-out. Major emerging economies Brazil and Argentina also fell into crisis in the late 1990s (see Argentine debt crisis).[35]The crisis in general was part of a global backlash against the Washington Consensus and institutions such as the IMF and World Bank, which simultaneously became unpopular in developed countries following the rise of the anti-globalization movement in 1999. Four major rounds of world trade talks since the crisis, in Seattle, Doha, Cancún, and Hong Kong, have failed to produce a significant agreement as developing countries have become more assertive, and nations are increasingly turning toward regional or bilateral FTAs (Free Trade Agreements) as an alternative to global institutions. Many nations learned from this, and quickly built up foreign exchange reserves as a hedge against attacks, including Japan, China, South Korea. Pan Asian currency swaps were introduced in the event of another crisis. However, interestingly enough, such nations as Brazil, Russia, and India as well as most of East Asia began copying the Japanese model of weakening their currencies, restructuring their economies so as to create a current account surplus to build large foreign currency reserves. This has led to an ever increasing funding for US treasury bonds, allowing or aiding housing (in 2001–2005) and stock asset bubbles (in 1996–2000) to develop in the United States.[edit]See also Financial crisis Financial contagion List of finance topics[edit]Notes1. ^ Kaufman: pp. 195–62. ^ http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/Key_Indicators/2003/pdf/rt29.pdf3. ^ Pempel: pp 118–1434. ^ The Myth of Asia's Miracle A Cautionary Fable by Paul Krugman.5. ^ Hughes, Helen. Crony Capitalism and the East Asian Currency Financial 'Crises'. Policy. Spring 1999.6. ^ Blustein: p. 737. ^ The Three Routes to Financial Crises: The Need for Capital Controls. Gabriel Palma (Cambridge University). Center for Economic Policy Analysis. November 2000.8. ^ Bernard Eccleston, Michael Dawson, Deborah J. McNamara (1998). The Asia-Pacific Profile. Routledge (UK). ISBN 0415172799.9. ^ FIRE-SALE FDI by Paul Krugman.10. ^ Stiglitz: pp. 12–1611. ^ Joint Comminuque The 30th ASEAN Ministerial Meeting (AMM) The Thirtieth ASEAN Ministerial Meeting was held in Subang Jaya, Malaysia from 24 to 25 July 1997.12. ^ Halloran, Richard. China's Decisive Role in the Asian Financial Crisis. Global Beat Issue Brief No. 24. 27 January 1998.13. ^ Noland: pp. 98–10314. ^ a b IMF's Role in the Asian Financial Crisis by Walden Bello.15. ^ The IMF Crisis Editorial. Wall Street Journal. 15 April 1998.16. ^ http://www.columbia.edu/cu/thai/html/financial97_98.html17. ^ Kaufman: pp. 193–818. ^ Liebhold, David. Thailand's Scapegoat? Battling extradition over charges of embezzlement, a financier says he's the fall guy for the 1997 financial crash. TIME.com. 27 December 1999.19. ^ Pressure from below: Supporters of the new, improved Constitution now have to help turn words into action 10 October 199720. ^ "Japan Stocks Slide Again On Fears About Stability". Wall Street Journal Online. 26 December 1997. Retrieved 2 September 2009.21. ^ http://www.oanda.com/convert/fxhistory August 13 = 2673; August 14 = 2790; August 15 = 2900; August 31 = 2930; October 31 = 3640; December 31 = 5535. Accessed 2009-08-20. Archived 2009-09-04.22. ^ http://www.oanda.com/convert/fxhistory January 31 = 10,100; March 31 = 8,650; May 31 = 11,350; July 31 = 13,250; September 30 = 10,800. Accessed 2009-08-20. Archived 2009-09-04.23. ^ Bayani Cruz, We will hold on to blue-chip shares: Tsang, The Standard, 29 August 1998.24. ^ The CIA World Factbook - Malaysia25. ^ Ngian Kee Jin: p. 1226. ^ Pettis: pp. 55–6027. ^ Pettis: p. 7928. ^ Tiwari: pp. 1–329. ^ a b http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/Key_Indicators/2001/rt11_ki2001.xls30. ^ a b Cheetham, R. 1998. Asia Crisis. Paper presented at conference, U.S.-ASEAN-Japan policy Dialogue. School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University, June 7–9, Washington, D.C.31. ^ Radelet: pp. 5–632. ^ The Asian financial crisis ten years later: assessing the past and looking to the future. Janet L. Yellen. Speech to the Asia Society of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, 6 February 200733. ^ Kilgour, Andrea (1999). The changing economic situation in Vietnam: A product of the Asian crisis?34. ^ Weisbrot: p. 635. ^ The Crash transcript. PBS Frontline.[edit]References

