January 13, 2010

Bits Bucket For January 13, 2010

Post off-topic ideas, links and Craigslist finds here. Please visit the HBB Forum.




RSS feed | Trackback URI

388 Comments »

Comment by wmbz
2010-01-13 03:55:02

U.S. Subpoenas 15 FHA Lenders With High Mortgage Defaults.

Jan. 12 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department said it subpoenaed 15 mortgage companies today to seek out possible fraud in an effort to stem losses on loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration.

HUD officials, who oversee the FHA mortgage insurance program, said they haven’t found any evidence of wrongdoing at the lenders, and were singling out those with the highest default rates.

The investigation is “focusing on many of the worst performers in the FHA portfolio,” FHA Commissioner David Stevens said on a conference call with reporters in Washington.

“We aren’t making any accusations at this time, we have no evidence of wrongdoing, but we will aggressively pursue any indicators of fraud,” HUD Inspector General Kenneth Donohue said. “The fact that there are 15 institutions on this list today does not in any way suggest that there aren’t other institutions that we will not look at later.”

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-13 07:09:10

Isn’t the high default rate a natural consequence of making loans to people who are only required to make a 3.5% downpayment, then adding fuel to the fire by providing $8K in tax credit to those who may really need the money as they don’t have the means to save? Why should lenders be held accountable for the “higher than expected” default rates which naturally occur as a result of government-sponsored adverse selection for high-risk borrowers?

Comment by arizonadude
2010-01-13 08:18:45

Some of thes govt loans are 0 down, usda rural deveopment that salespeople are pimping.I was browseing through craigslist and they are even pimping fha loans because you dont need good credit.Things have not changed my friends.The only real difference I see is stated income loans are harder to get.

Comment by wmbz
2010-01-13 08:21:40

“Things have not changed my friends.The only real difference I see is stated income loans are harder to get”.

I agree.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Pondering the Mess
2010-01-13 10:17:45

They’ll find some way to bring those back, too.

Bubble 2.0, now funded by the taxpayers, who are still paying off Bubble 1.0.

This is all going to end very badily, and the savers are, as usual, being screwed while waiting for things to play out.

 
Comment by Don't Know Nothin About Buyin No House
2010-01-13 18:47:22

“Bubble 2.0, now funded by the taxpayers, who are still paying off Bubble 1.0.”

A completely new release number implies major revisions to form, fit, user base and functionality. Bubble 1.02 might be a better number.

 
 
 
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2010-01-13 09:40:18

“Why should lenders be held accountable for the “higher than expected” default rates which naturally occur as a result of government-sponsored adverse selection for high-risk borrowers?”

Spot on, PB!

FHA lenders essentially have a congressionally-mandated default rate. They are forced to allow negative-downpayment loans.

 
 
Comment by Left LA
2010-01-13 09:15:50

U.S. Subpoenas Closes 15 FHA Lenders Barn Doors With High Mortgage Defaults Long After Horses Flee.

 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-01-13 03:56:08

California Creditors See IOUs With Schwarzenegger Missing Obama

Jan. 13 (Bloomberg) — California’s hopes are fading for federal help in closing a projected $19.9 billion deficit that has caused the lowest-rated state’s borrowing costs to rise 26 percent in three months.

“We recognize they have enormous problems,” David Axelrod, senior adviser to President Barack Obama, said in an interview. “But we can’t solve all of those problems from Washington.”

Investors are growing more concerned that California, the world’s eighth-largest economy, will repeat last year’s fiscal crisis that forced it to use IOUs to pay bills. With Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger seeking $6.9 billion in federal assistance to narrow the deficit, the extra interest paid on the state’s 10-year bonds over AAA-rated municipal securities has risen to 1.34 percentage points from 1.06 points in three months.

Comment by combotechie
2010-01-13 07:08:45

“… will repeat last year’s fiscal crisis that forced it to use IOUs to pay bills.”

How did those IOUs of last year work out. Anyone know?

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-13 07:10:46

Apparently Washington ran out of money when they handed it all over to Wall Street. SOL for California…

Comment by In Colorado
2010-01-13 08:43:52

And the $20B that Cali needs is but a drop in the bucket compared to what Wall St. got. Heck, how much were the aggregate, taxpayer funded bonuses on Wall St?

 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-01-13 08:22:52

David Axelrod, senior adviser to President Barack Obama, said in an interview. “But we can’t solve all of those problems from Washington.”

LOL! Really? Then what are you doing, Axel?

Comment by edgewaterjohn
2010-01-13 09:53:48

No kidding! CA is too big for the them to tackle, but then we’re asked to believe they can successfully support prices in a entire national real estate market?

 
Comment by Pondering the Mess
2010-01-13 10:25:24

Does he mean Washington can’t solve all the problems or that they cannot solve all the problems coming out of Washington? Not that it matters - both statements are true!

 
 
Comment by Left LA
2010-01-13 09:20:40

Here’s a headline I’d like to see - “Feds to California: DROP DEAD”.

The moment I read an Arnold quote stating Obama deserved an “A” for his first year in office, I knew he was just buttering up Barry so that he could ask for a huge handout.

 
Comment by aNYCdj
2010-01-13 09:50:06

I’ll bet AHnold will be glad next year to become the Terminator again…

This is never ending …..and yet the cost of the Illegals have got to be dealt with. We are out of time and money

Comment by DinOR
2010-01-13 12:15:50

aNYCdj,

Amen, without getting into all the politics and racial aspects.., frankly, it just doesn’t matter any more. Whatever the threshold of buying prdts. from other countries is without -totally- decimating our own economy ( I think we’ve found it? )

And the same goes for taking in huddled masses. It’s no longer about ideals, we’re just no longer in a position to be generous with ‘anyone’.

Comment by X-GSfixr
2010-01-13 13:19:26

If the illegal population in SoCal is anything like the illegal population around here, someone needs to take a look at their “underground” economy

I’ve decided “sin” taxes aren’t so bad, “regressive” as they supposedly are (in theory). In fact, sin taxes, sales taxes, and fuel taxes are the only taxes a lot of people pay.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2010-01-13 14:52:45

Get real, Arnold! Washington needs to set aside money for continuing bailouts of Wall Street, plus we’ll need to pour untold billions into the reconstruction of Haiti. And Afghanistan. And God knows how many other cesspools.

 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-01-13 03:58:02

Economic stimulus has created or saved nearly 2 million jobs, White House says ~ Washington Post ~ January 13, 2010

The $787 billion economic stimulus package has created or saved between 1.7 million and 2 million jobs, but its impact on the economy ebbed slightly in the final quarter of 2009 compared with prior months, the White House said Tuesday night.

Releasing the administration’s second quarterly report to Congress on the stimulus’s impact, Christina Romer, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, said a third of the tax cuts and spending in the package is out the door. Her office estimates that the stimulus added between 1.5 and 3 percentage points to the growth in gross domestic product in the final quarter of 2009. That estimate, which is in line with other analyses, is lower than her office’s estimate of stimulus-related impact in the third quarter, between 3 and 4 percentage points.

Comment by Bad Chile
2010-01-13 07:31:44

That is still nearly $400,000 per job saved or created…but since the numbers are so big and the average J6P so financially and mathematically illiterate they probably won’t bother checking.
“Wow! Two million jobs for $787,000,000,000! What a steal!”

Given the median family income in this country is what - $65,000? Why didn’t we just hand this money to the two million people again?

[Which makes me wonder, is the GDP inflation adjusted? Shouldn't it be?]

Comment by oxide
2010-01-13 07:54:52

Because hopefully these jobs will last more than one year?

Comment by LehighValleyGuy
2010-01-13 08:50:18

As long as they keep spending more stimulus money to create or save them.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Pondering the Mess
2010-01-13 10:27:43

I think the median household income is lower than that…

I like the idea of Inflation Adjusted GDP, but since they’ve been counting inflation as “growth” for a long time now, that’ll never happen.

 
 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-01-13 04:41:46

Many Reluctant to Hire Because of New Taxes, Rules. ~ CNBC

A potential wave of new regulation and higher taxes may be scaring many businesses from hiring, prolonging any rebound in employment, say business groups and economists.

The prospect of increased federal and state regulation and taxes has been particularly disruptive to the hiring plans of small- and medium-sized businesses, which have historically generated about two-thirds of the nation’s jobs.

“I don’t really see the private sector hiring much in the next few months,” says Brian Bethune, an economist at Global Insight. “For the small-business sector there is just too much uncertainty about what happens beyond 2010.”

Not only is the Obama administration seeking to push through major overhauls of energy and health care policy, it is also expected to impose dozens of new workplace rules and raise income taxes.

Comment by oxide
2010-01-13 07:37:04

How does CNBC know it’s the tax boogyman (their usual whipping boy), and not the simple lack of customers because the consumer is Fundamentally Broke [ (c) Prof Bear]?

Comment by DinOR
2010-01-13 07:46:50

oxide,

Or… the fact that this is the only remaining leverage small biz has in it’s quiver? Status Quo or no-can-hire!

 
Comment by iftheshoefits
2010-01-13 08:00:06

I have plenty of work. There’s no way I would hire employees to grow my business, though. Too much hassle and expense on every front, and they keep finding new ways to make it worse. Plus it’s much like investing in equities - there is no way of knowing what the government will do next, and how it will affect our overall prospects, so it’s better to lie low for the next however long.

Comment by In Colorado
2010-01-13 08:47:56

So are you turning business away?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by iftheshoefits
2010-01-13 09:23:10

A little… I think. Not sure if some of my current prospects are real or not, but in any event it’s more than I can take on for now. I really keep expecting things to dry up for me, and have for the past year and a half, but so far the trend has been otherwise. I’m considering it to be the luck of the draw at this point.

To be fair, trying to train apprentices to do the type of precision engineering and systems work that I do is enough of a hassle in itself, all other business/tax/regulatory issues aside. But add in all the other stuff and the decision more or less makes itself. I’ll turn down work before I’ll grow, unless it is so easy and profitable and substantial that it would never be offered to me in the first place.

 
Comment by Jim A.
2010-01-13 10:34:24

A nice illustration of job stickyness in the skilled labor market. Hard to train = more reluctant to hire or fire.

 
Comment by In Colorado
2010-01-13 15:43:06

You mean you don’t expect your employee’s to train themselves, on their own time? This is now standard procedure in the fortune 500.

 
 
Comment by scdave
2010-01-13 09:10:10

Too much hassle and expense on every front, and they keep finding new ways to make it worse ??

Exactly….!!!….IMO, there is a full frontal assault on the private sector…

The best quote I heard for the year 2009 was;

“I would rather miss an opportunity that lose Principal”….

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Arizona Slim
2010-01-13 10:39:53

Slim checking in from Freelancia. Lots of work out here too.

Like many freelancers, I work on website development projects that call for expertise that I don’t have. In order to fulfill the client’s requirements, I form a virtual team.

For example, I’m currently working on a website redesign for a department at the University of Arizona. I developed the site layout at my studio here in Tucson. The subcontractor who created the template based on this layout is in Massachusetts. I’m now working with a Texas-based programmer who is creating the Drupal theme for the website.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by iftheshoefits
2010-01-13 13:29:39

Yep, that’s the way that we do it, quite often. Being independent is a whole different way of looking at the employment world. If I do really need to manage my own help on a job, it will be through the 1099 route, not W-2 anymore.

 
 
Comment by Eau Claire Dude AKA Fresno Dude
2010-01-13 13:52:51

“There’s no way I would hire employees to grow my business, though. Too much hassle and expense on every front, and they keep finding new ways to make it worse” Same for my brother who is the proprietor of a transmission repair business. It’s highly technical, requires a considerable amount of equipment, the overhead is surprisingly high, and there is competition. He does well because he is honest and turns out a very high quality product, that is he has a very low come back for his guarantee. He has trained up new transmission mechanics on occasion, but there is a high overhead for that, the time that it takes. His present strategy is to have a two week waiting list to get to a job where he is the transmission mechanic with one fellow for remove and reinstall. It’s just not worth the hassle to expand.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by LehighValleyGuy
2010-01-13 13:17:24

How does CNBC know it’s the tax boogyman (their usual whipping boy), and not the simple lack of customers because the consumer is Fundamentally Broke [ (c) Prof Bear]?

.. also because of the tax boogyman.

 
 
Comment by measton
2010-01-13 09:08:24

Pure propaganda

Small business is not hiring because there are no customers and they know that the financial status of middle class America is going to continue to deteriorate. They are also not hiring because they can’t get loans.

This article is just an MSM attempt to shift the blame of high unemployment and a collapsing middle class on to regulation vs the real cause which was lac of regulation and Wall Street Greed.

Remember what most small business jobs are= bubble jobs.

Comment by DinOR
2010-01-13 09:27:50

measton,

You could have drawn that conclusion from the Tech Bubble, but I don’t see that it necessarily applies here? Barriers to entry are fairly high when it comes to doing a tech start up.

Getting your realtwhore/mortgage broker/builder license!? These were self-determined courses and I never considered ANY of them legitimate “employment” ( any more than daytrading should be considered so? )

Employers are reluctant to hire out of ‘any’ downturn and at least at ‘this’ point, we needn’t further fuel their paranoia.

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2010-01-13 09:36:19

This article is just an MSM attempt to shift the blame of high unemployment and a collapsing middle class on to regulation vs the real cause which was lac of regulation and Wall Street Greed.

Very true.

Comment by LehighValleyGuy
2010-01-13 13:15:23

So lack of regulation causes unemployment. How many small business owners would agree with that statement?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2010-01-13 14:21:24

So lack of regulation causes unemployment. How many small business owners would agree with that statement?

I agree in the context that lack of regulation in the financial industry caused our economic system and political system to fall apart and thus caused massive unemployment.

I think that’s what most mean when this subject comes up. It’s what I mean.

Thinking housing bubble….

 
Comment by oxide
2010-01-13 14:27:08

Only the ones who don’t understand an induction period. If lax regs created so many stable jobs, then why hasn’t the last 20 years of lax regs created millions of jobs to replace manufacturing? Instead, businesses used those lax regs to feather their own nests, then go screaming for even less reg. The only new jobs which were created were internet/computer, (Clinton) which were promptly outsourced, and bubble jobs (Bush II) which instantly went *poof*.

 
Comment by measton
2010-01-13 15:10:43

lack of regulation created the huge bubble that just burst that now is resulting in high unemployment and eventually inflation which will hurg business as well.

 
Comment by james
2010-01-13 17:38:02

I don’t want this to be the political blame game thing here.

My guess is we have gobs of regulation on manufacturing and small business.

We have very little regulation on financial companies and nothing on derivatives.

When small businesses fail, little guys lose their credit, cash and collateral.

When the big finance/big business guys fail we little guys lose our cash, credit and collateral. They get a juicy bailout and bonus checks.

Good times. Don’t let the bastards polarize you over every darn little thing.

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-01-13 04:43:30

Recession hits U.S. power generation.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — The nation’s economic decline led to the biggest drop in electric output since 1938, according to an industry trade group.

A new report released Tuesday from the Edison Electric Institute says output fell by 3.7% for its second year of declines in a row.

The group said the fall was triggered by the recession and cooler summer temperatures, which were more than 20% lower than normal in many parts of the country.

