Weekend Topic Suggestions!
And send in your housing bubble photos to:
hbbphotos@gmail.com
The Housing Bubble
Examining the home price boom and its effect on owners, lenders, regulators, realtors and the economy as a whole.
About Me
Name:Ben Jones
Location:Northern Arizona, United States
To donate by mail, or to otherwise contact this blogger, please send emails to: thehousingbubble@gmail.com
PayPal is a secure online payment method which accepts ALL major credit cards.
Links
-
November 2024 M T W T F S S « Sep 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Photo Submission: hbbphotos@gmail.com
View the HBB Photo Gallery *updated 4/13/2008
Warning Signs and Defining Economic Moments
In recent weeks, Ms. Cox said she had seen a slight drop-off, leading her to believe that business could slow in coming months. “When they start ordering water instead of tea or Pepsi, that means they’re cutting back,” said Ms. Cox, who runs the 1950s-style restaurant, Sherri’s Diner, that is named after her mother.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/14/business/14econ.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
I’m not sure if the rest of the economy is slowing or not in my neck of the woods but you’d think that it would have to in the bubble areas.
At most of the restaurants around here, they have been jacking the price of soft drinks and tea into the $2.00 plus range…….one place is up to $2.50/2.75 (for friggin’ tea!)
I’m tempted one of these days, when they ask if I want a drink, to say “No thanks…..I brought my own”, then pull out grandpa’s old Mason Jar, full of tea.
Let me know when they insist on a ‘capping’ fee.
In Tucson, there are some restaurants that are busy as ever — Beyond Bread, Miss Saigon, and Pastiche come to mind. However, I’ve also visited some places that seemed like tombs.
So, quick answer from Slim is: It depends on the establishment.
spending has to come down. no HELOC, raising costs on credit cards.oil $80 will increase energy costs.
You would think at some point people would curtail their spending. I am sure the C card groups are extending credit lines and since the great American pastime is shopping they will keep it up IMO. The last time my wife and I ate out was over a year ago and that was because we were given a gift card.
spending junkies and their dealers.. This is not a victimless crime. Easy credit destroys families and society! Just Say No!
My thinking (heads up!!) was that maybe J6P would try to hang in there with credit cards to have a decent Christmas, then maybe the stuff hits the fan early next year and spending takes a major dive.
I agree 100% I think retail sales will hold up this season(due to more credit). Besides remember it’s “unpatriotic” not to do your part as the great American consumer!
I agree with this, Blano. Right through a helluva New Year’s Eve party, and then the poo will fly.
Got noisemakers?
I have it from an insider in the petro-chemical industry that there has been a huge wave of defaulting on gas cards in just the last few months. On amounts as low as $250.
THAT’s not good!
I still October will be the tell. The sudden number of anecdotal economic stories is timed perfectly. Suddenly the MSM is feeding the line “cut back, cut back” into the general consciousness. See the NYTimes story on pawnbrokers.
Mortgage madness Australian style…………
Doesn’t it seem just like the USA?
http://ninemsn.video.msn.com/v/en-au/v.htm?f=39&g=f9de3f74-f885-457e-969a-be85687526c2&p=aunews_au60minutes&t=m163&mediaid=107572
Gold carry trades?
Central banks are sitting on huge supplies of gold that earn them no interest and cost them money just to store securely. To earn a little revenue on these static assets, they loan their gold to banks, called buillon banks, at a ridiculously low interest rate on the order of 1%.
The problem is that if the gold price starts to rise, profits can be wiped out or turned to losses. And in today’s market, a falling dollar not only boosts gold prices but it also makes Treasury bonds less attractive to foreign investors. That reduces demand and weakens prices to create a potential double-edged sword for carry traders.
Good point!
Of course the point that was overlooked by the reporter is that if the Central banks have “lent” the gold out, it isn’t in their vaults so they are not “sitting on huge supplies” any longer. GATA estimates that more than half of Central bank gold has been sold into the market over the past 20 yrs or so (in excess of 16,000 tonnes).
That gold was sold into the market by the bullion banks and is now being worn around the necks of j6p.
Wait until these carry trades try to get unwound.
Central banks are sitting on huge supplies of gold that earn them no interest and cost them money just to store securely. To earn a little revenue on these static assets, they loan their gold to banks, called buillon banks, at a ridiculously low interest rate on the order of 1%.