2009-11-01T23:56:00.001-08:00

ChinaFurther information: Economy of the People's Republic of ChinaThe Chinese currency, the renminbi (RMB), had been pegged to the US dollar at a ratio of 8.3 RMB to the dollar, in 1994. Having largely kept itself above the fray throughout 1997–1998 there was heavy speculation in the Western press that China would soon be forced to devalue its currency to protect the competitiveness of its exports vis-a-vis those of the ASEAN nations, whose exports became cheaper relative to China's. However, the RMB's non-convertibility protected its value from currency speculators, and the decision was made to maintain the peg of the currency, thereby improving the country's standing within Asia. The currency peg was partly scrapped in July 2005 rising 2.3% against the dollar, reflecting pressure from the United States.Unlike investments of many of the Southeast Asian nations, almost all of China's foreign investment took the form of factories on the ground rather than securities, which insulated the country from rapid capital flight. While China was unaffected by the crisis compared to Southeast Asia and South Korea, GDP growth slowed sharply in 1998 and 1999, calling attention to structural problems within its economy. In particular, the Asian financial crisis convinced the Chinese government of the need to resolve the issues of its enormous financial weaknesses, such as having too many non-performing loans within its banking system, and relying heavily on trade with the United States.[edit]United States and JapanFurther information: Economy of the United States and Economy of JapanThe "Asian flu" had also put pressure on the United States and Japan. Their markets did not collapse, but they were severely hit. On 27 October 1997, the Dow Jones industrial plunged 554 points or 7.2%, amid ongoing worries about the Asian economies. The New York Stock Exchange briefly suspended trading. The crisis led to a drop in consumer and spending confidence (see 27 October 1997 mini-crash). Japan was affected because its economy is prominent in the region. Asian countries usually run a trade deficit with Japan because the latter's economy was more than twice the size of the rest of Asia together; about 40% of Japan's exports go to Asia. The Japanese yen fell to 147 as mass selling began, but Japan was the world's largest holder of currency reserves at the time, so it was easily defended, and quickly bounced back. GDP real growth rate slowed dramatically in 1997, from 5% to 1.6% and even sank into recession in 1998, due to intense competition from cheapened rivals. The Asian financial crisis also led to more bankruptcies in Japan. In addition, with South Korea's devalued currency, and China's steady gains, many companies complained outright that they could not compete.[26]Another longer-term result was the changing relationship between the U.S. and Japan, with the U.S. no longer openly supporting the highly artificial trade environment and exchange rates that governed economic relations between the two countries for almost five decades after World War II.[27][edit]Consequences[edit]AsiaThe crisis had significant macro-level effects, including sharp reductions in values of currencies, stock markets, and other asset prices of several Asian countries.[28] The nominal US dollar GDP of ASEAN fell by US$9.2 billion in 1997 and $218.2 billion (31.7%) in 1998. In South Korea, the $170.9 billion fall in 1998 was equal to 33.1% of the 1997 GDP.[29] Many businesses collapsed, and as a consequence, millions of people fell below the poverty line in 1997–1998. Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand were the countries most affected by the crisis.Currency Exchange rate(per US$1)[30]Change June 1997 July 1998 Thai baht24.5 41 – 40.2% Indonesian rupiah2,380 14,150 – 83.2% Philippine peso26.3 42 – 37.4% Malaysian ringgit2.5 4.1 – 39.0% South Korean won850 1,290 – 34.1% Country GNP (US$1 billion)[30]Change June 1997 July 1998 Thailand170 102 – 40.0% Indonesia205 34 – 83.4% Philippines75 47 – 37.3% Malaysia90 55 – 38.9% South Korea430 283 – 34.2%
The above tabulation shows that despite the prompt raising of interest rates to 32% in the Philippines upon the onset of crisis in mid-July 1997, and to 65% in Indonesia upon the intensification of crisis in 1998, their local currencies depreciated just the same and did not perform better than those of South Korea, Thailand, and Malaysia, which countries had their high interest rates set at generally lower than 20% during the Asian crisis. This created grave doubts on the credibility of IMF and the validity of its high-interest-rate prescription to economic crisis.The economic crisis also led to a political upheaval, most notably culminating in the resignations of President Suharto in Indonesia and Prime Minister General Chavalit Yongchaiyudh in Thailand. There was a general rise in anti-Western sentiment, with George Soros and the IMF in particular singled out as targets of criticisms. Heavy U.S. investment in Thailand ended, replaced by mostly European investment, though Japanese investment was sustained.[citation needed] Islamic and other separatist movements intensified in Southeast Asia as central authorities weakened.[31]More long-term consequences included reversal of the relative gains made in the boom years just preceding the crisis. Nominal US dollar GDP per capital fell 42.3% in Indonesia in 1997, 21.2% in Thailand, 19% in Malaysia, 18.5% in South Korea and 12.5% in the Philippines. [29] TheCIA World Factbook reported that the per capita income (measured by purchasing power parity) in Thailand declined from $8,800 to $8,300 between 1997 and 2005; in Indonesia it declined from $4,600 to $3,700; in Malaysia it declined from $11,100 to $10,400. Over the same period, world per capita income rose from $6,500 to $9,300.[32] Indeed, the CIA's analysis asserted that the economy of Indonesia was still smaller in 2005 than it had been in 1997, suggesting an impact on that country similar to that of the Great Depression. Within East Asia, the bulk of investment and a significant amount of economic weight shifted from Japan and ASEAN to China and India.[33]The crisis has been intensively analyzed by economists for its breadth, speed, and dynamism; it affected dozens of countries, had a direct impact on the livelihood of millions, happened within the course of a mere few months, and at each stage of the crisis leading economists, in particular the international institutions, seemed a step behind. Perhaps more interesting to economists was the speed with which it ended, leaving most of the developed economies unharmed. These curiosities have prompted an explosion of literature about financial economics and a litany of explanations why the crisis occurred. A number of critiques have been leveled against the conduct of the IMF in the crisis, including one by former World Bank economist Joseph Stiglitz. Politically there were some benefits. In several countries, particularly South Korea and Indonesia, there was renewed push for improved corporate governance. Rampaging inflation weakened the authority of the Suharto regime and led to its toppling in 1998, as well as accelerating East Timor's independence.[34]