The report showed that the industry provided just 3.9 million gigawatthours of electricity to the continental United States, the lowest amount since 2004. The highest weekly output during the year was just 88,713 GWh, which is 10% less than the all-time record high of 98,583 GWh set in August 2006.

While electric output levels fell across the nation, they decreased the most in the Central Industrial and West Central regions, by 6.0% and 5.4% respectively. The South Central Region showed the smallest drop, by 1.1%. To top of page

Comment by DinOR
2010-01-13 07:51:15

For the life of me, I can’t figure out why nearly every poster ( and lurker ) here has a fully paid off residence by retirement as their # 1 priority but seldom is weaning yourself off The Grid mentioned?

It’s not just the fact that PGE doled out $750k ( a year! ) ret. packages for it’s top ( former Enron ) mgrs., or the fact that The Grid is held together w/ bubble gum and bailing wire, but more that energy prices have nowhere to go but UP!

Comment by drumminj
2010-01-13 08:00:03

For the life of me, I can’t figure out why nearly every poster ( and lurker ) here has a fully paid off residence by retirement as their # 1 priority but seldom is weaning yourself off The Grid mentioned?

Well, as a renter, one doesn’t exactly have control over this? Plus, quite a few people have mentioned investing in making their homes more energy efficient, if not adding solar panels and whatnot.

Comment by mikey
2010-01-13 08:29:46

“For the life of me, I can’t figure out why nearly every poster ( and lurker ) here has a fully paid off residence by retirement as their # 1 priority but seldom is weaning yourself off The Grid mentioned ”

Hey DinOR,

I plan to retire in my tent on a certain US Senators front lawn and plug my extention cord into his lawn lamp and then notify the Press when he calls the SWAT Team.

“America, I’m a veteran and Herb’s hutting me…AGAIN !”

:)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by iftheshoefits
2010-01-13 08:07:40

I ran a mostly off-grid solar sales and installation business for a decade. I can assure you, the grid is in about two orders of magnitude better shape for power reliability than the average off-grid home. The grass always looks greener on the other side, but it’s not.

Besides, about 90% of today’s residential solar installation are battery-less grid-tied, meaning that, by definition, when the grid goes down, the home is completely out of power.

There are far cheaper and more effective ways to reduce your exposure to high fixed costs of living, and reduce your footprint at the same time. But I’ll concede that most of them aren’t as sexy as solar panels.

Comment by DinOR
2010-01-13 08:38:13

iftheshoefits,

I didn’t say it was either easy nor sexy. And I ‘do’ have a good friend that retired in The Dalles, OR ( mech. eng. at that ) and he’s said it’s a total pain!

Wind powered, solar, battery back-up etc. But when I asked him why his demand was so damn -high- he explained their MIL lives w/ them and “can’t stand all the heat” so he has central AC running much of the year. So for me, it’s a demand issue.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by In Montana
2010-01-13 14:05:40

The Dalles is a pain or ??

 
 
Comment by measton
2010-01-13 09:11:46

There are far cheaper and more effective ways to reduce your exposure to high fixed costs of living, and reduce your footprint at the same time. But I’ll concede that most of them aren’t as sexy as solar panels.

Agreed, but people have to remember that when you purchase solar panels you are locking in your energy costs for the next 25-50years. My guess is that people who purchase solar panels over the next year or two are going to be smiling pretty in 10 years when electricity rates are 25-30cents/kwh

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by iftheshoefits
2010-01-13 09:34:13

You’re right measton, that is the best rationale there is for incorporating solar. But look at what you just said, and look at the average length of duration of the typical American family in their current residence. Until you intend to stay put indefinitely in your current abode, you wont’ likely realize the benefit, and I would usually advise waiting in those cases unless the customer’s mind was already made up.

As an HBB’er, I got really disgusted with all of the solar financing companies that sprung up like weeds during the height of the bubble. Guilt ‘em and scare ‘em out of their wits with global warming alarmism, so we can offer them more consumerist salvation on cheap credit! I can think of adjectives that describe that practice, but “sustainable” isn’t one of them. But that’s the emerging business model. IMHO there are much better ways and applications in which to deploy this valuable technology.

 
Comment by Arizona Slim
2010-01-13 10:50:20

As an HBB’er, I got really disgusted with all of the solar financing companies that sprung up like weeds during the height of the bubble. Guilt ‘em and scare ‘em out of their wits with global warming alarmism, so we can offer them more consumerist salvation on cheap credit! I can think of adjectives that describe that practice, but “sustainable” isn’t one of them. But that’s the emerging business model. IMHO there are much better ways and applications in which to deploy this valuable technology.

Thanks for dissin’ the cheap credit. And, while we’re in a dissin’ mood, here’s another pet peeve: the tax credits. Here in AZ, the tax credits are touted.

But there’s a downside or two. First, even though they may not look like it, tax credits are a form of government spending. Which means that the money isn’t going to some other area where it may be needed. Second, in order to get the credit, you have to front up the money. On a solar installation, we’re talking tens of thousands of dollars. Yes, you can borrow against the house, but that’s not so easy to do anymore.

 
Comment by Jim A.
2010-01-13 10:57:50

Are there ANY PE panels out there that have an (estimated) effective life spanof 50 years? I was under the impression they lost a few percent a year in efficiency, meaning that they had to be replaced after something like 20 years.

 
Comment by iftheshoefits
2010-01-13 13:35:21

Jim, the answer is that no one knows for sure, because they haven’t been around that long. All they can do is project based on highly-accelerated environmental stress/life testing.

The industry rule of thumb (applied a lot in warranties) is 1% degradation of output per year, but most will hold up much better than that.

The bigger limitation is in the installation IMO. If your roof isn’t going to last 30-40 years, then the whole system is going to at some point be disassembled by a roofer, and put back properly in full operating condition? I don’t think so. That’s why I concluded that the bulk of solar should be deployed on commercial roofs and parking areas. Peak power usage at most businesses coincides with peak solar resource, unlike the typical home.

 
Comment by X-GSfixr
2010-01-13 13:43:08

A “warranty” on any product is only as good as the company backing it.

 
Comment by alpha-sloth
2010-01-13 15:34:54
 
Comment by james
2010-01-13 17:43:19

Remember that 1% per year works out something like this…

12% efficiency at begining of life… after 25 years you are down to 9% efficinecy (25% less power). The solar cells in the nasty enviroment in space are doing pretty well after 20+ years though.

I think if you make the designs more modular you can pick out bad cells and rework.

Anyhow, the cost/energy to make the cells is dropping pretty fast like most other semiconductors.

Right now the math on solar is pretty bad. However, just like most other electronics, that can change really fast.

 
Comment by iftheshoefits
2010-01-13 19:40:17

The math won’t change as fast or as much as many hope, though. Improvements in solar technology don’t follow Moore’s law. No doubling of improvement every 18 months for 40 years - current panels get 14-17%, and the theoretical maximum is about 55% I’m told. So 3x or so is all the better it will ever get, and they can’t get smaller in size, since you’ve got to have the surface area for collection.

They’ll make an impact at the margins, and in special applications.

 
 
 
Comment by DennisN
2010-01-13 09:38:48

My doctor is trying this. He and his wife take the horse trailer up to the national forests and harvest firewood each year. But if everyone did this, the forests would become denuded and the air would stink.

Comment by DinOR
2010-01-13 11:04:16

DennisN,

( Probably freakin’ Oregonians huh? )

Yeah, before I’d commit to using wood as a primary heating source, I’d at least like to know which woodstove is absolutely the most efficient.

I think the better answer is to locate in a place that requires neither heating nor… air conditioning, but I think everyone’s figured out I “went native” long ago.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by aNYCdj
2010-01-13 09:55:41

How come the Guvmint didn’t demand r39 or 52 insulation, double glazed windows on every home built in the last 30 years…how much imported oil would that have saved?

—————————————-
but seldom is weaning yourself off The Grid mentioned?

Comment by oxide
2010-01-13 14:29:18

cheney

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by james
2010-01-13 18:34:04

I don’t get this comment at all. Large scale power generation is very efficient. I expect it to get more so and become cheaper.

If we do a lot of downsizing in houses, particularly in places like Nevada, Inland Empire, Pheonix exc you will use a lot less resources to cool the places.

Also think we are getting more efficient with electricity use. So, you go to widescale use of florescent lighting and poof electricity use drops.

If we get more LED advancements I expect even more drops in required power.

Don’t think the grid is hanging on by a thread. Little old recessions like this one drive people back into core industries like electric power generation and distribution.

There is also a modernization effort going on to make delivery more efficient.

 
 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-01-13 04:46:42

Party on…

Botox to vacations: Where bankers spend their bonuses.
For just $17,500 a night you can rent Dunton Hot Springs, a private town in the Colorado mountains.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Wall Street bankers are putting together their wish lists for 2010 — and they’re not holding back. After last year’s dry spell, bonuses for top-level executives are expected to be sky high. Maybe even records.

Bankers at Goldman Sachs and Chase are anticipating bonuses of more than $500,000 a piece, on average, so they’ll have plenty to spend.

Here’s where they’ll be putting the money.

Real Estate: $3 million to $5 million

Buying apartments, second homes and vacation houses tops the list of ways bankers will most likely spend their money.

“Because these are big Wall Street bonuses, people are buying million-dollar-plus properties in the Hamptons, South Florida, skiing communities like Vail and Aspen, and Europe,” said Milton Pedraza, CEO of the New York-based research firm the Luxury Institute.
Wall Street’s big bonus culture

Of course, the first status residence is in Manhattan, and bankers are already starting to check out the goods in advance of their windfall. They’re putting up huge down payments, which has helped the $3 million to $5 million sector of the city’s housing market to rebound, said Pamela Liebman, CEO of New York-based brokerage firm Corcoran.

Comment by REhobbyist
2010-01-13 07:07:36

I hate those bastards.

Comment by Al
2010-01-13 07:15:28

I wonder if torches and pitch forks are on their wish lists?

Comment by X-GSfixr
2010-01-13 13:46:36

“Hamptons, Florida,……..Vail and Aspen”

At least everyone will know where they are hiding.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by exeter
2010-01-13 17:18:48

You took the thought right out of my skull REhobbyist.

 
 
Comment by oxide
2010-01-13 07:42:57

So now the banks are bailing out their own toxic assets? Hey, that’s gre—

Oh, wait, they’re using taxpayer money. And they’re whining about socialism while being more socialist than Huey Long ever was.

Socialism is too good for these A-holes.

Comment by mikey
2010-01-13 08:09:24

Associated posts loss, cuts dividend, plans share sale
By Paul Gores of the Journal Sentinel

Posted: Jan. 11, 2010

New Associated Banc-Corp chief executive Philip B. Flynn conducted a review of his bank’s loan portfolio and didn’t like some of what he found.

The result: Monday’s announcement that Associated lost $180.6 million in the fourth quarter, would raise $400 million in capital through a common stock offering and that the quarterly dividend would be cut to a penny from a nickel.

Shares of Green Bay-based Associated, which is the parent company of Associated Bank, closed down almost 7% after the announcement
Associated ’s loss of $180.6 million, or $1.41 a share, compares with net income of $13.6 million, or 11 cents, a year earlier.

Associated said it added $394.8 million to its reserves in the quarter to cover potential bad debt. Allocating money to loan-loss reserves cuts directly into a bank’s profit.

Associated wrote off $233.8 million in loans - about $165.2 million related to commercial real estate construction. That compares with $45.9 million in charge-offs in the fourth quarter of 2008.

Analysts said they weren’t surprised by Flynn’s announcement because it’s not unusual for a new bank CEO to come in and take tough measures to address a problem he or she didn’t create

…McEvoy noted that Associated disclosed for the first time details about its nearly $1 billion national credit portfolio. It contains loans in which Associated participated with other banks to finance projects around the country. The construction part of that portfolio showed signs of stress, he said.

Fitzpatrick said he thinks that with the additional $400 million in stock, which he noted are dilutive to existing shareholders, Associated should have plenty of capital to get through the economic downturn. Associated received $525 million from the U.S. Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, in November 2008 to help boost its capital, which acts as a cushion against bad loans.

…With assets of almost $23 billion, Associated is the second-largest bank based in Wisconsin, trailing only Milwaukee’s M&I Bank.

http://tinyurl.com/yac39ap

 
Comment by DennisN
2010-01-13 09:40:33

How about a Huey Long demise?

 
 
Comment by mikey
2010-01-13 08:45:07

About a year or two ago, word got out that the old CEO of the second largest bank in Wisconsin, Associated Bank of Green Bay, Wi ., was gonna load his crew of branch managers and loan sharks onto a plane for a “vacation” at a luxury Caribbean Resort for a little Sun and Fun.

They had recieved 1/2 a billion in TARP money and the Press had a field day and the planned trip was deep 6′d.

They are bleeding money on bad CRE and loans in States outside of Wisconsin are are currently doing write-downs with a new CEO and playing with the stock today.

I should have a post about that showing up somewhere.

 
Comment by Jim A.
2010-01-13 11:06:02

Perhaps they’re just good liars, but these guys SOUND like they actually think that they have earned and deserve this kind of money. For being in charge while record profits were made by creating a HUGE financial bubble. Because no peons who only made 200k a year were capable of running these companies into insolvency in such a short period of time. ARRRGH!

 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-01-13 05:32:05

U.S. Chamber warns of ‘double-dip’ recession because of Dem policies.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue warned the U.S. faces a double-dip recession because of the taxes and regulations under consideration by the Democratic Congress and President Barack Obama.

“Congress, the administration and states must recognize that our weak economy simply could not sustain all the new taxes, regulations and mandates now under consideration. It’s a sure-fire recipe for a double-dip recession, or worse,” Donohue said in a speech providing the Chamber’s outlook for 2010.

Comment by Al
2010-01-13 07:23:31

Right call on the double dip, but Dohohue missed a few reasons:

1. People are still losing jobs.
2. Prices are still being distorted by easy money.
3. Banks are insolvent by normal accounting standards.
4. Many, many, many more foreclosures to come.
5. People are broke.
6. Businesses are broke.
7. Governments are broke.
8. We’re always being told that nothing is wrong.
9. Stuctural problems aren’t being fixed, because nothing is wrong.

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-13 08:02:29

Why does any of the above matter, so long as the Fed is still armed with a printing press and a bully pulpit?

 
Comment by AbsoluteBeginner
2010-01-13 08:08:26

Don’t be a hater.

 
 
Comment by oxide
2010-01-13 07:44:49

Right call on the double dip, wrong call on the “because.”

Don’t these folk know what an “induction period” is? I’d bet money they do, but they exploit it because they know J6P doesn’t.

 
Comment by laurel, md
2010-01-13 08:32:14

The Chamber of Comm missed a great opportunity to trot out its standard economic plan:

1…Eliminate capital gains tax
2…Eliminate The Death Tax
3…School voutchers
4…Privatize most gov functions
5…Eliminate Social Security and Medicare

Comment by scdave
2010-01-13 09:23:37

Of your list #4 would provide the biggest benefit…

Comment by aNYCdj
2010-01-13 10:18:23

Sc dave:

ONLY because it would be easy to fire the slack/deadwood and become a real customer service friendly operation.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by SaladSD
2010-01-13 13:06:31

Yeah, Enron served us really well in it’s hey-day overseeing access to the power grid. .