That is certainly not why the central banks are “lending” their gold. They can manufacture as much “money” as they want, so profits are irrelevant to them. The actual reason is to suppress the gold price so that it doesn’t reflect inflation.
Of course, this cannot last forever, because they will eventually either run out of gold, or stop “lending” to avoid running out. In either case, when they stop, the gold price will go up more than most people believe possible.
I would like to suggest a topic on the best stock categories to buy puts on. I have made a bit with puts on Toll and some of the banks but the home builders now seem so low that they aren’t really very good now. I still have puts on some of the big option ARM banks as I think they will be very weak over the next 3-4 months.
But what I would like peoples ideas on is what are the other industries that will be next to fall if we have the recession that most here, including me, think is coming.
If we could make a list of industries in the order we expect them to fall during a typical recession that would be fantastic.
Here is a list of possible categories.
Automobiles & Parts
Banks
Basic Resources
Chemicals
Construction & Materials
Financial Services
Food & Beverage
Health Care
Home Builders
Household Goods
Industrial Goods & Services
Insurance
Media
Mortgage Companies
Oil & Gas
Personal Goods
Retail
Technology
Telecommunications
Travel & Leisure
Utilities
Financial Services — companies that report earnings next week.
Oh. You mean EVERYTHING.
How about the Fed decision next week as a topic. Should be interesting in light of these revelations:
‘Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said he was late to see the storm gathering around mortgage lending practices and commended his successor Ben Bernanke’s handling of the crisis, saying he would likely be responding in a similar fashion.’
‘Greenspan was asked if he would lower interest rates as dramatically and quickly now as he did just ahead of, during and in the wake of the 2001 recession, according to excerpts of the CBS ‘60 Minutes’ interview released on Thursday.’
‘I’m not sure that’s true,’ he said. ‘We were dealing with an environment back then when inflation was easing. We could have acted without the fear of stoking inflationary pressures.’
‘ Greenspan said in the interview that he was aware of lax lending standards in the subprime market, in which borrowers have little or poor credit history. The admission comes a week after the death of former Fed Governor Ed Gramlich, who had pushed Greenspan to strengthen the central bank’s oversight of banks during the record U.S. mortgage boom from 2004 to 2006.’
‘While I was aware a lot of these practices were going on, I had no notion of how significant they had become until very late,’ Greenspan said in the 60 Minutes interview. ‘I really didn’t get it until very late in 2005 and 2006,’ as he was about to leave office.’
‘Problems in housing, the financial markets and the first job decline in four years have made a Federal Reserve rate cut next week all but certain. But it has also raised talk about a recession - and whether the Fed is able to prevent one.’
‘The fact that investors no longer are willing to buy securities backed by such non-traditional mortgages could make it impossible for hundreds of thousands of those homeowners to refinance.’
‘A rate cut even down to zero percent doesn’t make those attractive investments,’ said Edward Leamer, director of the UCLA Anderson Forecast, which now puts the chance of recession at about 30 to 35 percent. ‘The Fed is in the situation where they should not be thinking about saving housing. They should be thinking about isolating the problem strictly to the housing sector.’
‘Finance ministers and central bankers have long fretted that at some point, the rest of the world would lose its willingness to finance the United States’ proclivity to consume far more than it produces - and that a potentially disastrous free-fall in the dollar’s value would result.’
‘Today, the dollar’s current weakness is being driven by uncertainty over how central banks will react to the turmoil in financial markets, unleashed by the collapse of the U.S. market for subprime mortgages given to borrowers with shaky credit histories.’
‘This is all pointing to a greatly increased risk of a fast unwinding of the U.S. current account deficit and a serious decline of the dollar,’ said Kenneth Rogoff, a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund and an expert on exchange rates. ‘We could finally see the big kahuna hit.’
Yes, by cutting rates they sacrifice the dollar. Contain this, contain housing, let it correct, and we will end up with a much healthier overall economy. So what if Jim Cramer and a couple of his Wall Street buddies go belly up. It will teach Wall Street not to make risky investments without accounting for the chance that they could lose it all.
Rock meet hard place. It isn’t just Fed monetary policy, or the financial regulation system, that has gotten us into this bind. It is 25 years of consuming more than we produce. That looks set to come back to haunt us over just 25 months, or perhaps 25 weeks!