2009-11-01T23:55:00.003-08:00

MalaysiaFurther information: Economy of MalaysiaBefore the crisis, Malaysia had a large current account deficit of 5% of its GDP. At the time, Malaysia was a popular investment destination, and this was reflected in KLSE activity which was regularly the most active stock exchange in the world (with turnover exceeding even markets with far higher capitalization like the NYSE). Expectations at the time were that the growth rate would continue, propelling Malaysia todeveloped status by 2020, a government policy articulated in Wawasan 2020. At the start of 1997, the KLSE Composite index was above 1,200, the ringgit was trading above 2.50 to the dollar, and the overnight rate was below 7%.In July 1997, within days of the Thai baht devaluation, the Malaysian ringgit was "attacked" by speculators. The overnight rate jumped from under 8% to over 40%. This led to rating downgrades and a general sell off on the stock and currency markets. By end of 1997, ratings had fallen many notches from investment grade to junk, the KLSE had lost more than 50% from above 1,200 to under 600, and the ringgit had lost 50% of its value, falling from above 2.50 to under 4.10 to the dollar. The then premier, Mahathir Mohammad imposed strict capital controls and introduced a 3.80 peg against the US dollarIn 1998, the output of the real economy declined plunging the country into its first recession for many years. The construction sector contracted 23.5%, manufacturing shrunk 9% and the agriculture sector 5.9%. Overall, the country's gross domestic product plunged 6.2% in 1998. During that year, the ringgit plunged below 4.7 and the KLSE fell below 270 points. In September that year, various defensive measures were announced to overcome the crisis. The principal measure taken were to move the ringgit from a free float to a fixed exchange rate regime. Bank Negara fixed the ringgit at 3.8 to the dollar. Capital controls were imposed while aid offered from the IMF was refused. Various task force agencies were formed. The Corporate Debt Restructuring Committee dealt with corporate loans. Danaharta discounted and bought bad loans from banks to facilitate orderly asset realization. Danamodal recapitalized banks.Growth then settled at a slower but more sustainable pace. The massive current account deficit became a fairly substantial surplus. Banks were better capitalized and NPLs were realised in an orderly way. Small banks were bought out by strong ones. A large number of PLCs were unable to regulate their financial affairs and were delisted. Compared to the 1997 current account, by 2005, Malaysia was estimated to have a US$14.06 billion surplus.[24] Asset values however, have not returned to their pre-crisis highs. In 2005 the last of the crisis measures were removed as the ringgit was taken off the fixed exchange system. But unlike the pre-crisis days, it did not appear to be a free float, but a managed float, like the Singapore dollar.[edit]SingaporeFurther information: Economy of SingaporeAs the financial crisis spread the economy of Singapore dipped into a short recession. The short duration and milder effect on its economy was credited to the active management by the government. For example, the Monetary Authority of Singapore allowed for a gradual 20% depreciation of the Singapore dollar to cushion and guide the economy to a soft landing. The timing of government programs such as the Interim Upgrading Program and other construction related projects were brought forward. Instead of allowing the labor markets to work, the National Wage Council pre-emptively agreed to Central Provident Fund cuts to lower labor costs, with limited impact on disposable income and local demand. Unlike in Hong Kong, no attempt was made to directly intervene in the capital markets and the Straits Times Index was allowed to drop 60%. In less than a year, the Singaporean economy fully recovered and continued on its growth trajectory.[25]