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by scdave
2010-01-13 14:31:07

I don’t think I would let the private sector control my power but they could read my water meter…

 
Comment by exeter
2010-01-13 17:23:24

And while one is reading your water meter, his $7/hr counterpart is pissing in the elevated storage tank.

 
 
 
 
Comment by measton
2010-01-13 09:16:55

AGain pure propaganda

The double dip recesion has nothing to do with pending legislation or regulation. It has everything to do with the fact that interest rates and gas prices might rise and unemployment/underemployment and loss of benefits are rising. State tax rates are bound to increase due to loss of revenue and their inabillity to print their way out of the problem.

II think we all know from what corner the chamber of commerce fights out of.

This entire mess can be placed at the feet of Wall Street. They bribed our gov to create rules that have lead to this mess.

Comment by DinOR
2010-01-13 09:39:02

measton,

Credit Default Swaps have been around since the early 90’s, so long… before GS was repealed. Please to note, they really didn’t begin to ramp up until late 2003.

Again, all of this in response to irresponsible NAR/MBA-driven lending. Buffet ( the ultimate insider ) began warning about the use of derivatives about that time.

Comment by measton
2010-01-13 11:51:54

of this in response to irresponsible NAR/MBA-driven lending

NAR MBA driven lending is directly related to securitization and the abillity to offload bad debt. Securitization and lac of regulation are the direct result of Wall Street manipulation of gov.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by DinOR
2010-01-13 12:21:20

measton,

I think we can all tell by the tone of all of your other posts this morning you’re in no mood to listen to reason. But the truth is, the whole MBS circle-j#rk starts at the local level.

At it’s height, we were suckers for not having 2nd and 3rd homes, ( let alone a 20 year old’s house of cards built on his inflated income as mortgage broker ) You can chicken or the egg this thing all you want but sans a Housing Boom, there would never have been the need for any of this.

 
Comment by measton
2010-01-13 15:06:43

No it starts at the Wall Street Level

If banks could not sell those crappy mortgages they wouldn’t make them. The market for MBS were made possible by Wall STreet magic and BS rating agencies. Joe 6pack only sees real estate prices going up and of course jumps on the band wagon. If cheap easy credit had not been available real estate prices would not have risen as rapidly and even the Joe6pks w money would not have been as inclined to speculate on housing.

 
Comment by alpha-sloth
2010-01-13 16:05:04

DinOR-

The easy money policies of the Fed and other central banks were the nucleus of the problem. Housing was merely one of the earliest and most noticeable manifestations of this easy money looking for a ‘home’, as it were. Deregulation allowed the ensuing bubbles to grow immensely larger and cause way more damage than they would have in a more adequately regulated market.

easy money + deregulation = where we are now

 
 
 
Comment by Jim A.
2010-01-13 11:13:17

I would argue that the comming second dip is mainly due to the fact that the MASSIVE government intervention propping up the banks and Wall Street is unsupportable. Hey, slowing the decline and minimizing “overshoot” to the downside is probably a GOOD thing, all told. But you simply can’t stabilize the markets ANYWHERE you might want to. They can only reach stability at a supportable level, and we haven’t fallen to one yet. It’s those pesky fundamentals, and while bubble pumpers use that word alot, I’m convinced that they have NO idea what it really means.

 
 
 
Comment by Muggy
2010-01-13 05:50:38

So I’ve started asking myself, “what’s wrong with this house?” Basically anything that is appropriately priced in the Pinellas area has a major defect. The good news is that these homes are encouraging my wife to rent longer. I don’t know how long we can string along our landlords, but I don’t want to drive them nuts either.

At this point I’m a broken horse. You can put me down, let me run, whatever…

Comment by rusty
2010-01-13 07:24:59

I hear you. We are in East Tampa and renting. Anytime we see an open house, we get curious and go look. And sure enough, if the price is ‘right’, then something big is wrong! We have until August to either renew the lease or move on, so no rush just yet. But it is sort of frustrating that prices, in a town with over 12% unemployment, have not come down much. In fact on Zillow (I know, I know) are going UP. Yet there are 2 foreclosures in my area in the pipeline, and 7 houses for sale. Nothing is moving.

 
Comment by joeyinCalif
2010-01-13 07:44:45

heh.. The other day i almost was gonna try and cheer you up by predicting that it could very well the wife who resisted buying once she got involved in the actual process.. but you were pretty glum and I didn’t wanna say too much…

As for landlords, my suggestion is to leave well enough alone.
I don’t think it wise to demand a rent reduction, nor to give them the notion you plan on moving out, if it can be avoided.
A good landlord might immediately begin the search for someone to replace you… and leases don’t last forever, not to mention month to month.

Comment by DinOR
2010-01-13 07:57:39

joey,

Certainly held true in my case. I made every effort to be The Model Renter. Participated w/ gusto for every Fall/Spring clean up, took out the recycling w/ a forced smile, never so much as a day late on rent.

In the end though, it’s the negative cash flow that drives the bus. We were doomed the minute we signed the lease. Nothing ‘that’ good can last forever.

Comment by joeyinCalif
2010-01-13 08:14:34

I was more than the model renter. I put myself on call 24-7 and helped do whatever the old feller who owned the place needed done. It rarely inconvenienced me. Trimming trees.. getting up on the roof.. doing stuff his old legs couldn’t do anymore.

It sure paid off for me. The guy was honorable and it was a two way street. I was never refused anything I asked for and even got some stuff I didn’t ask for.. and there were times when I couldn’t pay the rent..

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by DinOR
2010-01-13 08:41:59

joey,

Glad it worked out for you. As a renter, I was very involved in whatever needed to be done. The ‘last’ thing I wanted to do was hand the LL the perfect excuse to say “Oh it was more trouble than it was worth”.

But like I say, all the can-do attitude in the world can’t fill a black hole of neg. cash flow. In the end, it didn’t matter. Now as an ‘owner’ ( I don’t do JACK! )

 
Comment by oxide
2010-01-13 11:04:01

The guy was honorable.

I can throw out your data point by the Q-test on that statement alone.

 
Comment by Jim A.
2010-01-13 11:22:05

Well there’s a difference between renting from an experienced landlord and an accidental one. An experienced landlord has had bad tenants and empty rentals. They KNOW just how bad either can be, and appreciate people who pay their rent and create no problems. They’re usually pretty good at figuring out what the market will bear for rents. This is good for tenants in markets that are saturated with housing, not so good when there is a real shortage. But several LLs have pointed out that good, long term tenants are easly worth a 10% break in the rents.

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by Muggy
2010-01-13 05:53:05

Bad Andy, I saw your post the other day when you said you let the house go back to the back. I’m not asking for personal information, but can you provide me more insight to the whole process? How much of a falling knife did you catch? At what point did you jingle mail? Why did you jingle mail?

I am again at home today — all day — with a sick little dude, so let’s yap it up.

Comment by oxide
2010-01-13 06:06:35

I would also be interested in knowing what happened to Andy’s FICO: how far it fell and how long it takes to raise it again.

Some of these FB’s are hanging on for years. In the end, they waste their money on interest payments, which accomplishes nothing for them. It would be far better for an FB to walk, especially if he retained his job. He could walk, declare BK to get rid of the CC debt, rent, and use the interest money instead to live a cash life, and eventually rebuild his credit rating with a secure credit card. It would take years, but fewer years than it would if he tried to keep the house.

Comment by combotechie
2010-01-13 06:18:01

You are absolutely correct. But for the rest of us non-FBers it is to our benifit that FBs sacrifice every cent they have in trying to support the financial system they had a willing hand in screwing up.

Comment by GrizzlyBear
2010-01-13 12:44:57

No, it’s not. The sooner these FB’s default, the better. Getting them into a cheaper rental, where they have more discretionary income to support small businesses, and the economy as a whole, is a much better thing. The additional foreclosures will help put more downward pressure on house prices, rewarding those who have the patience to wait. It’s a given these FB’s will default, and it’s best to get it over with ASAP.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by joeyinCalif
2010-01-13 06:38:38

First off, i wanna say that the following is not intended to be an attack on those who choose the path, and certainly not on Bad Andy if he’s among those who walked away. Life is complicated, people have their reasons for doing things, they do the best they know how, and I am not one to judge.
——–

Encouraging people to walk instead of living up to their obligations actually hurts you and me and, among other things, it costs us money. Here’s my reasoning:

We like to think that only the bank / lender will take the loss. But is that true?

Walk-aways might force the bank out of business. In this case, I can no longer use that bank. It can’t lend me money. I can’t take advantage of any of it’s services. In addition to the possibility that customer’s savings account money just evaporates, you or I might work at that bank.. someone certainly does.. and we lose our jobs.. because people walked away.
—–

Suppose the loss hurts the bank, but doesn’t pull the bank under. In that case the bank cuts back on some services and fires only some employees while (most likely) raising various fees and charging additional fees to it’s customers in an attempt to recover the losses. So here again, you and I and other customers / consumers suffer for it.
——-

This walking away doesn’t stop with the bank. There is a chain reaction. We all suffer when individuals don’t pay for their own mistakes.

There is NO WAY that business will “take the losses”. Business doesn’t “take” anything laying down. It simply passes the added costs to the consumer, whether consciously and deliberately or not. We alone pay for everything.

Business is our jobs. Business provides our food and electricity, TV and cars, computers and internet connections, and all the other stuff of life. Our comfort and wealth and health are not isolated from the fate of the business world.
We and business have a symbiotic relationship and we are bound together in every way.
——

And I don’t like paying for other people’s mistakes.. And I am naturally against encouraging people to do things that will force me (us) to pay for their mistakes.

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-13 07:14:18

I encourage households to treat the disposition of their mortgage loan like a business decision. If it makes sense for them to walk and it is not against the law, by all means do so. I realize some God-like bankers (e.g. Lloyd Blankfein) might find this idea morally repugnant, as they themselves always strive to subject their business decisions to the loftiest level of moral rectitude.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by combotechie
2010-01-13 07:45:48

“I encourage households to treat the disposition of their mortgage loan like a business decision.”

I want the same “business decision” mentality that decided to buy the house to remain.

That’s why I say support the NAR; They’re the folks that’ll keep hope alive among the FBs (and will spend their own money in doing so).

 
Comment by DinOR
2010-01-13 07:59:20

“loftiest level of moral rectitude”

LOL. Oh puhleeze!

 
Comment by joeyinCalif
2010-01-13 08:01:14

This idea that we pay for the walk-away’s mistakes has nothing to do with morals.

Business doesn’t care. It doesn’t feel pain. Business doesn’t think and it certainly has no moral component.

Business is like water. It takes the path of least resistance and eventually overcomes all obstacles in it’s way. It moves at whatever speed and becomes whatever shape it’s environment allows it to.

Starve it and it shrinks. Feed it and it grows. Punish it and it retreats. It is we the consumers who do the starving or feeding or punishing, and it is we that suffer or benefit from how we treat our businesses.

 
Comment by iftheshoefits
2010-01-13 08:50:12

Toxic, failed business models need to be starved, and either shrink to appropriate, sustainable size, or go away completely, so that the more viable businesses can better thrive.

Analogous to pruning in the care of gardens or orchards. Not only have we not pruned back the toxic weeds, we’ve chosen to fertilize them more than the healthy growth, with obvious results.

 
Comment by mikey
2010-01-13 09:19:51

Buying a primary residence is still a business transaction, regardless what NAR and the pom-pom cheerleaders call a Dreamhome process or whatever. The RE information and loan process is normally one-sided and the buyer is always expected to “use due diligence”. It’s still a business risk to both parties.

If you find yourself in a business situation or model that hits or fits the Laws of Diminishing Returns, then that’s also a personal business decision too.

If any gain is not worth the pain… then drop it and Hit the Bricks.

:)

 
Comment by measton
2010-01-13 09:21:19

BS

MS walked away from their debts and business does it all the time. No morals what so ever. If I borrowed from an honest local bank that had the deposits of my neighbors and no federal backing I’d say morals would affect my decision. IN our current system the best thing to do is walk. In fact I’d say walking is the moral thing to do, otherwise you are not punishing the people that caused this mess and the system won’t get bad enough to force the change that is needed.

 
Comment by joeyinCalif
2010-01-13 09:30:15

..Toxic, failed business models need to be starved..

Look.. Toxic, failed business models will naturally starve to death.

If they do NOT starve to death then you are mistaken about their toxicity and their failed practices. The proof is in the pudding, not in someone’s opinion.

And that gets to the root of it all.
We WANTED our banks to make bad, risky loans to us. When businesses act the way we want them to, they are NOT failures.

Now that WE have to suffer the consequences of getting what we (stupidly) wanted, and it’s a bitter pill to swallow, we then blame the monsters we created. And those monsters will now starve and die.

(of course there’s always the possibility that enough people still like the monsters and will continue to support their existence..)

 
Comment by joeyinCalif
2010-01-13 09:37:23

measton .. You want to socialize the losses by encouraging them to just walk away. This amazes me. Why?
Why not hold them to their obligations?

Bubble mania has morphed into a completely different social disease.. and just like the mania, nobody sees this one coming.

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2010-01-13 09:49:05

Look.. Toxic, failed business models will naturally starve to death.

Am I missing something big here?

How will they “naturally starve to death” if they are now bailed out?

How will they “naturally starve to death” if their toxic assets are now owned by you, me and “the children”?

 
Comment by iftheshoefits
2010-01-13 10:20:45

“Look.. Toxic, failed business models will naturally starve to death.”

Not when they’re backed up by endless government bailouts and backstops. That’s the whole point.

“We WANTED our banks to make bad, risky loans to us. ”

Who is this WE that you’re talking about? You’re just spouting Eddie-grade BS. This accumulated housing debt is never going to be repaid. Pick your poison as to how it gets disposed of, they’re all going to be painful. I say let’s get on with the debt defaulting and clearing, and get to the other side so that we can begin to resume building a more functioning economic system.

 
Comment by DinOR
2010-01-13 10:47:56

“we then blame the monsters we created”

About TIME somebody said that! The Quicken Pick-a-Payment loan didn’t sprout up from thin air? The ( yeah I know ) consumer decided ( through prudent use of a misguided tax code ) that MEW-based consumption was the way-to-go!

Somewhere there’s a “Museum of Products that didn’t make it” and nearly each and every one of them was driven by the mfrs. The bungled loans ended up on WS, but they didn’t originate them.

 
Comment by Jim A.
2010-01-13 11:34:24

Toxic loans have reckless idiots on BOTH sides of the transaction. But there will ALWAYS be a new crop of optimistic idiots willing to borrow their way to the poor house. If we would strive to prevent these sorts of crazy expansions in debt levels the ones that we have to disuade are the lenders. Because there are fewer of them, and they are generally better at figuring out exactly where their own best interests lie. So we need a two pronged action:
1.) We need to make sure that lenders have some of their own skin in the game. Once lenders managed to remove virtually all of their risk from making risky loans, the loans got exponentially riskier. Surprise, surprise.
2.) We need to punish those who made those loans by allowing them to default. Walkaways, forcing the liquadation of REO assets, cramdowns etc. can all be part of that process.

Not until bad loans are bad business will the madness stop.