In any event, while Greenspan is in confession mode, will someone ask him about the 1982 Social Security task force he led. It promised that if my generation, and those after, accepted a higher payroll tax and a later retirement age (67 not 65), Social Security would be “saved.” Prior generations took that money, cut income taxes, spent more on health care, and borrowed on top of it — leaving us with a “trust fund” that is little more than their permission to tax our own children into poverty.
Good point! If you want to try to figure out why we are sliding into third-world country status, with a negative personal savings rate, a small cohort of super-rich and a shrinking middle class, look no farther than the 1982 “screw-the-middle-class” Social Security fix (AG’s handiwork). For perspective, compare the Social Security (OASDI) payroll tax circa 1950 (something around 1-2 percent) to its recent crushing level up around 15.3 percent (medicare included). Of course, this was not a “tax increase,” as these moneys represent “contributions” which will be repaid in the current contributors’ retirement years (su-u-ure!).
Greenspan also said that he guarenteed that everyone would get the Social Security monies that had been promised. But, he followed that with “I am not guarenteeing that it will guy anything”
I think the Greenspan article is veerrry interesting. It will relieve some of the rate-cutting pressure on Bernanke, as more people realize that he shouldn’t cut as low as AG did. Perhaps they may go so far as to realize that causing some pain by leaving interest rates (relatively) high is in their long-term best interest.
Also from that interview:
Meanwhile, some believe that Greenspan would have acted more aggressively than Bernanke in dealing with the current financial crisis. “I’m not sure that’s true,” Greenspan said. “I think (Bernanke) is doing an excellent job,” he said.
The vote-of-confidence will also relieve an iota of pressure on Bernanke.
Whoops. last part should have read:
Meanwhile, some believe that Greenspan would have acted more aggressively than Bernanke in dealing with the current financial crisis. “I’m not sure that’s true,” Greenspan said. “I think (Bernanke) is doing an excellent job,” he said.
The vote-of-confidence will also relieve an iota of pressure on Bernanke.
can’t seem to close damn italics!.
Sorry for that
‘Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said he was late to see the storm gathering around mortgage lending practices and commended his successor Ben Bernanke’s handling of the crisis, saying he would likely be responding in a similar fashion.’
To me, the most interesting question of all is whether AG’s candid admission of ignorance on the severe problems which would result from the lending industry’s abandoning traditional lending standards and making Jumbo loans for McMansion purchases to anyone who could breath should be taken at face value, or if they represent a calculated dilution of Greenspan Fed culpability. It would look much worse if he was perceived as having cognizantly watched the seeds of a future banking crisis get planted under his nose.
At any rate, it is about time that AG stepped up and took some of the weight of blame for the current crisis (the root causes of which predate AG’s retirement) off of BB’s shoulders.
There is no way we can avoid Fed-talk under current circumstances. It’s the moment of truth. ABCP credit is deflating, the stock market looks wobbly, banks are approaching the discount window, and consumers are grasping for their last line. Add to that, rising inflation and the falling dollar. It looks like we are at sixes and sevens.
I can just see the headlines now:
Greenspan: I really didn’t get it
I support this topic.
Most regular J6p’s dont think about, dont know about, and cant understand the situation that is staring the CB’s directly in the face.
Why is the common theme of restoring confidence centering around a rate cut? I think it may be probable that confidence can only be returned through the pain of failure. All the kool-aid drinkers need a slap in the face.
A rate cut for this bloggger does not restore confidence, a rate cut increases the fear of more “shoe-dropping” going forward. Confidence can only be restored by allowing failure of market participnants who gambled and LOST coupled with significant risk repricing and an S&P 500 of around 1100.
Folks need to remember the classical definition of money. It is a medium of exchange. If you deliberately decrease the value of one side of the exchange, the other will go up (eventually…as the folks using that medium begin to realize the phenomenon). Those that have access to the new money first, benefit the most.
So yes, creating more (the eventual intended outcome of making it cheaper-whether the intended effect actually occurs remains to be seen) will benefit a certain group (which violates a few important principles of the Rule of Law–as defined by classical economists and political scientists versus the current use of the terms). That group would be the folks who create the money, and on down the chain. It would appear that the push is to get as many people into the lending business as possible. In this manner, we can all become rich.