2009-11-01T23:55:00.001-08:00

[edit]South KoreaFurther information: Economy of South KoreaMacroeconomic fundamentals in South Korea were good but the banking sector was burdened with non-performing loans as its large corporations were funding aggressive expansions. During that time, there was a haste to build great conglomerates to compete on the world stage. Many businesses ultimately failed to ensure returns and profitability. The South Korean conglomerates, more or less completely controlled by the government, simply absorbed more and more capital investment. Eventually, excess debt led to major failures and takeovers. For example, in July 1997, South Korea's third-largest car maker, Kia Motors, asked for emergency loans. In the wake of the Asian market downturn, Moody's lowered the credit rating of South Korea from A1 to A3, on 28 November 1997, and downgraded again to B2 on 11 December. That contributed to a further decline in South Korean shares since stock markets were already bearish in November. The Seoul stock exchange fell by 4% on 7 November 1997. On 8 November, it plunged by 7%, its biggest one-day drop to that date. And on 24 November, stocks fell a further 7.2% on fears that the IMF would demand tough reforms. In 1998, Hyundai Motors took over Kia Motors. Samsung Motors' $5 billion dollar venture was dissolved due to the crisis, and eventually Daewoo Motors was sold to the American company General Motors(GM).The South Korean won, meanwhile, weakened to more than 1,700 per dollar from around 800. Despite an initial sharp economic slowdown and numerous corporate bankruptcies, South Korea has managed to triple its per capita GDP in dollar terms since 1997. Indeed, it resumed its role as the world's fastest-growing economy—since 1960, per capita GDP has grown from $80 in nominal terms to more than $21,000 as of 2007. However, like the chaebol, South Korea's government did not escape unscathed. Its national debt-to-GDP ratio more than doubled (app. 13% to 30%) as a result of the crisis.In South Korea, the crisis is also commonly referred to as the IMF crisis.[edit]PhilippinesFurther information: Economy of the PhilippinesThe Philippine central bank raised interest rates by 1.75 percentage points in May 1997 and again by 2 points on 19 June. Thailand triggered the crisis on 2 July and on 3 July, the Philippine Central Bank was forced to intervene heavily to defend the peso, raising the overnight rate from 15% to 32% right upon the onset of the Asian crisis in mid-July 1997. The peso fell significantly, from 26 pesos per dollar at the start of the crisis, to 38 pesos as of mid-1999, and to 54 pesos as of first half August 2001.The Philippine economy recovered from a contraction of 0.6% in GDP during the worst part of the crisis to GDP growth of some 3% by 2001, despite scandals of the administration of Joseph Estrada in 2001, most notably the "jueteng" scandal, causing the PSE Composite Index, the main index of the Philippine Stock Exchange, to fall to some 1000 points from a high of some 3000 points in 1997. The peso fell even further, trading at levels of about 55 pesos to the US dollar. Later that year, Estrada was on the verge of impeachment but his allies in the senate voted against the proceedings to continue further. This led to popular protests culminating in the "EDSA II Revolution", which finally forced his resignation and elevated Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to the presidency. Arroyo managed to lessen the crisis in the country, which led to the recovery of the Philippine peso to about 50 pesos by the year's end and traded at around 41 pesos to a dollar by end 2007. The stock market also reached an all time high in 2007 and the economy is growing by at least more than 7 percent, its highest in nearly 2 decades.[edit]Hong KongFurther information: Economy of Hong KongAlthough the two events were unrelated, the collapse of the Thai baht on 2 July 1997, came only 24 hours after the United Kingdom handed over sovereignty of Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China. In October 1997, the Hong Kong dollar, which had been pegged at 7.8 to the U.S. dollar since 1983, came under speculative pressure because Hong Kong's inflation rate had been significantly higher than the U.S.'s for years. Monetary authorities spent more than US$1 billion to defend the local currency. Since Hong Kong had more than US$80 billion in foreign reserves, which is equivalent to 700% of its M1 money supply and 45% of its M3 money supply, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (effectively the city's central bank) managed to maintain the peg.Stock markets became more and more volatile; between 20 October and 23 October the Hang Seng Index dropped 23%. The Hong Kong Monetary Authority then promised to protect the currency. On 15 August 1998, it raised overnight interest rates from 8% to 23%, and at one point to 500%. The HKMA had recognized that speculators were taking advantage of the city's unique currency-board system, in which overnight rates automatically increase in proportion to large net sales of the local currency. The rate hike, however, increased downward pressure on the stock market, allowing speculators to profit by short selling shares. The HKMA started buying component shares of the Hang Seng Index in mid-August.The HKMA and Donald Tsang, then the Financial Secretary, declared war on speculators. The Government ended up buying approximately HK$120 billion (US$15 billion) worth of shares in various companies,[23] and became the largest shareholder of some of those companies (e.g. the government owned 10% of HSBC) at the end of August, when hostilities ended with the closing of the August Hang Seng Index futures contract. The Government started selling those shares in 2001, making a profit of about HK$30 billion (US$4 billion).