 
Comment by joeyinCalif
2010-01-13 11:48:49

..Who is this WE that you’re talking about?..

iftheshoefits,
The WE is we the people. Who else could it be?

We might try to narrow it down to those who are “truly responsible”, but that will eliminate everyone because everyone has an equally valid opinion, and nobody would accept blame in the matter.

So, I choose to blame everyone. That way, the guilty are certainly included. The rest of us will not suffer any pain beyond the pain we’re going to suffer anyway, and the innocents among us may learn a thing or two about life just by participating in the game.
All in all, it’s win-win.

 
Comment by Al
2010-01-13 13:33:29

“We WANTED our banks to make bad, risky loans to us. When businesses act the way we want them to, they are NOT failures.”

Hmmm. I want my bank to pay me 10% interest on my savings account, but they don’t. How is it that they can resist doing something we all want? Impossible.

 
Comment by Rental Watch
2010-01-13 15:53:50

Weren’t the rules of the game pretty clear? You lend me money to buy the house. If I don’t pay you back, you can take the house.

The banks took risk whenever they lent money. They chose to take more risk as the cycle wore on. This was encouraged by 1) low Fed funds rates–people were stretching for yield and 2) silly ratings on RMBS tranches.

In any event, if the borrower can, and they are acting economically rationally, they probably should walk from the house.

If they put 0% down, and could never really afford the payment, shame on them–they were part of the problem, and are probably walking away because they can’t continue payments anyway.

If they put 20% down and actually could make the payments, I feel for them somewhat–they took a real hit through their ordeal, probably more individually than any non-buyer’s share of the socialized losses. They likely bought after being encouraged to do so by nearly everyone, family/parents, government, media, NAR, lenders, etc.

 
Comment by Spokaneman
2010-01-13 16:29:55

The banks, at least the publicly held ones, had a fiduciary obligation to their shareholders to maximize profits. By writting Crap loans then pawning them off on Freddie, Fannie and other willing buyers, the banks did just that. And by getting the bad loans off thier balance sheet and on to someone elses’s they protected themselves going forward. The least intellegent of the banks wrote loans that were so bad that not even Freddie and Fannie would buy them and those are the ones that have failed, or been massively bailed out.

I’m not condoning the practice, but its a fact. A bank that refused to make Alt-A, option ARM and other high risk mortgages would have starved to death. The smart ones limited the number and was certain to write mortgages that they could quickly sell.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-13 18:07:35

“Business is like water. It takes the path of least resistance and eventually overcomes all obstacles in it’s way. It moves at whatever speed and becomes whatever shape it’s environment allows it to.”

That’s why jail time for those who, through illegal means, contributed to the mortgage meltdown is a more useful remedy than making sure ginormous bonus contracts are honored for managers whose fatal decisions resulted in the production of hundreds of billions of dollars worth of toxic loans.

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-13 07:16:14

“We like to think that only the bank / lender will take the loss. But is that true?”

Do you assume a world with or without bailouts of banks that throw away money by making loans to people who are unlikely to repay them?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Al
2010-01-13 07:31:27

You’re going supply side here. Try the demand approach.

A bank is stupid and lends money to people that can’t pay it back. It’s unable to unload enough of the losses on the government and fails. Shareholders are wiped out and bondholders get some percentage. However, there is still demand for the services provided by the bank, so a new owner takes it over (buys out the bond holders) and life goes on.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-13 07:50:06

What’s more, Darwinian principles suggest that if stupid banks which make bad loans fail, say due to massive walkaways by borrowers who realize the bank loaned them way more money than they could ever hope to repay, the next generation of banks will make smarter loans with a higher probability of repayment. Walkaways encourage prudent lending practice!

 
Comment by combotechie
2010-01-13 07:57:22

“Walkaways encourage prudent lending practice!”

This is true if the walkaways don’t ending up destroying the financial system, in which case there wouldn’t be a lending practice to worry about - prudent or otherwise.

 
Comment by DinOR
2010-01-13 08:02:02

All true, just don’t lose sight of the fact that on the other end of the food chain, it was builders walking away from projects that broke the smaller local banks.

How much sleep did the builders lose over it? And you’re feeling simply awful because..?

 
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2010-01-13 10:08:21

“This is true if the walkaways don’t ending up destroying the financial system[...]”

Destroy the financial system, and another will spring up in its place. If it is necessary or even good for commerce, it will be reinvented. And the new set of banks/lenders will lend prudently for a few generations.

Eff ‘em—let them fail!

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-13 18:09:11

“Destroy the financial system, and another will spring up in its place.”

Hasn’t this pretty much already occurred? Unfortunately, the newly sprung system is a clone of the one that was recently destroyed.

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-13 07:44:56

Joey — Did you catch this recent article?

The Way We Live Now
Walk Away From Your Mortgage!

By ROGER LOWENSTEIN
Published: January 7, 2010

John Courson, president and C.E.O. of the Mortgage Bankers Association, recently told The Wall Street Journal that homeowners who default on their mortgages should think about the “message” they will send to “their family and their kids and their friends.” Courson was implying that homeowners — record numbers of whom continue to default — have a responsibility to make good. He wasn’t referring to the people who have no choice, who can’t afford their payments. He was speaking about the rising number of folks who are voluntarily choosing not to pay.

Such voluntary defaults are a new phenomenon. Time was, Americans would do anything to pay their mortgage — forgo a new car or a vacation, even put a younger family member to work. But the housing collapse left 10.7 million families owing more than their homes are worth. So some of them are making a calculated decision to hang onto their money and let their homes go. Is this irresponsible?

Businesses — in particular Wall Street banks — make such calculations routinely. Morgan Stanley recently decided to stop making payments on five San Francisco office buildings. A Morgan Stanley fund purchased the buildings at the height of the boom, and their value has plunged. Nobody has said Morgan Stanley is immoral — perhaps because no one assumed it was moral to begin with. But the average American, as if sprung from some Franklinesque mythology, is supposed to honor his debts, or so says the mortgage industry as well as government officials. Former Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. declared that “any homeowner who can afford his mortgage payment but chooses to walk away from an underwater property is simply a speculator — and one who is not honoring his obligation.” (Paulson presumably was not so censorious of speculation during his 32-year career at Goldman Sachs.)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by joeyinCalif
2010-01-13 08:07:22

PB.. it’s patently obvious that you do not recognize the connection between the welfare of the business world and that of our consumer world. There’s no need to press the point.
Believe me when I say I know where you’re coming from.

 
Comment by oxide
2010-01-13 08:46:17

I think it’s patently obvious that PB does. And it’s also patently obvious that not only are the banks holding us hostage, but being hypocritical about it as well. And that’s before they pick up their bonuses. Why shouldn’t individuals give banks a taste of their own medicine.

 
Comment by joeyinCalif
2010-01-13 09:18:32

Once again, if you the consumer / employee (or our elected leaders in government) punishes a bank, business or any business sector, it will be you the consumer /employee that eventually suffers for it.

The pain or financial losses or suffering by business will be passed down the line until it is delivered to our doorstep. The buck stops here and there is no avoiding it.

We depend on business for EVERYTHING and business depends on us for EVERYTHING. Our mutually shared society cannot survive without each other.
—–

If you want to get even with the business world for “holding you hostage”, why stop with banks? Why not telcom and the oil companies and innumerable others?

Imagine that we decide to crush ALL businesses and are successful. What sort of world is the result? Are we then hunter gatherers or are would that be a step up?

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2010-01-13 10:02:39

Once again, if you the consumer / employee (or our elected leaders in government) punishes a bank, business or any business sector, it will be you the consumer /employee that eventually suffers for it.

True but I don’t consider the following “punishing” banks.

1. Walking away. Because the banks receive the house in return as per the contract. How can a known and agreed to recourse be punishment?

2. Holding banks accountable to one of capitalism’s golden rules: The threat or actuality of FAILURE.

 
Comment by Al
2010-01-13 10:28:27

“Once again, if you the consumer / employee (or our elected leaders in government) punishes a bank, business or any business sector, it will be you the consumer /employee that eventually suffers for it.”

How is letting a bank fail punishment? If you drop a hammer on your foot, is the resultant pain a punishment? As soon as the banks dropped prudent lending standards, they effectively let go of the hammer. Besides, under the capitalistic system failures are expected. The failures need to die so new and efficient businesses can replace them. As long as there is demand for banking services, there will be banks even if it’s not the current ones. New banks will have employees and serve customers. Any suffering by the general public will be minor and well worth it.

 
Comment by joeyinCalif
2010-01-13 10:45:26

RioAmericanInBrasil,
We cannot “punish” banks or any business. Business is not real in that sense that it can be touched.
People who own and work for a business are real people, but they are us. They (we) can be punished.

Bottom line is that successful attempts to punish business actually punishes us. Since a business has about as much sensitivity as a rock, they can’t feel hunger, cold, thirst or pain… while we certainly do.

As for your point #2, there is no need to hold banks accountable.
If some bank makes a profit it survives. If they make a profit it is ONLY because we people choose to patronize that bank.

 
Comment by joeyinCalif
2010-01-13 10:51:36

..How is letting a bank fail punishment?..

It punishes the consumer in the same way that letting the corner store go out of business is punishment. You have to walk an extra mile to get your daily bread.

Of course there could be more serious consequences.. you might work at that store and lose your job. Or what you need from that store won’t be there in an emergency, and it costs you your life..
Who knows how you will pay for it going out of business, but pay you will.. or I will.. or one of us will.

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2010-01-13 11:34:18


If some bank makes a profit it survives. If they make a profit it is ONLY because we people choose to patronize that bank.

The main point is missed. Most of us are talking about this subject in the context of the banks that were bailed out, thus violating the rules of capitalism which is the basis of business which is the basis of jobs which is the basis of income.

When we break this basic rule of capitalism, everything down the line is threatened.

So in light of this context, your quote might read?:

“If some (bailed out) bank makes a profit it survives. If they make a profit it is ONLY because” (the government used taxpayer money to bail them out.)

Words in parentheses are mine.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-13 12:32:36

“Believe me when I say I know where you’re coming from.”

Believe me when I say I know you are coming from the lending industry side of the issue.

 
Comment by Al
2010-01-13 12:36:48

“It punishes the consumer in the same way that letting the corner store go out of business is punishment.”

Great news for the local corner store! Jack up your prices as much as you want, treat customers like crap and only stock the shelves with stuff no one wants. Because if you go out of business, people will suffer.

Nonsense. A new corner store will open if demand is there. It almost sounds like you want a centrally planned economy or something.

 
Comment by X-GSfixr
2010-01-13 14:11:23

“Business can’t be touched”

Businesses aren’t owned by Skynet. People “own” businesses. Seems to me that the owners of badly run businesses should take some kind of hit when they run/manage a business badly, hopefully in a manner that is proportional to the failure. That’s what SHOULD be happening.

Unfortunately, what we have is “Supply-Side punishment”. The
“Masters of the Universe” have all kinds of ways to avoid the a$$ reaming, and the pain is “trickling down”.

 
Comment by In Montana
2010-01-13 14:21:33

“Why shouldn’t individuals give banks a taste of their own medicine.”

2 wrongs don’t make a right - ? Or so I’ve heard.

 
Comment by exeter
2010-01-13 17:28:24

I’ll say it for you EddieJunior……

The poor banks!!!!!!

Now get some spine and say it yourself. You know you want to but you also know you’re dead wrong.

 
 
Comment by edgewaterjohn
2010-01-13 08:57:13

Yuck. When house prices were going up it was the wild west. Now that prices are falling there’s all this talk of shared sacrifice?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by scdave
2010-01-13 09:34:22

Excellent point ejohn….

 
Comment by oxide
2010-01-13 11:18:23

Concur.

It was OK for banks to be selfish and “look out for #1″ while they were the ones making the profits. But now that some FB’s are looking out for themselves, the banks are getting out the kumbaya drums and singing ♪Oh Mr. FB, if you walk, you’ll hurt your Fellow Man. ♪

Yeah sure. And if Mr. FB doesn’t walk and chooses instead to drain his blood, who benefits? Not just Fellow Man, but the bank too! My, what a coincidence. How convenient for the bank.

 
Comment by DinOR
2010-01-13 12:30:04

oxide,

And by and large I agree btw, but let me ask you something, why were we treated like buffons all during The Great Run-up?

Because ‘we’ “didn’t understand l-e-v-e-r-a-g-e!” Sit in any employer’s lunchroom in 2005 and get an -earful- of it! In fact, leverage was not only the name of the game, how many times did we hear ( on this very blog btw ) “that you should borrow all the money they are willing to lend you!”

I mean, it was The Mantra for almost a decade.

 
Comment by Rental Watch
2010-01-13 15:58:28

DinOR-

It’s still the mantra at the federal government level. If the rest of the world is willing to lend you money for nothing on a short-term basis, or very little on a long-term basis, the powers that be are choosing to borrow it.

The problem is that all the deficit spending isn’t adding to the productive capacity of the country, or necessarily making the country safer. We are just paying now for not saving money previously.

 
 
Comment by scdave
2010-01-13 09:32:59

Two friends of my son have this problem;

They make roughly $300k between them…They have two children and a very small house on a small lot…They need a bigger house…They can afford a bigger house…Their current house is $150k upside down minimum…What should they do ??

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2010-01-13 09:39:32

What should they do ??

Start drinking heavily.

 
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2010-01-13 10:10:58

“Their current house is $150k upside down minimum…What should they do ??”

That’s a no-brainer: buy-then-walk.

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2010-01-13 10:15:06

But seriously, that one is a tough question. They make a lot of money so they should have other investments too. It also depends what percentages 150K is to their net worth. One year in the late 80s I lost about half of what I was making in that year and it was about 30% of my net worth at the time. It was a bummer but survivable.

Yours is a tough question but I might take the loss and move on.

 
Comment by scdave
2010-01-13 10:40:59

They have significant cash and no other debt…They are really fighting with the decision…Their thinking is/was that they would wait for the market to come back..Then they recognized that they would just end up paying more for the bigger home if they waited…I think ultimately they are going to buy and then walk…

 
Comment by DinOR
2010-01-13 11:09:23

scdave,

Florida circa 2005, no probalo! Cali 2010? None too sure about that one. Haven’t lenders caught on to the “dine and dash” stunt yet?

Given how lenders have moved in lock step where biz lending is concerned, isn’t it possible they’re “mouse housing” on this angle too?

 
Comment by X-GSfixr
2010-01-13 14:13:11

They picked a bad day to stop sniffing glue…… :)

 
Comment by scdave
2010-01-13 14:35:57

Haven’t lenders caught on to the “dine and dash” stunt yet ??

Yes but they can qualify for both loans and they will likely go to a different lender when they purchase the bigger house…

 
 
Comment by neuromance
2010-01-13 20:35:36

This walking away doesn’t stop with the bank. There is a chain reaction. We all suffer when individuals don’t pay for their own mistakes.

There is NO WAY that business will “take the losses”. Business doesn’t “take” anything laying down. It simply passes the added costs to the consumer, whether consciously and deliberately or not. We alone pay for everything.