Granted, there will be nothing to exchange for those notes since folks stopped producing goods with exchangeable value, but GDP will go up and inflation will remain low as long as those new notes don’t buy something in the selected basket of approximately 200 goods. No, this won’t end well.
“It is a medium of exchange.”
Is is also supposedly a store of value.
PB,
The classical definition is a medium of exchange. That medium has certain qualities, and one of them is a store of value. When it is no longer a store of value, it will eventually no longer serve as money.
‘While I was aware a lot of these practices were going on, I had no notion of how significant they had become until very late,’ Greenspan said in the 60 Minutes interview. ‘I really didn’t get it until very late in 2005 and 2006,’ as he was about to leave office.’
Now that AG is openly lamenting the folly of giving loans to help low income buyers purchase houses they cannot afford, will Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and HUD (not to mention certain high-profile members of Congress) stop encouraging the practice?
What is going to happen later this year, and early next year?
We know that ARM’s are going to reset higher from now till January, but what about Christmas spending and the Super Bowl dead cat bounce?
Last week someone suggested a topic around things that RE professionals say:
‘Contrary to what the media would have you perceive, there is great opportunity to plan your financial future in buying a home. We Realtors are very sure that real estate is the best investment, and if our media would focus on the positive aspect of the nation’s real estate market, we would not have the problems in this business that we have.’
‘As we Realtors continue to help our clients in this challenging real estate market, it is helpful to see the positive aspects of what is happening.’
‘The positive side of the market has enabled buyers to get into homes that they could not afford two years ago. They can start on their road to future wealth by investing in a home. There is still a tax advantage in purchasing a home that they would not receive otherwise. There is no better investment than in a home.’
‘Start today and make a plan to buy a home this year. Contact a Realtor (there is a difference between a licensee and a Realtor, and it is huge). Have them guide you into a home you can afford with a reputable lender who has the right loan program for your future wealth.’
‘You will not be sorry you made this step toward your financial future.’
Homes are a terrible investment. Historically they keep pace with inflation, nothing more. A house is a place to live in, you want it to retain it’s value. An investment show real gains. Looking at a home as an investment is what got us into this mess.
Uh, past performance is no guarantee of future performance? Don’t we often hear that disclosed with mutual fund prospectuses? LOL Imagine realtors having to state to clients that home prices do not necessarily go up.
Uh, past performance is no guarantee of future performance? Don’t we often hear that disclosed with mutual fund prospectuses? LOL Imagine realtors having to state to clients that home prices do not necessarily go up.
Actually that’s exactly what they’re supposed to say. Again there’s no ethics anymore.l
I have NEVER seen a difference between a licensee and a Realtor (I’m a “licensee”). The only “difference” I’ve seen is Realtors have to take an ethics class, and maybe a couple others. My attitude is if you have to take an ethics class, there’s a problem already.
must not be a very good ethics class.
In Ohio you have to take an ethics class just to keep your license. Doesn’t matter if your a licensee or a realtor.
Good Topic. So book ‘em, Dano!
Contact a Realtor (there is a difference between a licensee and a Realtor, and it is huge).
This statement really makes me boil. The ONLY reason someone is a realtor is because their brokerage belongs and the rule is, then every realtor in that brokerage has to belong.
The ONLY difference is that we had to pay $425 a year for an agency that does absolutely nothing for you & advertises many things a lot of licensees don’t even believe in. My license is with the referral section of our agency and I really don’t even use it anymore, but I also don’t have to pay those stupid dues. The referral section doesn’t belong to the NAR, but all of us agents formerly did. Now tell me what the difference is other than the rest of the suckers are still paying their $425 a year. If I would be stupid enough to pay the $425, that would make me a better agent… why? They can spout their code of ethics all they want. I followed them because that’s my morals, but I’d bet 90% of agents don’t even know what the ethics are even though they have to take the class every three years.
We Realtors are very sure that real estate is the best investment”
And these unregulated turds face what penalties when these “investments” lose 50%?
‘I agree wholeheartedly with Toni Reger about the Real Estate industry’s abject greed ["Free market real estate," Sept. 11]. Yet, the end result of the greed should be discussed. Homeowners have made their bed and it’s not comfy.’