2009-11-01T23:53:00.003-08:00

IndonesiaSee also: Fall of Suharto and Economy of IndonesiaIn June 1997, Indonesia seemed far from crisis. Unlike Thailand, Indonesia had low inflation, a trade surplus of more than $900 million, huge foreign exchange reserves of more than $20 billion, and a good banking sector. But a large number of Indonesian corporations had been borrowing in U.S. dollars. During the preceding years, as the rupiah had strengthened respective to the dollar, this practice had worked well for these corporations; their effective levels of debt and financing costs had decreased as the local currency's value rose.In July 1997, when Thailand floated the baht, Indonesia's monetary authorities widened the rupiah trading band from 8% to 12%. The rupiah suddenly came under severe attack in August. On 14 August 1997, the managed floating exchange regime was replaced by a free-floating exchange rate arrangement. The rupiah dropped further. The IMF came forward with a rescue package of $23 billion, but the rupiah was sinking further amid fears over corporate debts, massive selling of rupiah, and strong demand for dollars. The rupiah and the Jakarta Stock Exchangetouched a historic low in September. Moody's eventually downgraded Indonesia's long-term debt to 'junk bond'.[20]Although the rupiah crisis began in July and August 1997, it intensified in November when the effects of that summer devaluation showed up on corporate balance sheets. Companies that had borrowed in dollars had to face the higher costs imposed upon them by the rupiah's decline, and many reacted by buying dollars through selling rupiah, undermining the value of the latter further. In February 1998, President Suharto sackedBank Indonesia Governor J. Soedradjad Djiwandono, but this proved insufficient. Suharto resigned under public pressure in May 1998 and Vice President B. J. Habibie was elevated in his place. Before the crisis, the exchange rate between the rupiah and the dollar was roughly 2,600 rupiah to 1 USD.[21] The rate plunged to over 11,000 rupiah to 1 USD in January 1998, with spot rates over 14,000 during January 23–26 and trading again over 14,000 for about six weeks during June-July 1998. On December 31, 1998, the rate was almost exactly 8,000 to 1 USD.[22]Indonesia lost 13.5% of its GDP that year.

2009-11-01T23:53:00.001-08:00

[edit]ThailandFurther information: Economy of ThailandFrom 1985 to 1996, Thailand's economy grew at an average of over 9% per year, the highest economic growth rate of any country at the time. Inflation was kept reasonably low within a range of 3.4–5.7%[16]. The baht was pegged at 25 to the US dollar.On 14 May and 15 May 1997, the Thai baht was hit by massive speculative attacks. On 30 June 1997, Prime Minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudhsaid that he would not devalue the baht. This was the spark that ignited the Asian financial crisis as the Thai government failed to defend the baht, which was pegged to the U.S. dollar, against international speculators. Thailand's booming economy came to a halt amid massive layoffsin finance, real estate, and construction that resulted in huge numbers of workers returning to their villages in the countryside and 600,000 foreign workers being sent back to their home countries.[17] The baht devalued swiftly and lost more than half of its value. The baht reached its lowest point of 56 units to the US dollar in January 1998. The Thai stock market dropped 75%. Finance One, the largest Thai finance company until then, collapsed.[18]The Thai government was eventually forced to float the Baht, on 2 July 1997. On 11 August 1997, the IMF unveiled a rescue package for Thailand with more than $17 billion, subject to conditions such as passing laws relating to bankruptcy (reorganizing and restructuring) procedures and establishing strong regulation frameworks for banks and other financial institutions. The IMF approved on 20 August, 1997, another bailout package of $3.9 billion.Thai opposition parties claimed that former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra had profited from the devaluation,[19] It is now being investigated by the court of justice [though it should be added -a skewed judiciary currently emplaced with passionate anti-Thaksinites].By 2001, Thailand's economy had recovered. The increasing tax revenues allowed the country to balance its budget and repay its debts to the IMF in 2003, four years ahead of schedule. This was due to the effective management of the national economy during Thaksin's Government. The Thai baht continued to appreciate to 34 Baht to the Dollar in July 2008.