Business is our jobs. Business provides our food and electricity, TV and cars, computers and internet connections, and all the other stuff of life. Our comfort and wealth and health are not isolated from the fate of the business world.
We and business have a symbiotic relationship and we are bound together in every way.
——

And I don’t like paying for other people’s mistakes.. And I am naturally against encouraging people to do things that will force me (us) to pay for their mistakes.

By this logic, taking down Mafia rackets is bad because “hurting the business hurts us all”.

Absolute nonsense. A business that is inflicting a net cost on society should be terminated.

And the financial industry has imposed trillions in costs onto the society. And no one’s gone to jail! It’s amazing that a bank robber who makes off with 30 or 40 thousand dollars will spend most of his life in jail, yet these corporate executives just get bonuses for doing the same thing, times a million!

It’s mind boggling. And it’s this inane “business worship” that enables it. Incredible.

Businesses that impose net costs on society should be stopped. Period.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Blue Skye
2010-01-13 07:05:41

I think the Bank Rupture Reform in 2005 made it a no ender on the CC debt if one kept their job.

 
Comment by jess
2010-01-13 07:28:02

Some of the rising Real estate Moguls had it so good , but where are they now , if their wealth was all built on debt ? The few I know personally , are now down to the last house , and struggling to keep it , till things ‘turn around’ . Several had a dozen houses , and a growing ego , when it all went wrong . Bankruptcy really is about the best thing for them ,to kill the debt-fuse . At least then they might salvage their Personal lives .Their Marriages . Nothing will finish one off $$$$$ like a nasty Divorce to top it all off . So folks , be nice to your spouses.

Comment by DinOR
2010-01-13 08:07:35

jess,

Nicely done. Any time that topic comes up I’m reminded.., hey, where IS Tim Blixseth any damn way?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-01-13 06:09:52

Fed Seeks to Block Release of Bank Bailout Secrets.

(Bloomberg) — The Federal Reserve asked a U.S. appeals court to block a ruling that for the first time would force the central bank to reveal the identities of financial firms that might have collapsed without the largest government bailout in U.S. history.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan will decide whether the Fed must release records of lending programs that were instituted or expanded to help banks survive the longest recession since the Great Depression. In August, a federal judge ordered that the information be released, responding to a request by Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg News.

“This case is about the identity of the borrower,” said Matthew Collette, a lawyer for the government, in oral arguments yesterday. “This is the equivalent of saying ‘I want all the loan applications that were submitted.’”

Bloomberg argued that the public has the right to know basic information about the “unprecedented and highly controversial use” of public money.

Comment by DinOR
2010-01-13 08:11:56

“I want all the loan applications that were submitted”

And… if ‘I’ were a publicly traded corporation that would be a perfect analogy!

 
 
Comment by Muggy
2010-01-13 06:13:30

Weird, so my friends back in Rochester are in a bidding war over one of their parent’s homes. That is ridiculous.

Comment by Muggy
2010-01-13 08:24:05

Geez, I’ve received more details… how could you possibly live in a bedroom where you know your friend’s parents did it for 30+ years. I know it’s just a house, but some things like this matter to me. Not to mention all of the things we as teenagers did in that house. There’s probably 3,000 cig butts stuffed under the deck.

GAH!

Comment by X-philly
2010-01-13 09:36:50

who says friend’s parents confined their activities to the bedroom only? They could have been doing it all over the house. Think on THAT for a moment…if you dare.

 
Comment by packman
2010-01-13 09:37:55

Ever stay in a hotel?

Comment by Muggy
2010-01-13 10:34:13

“Ever stay in a hotel?”

Yes, but I don’t think any bed I’ve ever slept on was the repeated love pit for my friend’s parents.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by alpha-sloth
2010-01-13 06:14:20

John Lanchester’s new book, I.O.U., is reviewed in the NYTimes. He makes an interesting point about the end of the cold war and the and its relation to the financial crisis:

“Mr. Lanchester suggests that there are larger cultural forces at play. He traces the roots of the crisis to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Before this transformative moment, he writes, Western democracies kept their banks on a relatively short leash. Otherwise, he says, they might have forfeited whatever moral authority they enjoyed over their Communist foes.

“The jet engine of capitalism,” Mr. Lanchester writes, “was harnessed to the oxcart of social justice, to much bleating from the advocates of pure capitalism, but with the effect that the Western liberal democracies became the most admirable societies that the world has ever seen.”

But when the Soviet Union fell, Mr. Lanchester laments, so did the checks and balances on capitalism. After that, he says, the forces of capitalism, particularly the harsher variety practiced in the United States and Britain, held a two-decade-long victory party.

Emboldened by their triumph, he writes, bankers made shameless demands of their governments and got nearly everything they wanted, including the right to trade dangerously complex securities with virtually no regulation. ”

Lanchester is a novelist who also wrote “The Debt to Pleasure”, one of the best books I’ve read in recent years- especially interesting if you’re a ‘foodie’. (Mr. Pussycat, if you’re monitoring us, you would, I think, paricularly enjoy it.)

Comment by Muggy
2010-01-13 06:20:04

This fits right into Taleb’s triplet of opacity (did I get it right, PB?):
# an illusion of understanding of current events,
# a retrospective distortion of historical events,
# an overestimation of factual information, combined with an overvalue of the intellectual elite

Comment by joeyinCalif
2010-01-13 06:51:52

Have a heart! Writers need to come up with fresh ideas in order to pay the monthly bills. I give this Lanchester dude credit for putting a new twist on a subject which I figured had been wrung almost completely dry.

btw.. My new book blames it all on aliens.. no, not the illegal human kind. The other kind.

 
Comment by alpha-sloth
2010-01-13 06:56:13

You could also say it ‘fits right into’ the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy- but saying it fits right in is the easy part. You can say that about just about any conjecture. The hard part is explaining how. So lets hear it… :wink:

Comment by Muggy
2010-01-13 08:25:25

“You can say that about just about any conjecture.”

That’s why science is my big, furry friend. :grin:

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by mikey
2010-01-13 09:29:41

“That’s why science is my big, furry friend.”

Ratzillia Science 101

:)

 
 
 
 
Comment by alpha-sloth
2010-01-13 06:29:59

linkster: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/books/06book.html

(Triplets of Opacity would be a great name for a band.)

Comment by Muggy
2010-01-13 06:56:36

Artist: Triplets of Opacity
Album: Black Swan Guano Bomb

Track Listing
1. Worse Than Expected
2. Nukular Souffle
3. *uck the Appraiza
4.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

Comment by alpha-sloth
2010-01-13 07:05:00

4. the Big D-fault
5. Flippin n the Hood
6. O.B. (Original Bankster)
7. Fear of a Broke Planet
8. My Golden Sacks (keep bouncin’ remix)
9. efil4srotlaer

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Blue Skye
2010-01-13 07:15:52

10. HELOC’s Kitchen

 
Comment by alpha-sloth
2010-01-13 07:19:47

10. 2Big2Jail
11. Smokin the Greenspan
12. EZ at thu Top

 
Comment by Bad Chile
2010-01-13 07:36:30

13: Granite, Stainless, ‘n’ Steal (Bling Bling Mix)

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2010-01-13 09:01:22

But wait! Order now and receive the popular cover song CD!
1. Home Hell California
2. Sympathy for the Seller
3. House of the rising Payment
4. California Screaming
5. Stairway to Hell
6. Take this job and ship it
7. Not Working Man Blues
8. Should I Pay or should I Go
9. Whole Lotta Fakin’ goin’ on
10. Tangled up in Court
11. Living for the Citi
12. American Lie
13. Who’ll stop the Pain

 
Comment by scdave
2010-01-13 09:46:06

Rio is the best so far…That was fricken hilarious Rio… :) :)

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2010-01-13 16:55:26

ThankUveryMuch! And I especially liked “Where the fish have no eyes” too!

 
 
Comment by Dave of the North
2010-01-13 07:42:55

13. Theme from ” Broke-Debt Mountin’ ”
14. Just Walk Away, F-Beeeayyyy

Chrsitmas Bonus Track:

15. O Little Town of Debt-Mayhem

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Blue Skye
2010-01-13 08:11:46

Hankey Pank Blues
I’m so Underwater i could Cry
MEWbalaya
I’ll never get out of this House Alive
Half as Much
Homeless Blues
Why don’t you Loan me

 
Comment by DinOR
2010-01-13 08:17:52

LOL! Do I see an HBB Album in the near future?

I’m not saying Lanchester is completely without validity, but here we go again, assigning whatever agenda we see fit to a real simple problem, DUMB RE loans!

Is his assertion we should put The Wall back up? Would that make everybody happy?

 
Comment by alpha-sloth
2010-01-13 08:18:17

50 Ways to Leave Your Mortgage

 
Comment by oxide
2010-01-13 08:27:15

13. Theme from ” Broke-Debt Mountin’ ”

“I wish I knew how to quit you.” (duet between…HeliBen and BoA? or O-man and GM)

 
Comment by pressboardbox
2010-01-13 10:15:37

“You’ve got a friend (Angello)”
“Kwai me a Wivver” -B. Frank ballad
“Who Let the Dogs Out” -DJ Greenspan EZ Money remix
“Lemme C dat Booty” -LL Blankfein in da house

 
Comment by scdave
2010-01-13 14:37:43

Okay…Who has the best single ??

 
Comment by scdave
2010-01-13 14:39:56

I say Rio with the Platinum Hit;

“Home Hell California”…..

 
Comment by CarrieAnn
2010-01-13 15:38:34

“Achy Breaky Heart”
“Every Debt You Take”
“Under the Boardwalk” (Where We’re Livin’ Now)
“I’m So Broke that I Could Cry”
“Take On Me (and My Kids, We’re Homeless)
“R-E-S-P-E-C-T, I am not a Mortgagee!”
“(I Haven’t Paid That in the) Longest Time”
“Dirty Mind in Muggy’s Friend’s Parent’s B-Room”

 
 
Comment by Pondering the Mess
2010-01-13 10:49:07

4. All is Contained
5. Now is a Great Time to Buy
6. Always Going Up
7. Unto the Bankers
8. Priced Out Forever
9. ???

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2010-01-13 13:37:08

(Sorry guys, it took old Hwy50 some time to hook up the UBS LP player…Hwy drops down needle,…crackle, crackle, pop):

1966 greatest hits album from The Temptations:

Side one
1. “The Way You Do the Things You Do” (Smokey Robinson, Robert Rogers)
2. “Ain’t Too Proud to Beg” (Edward Holland, Jr., Norman Whitfield)
3. “My Heloc”* (Robinson, Ronald White)
4. “Don’t Look Back” (Robinson, White)
5. “Get Ready” (Robinson)
6. “Beauty Is Only Skin Deep” (Holland, Whitfield)

Side two
1. “Since I Lost My Home”* (Warren Moore, Robinson)
2. “The loans Alright With Me” (Holland, Eddie Kendricks, Whitfield)
3. “My Bling” (Moore, Robinson, Rogers)*
4. “It’s Growing” (Moore, Robinson)
5. “I’ll Be in Trouble” (Robinson)
6. ” Lender (Why You Wanna Make Me Blue)”* (Holland, Whitfield)

* Title edit by Hwy50

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by technovelist
2010-01-13 10:18:31

I can’t believe no one has mentioned that greatest HBB hit: “Where the Fish Have No Eyes”!

Comment by X-philly
2010-01-13 11:30:43

perfect.

“And if you go there, I’ll go there with you…”

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by measton
2010-01-13 09:25:47

I think it’s much simpler than that

Banks won the lobbying game

Comment by Muggy
2010-01-13 09:58:46

“Banks won the lobbying game”

Yeah, but they played like Agassi, crank and all…

 
 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-01-13 06:32:35

CHICAGO (MarketWatch) — Mortgage applications rose a seasonally adjusted 14.3% last week as interest rates on fixed-rate mortgages fell, the Mortgage Bankers Association said Wednesday.

Refinancing applications jumped 21.8% in the week ended Jan. 8 compared with the week before, which was shortened for the New Year’s holiday. Applications for mortgages to purchase homes rose a seasonally adjusted 0.8% on a week-to-week basis.

Comment by edgewaterjohn
2010-01-13 08:05:18

No doubt it’s up, but comparing week over week data to a holiday week and trying to make a headline of it is pathetic.

 
 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2010-01-13 06:39:24

Two of Mr. Eddy’s main points lately:
1. Rents are rising
2. It’s a garden variety, typical recession

Reality Check:
So much is out there to disprove these erroneous conclusions but here are a couple examples.

U.S. apartment vacancy rate hits 30-year high
NEW YORK, Jan 7 (Reuters) - The U.S. apartment vacancy rate rose to an almost 30-year high of 8 percent in the fourth quarter, and rents dropped in the biggest one-year slump in 2009,

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0614064020100107

Here’s a site by the MN Fed showing that this recession is BY FAR THE WORST RECESSION SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION. By length, depth, unemployment etc.
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/studies/recession_perspective/index.cfm

There are dozens of similar stories out there that can be easily brought up on a web search.

Comment by cougar91
2010-01-13 07:51:34

I think the main point about this recession that the likes of Eddie (plenty of them on CNBC too) refuse to recognize is that this one isn’t caused by the usual inventory cycle led type of recession where there were too many good produced and companies cut back/laid off workers, causes a recession, then the inventory is bled to low enough level where production resume and workers are hired back.

The problem with this Great Recession is that it is led by a large asset bubble and accompanied by a credit / financial crisis we have not seen in several generations. And this type of episode do not end after 2 years. Yes GDP and a few other indicators may turn positive for a few quarters and thus the recession is “over” in that sense, due to government printing, but there is a bill that come due with all the printing which the country will be suffering from for the next decade or more. After an initial “ski-jump” up, it will be many more years of shallow recovery with frequent recession-like stagnant or negative growth and high unemployment and possibly high interest rate.

That’s my 2 cents.

Comment by DinOR
2010-01-13 08:21:14

cougar91,

Oh more than 2 cents my dear. The only thing I would add is that in recessions past, no one sat around in such a state of utter denial about it?

Blind-sided I tell ya’!

Comment by mikey
2010-01-13 09:37:04

My niece is a little walking financial disaster but even she attempts to balance her budget and checkbook better than the banks, states and the gubbermint.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2010-01-13 10:26:12

Well said, cougar.

The only part I would put slightly differently was this part:

“The problem with this Great Recession is that it is led by a large asset bubble [...]”

I would argue that it was led by a large _credit_ bubble. That is the thing that makes it structurally different from past recessions. It is not over until the excess leverage is purged from the system, which may take a very long time.

Comment by DinOR
2010-01-13 11:14:23

Prime,

I’m going to beg to differ here, slightly. Sometime back *Orange Tabby had a great post as to how it was ever-spiraling -housing costs- that led to extensive use of credit.

Given as much as people felt their runaway appreciation would cover their plastic, I think it speaks for itself. People used their access to credit to fill the hole their incomes did not.

Banks certainly weren’t doling add’l credit limits based on ever-spiraling ‘incomes’, where they?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by In Colorado
2010-01-13 08:59:33

Hey Rio,

Not to hijack your thread, but a Brazilian friend of mine is considering going home. His relatives tell him that there’s plenty of jobs and he’s underemployed here (P/T work only), even though he has advanced degrees.

What’s also interesting is that Mexico chose to follow the US economic model and are paying dearly for it. They are in the worst downturn they’ve had since the Great Depression.

Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2010-01-13 09:28:49

a Brazilian friend of mine is considering going home.

Very common story these days. In Brazil it’s like “Party On Dude”! They returned to growth quickly because Brazilian consumers make the stuff they consume.

Brazil should be used as a case study of a country that did not give away the farm. They kept their jobs onshore. There was no housing finance bubble and they spent money on their people and national projects.

They invested billions of dollars of public money and worked hard for 30 years to become energy independent. What a bunch of SOCIALISTS! But I guess they won’t need to fight for any oil either. Things are expensive here but they have a trade surplus.

It’s funny. In many ways the Brazilian elite have acted more patriotic and nationalistic than our own. I never thought I’d see that…

Comment by scdave
2010-01-13 10:05:54

They returned to growth quickly because Brazilian consumers make the stuff they consume ??

they spent money on their people and national projects ??

worked hard for 30 years to become energy independent ??

Nuff said….

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Arizona Slim
2010-01-13 11:06:53

I’ve met more than a few Brazilians. When it comes to the “Proud to be a/n [Insert Name of Country Here]“, the Brazilians are right up there. Flag-waving Americans could take lessons from them.

They also know how to have a good time.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2010-01-13 12:17:02

“…They also know how to have a good time.”

Hey now Slim, so do we!

“The HELCOC you say!” (In Montana™) ;-)

 
Comment by In Montana
2010-01-13 14:32:30

whut? That sounds doity.

 
Comment by scdave
2010-01-13 14:45:00

the Brazilians are right up there ??

Those be my Portuguese Brethren… :)

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2010-01-13 16:47:34

I’ve met more than a few Brazilians. When it comes to the “Proud to be a/n [Insert Name of Country Here]“, the Brazilians are right up there.

I know! And 20 years ago or even 10 I used to think “what the heck are you so proud of”?

Now I don’t think that as much…

 
 
Comment by Spokaneman
2010-01-13 16:00:25

Just out of curiosity, how is health care funded in Brazil?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2010-01-13 16:36:48

how is health care funded in Brazil?

Ahh, a simple question with a complicated Brazilian answer.

From what I understand, all Brazilians and legal residents are entitled to taxpayer funded “free” health care.

However this is Brazil and different situations mean different things. If you are in a serious, traumatic accident (in a major city) you will go to a public hospital and be fixed up pretty well for “free”. The public hospitals are actually very good at fixing “trauma”. It’s what they do. Colds, flu, cuts, broken bones etc. you’ll stand in line all day and be attended to by OK doctors.

However if you have a chronic condition or require long-term physical therapy, cancer treatment, complicated operations or something like that, good luck. You will wish you had private insurance.

However a dear friend without insurance just paid 6K U.S. for a breast cancer operation from a good doctor in Rio so even those without private insurance can access treatment for a reasonable cost IF they have the money.

The middle-class and rich Brazilians that have lived in the USA much prefer the Brazilian health care system but they might be biased too.

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-01-13 07:08:06

No Shock: Stimulus Is A Money Loser. ~ Investors Business Daily

Economic Recovery: The results are in, and last year’s $787 billion stimulus not only failed to do what it was supposed to do, but it has also turned out to be one of the worst investments in economic history.

Remember the debate in 2008 over the bailouts then being put together by the Treasury, the Fed and the Democratic Congress? Proponents often raised the possibility that any bailout would make money for taxpayers.

Didn’t work that way. As we’ve discovered, the American people aren’t just saddled with the ongoing costs of the various and sundry stimulus programs. They’re also taking huge losses in doing so.

On Tuesday, the Treasury estimated that taxpayers had lost $68.5 billion in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2009, on the Troubled Asset Relief Program and that the losses could go as high as $120 billion.

That isn’t imaginary cash stuffed under some government cushion. It’s a tax on you that comes straight out of your pocket. It’s money that won’t be used to fund private-sector jobs or pay for a child’s education or a new house. It’s gone.

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve says it earned $45 billion last year — the largest one-year profit in its 96-year history.

As the Washington Post points out, that will easily eclipse “the expected profits of Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase combined.”

Why the big Fed profit? Basically, it printed money, bought Treasuries and private bonds with what it printed (we called it a bailout), then watched as interest on the investments flowed in. At year-end, the Fed held $1.8 trillion in U.S. government debt and mortgage securities, up from $497 billion a year earlier.

Don’t worry, though. The Fed doesn’t keep the money. It goes to the Treasury — which will just spend the money on something else.

All of this only underscores how badly the so-called stimulus has turned out. After trillions of dollars in outlays by the Fed, Treasury and Congress, the U.S. has zero net new jobs to show for it. Zip.

In fact, jobs at private businesses shrank by 4 million in 2009.

Nor have banks started lending to small and midsize businesses. Commercial and industrial loans, the lifeblood of U.S. industry, fell $252 billion, or nearly 16%, from January through November.

Why aren’t profitable banks lending to businesses? Good question. For one thing, like the Fed, banks have found a sure thing in round-tripping bailout funds provided at virtually zero interest into Treasuries yielding 3%. No risk, all gain.

Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2010-01-13 10:30:49

“Basically, it printed money, bought Treasuries and private bonds with what it printed (we called it a bailout), then watched as interest on the investments flowed in.”

Yeah, this is an interesting way to generate a supposed “profit”. Couldn’t they generate arbitrarily-large profits in this manner? Why don’t they just buy ALL the Treasuries in the market, ALL the US-backed MBSes in the market, etc etc.

Oh yeah, maybe it wouldn’t fly so well in the FOREX markets. But that is the only limiting factor.

 
Comment by Al
2010-01-13 10:39:39

So the Fed prints money to buy treasuries. The interest payments from the treasuries becomes profit, which it turns over to the treasury.

 
 
Comment by REhobbyist
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-13 07:59:58

Wars and financial crises have a way of suspending the rule of law.

Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2010-01-13 10:08:06

Really?

“…nor will an assertion that it was Hoosier Energy’s responsibility to prepare for and guard against any imaginable commercial calamity”

Rewrite:
“…nor will an assertion that it was Hwy 50’s responsibility to prepare for and guard against any imaginable commercial calamity”

So, after the ink is dry on a typical 30 year mortgage note, what are possible legal escape clause’s that allow me to:

1. not pay what I agreed to at terms agreed to.
2. Modify the original terms of the 30 year note

How’s about I say to the note holder, “Look I’ll $50.00 a month until I can get to the point of being able to get back on track with the original terms, will that work for you? ;-)

Comment by Spokaneman
2010-01-13 16:16:38

Wasn’t that the premis of the PayOption loans?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by DinOR
2010-01-13 08:28:57

REhobbyist,

It’s interesting, I’ll grant you that, and leave up to The Donald to take the “Blind-sided defense” to the HNL ( Hole nutha’ level ) but grafting this on to FR’s ( F@cked REIC’sters ) is uphill at best.

 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-01-13 07:14:38

US sees non-OPEC oil output growth ending in 2011
* OPEC share of global oil supply may reach 42 pct in 2011

WASHINGTON(Reuters) - The world will become more dependent on OPEC oil beginning next year as the combined oil output from countries outside of the producer group begins to decline, the U.S. government said on Tuesday.

The Energy Information Administration said in its new monthly forecast that non-OPEC oil supplies will not sustain the 630,000 barrel-per day-increase experienced in 2009.

Comment by Blue Skye
2010-01-13 07:50:33

Naive extrapolation assuming that the speculative bounce of 2009 is the trajectory to infinity.

 
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2010-01-13 10:34:03

Fear Monger = “Ignore the obvious, believe the LIE” :-)

Follow the TREND: cHummer sales… vs… Prius sales

“On top of higher U.S. distillate inventories, crude and gasoline stockpiles… in the world’s largest energy consumer… also rose last week”

“Gasoline inventories soared by 6.8 million barrels, far surpassing expectations for a 1.2 million barrel build. Crude stocks rose by 1.2 million barrels.”

“We cannot recall when the aggregated inventories rose 11.6 million barrels before,” “The market is clearly concerned and confused.”

“Stocks of crude and oil products have bulged in the United States over the past 18 months as the economic crisis has cut the demand for energy.”

Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2010-01-13 11:13:11

“How tough is it?” (Radical Rick™) ;-)

Supply is going up…demand is going down
Profit is going down…price is going up

AP News:

Oil and gas prices plunge to lowest levels of the year on unexpectedly large build in supply

“A gallon of regular unleaded is 15.4 cents more expensive than last month and 96.7 cents more expensive than a year ago.”

 
 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-13 07:21:59

Unless the Fed does a heckuva job going forward with financially engineering “higher than expected” inflation, I have a hard time imagining how Generation Recession will be able to afford all those McMansions out there still priced to sell for north of $500,000. Nobody on high is admitting it, but isn’t it pretty much imperative that the Fed do its durndest to inflate?

The Recession Generation

Those entering the workforce now will likely make less and save more—not just in the short term but for the rest of their lives.

By Rana Foroohar | NEWSWEEK
Published Jan 9, 2010
From the magazine issue dated Jan 18, 2010

We all know the type of person who came of age in the Great Depression. They are the grandmothers and grandfathers who can’t use a tea bag too many times, yet are enjoying comfortable retirements in warm climates. And we know what the children of the 1950s are all about. They are the optimistic boomers who embodied an age of continual upward mobility and possibility. They have often spent more than they earned, because for them it has been a truism that times can only get better. It’s no accident that the psychology of entire generations is shaped by the milieu in which they grew up; economic research tells us that our lifelong behaviors are determined in large part by the seismic events—good or bad—of our youth. So, given that we have just experienced the worst economic period in 70 years, it’s no surprise that people have begun to wonder what sort of consumers, investors, and citizens will be bred by the Great Recession. Will there be, in effect, a “Generation Recession” of young people whose behaviors will be permanently shaped by the downturn?

Comment by Muggy
2010-01-13 08:30:46

“Will there be, in effect, a “Generation Recession” of young people whose behaviors will be permanently shaped by the downturn?”

Kids on free or reduced lunch already roll with iPhones, so I am having a hard time imagining what this generation would look like. Those same kids wear the same dirty shirt for an entire wek, but they have apps.

Comment by scdave
2010-01-13 10:16:52

whose behaviors will be permanently shaped ??

I have mentioned this before on the board but I will say it again…I have told all three of my adult children that this recession has taught them life lessons that no amount of historical reflection could have ever taught them…You got to be there to truly learn the lessons…Thats why the generation out of the Great Depression were so frugal IMO…

 
Comment by SaladSD
2010-01-13 13:14:52

My husband was bummed for change at a gas station by two teens wearing $120 athletic shoes and carrying $200 skateboards. He gave ‘em the stink eye and told them they were obviously not starving for money.

 
 
Comment by aNYCdj
2010-01-13 10:51:19

Hmmm from the Moron generation to the Frugal generation….

 
Comment by CincyDad
2010-01-13 11:33:34

I graduted college in 1983 in Ohio, so I know a thing or 2 about starting life in a depresses economic age.

(note - the economy in Ohio, and Cincy in particular, is stay way beter today than it was in the early 1980s, even if it is down from a few years ago.)

There have been a couple of academic studies published in the past 2 years (I’ve only read of them, so I don’t have links), that have tracked the careers of people graduating into a depressed economy. While they admit more research needs to be done, the preliminary conclussions are that those people end up making significantly less money in their careers than those who graduated a few years ahead or behind them.

Some of the reasons for depressed life-long earnings:

1) Start out at lower salaries - since raises are often a % of your current salary, starting out behind will cause you to fall even further behind.

2) Delayed entry into your field - graduating in 1983, a lot of people took part-time or “other” work until the job market for their desired field improved. So, many people (myself included) did not start their real career paths at 22, but at 25 or 26 instead.

3) longer entry-level status - Since companies were not undertaking new projects for several years, employees had a delayed chance to move up in status. You stayed in your entry position waiting for an opportunity to come, that typically came much later for people graduating in an economic downturn.

4) this one from my personal observations in the IT field… people hire at the end of a boom, or more accurately,promoted at the end of a boom, stayed in those management positions a long time (goes along with lack of career advancement). Since they got promoted to higher salaries right at the start of the recessions, they may not have advanced in their career, but they hung on to those higher salaries. As a result, they blocked the later advancement of people hired in a recession.

From what I’ve personally seen, nearly all IT managers are in their mid-upper 50s. It seems there was a big hiring binge about in the mid-70s, many of those (capabilities highly questionable) got promoted to managers during the later days of the boom preceeding the 1980-1983 recession. They are still in those positions today, blocking the career advancement of many.

This is another example of the inefficiencies of a boom…. Many marginal people get promoted who would not get promoted during normal times. When the bust comes, they ofter keep those jobs. When the business cycle picks up again, they are entrenched in their position, and effectively block better employees who were hired a few years later (during the recession).

The authors of these studies cite other reasons that graduating into a recession is often a life-time salary killer.

Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2010-01-13 12:53:45

“…Many marginal people get promoted who would not get promoted during normal times. When the bust comes, they ofter keep those jobs. When the business cycle picks up again, they are entrenched in their position, and effectively block better employees who were hired a few years later (during the recession)”

Sadly, so true… ;-(

In Education, City, County, State, Federal jobs… I believe it works not on performance, but more to the tune of: “Last hired, first fired!”… those still standing, …seating is arranged by seniority, not looks or worthiness. :-)

 
Comment by In Montana
2010-01-13 14:54:26

“When the business cycle picks up again, they are entrenched in their position, and effectively block better employees who were hired a few years later”

I can see that at my IT company. And those old mgrs have us by the short hairs. If they don’t want to develop something, it won’t happen.

 
Comment by Eddie
2010-01-13 17:48:15

Interesting. The good news is that those mid 50s managers only have a few more years to go before retirement. And if your theory hold, then in 5-10 years there will be a lot of management positions opening up regardless of how the economy fares.

Comment by Muggy
2010-01-13 18:47:44

“in 5-10 years there will be a lot of management positions opening up regardless of how the economy fares.”

This is true for K-12 Education.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by james
2010-01-13 18:45:34

I fought my way out of the 90s trap by bouncing around. Still considering going contractor and starting a small business though.

In the end, you either hit the executive lottery or don’t get very far in corporations.

Though the govt employees seem to have found some loop hole to early retirement. good luck getting that dough from the pension trustees though.

 
 
 
Comment by WT Economist
2010-01-13 07:25:23

I was trying to remember the sequence of housing bubble and bust events, and I find I’m forgetting some of them. Did the subprime orginators go bust in early 2007? When were Countrywide and Golden West bought? When did the builders start posting losses.

It would be a big job for one person, but I wonder if it would be possible to collabarate on a housing bubble and bust timeline, to be posted here?

It could start with the antecedents (ie. the lifting of permitted leverage at the investment banks and similar decisions), early price rises stretching cost relative to income, the “creative finance” and appraisal fraud phase, the construction boom, price peak, and unfolding disaster.

Comment by LehighValleyGuy
2010-01-13 09:56:10

We could just help edit the Wikipedia articles, e.g.,

en dot wikipedia dot org/wiki/United_States_housing_market_correction

or we could host our own HBB wiki if for some reason we don’t like Wikipedia’s oversight policies.