‘I find it ironic that today’s Orange Grove is about economic ignorance ["Knowing why it's the economy, stupid," Sept. 13]. Unfortunately, it’s not just college grads that are clueless. Homeowners also fall into this category. A home is not an ATM.’
‘Homeowners would love to move their homes. The problem is that they are mortgaged to the hilt. Homeowners need every penny out of their property to get out of their bad loans, and they’ll probably still own money when they’re done.’
‘There has been a lot of anger leveled at the mortgage industry and rightly so. However, I think that the realtors have as much to answer for. They kept the bubble going by convincing people that they are losing out by not buying. I was encouraged by a realtor to ‘get in because you’re losing out, there is no bubble.’
‘A home is just that, a home. Nothing more. There are better ways to invest. The reality is that a home is a depreciating asset.’
Right, and because it is leveraged, as an investment it can lose more than 100%. Far more.
If there isn’t at least a good chance of staying a house for a long, long time, there is no need to buy unless, as the current NAR ads say, it is cheaper than renting — all in.
“Lastly, REALTORS® subscribe to a Code of Ethics that prohibits them from deliberately misleading sellers about the market value of their home. Greed is not part of the equation for reputable real estate agents, which fortunately make up the vast majority of agents who have decided to “stick it out” during this tough time.
– Mike Maxfield of Norco”
Hey Mike - Catholic Priests are theoretically near the apex of the ethical pyramid, but it did not stop some from fiddling quite a few young kids.
Just because Realtors they say they “subscribe” to some bogus ethical mission statement does not mean a damn thing to me. Actions, not words, buddy.
Why is anyone buying a house now?
I posted this in yesterday’s B & B, but it really fits here.
Except for those who are moving jobs or sold a home, why are sales down only 25% YOY instead of 50% to 75%?
People have to realize by now that whatever they buy will be cheaper, probably much, much cheaper a year from now. And if they do buy, their home is bound to lose value.
Sure, there are some that will buy no matter what. But I’m amazed at how many people are still buying at these over-inflated prices.
“People have to realize by now that whatever they buy will be cheaper, probably much, much cheaper a year from now.”
I am convinced that a certain percentage of the population has brains which are hard-wired to buy stuff provided they have any means whatever to do so. Even if they have strong rational evidence to suggest they could save more than a year’s worth of labor income in their house purchase by renting for 1-3 more years, this type of person is susceptible to making a purchase provided they find a home they could envision themselves comfortably occupying and a lender willing to provide the financing on terms which seem manageable. I know this first hand, as I number friends and family members in this group. (All of them are females, which is a coincidence, I’m sure.)
i have been a reading this blog for over 18 months and posting for over a year and just about all the predictions on here about the hb have materialized. i remember many people saying what would be the moment we knew the rest of the msm and john q public would be forced to accept this reality
will the alan greenspan interview on 60 minutes sunday be that moment?
i believe some said it would be the cover of time magazine or a major 60 minutes story. i hope they grill greenspan good
Can anyone who cares to explain please describe how the Schumer baleout bill would help Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac achieve their affordable housing mission? Because from where I stand, it seems like increasing the conforming loan limit north of $500,000 would make housing less affordable.
Opinion : Editorials
Holes in the sub-prime baleout
A proposal to ease the pain of those caught in the mortgage mess may not help the true victims.
September 13, 2007
One of the most difficult questions posed by the sub-prime mortgage meltdown is who, if anyone, the government should be trying to help. First-time home buyers misled by mortgage brokers are more sympathetic than, say, borrowers or lenders who deliberately took on outsized risks, but it’s hard to set rules that can distinguish between the two.
The challenge is brought into focus by each proposal emanating from Washington. The latest example is a bill introduced this week by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee’s housing subcommittee. Schumer would have two government-sponsored agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, boost mortgage lending by letting them expand their sizable portfolios of mortgages and mortgage-backed bonds by at least 10%. Those portfolios, each of which is worth more than $700 billion, were capped by Congress in response to accounting problems at the agencies.
The caps shouldn’t be lifted until Fannie and Freddie have cleared the last vestiges of accounting fraud and come under more rigorous oversight. And although Schumer’s bill would help some lenders and borrowers, they’re not necessarily the ones the government should be helping.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-subprime13sep13,0,5649079.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials
My editorial suggestions to clarify the message of this editorial are added in italics.