2009-11-01T23:52:00.006-08:00

However, the greatest criticism of the IMF's role in the crisis was targeted towards its response.[14] As country after country fell into crisis, many local businesses and governments that had taken out loans in US dollars, which suddenly became much more expensive relative to the local currency which formed their earned income, found themselves unable to pay their creditors. The dynamics of the situation were closely similar to that of the Latin American debt crisis. The effects of the SAPs were mixed and their impact controversial. Critics, however, noted the contractionary nature of these policies, arguing that in a recession, the traditional Keynesian response was to increase government spending, prop up major companies, and lower interest rates. The reasoning was that by stimulating the economy and staving off recession, governments could restore confidence while preventing economic loss. They pointed out that the U.S. government had pursued expansionary policies, such as lowering interest rates, increasing government spending, and cutting taxes, when the United States itself entered a recession in 2001, and arguably the same in the fiscal and monetary policies during the 2008–2009 Global Financial Crisis.Although such reforms were, in most cases, long needed, the countries most involved ended up undergoing an almost complete political and financial restructuring. They suffered permanent currency devaluations, massive numbers of bankruptcies, collapses of whole sectors of once-booming economies, real estate busts, high unemployment, and social unrest. For most of the countries involved, IMF intervention has been roundly criticized. The role of the International Monetary Fund was so controversial during the crisis that many locals called the financial crisis the "IMF crisis".[15] Many commentators in retrospect criticized the IMF for encouraging the developing economies of Asia down the path of "fast track capitalism", meaning liberalization of the financial sector (elimination of restrictions on capital flows); maintenance of high domestic interest rates to attract portfolio investment and bank capital; and pegging of the national currency to the dollar to reassure foreign investors against currency risk.[14][edit]IMF and high interest ratesThe conventional high-interest-rate economic wisdom is normally employed by monetary authorities to attain the chain objectives of tightened money supply, discouraged currency speculation, stabilized exchange rate, curbed currency depreciation, and ultimately contained inflation.In the Asian meltdown, highest IMF officials rationalized their prescribed high interest rates as follows:From then IMF First Deputy Managing Director, Stanley Fischer (Stanley Fischer, "The IMF and the Asian Crisis," Forum Funds Lecture at UCLA, Los Angeles on March 20, 1998):”When their governments "approached the IMF, the reserves of Thailand and South Korea were perilously low, and the Indonesian Rupiah was excessively depreciated. Thus, the first order of business was... to restore confidence in the currency. To achieve this, countries have to make it more attractive to hold domestic currency, which in turn, requires increasing interest rates temporarily, even if higher interest costs complicate the situation of weak banks and corporations..."Why not operate with lower interest rates and a greater devaluation? This is a relevant tradeoff, but there can be no question that the degree of devaluation in the Asian countries is excessive, both from the viewpoint of the individual countries, and from the viewpoint of the international system. Looking first to the individual country, companies with substantial foreign currency debts, as so many companies in these countries have, stood to suffer far more from… currency (depreciation) than from a temporary rise in domestic interest rates…. Thus, on macroeconomics… monetary policy has to be kept tight to restore confidence in the currency..."From the then IMF Managing Director Michel Camdessus himself ("Doctor Knows Best?" Asiaweek, July 17, 1998, p. 46):"To reverse (currency depreciation), countries have to make it more attractive to hold domestic currency, and that means temporarily raising interest rates, even if this (hurts) weak banks and corporations."IMF’s high-interest-rate prescription in the Asian turmoil was quite controversial because it was not the moderate increase in interest rates of usually fraction of one percent, as done in both advanced and developing nations during normal times, but bad-loan provoking high bank lending rates of as much as 60%, as actually implemented during the crisis, especially in the Philippines and Indonesia which had to bear peak non-prime high interest rates of up to 40% and 65%, respectively. The high interest rates, which were a matter of record in the crisis-hit Asian nations, became necessary because of IMF’s prior failure to prescribe to the Asian nations under its sway the needed exchange rate hedging on foreign fund inflow—loans and investments—that surged into the region under the aegis of globalization and currency liberalization promoted by IMF. When the Asian financial crisis erupted in Thailand, it provoked contagion crisis in perceived similarly situated Asian economies. To prevent capital flight that would undermine the exchange rate, IMF prescribed high interest rates aimed at stabilizing exchange rates and saving dollar-debt-ridden Asian corporations from staggering exchange losses on their unhedged foreign loans. The exchange losses could have caused their collapse, with consequent humongous bad loans to their foreign creditors—banks and non-banks—in advanced nations that rule IMF. Thus, instead of leaving economic players by themselves under free market—which meant having the stockholder-owners of dollar-debt-laden Asian companies suffer huge exchange losses from their negligence to hedge on their foreign loans—IMF disturbed the financial market by having discriminated Asian borrowers save, through impoverishing high interest rates, dollar-debt-laden Asian corporations that they do not own, from which they did not derive profits in the past, and from which they will not derive profits in the future. In sum, the high interest rates were not designed to save the ailing Asian economies. These were aimed at saving the Asian corporations' foreign creditors from bad loans, and never mind the concomitant massacre of Asian banks and borrowers from IMF's high-interest-rate prescription.