 
Comment by scdave
2010-01-13 10:20:18

The financial freeze up started in September of 2007 i believe…

Comment by Pondering the Mess
2010-01-13 10:56:22

But sub-slime mortgage companies were already starting to fail in late 2006. Things only got more obvious to the public in 2007, when the stock market peaked and the Fed started to march to ZIRP to keep the party going.

 
Comment by In Montana
2010-01-13 14:55:47

Aug 15, 2007 was that big worldwide meltdown IIRC.

 
 
Comment by cassiopeia
2010-01-13 12:59:04

The smaller lenders in the OC started going bust in February and March 2007. In July 2007 France’s Societé Génerale tried to sell some of the toxic stuff and there were no buyers. It was all downhill from there.

 
Comment by CarrieAnn
2010-01-13 17:12:58

Here’s the St. Louis Fed Reserve’s timeline site:

http://timeline.stlouisfed.org/index.cfm?p=timeline

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-13 07:27:43

Since asset prices do not enter official inflation statistics, stock prices are a perfect place for the Fed and its private Wall Street Megabank, Inc partners to hide inflation in plain view. And for anyone bother to pay attention, the usual price of higher stock prices is a lower dollar.

Pre-Market Indications
Index Futures: S&P 500 1,136 +1.60 +0.14%
DOW 10,596 +8.00 +0.08%
NASDAQ 1,867 1.00 0.05%

Stocks finding their footing

Stock index futures point toward gains, with traders eager for further P&L figures after a weak start to fourth-quarter earnings season. China controversy thrusts Google shares in the spotlight.

Comment by Blue Skye
2010-01-13 07:46:02

Stocks would only reasonably be considered assets as claims on dividends. Is that really what they are, or are they more bets on future price appreciation? I’d hardly consider money I put on the poker table to hold my three of a kind an “asset”.

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-13 07:52:47

I think of stocks as a speculative gamble that will fuel higher future consumption spending if the gamble pays off. So long as stocks always go up, the future expenditures of their owners can fuel lots of inflation in goods and services that enter the CPI.

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-13 07:55:28

I guess the overwhelming upward bias in the rate of stock price movements relative to the values of the underlying profit streams during most time periods subsequent to the Great Depression goes without saying?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-13 07:34:48

Tuesday January 12, 2010
Clusterf#@k to the Poor House - Wall Street Bonuses

Companies that American taxpayers had to bail out with billions of dollars use that money to reward their employees with bonuses. (04:47)

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-13 07:57:50

Scroll down through the small video screens that appear to the right of the large one on The Daily Show’s home page to find the story with the title posted above (the title should appear when you scroll over the screens). It shows up as third-from-the-top when I do this…

 
Comment by scdave
2010-01-13 10:23:17

use that money to reward their employees with bonuses ??

while my mother takes a pay cut with 1.5% interest on her savings…

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-13 13:51:01

Somebody has to pay for those multi-million dollar bonuses. Why not your and my parents, who are on fixed incomes and dependent on the interest payments from savings, and who are too old, frail and uninformed about high finance to fight back?

Comment by scdave
2010-01-13 14:49:10

Amen Pbear…

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-13 07:37:05

Dumb question of the day:

Has the Fed recently morphed from a central bank into the world’s largest hedge fund with a monopoly right to print its own money?

Comment by arizonadude
2010-01-13 08:31:54

I wonder what kind of leverage the fed has.Remember the george bush fuzzy math?What I really dont understand is how they can keep buying treasuries to finance debt.Bascially you have the federal govt buying treasuries from itself.It kind of like borrowing from yourself.If this was an individual it could only last to the extent they could get new credit to pay off old credit.Basically an unsustainable way to operate.I guess as long as they have a printing press they can continue to function.Remember the saying robbing peter to pay paul?

There seems to be a lot of BS going on in finances right now.

Comment by measton
2010-01-13 09:34:29

Simplified

Federal Gov buying treasuries from itself with printed money. When all of the debt purchased is with printed money then you get Zimbawe.

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-13 12:44:54

“…then you get Zimbawe.”

Doesn’t reserve currency status affect the outcome?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by technovelist
2010-01-13 20:19:30

Yes. It takes longer, and the results are much more catastrophic.

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by Blue Skye
2010-01-13 07:40:15

I can’t remember yet seeing any articles or posts on banks taking “Recourse” after a foreclosure. Recourse states, recourse on HELOCs, recourse on fraudulent mortgages, nothing. I would expect some of the strategic defaulters are low hanging fruit for the F’d banks. Why don’t they go after any of them, or why don’t we hear any sob stories about former homeborrowers being hounded to the grave to pay up?

Comment by combotechie
2010-01-13 08:00:41

“Why don’t they go after any of them, or why don’t we hear any sob stores about former homeborrowers being hounded to the grave to pay up?”

Patience, we’re still early into the game.

 
Comment by Kim
2010-01-13 08:14:57

I’ve been wondering that myself. Here in Illinois foreclosures take a very long time (between six months and two years) in part because they are judicial and almost always accompanied by a bankrupty to get rid of that deficiency judgement. From what I gather, it seems to go much faster (no bankrupty proceedings?) in most other recourse states (such as Florida).

Maybe its PR… the media is so sympathetic to “victims” that banks don’t want be seen hounding those “victims” for deficiency judgements. They’ll sell the judgements for pennies on the dollars to debt collectors willing to bide their time.

 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-01-13 08:02:53

Fewer people selling their homes cut their listing price in December, according to the latest numbers from San Francisco-based Trulia.com.

Nationwide, prices on 21 percent of homes on the market as of Jan. 1 were cut at least once, down from 22 percent in the previous month and down from 25.6 percent two months ago.

In South Florida, West Palm Beach had the highest percentage of homes with price reductions – 23 percent – followed by Miami, with 21 percent, and Fort Lauderdale, with 17 percent.

The average price reduction in West Palm Beach was 14 percent off the listing price, representing $26.1 million in price cuts.

The average price reduction in Miami was 15 percent, representing about $179 million in price cuts.

In Fort Lauderdale the average price reduction was 13 percent, representing $61 million in total reductions.

The number of major U.S. cities with price reduction levels at 30 percent was cut in half in January, with just seven cities experiencing a reduction of 30 percent or more.

“Consumers have a golden window of opportunity to find a great home and take advantage of the tax credit before mortgage rates return to the 6 percent level and above,” Trulia co-founder and CEO Pete Flint said in a news release.

Those looking to take advantage of the homebuyer credit have until April 30 to sign contracts and until the end of June to close on the sale.

Several cities have experienced a significant decrease in price reductions, including:

* Los Angeles, down 46 percent
* New York, down 36 percent
* Memphis, Tenn., down 34 percent
* Minneapolis, down 33 percent
* Honolulu, down 33 percent

Jacksonville saw the highest percentage of listings with a price reduction, at 36 percent, followed by Portland, Ore., and Milwaukee (33 percent); and Omaha, Neb., and Seattle (32 percent); and Tucson, Ariz., and Charlotte, N.C. (30 percent).

Those homes priced at $2 million and above continue to be hit the hardest by price reductions and are responsible for 24 percent of the $21.2 billion in cuts.

The average discount for homes priced less than $2 million held steady, at 10 percent.

Trulia gathers its data from live listings on its Web site, and does not include foreclosures or short sales.

Comment by edgewaterjohn
2010-01-13 08:13:48

“…before mortgage rates return to the 6 percent level and above,” Trulia co-founder and CEO Pete Flint said

Aha! I knew there was somebody out there who believed all the Fed’s tough talk! Thanks, Pete!

To infinity (or at least 14%) and beyond!

 
Comment by wmbz
2010-01-13 08:20:16

Since December, the homes we have been watching here in S.Carolina have either raised their prices, or held firm to their price. In speaking to one real-a-tor and two developers they are hanging high hopes on a big turn around come springtime.

I always ask, based on what? Basically the same answer, the recession is over, and gubmint will continue to ’stimulate’ until things turn around. They also believe the 8k&6.5k will continue indefinitely.

Comment by edgewaterjohn
2010-01-13 08:39:19

“…gubmint will continue to ’stimulate’ until things turn around…”

That’s a telling statement. Since they already believe the recession to be over, then things have indeed “turned around”. Yet, they think the price support efforts will continue, but to what point?

Why can’t they just come out and say what they are really thinking?

Comment by Arizona Slim
2010-01-13 11:17:58

Why can’t they just come out and say what they are really thinking?

Because they’re real-a-tors. To use some AA-speak, they’re constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by measton
2010-01-13 09:36:26

I suspect the cause is that banks aren’t agreeing to short sales, why allow someone who is making payments to sell their house at a lower price (thus creating competition for the pile of houses the bank is trying to off load)

 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-01-13 08:12:01

“The Federal Reserve System is not about making money at the expense of the government. It is about using a government-granted monopoly over money to regulate the economy to the benefit of a handful of large banks. This has always been its primary function.”

~Gary North

Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2010-01-13 11:55:57

It’s kinda disturbing isn’t it, when silly Presidente Hugo actually does what many Americans privately wish would happen here… ;-)

Use your National Guard to for: “Shazam-Islam-is-now-Democracy” …or… “you’re a Looters of the People/MegaBanker, you’re under arrest”

“Chavez warned Sunday that any price speculation by shopkeepers will trigger business seizures, and called on the National Guard to help people fight price gouging.”

“To those gentlemen, let’s call them looters of the people… If they want to, go ahead and do it, but we’ll take their business and hand it over to the workers,” Chavez said on his weekly radio and television talk show “Alo Presidente.”

Venezuela military shutters store amid devaluation panic:

By Beatriz Lecumberri (AFP)

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-13 13:49:20

“It is about using a government-granted monopoly over money to regulate the economy to the benefit of a handful of large banks. This has always been its primary function.”

Even more disturbing: These days, they are behaving less like a regulated monopoly and more like a hedge fund with a printing press.

 
 
Comment by cougar91
2010-01-13 08:27:33

CNBC’s Diana Olick does a number on housing “green shoots”:

Published: Tuesday, 12 Jan 2010 | 1:53 PM ET
By: Diana Olick

A lot of reports out today collectively gave me a very bad feeling about the state of our current housing recovery.

First, Amherst Securities Group took a look at Pay Option ARMs. These are the adjustable rate loans so popular in 2006 that allowed you to choose your monthly mortgage payment, while tacking what you don’t spend on to the principal of your loan. Only 9 percent of these loans had full documentation from the borrower and 76 percent were originated in California, Florida, Arizona and Nevada, our four disaster states for housing. It should therefore come as no shock that they are suddenly approaching subprime in their delinquency status. So while we all sit around saying that the subprime loans have already worked their way through the system, they’re fast being replaced by POA’s. “For 2006 securitized issuance, 61% of subprime loans have defaulted, as have 49% of the option ARMs,” according to the Amherst report.

Not soon after I saw that report, another flew into my “In” box from Fitch ratings: “Overall, prime RMBS 60+ days delinquencies rose to 9.2% for December 2009, up almost three times compared to the same period last year (3.2% in December 2008). The 2006/2007 vintages combined rose to 12.7% from 4.3%.” They’re talking about residential mortgage backed securities, which of course are pools of residential loans.

Then there was the report I received last night from Lender Processing Services:

“Total delinquencies, excluding foreclosures, increased to a record high 9.97 percent, representing a month-over-month increase of 5.46 percent and a year-over-year increase of 21.29 percent. Loans rolling to a more delinquent status totaled 5.01 percent compared to 1.52 percent of loans that improved. Of loans that were current in December 2008, 4.37 percent were either 60 or more days delinquent or in foreclosure by the end of November 2009, a rate higher than any other year for the same period.”

So instead of diving into a bottle of Ketel One, I jumped on a conference call with the Mortgage Bankers Association that included their chief economist Jay Brinkmann’s economic forecast. Brinkmann spoke quite a bit about unemployment, noting that while the rate of job losses is definitely slowing, the already-unemployed are not getting back into the job market at a healthy rate. He noted specifically that this would mean many more prime loan defaults by borrowers in financial trouble as opposed to borrowers who took out loans they never should have been offered.

“Over one-third of prime jumbo borrowers that are current on their mortgages also are ‘underwater’ on their mortgages,” said Vincent Barberio of Fitch. Makes you wonder how long they’ll stay current.

All of this then piled on top of a number I noted yesterday, not newly reported, but new to me, that Experian was forecasting close to a million borrowers who could afford to pay their loans had voluntarily walked away from their commitments because they were so far underwater that they would not see any home equity any time soon. Judging by the fact that a quarter of all borrowers, or about 15 million, are currently underwater, that number will likely rise in 2010.

Needless to say, the big banks, while perhaps trying their darndest to modify as many loans as they can, are looking at potentially millions of borrowers who either can’t be modified due to insufficient income or don’t want to be modified due to insufficient interest in throwing their money into a bottomless pit.

Comment by wmbz
2010-01-13 08:40:55

“Needless to say, the big banks, while perhaps trying their darndest to modify as many loans as they can, are looking at potentially millions of borrowers who either can’t be modified due to insufficient income or don’t want to be modified due to insufficient interest in throwing their money into a bottomless pit”.

What new gubmint ‘progrum’ could stop those that have decided or do decide to stop throwing their money down a bottomless pit?

I think over the next year or two, millions of folks may finally get ‘it’, and face up to the simple fact that the go-go dayz of the housing ATM are not coming back. The equity that so many have lived on went poof!

 
 
Comment by packman
2010-01-13 09:22:03

Saw the article yesterday on the Fed buying $500B in MBS, plus another $100B in non-securitized mortgages. I guess presumably this is in addition to the other $1.25B program? If so - why hasn’t this been WAY bigger news than it has been? Did I miss something?

The article says it was announced on Nov. 25th. I don’t remember it.

That brings us to a total of $2.15 Trillion in QE now, right?
- $1250B original MBS purchase
- $300B treasury purchase
- $600B new MBS + mortgage direct purchase

Correct?

That’s a friggin’ lot of new money flying around.

Not to mention the other $500-600B in “who knows” purchases, plus $90B or so bought by the banks with money borrowed from the Fed.

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2010-01-13 09:43:26

That’s a friggin’ lot of new money flying around.

Is it enough to keep house prices from falling more in the next 5 years?

Comment by edgewaterjohn
2010-01-13 09:59:39

No, but with mark-to-fantasy are the fates of house prices and that of the banks really still intertwined?

 
 
Comment by measton
2010-01-13 10:29:43

Jan. 13 (Bloomberg) — Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village debt holders demanded payment from Tishman Speyer Properties LP and BlackRock Inc. within 10 days, a step toward foreclosing for New York’s largest apartment complex, said two people familiar with the matter.

A group led by Winthrop Realty Trust which holds about $300 million in senior mezzanine debt said in a letter it intends to pursue “rights and remedies” including a foreclosure sale, according to the correspondence. The parties could act within 90 to 180 days, said the people.

“The sharks are circling in the waters,” said New York City Councilman Daniel Garodnick, a Peter Cooper Village resident as well as its council representative. “This is a point of great concern.”