Editorial: Schumer bill would aid and abet subprime mess
September 14, 2007
Two bills introduced by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) would go a long way toward stabilizing
mortgage marketsunaffordable housing prices andaverting foreclosure for homeownersbailing out speculators and reckless lenders trapped in the sub-prime loan crunch.http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpsch145373144sep14,0,1876344.story
Am I oversimplifying things (I often do!) or is there a direct causal connection between the recent CB-induced liquidity blizzard to fight the credit crunch and signs of burgeoning inflation (oil north of $80, gold north of $700, etc.)?
Friedman is dead, monetarism is dead, but what about inflation?
By Niall Ferguson
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 19/11/2006
“Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon, in the sense that it cannot occur without a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output.” I can think of few sentences in economics that have engraved themselves more deeply in my memory than Milton Friedman’s famous line in his Encyclopaedia Britannica entry for “Money”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/11/19/do1904.xml
No, you’re not oversimplifying. But we haven’t seen anything yet. Just wait until all the inflation is reflected in the gold price, after the CBs stop “lending” their gold to be sold into the market.
My own query is about what stage of a recession you feel this anecdotal evidence indicates:
Over the past two months I have seen an increasing number, and more at once than I have seen in a decade at least, of severely damaged cars. That is, cars which have clearly been in an accident of the 10-35 mph variety where the car is still driveable, legal, and safe, but says to the world “I was just in an accident” or “I’m too poor to pay for the repairs to my car”. I expected to see a lot of cars for sale (easy to move asset for a quick cash fix), and I have, but the number of damaged cars I see on the road is shocking.
My car has a bit of damage and has a lot of miles on it, and I didn’t feel like throwing a grandido or 2 at it, because it’s just cosmetic…
Besides, in the brave new world soon to be upon us, i’d like to look just like J6P FB, if only keeping up appearances…
Those that flaunt wealth, will be just asking for it.
In NYC, you’re better off with a patially damaged hulk. Less attractive to theives. I’ve been bicycling to work recently, and am thinking of using spray paint to vandalize the bicycle for the same reason.
Interesting point, XP. If there’s anyone here from Pennsylvania, what are you seeing on the roads? I seem to recall that the twice-annual state inspections were good at weeding out the real junkers.
I’ve seen a lot of newer damaged cars. My guess is that they can’t come up with the deductible.
This is OH.
How about this for a weekend topic:
I’ve noticed in my neighborhood there are quite a few homes that have trustee sales pending, but then the sale gets postponed. This happens over and over, each time being postponed between 2 weeks and 1 month. The auction price is higher than current market value. When I look up these properties or visit them in person, they aren’t for sale, they just look like ordinary houses with people living there. Does anyone care to speculate what is going with these?
My first guess is that the owner of the paper has some benefit from picking the time that they take ownership of the property. Even if they are receiving no payments, they seem to feel it is better to keep someone in the house but preserve their right to have the sale and take ownership. Perhaps it looks better to have delinquent loans than have REOs or worse yet losses on sales of bank owned houses.
Keeping these houses off the market is extending the correction period.
A dedicated thread to HBB parties!
The South Bay part of LA, we’re trying to get a get together going on Saturday 9/29. At a restaurant for an evening of intelligent company and fun bearish talk.
Anyone interested?
Neil
And what about Tucson? It’s still hotter ‘n’ Hades, but that shouldn’t stop us.
Moved to Sunday 9/30 for the southbay. Click on my name (and blog) for more details.
Neil
we should do the same in nyc!!
hey nyc boy will you buy the 1st round of $22 martini’s?
It sounds as though a bailout has already been fully underway for months already.
Associated Press
Fannie, Freddie can help stabilize mortgage market as ‘bad actors’ drop out, Fannie CEO says
By MARCY GORDON 09.12.07, 4:18 PM ET
WASHINGTON -
Several years after multibillion-dollar accounting scandals tarnished reputations at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage giants are regaining market dominance amid an ailing housing market.
Daniel Mudd, Fannie’s president and CEO, on Wednesday said his firm can play a crucial role in steadying a home loan market while a shakeout removes what he calls the “bad actors.”
Fannie, which is the largest U.S. buyer and guarantor of mortgages, has helped some 33,000 struggling homeowners refinance $6 billion in mortgages since April.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/09/12/ap4111444.html