2009-11-01T23:52:00.005-08:00

The foreign ministers of the 10 ASEAN countries believed that the well co-ordinated manipulation of their currencies was a deliberate attempt to destabilize the ASEAN economies. Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad accused George Soros of ruining Malaysia's economy with "massive currency speculation." (Soros appeared to have had his bets in against the Asian currency devaluations, incurring a loss when the crisis hit.[citation needed]) At the 30th ASEAN Ministerial Meeting held in Subang Jaya, Malaysia, they issued a joint declaration on 25 July 1997 expressing serious concern and called for further intensification of ASEAN's cooperation to safeguard and promote ASEAN's interest in this regard.[11] Coincidentally, on that same day, the central bankers of most of the affected countries were at the EMEAP (Executive Meeting of East Asia Pacific) meeting in Shanghai, and they failed to make the 'New Arrangement to Borrow' operational. A year earlier, the finance ministers of these same countries had attended the 3rd APEC finance ministers meeting in Kyoto, Japan on 17 March 1996, and according to that joint declaration, they had been unable to double the amounts available under the 'General Agreement to Borrow' and the 'Emergency Finance Mechanism'. As such, the crisis could be seen as the failure to adequately build capacity in time to prevent Currency Manipulation. This hypothesis enjoyed little support among economists, however, who argue that no single investor could have had enough impact on the market to successfully manipulate the currencies' values. In addition, the level of organization necessary to coordinate a massive exodus of investors from Southeast Asian currencies in order to manipulate their values rendered this possibility remote.[edit]IMF RoleSuch was the scope and the severity of the collapses involved that outside intervention, considered by many as a new kind of colonialism,[12]became urgently needed. Since the countries melting down were among not only the richest in their region, but in the world, and since hundreds of billions of dollars were at stake, any response to the crisis had to be cooperative and international, in this case through theInternational Monetary Fund (IMF). The IMF created a series of bailouts ("rescue packages") for the most affected economies to enable affected nations to avoid default, tying the packages to reforms that were intended to make the restored Asian currency, banking, and financial systems as much like those of the United States and Europe as possible. In other words, the IMF's support was conditional on a series of drastic economic reforms influenced by neoliberal economic principles called a "structural adjustment package" (SAP). The SAPs called on crisis-struck nations to cut back on government spending to reduce deficits, allow insolvent banks and financial institutions to fail, and aggressively raise interest rates. The reasoning was that these steps would restore confidence in the nations' fiscal solvency, penalize insolvent companies, and protect currency values. Above all, it was stipulated that IMF-funded capital had to be administered rationally in the future, with no favored parties receiving funds by preference. There were to be adequate government controls set up to supervise all financial activities, ones that were to be independent, in theory, of private interest. Insolvent institutions had to be closed, and insolvency itself had to be clearly defined. In short, exactly the same kinds of financial institutions found in the United States and Europe had to be created in Asia, as a condition for IMF support. In addition, financial systems had to become "transparent", that is, provide the kind of reliable financial information used in the West to make sound financial decisions.[13]

2009-11-01T23:52:00.003-08:00

other Asian exporters particularly in the 1990s after the implementation of a number of export-oriented reforms. Other economists dispute China's impact, noting that both ASEAN and China experienced simultaneous rapid export growth in the early 1990s.[8]Many economists believe that the Asian crisis was created not by market psychology or technology, but by policies that distorted incentives within the lender–borrower relationship. The resulting large quantities of credit that became available generated a highly leveraged economic climate, and pushed up asset prices to an unsustainable level.[9] These asset prices eventually began to collapse, causing individuals and companies to default on debt obligations. The resulting panic among lenders led to a large withdrawal of credit from the crisis countries, causing a credit crunch and further bankruptcies. In addition, as foreign investors attempted to withdraw their money, the exchange market was flooded with the currencies of the crisis countries, putting depreciative pressure on their exchange rates. To prevent currency values collapsing, these countries' governments raised domestic interest rates to exceedingly high levels (to help diminish flight of capital by making lending more attractive to investors) and to intervene in the exchange market, buying up any excess domestic currency at the fixed exchange rate withforeign reserves. Neither of these policy responses could be sustained for long. Very high interest rates, which can be extremely damaging to an economy that is healthy, wreaked further havoc on economies in an already fragile state, while the central banks were hemorrhaging foreign reserves, of which they had finite amounts. When it became clear that the tide of capital fleeing these countries was not to be stopped, the authorities ceased defending their fixed exchange rates and allowed their currencies to float. The resulting depreciated value of those currencies meant that foreign currency-denominated liabilities grew substantially in domestic currency terms, causing more bankruptcies and further deepening the crisis.Other economists, including Joseph Stiglitz and Jeffrey Sachs, have downplayed the role of the real economy in the crisis compared to the financial markets. The rapidity with which the crisis happened has prompted Sachs and others to compare it to a classic bank run prompted by a sudden risk shock. Sachs pointed to strict monetary and contractory fiscal policies implemented by the governments on the advice of the IMF in the wake of the crisis, while Frederic Mishkin points to the role of asymmetric information in the financial markets that led to a "herd mentality" among investors that magnified a small risk in the real economy. The crisis had thus attracted interest from behavioral economistsinterested in market psychology. Another possible cause of the sudden risk shock may also be attributable to the handover of Hong Kong sovereignty on 1 July 1997. During the 1990s, hot money flew into the Southeast Asia region but investors were often ignorant of the actual fundamentals or risk profiles of the respective economies. The uncertainty regarding the future of Hong Kong led investors to shrink even further away from Asia, exacerbating economic conditions in the area (subsequently leading to the devaluation of the Thai baht on 2 July 1997).[10]

2009-11-01T23:52:00.001-08:00

HistoryUntil 1997, Asia attracted almost half of the total capital inflow to developing countries. The economies of Southeast Asia in particular maintained high interest rates attractive to foreign investors looking for a high rate of return. As a result the region's economies received a large inflow of money and experienced a dramatic run-up in asset prices. At the same time, the regional economies of Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia,Singapore, and South Korea experienced high growth rates, 8–12% GDP, in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This achievement was widely acclaimed by financial institutions including the IMF and World Bank, and was known as part of the "Asian economic miracle".In 1994, noted economist Paul Krugman published an article attacking the idea of an "Asian economic miracle".[4] He argued that East Asia's economic growth had historically been the result of increasing capital investment. However, total factor productivity had increased only marginally or not at all. Krugman argued that only growth in total factor productivity, and not capital investment, could lead to long-termprosperity. Krugman's views would be seen by many as prescient after the financial crisis had become apparent, though he himself stated that he had not predicted the crisis nor foreseen its depth.[citation needed]The causes of the debacle are many and disputed. Thailand's economy developed into a bubble fueled by "hot money". More and more was required as the size of the bubble grew. The same type of situation happened in Malaysia, and Indonesia, which had the added complication of what was called "crony capitalism".[5] The short-term capital flow was expensive and often highly conditioned for quick profit. Development money went in a largely uncontrolled manner to certain people only, not particularly the best suited or most efficient, but those closest to the centers of power.[6]At the time of the mid-1990s, Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea had large private current account deficits and the maintenance of fixed exchange rates encouraged external borrowing and led to excessive exposure to foreign exchange risk in both the financial and corporate sectors. In the mid-1990s, two factors began to change their economic environment. As the U.S. economy recovered from a recession in the early 1990s, the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank under Alan Greenspan began to raise U.S. interest rates to head off inflation. This made the U.S. a more attractive investment destination relative to Southeast Asia, which had attracted hot money flows through high short-term interest rates, and raised the value of the U.S. dollar, to which many Southeast Asian nations' currencies were pegged, thus making their exports less competitive. At the same time, Southeast Asia's export growth slowed dramatically in the spring of 1996, deteriorating their current account position.Some economists have advanced the growing exports of China as a contributing factor to ASEAN nations' export growth slowdown, though these economists maintain the main cause of the crises was excessive real estate speculation.[7] China had begun to compete effectively with

2009-11-01T23:51:00.001-08:00

The Asian Financial Crisis was a period of financial crisis that gripped much of Asia beginning in July 1997, and raised fears of a worldwide economic meltdown due to financial contagion.The crisis started in Thailand with the financial collapse of the Thai baht caused by the decision of the Thai government to float the baht, cutting its peg to the USD, after exhaustive efforts to support it in the face of a severe financial overextension that was in part real estate driven. At the time, Thailand had acquired a burden of foreign debt that made the country effectively bankrupt even before the collapse of its currency. As the crisis spread, most of Southeast Asia and Japan saw slumping currencies, devalued stock markets and other asset prices, and a precipitous rise in private debt.[1]Though there has been general agreement on the existence of a crisis and its consequences, what is less clear is the causes of the crisis, as well as its scope and resolution. Indonesia, South Korea and Thailandwere the countries most affected by the crisis. Hong Kong, Malaysia, Laos and the Philippines were also hurt by the slump. The People's Republic of China, India, Taiwan, Singapore, Brunei and Vietnam were less affected, although all suffered from a loss of demand and confidence throughout the region.Foreign debt-to-GDP ratios rose from 100% to 167% in the four large ASEAN economies in 1993–96, then shot up beyond 180% during the worst of the crisis. In South Korea, the ratios rose from 13 to 21% and then as high as 40%, while the other Northern NICs (Newly Industrialized Countries) fared much better. Only in Thailand and South Korea did debt service-to-exports ratios rise.[2]Although most of the governments of Asia had seemingly sound fiscal policies, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) stepped in to initiate a $40 billion program to stabilize the currencies of South Korea, Thailand, and Indonesia, economies particularly hard hit by the crisis. The efforts to stem a global economic crisis did little to stabilize the domestic situation in Indonesia, however. After 30 years in power, President Suhartowas forced to step down on 21 May 1998 in the wake of widespread rioting that followed sharp price increases caused by a drastic devaluation of the rupiah. The effects of the crisis lingered through 1998. In the Philippines growth dropped to virtually zero in 1998. Only Singapore and Taiwan proved relatively insulated from the shock, but both suffered serious hits in passing, the former more so due to its size and geographical location between Malaysia and Indonesia. By 1999, however, analysts saw signs that the economies of Asia were beginning to recover.[3]
startstartstartstartstartstartstart