Tishman Speyer and Blackrock missed a $16.1 million payment on the apartments last week. Their plans to cover the debt by raising rents were thwarted Oct. 22 when the state’s highest court ruled in favor of tenants who claimed some increases were illegal. Tishman Speyer and BlackRock paid $5.4 billion for Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper’s 11,200 apartments in 2006. In October, Fitch Ratings valued the property at $1.8 billion
***

Tishman Speyer and BlackRock, also based in New York, each invested $112.5 million in Stuyvesant Town out of total equity financing of $1.9 billion. They took out a $3 billion mortgage from Wachovia Bank and $1.4 billion of mezzanine debt.

The mortgage was packaged with other commercial properties loans and sold as securities. The biggest holders are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the U.S. government-owned home-loan finance companies.

So in 2006 BlackRock and Tishman Speyer borrowed 5 billion or so in loans for a property worth 1.8 billion.

Comment by measton
2010-01-13 11:23:09

From NYmag.com
The Speyers are not going to lose their shirts over Stuytown—they invested a comparative pittance. The buzz in the real-estate business is that the Speyers personally contributed as little as $12 million to the deal, and that Tishman Speyer as a company is only on the hook for some $56 million. The problem is that the firm’s business model depends on convincing investors to put millions into their deals. “They have a business that’s built on a reputation—this is not good for them,” the investment banker said. Historically, an investment with Tishman Speyer gained you access to Jerry Speyer’s Rolodex of financiers and politicians. As a confidante to mayors and governors, that kind of access could translate into dollars: Tishman Speyer’s annual returns have been roughly 20 percent.
Rival real-estate executives point out that much of Jerry Speyer’s empire was built on Other People’s Money and the Speyers famously put little of their own equity on the line, and oftentimes, made significant amounts of money in management fees operating properties (so that no matter how a deal fares, they earn back their initial investment). Rivals snipe that it’s a Heads-I-Win-Tails-You-Lose proposition. There’s a palpable sense of Schadenfreude among some in the business at the Speyers’ current woes. “They put in five or ten million into Stuy Town, that’s a total joke,” one executive said. “All that’s happened, they made back in management fees 100 percent in what their group put up

So they basically borrowed all of the money for the deal and made the small amount they put in back in fees. I suspect that Blackrock did the same.
Now tin foil hat time, did TS or blackrock get anything back for overpaying Met Life
1. T. Speyer purchased the MET LIFE building for 1.7 billion. It has 2.8 million sq feet in 2005
2. It sold it’s 666 property with 1.5 million sq feet for 1.8 billion in 2006 as I recall rents were about 40-50/sq foot at the time of the sale.

From the NYTimes

The sale of 666 Fifth Avenue will surpass the previous record for an office building, which was set last year when Tishman Speyer bought the MetLife Building for $1.72 billion. But while Tishman Speyer bought the MetLife Building for $604 per square foot, the company sold 666 Fifth for twice that, or $1,200 per square foot.

IT seems to me that Met Live may have bribed them to bid on Stuytown with a below market rate sale of the MetLife building, possibly augmented by a long term rent contract.

Anyone know a good reporter.

Comment by WT Economist
2010-01-13 12:50:28

Try Wayne Barrett.

 
 
Comment by measton
2010-01-13 12:00:49

Note Tishman Speyer in 2005/6

Sold building 666 for 1200 per sq foot and purchased METLIFE building for 600/sq foot from METLIFE. Was this a below market rate sale possibly combined with a juicy lease back agreement from METLIFE to induce Tishman Speyer to overpay for the Struyvesant property??? with the promise that the debt would be sold off by Blackrock to the GSE’s, CALPERS, and other bag holders????

 
Comment by measton
2010-01-13 12:20:55

Another article I read suggested T. Speyer only put in 12 million and was liable for 50million or so. One guy they interviewed said they had already made this in fees collected for managing the property. ie they put nothing down on a 5.4 billion dollar property then maybe got a 50% off deal on their purchase of METLIFE building.

 
 
Comment by dude
2010-01-13 10:44:05

A brief update from the land of squatters:

The bank finally issued an NOD for the house we had paid rent on until Oct. of ‘08 and lived in for free until moving out over the Christmas holiday. It went 14 months from last payment on the mortgage to NOD.

All upside for us, but a bit of a downer for the young family to whom we bequeathed our squat. I’ve told them they are looking at probably another 6 months before the trustee sale and then Cali law gives another 60 days from there for a renter to leave.

FWIW.

Comment by X-philly
2010-01-13 13:17:35

You lived rent free for 14 months…?

you should get the HBB Stick it to The Man award.

Comment by dude
2010-01-13 14:32:25

Thank you very much, I’d like to find new more ingenious ways to continue sticking it to the man. That’s why I read Ben’s outstanding blog.

 
 
 
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2010-01-13 10:53:26

Wear GOLD! Wear GOLD! Wear GOLD! ;-)

This is the second story this week of this modus operandi:

“…The man then brandished a knife and held it to the boy’s head while he demanded the mother’s gold necklace”

By DENISSE SALAZAR THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER January 13, 2010

 
Comment by 2banana
2010-01-13 11:07:28

Home trends that should go away

Now that the first decade of the century is in the rear-view mirror, it’s time to wave buh-bye to some ubiquitous design trends that have worn out their welcome. Here are my picks:

Two-story family rooms. It’s a McMansion thing. Remember when towering great rooms first arrived on the scene and we thought they were grand and impressive? Now they just seem stiff and pretentious. Not to mention dysfunctional. When what should be the coziest, most convivial space in the house has an echo, you’re got a design problem. Soaring ceilings are perfectly fine if you’re planning an audience with royalty. But for hanging with family and friends? Not so much. (My house, built in 1990, has a vaulted ceiling in the master bedroom, which is even worse!)

Cookie-cutter kitchens. Stainless steel and granite have been inseparable during our long love affair with the trophy kitchen. But the honeymoon is over. Stainless steel appliances are too cold and commercial for most home kitchens. And granite? Well, I finally got some a couple years ago. Visually, it was a big improvement over my old laminate. But it hasn’t been as indestructible as I thought it would be. I have to seal it every year and worry about oil stains. The edge is already chipped in several places. Plus I spent way too much on it. There are a lot of other materials out there, and it’s time to play the field.

Mismatched upholstery. This fad always irritated me, even when it was new and “fresh.” I’m not talking about mixing and matching complementary pieces of furniture. I’m talking about those sofas and chairs that aspire to be quaintly “cottage” by combining two or more fabrics — like a cabbage-rose print on the seat cushions and another pattern on the back or arms. Such contrived bohemia is worse than too much matchy-matchy.

White stair risers. Want to showcase every scuff mark and spend your weekends scrubbing? Here’s how to do it.

Tuscan overload. Murals, Venetian plaster and wrought iron can be rustic and charming. But when you pile them all together, everywhere, and slap the T-word on them — year after year after year — it’s lke gorging on too much fettucine. Who wants to live in an Italian theme park?

That’s my list. What are YOU ready to be done with?

www dot startribune.com/blogs/81319552.html?elr=KArks:DCiUHc3E7_V_nDaycUiacyKUHDYaGEP7eyckcUr

Comment by Arizona Slim
2010-01-13 11:22:30

Faux finishes.

 
Comment by DinOR
2010-01-13 11:24:17

2banana,

How about -stop- constantly living in your pristine “staged” home as if you were going to “put it on the market” for a realtwhore’s critique and inspection at any moment?

How about starting to LIVE again! I’ve moved my practice amp back home again ( and at 60 WATTS ) it get’s plenty loud at our condo-complex on Friday & Sat.

Why was I living like I’d be disrupting someone’s Open House?

Thanks 2banana, could be a thread all it’s own.

 
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2010-01-13 11:43:03

“…it’s time to wave buh-bye to some ubiquitous design trends that have worn out their welcome”

Avocado Greenisspent, …A.K.A: “Financial Innovation” ;-)

 
Comment by Eddie
2010-01-13 12:01:24

Are you keeping the indoor plumbing? Cuz aside from that it sounds like your dream abode is white walls with a black chair in the middle of the room and a hot plate in the kitchen.

Comment by X-philly
2010-01-13 12:46:37

Minimalist.

I think that was around 2000-2001, any architects or interior designers on the board can help out here.

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2010-01-13 16:13:54

dream abode is white walls with a black chair in the middle of the room and a hot plate in the kitchen.

But would that be with rents falling or rising Eddy?

 
Comment by aNYCdj
2010-01-14 01:15:09

Eddie:

Yes Metro Shelving for the house….its functional and heck its cheap.

and take a hammer and in less then 5 minutes its all comes apart to be moved…..how do you think I store almost 2000 records in 4 feet of wall space?

 
 
Comment by Muggy
2010-01-13 12:13:19

“Who wants to live in an Italian theme park?”

The entire, greater Rochester area.

Comment by X-philly
2010-01-13 12:44:12

Italy doesn’t even look like an Italian theme park.

As for the mismatched prints: it can be done, but you have to have a really good eye to pull it off.

White stair risers look great, I’d probably suffer the extra time cleaning to enjoy the look.

Earth material countertops: for me, better used in the bathroom than the kitchen due to maintenance issues. Although I can see how a hot curling iron or blowdryer dropped on marble or granite could put a hurt on the surface.

What I’m seeing insofar as trends right now is anything bungalow or cottage. We have some nice 1930s-40s stock around here. They look great from the outside, but the rooms are small and unless updated, they don’t have a lot of closet space. Some reconfiguration would have to be done to meet 21c tastes.
The front porches on them are usually great. It looks awful when people do a slapdash job of enclosing them.

 
 
Comment by Al
2010-01-13 12:43:01

“Two-story family rooms. It’s a McMansion thing. Remember when towering great rooms first arrived on the scene and we thought they were grand and impressive? ”

When you live in colder climates, they’re a nightmare to keep warm. Never meant for the north.

 
Comment by oxide
2010-01-13 12:46:00

I’m done, as Carl says, with formal dining rooms (unless you actually use it). I’m done with MulTIPLE HIP ROOFLINES god those things make me cringe. I’m done with foam columns. I’m done with Palladian windows. I’m done with those double gables. I’m definitely done with brick “front.” I’m done with stark houses with no landscape and flat flush windows in odd places. I’m done with postage-stamp-lots, especially if tear-downs were built there. I’m done with those poor little trees they put in front.

I’m done with garages-as-part-of-the-house. and Juliet balconies. And walls that are HGTV green or HGTV chocolate brown.

I’m done with jack-and-jill baths. I’m done with those glass-bowl bathroom sinks. I’m also done with master baths that are larger than the master bedroom. If I spend that much time in the bathroom that I need multiple choice bathing and more cabinetry than the kitchen, then I need either less makeup or more fiber.

Comment by Muggy
2010-01-13 14:16:44

“If I spend that much time in the bathroom that I need multiple choice bathing and more cabinetry than the kitchen, then I need either less makeup or more fiber.”

LMFAO!

 
Comment by Cowtown
2010-01-13 15:58:55

Prior post got eaten, 2nd try:

I’m done with home theaters, outdoor kitchens and infinity pools (especially when they include a “water feature”).

Comment by aNYCdj
2010-01-14 01:21:28

http://photos.tmz.com/galleries/cher_hawaii_house#

pic #22 cher’s infinity pool might change your mind

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by SaladSD
2010-01-13 17:35:49

Yeah, those glass bowl sinks looked great in the Home Expo display room but I stayed over at a friend’s who had one in her bathroom and it was like Shamu splashed water everywhere when you tried to wash your face.

There’s a long tradition of faux finishes, real linoleum (made with linseed oil) was emulating marble & granite, and my mom recalls how in the “old days” they’d use pine wood flooring in the middle of a living or dining room, and then the outer wood flooring would be a more expensive maple or oak. They’d plan on covering the pine part with an area rug. In old southern mansions they’d paint faux hardwood finishes on cheaper pine doors. I just saw some kitchen counters made of heavily lacquered fiberboard, which looked really cool but not sure how durable it would be.

My conclusion is that oil-by-products, i.e. plastic/foam just doesn’t’ cut it in the faux department.

 
 
 
Comment by Carl Morris
2010-01-13 11:42:32

I’m ready to be done with any room that’s meant to impress visitors but is almost never used. For me that’s formal dining rooms separate from the kitchen and “great” rooms separate from where the family actually hangs out and watches TV or plays video games or whatever.

I have to say I like tall(er) ceilings, though. Not the super-high stuff, but I guess maybe I’m a little claustrophobic…I like to hang out in a space where the ceiling is at least 10-12 feet up there. Makes me feel relaxed for some reason.

Comment by oxide
2010-01-13 12:06:40

You’re ready for The Not So Big House (Sarah Susanka).

Comment by Carl Morris
2010-01-13 16:26:57

I’ve never lived anywhere bigger than 1400 ft^2, and right now I’m in the poor man’s Not So Big House, aka the doublewide. I’d prefer some of the features of a “real house”, but not at current prices. In the meantime my expenses are *very* low.

 
 
 
Comment by Eddie
2010-01-13 11:58:35

Didn’t everyone here try to convince me that tourism is dead? About that….
________________________________________________________

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Hospitality provider Starwood Hotels announced Tuesday that it plans to create 12,000 new jobs worldwide in 2010, increasing its staff by more than 8%, with about half of the new positions located in the United States.

Starwood (HOT, Fortune 500), which employs 145,000 workers at hotels in more than 100 countries, said a majority of the additions will be made at the 80 to 100 new hotels the company and its development partners are slated to open this year in both large markets and small markets worldwide.

Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2010-01-13 13:17:59

“…that it plans to create 12,000 new jobs worldwide in 2010″

12,000 / 2 = 6,000

(”…with about half of the new positions located in the United States”)

Hey Haskell, Great!…you’re right as usual, every “LITTLE BIT” helps! :-)

Meanwhile, not worldwide, but in AMERICA:

“The economy has lost 7.2 million jobs since the start of 2008. Losses for 2009 alone came to 4.2 million jobs, the most in one year since the government started tracking payrolls in 1939.”

•*`*•. .•*`*•. .•*`*•..•*`*••*`*•. .•*`*•. .•*`*•..•*`*•..•*`*•
HAPPY NEW YEAR and a Prosperous, Healthy 2010 for us all.
•*`*•. .•*`*•. .•*`*•..•*`*• •*`*•. .•*`*•. .•*`*•..•*`*•..•*`*• (DD™)

Comment by Eddie
2010-01-13 13:53:51

Spin all you want. While you all talk of depressions and the death of tourism, 6K new jobs are created in tourism by 1 company. And I love how 6K is nothing to you, but when a company announces 1K layoffs it’s proof of the depression.

Wow. 4.2 million. Gee wiz that’s the most ever. And amazingly enough the population in 2009 was the most ever. Ya think that has something to do with it? Nah, too crazy.

This reminds of some month in 2008 when the MSM went into full head exploding that the month saw the most job losses in 30 years. What they didn’t tell you was that as a % of the population the number in 2008 was nowhere near what it had been in several previous recessions. But why use facts when using emotion is so much easier?

Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2010-01-13 16:08:37

But why use facts when using emotion is so much easier?

Nahhh Eddy, facts are WAY easier.

Web search this: minneapolis fed recession comparison

By ALL metrics, this is the WORST RECESSION SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION.

Spin all you want.

Oh and BTW, I’m sure most here are happy when any jobs are being created. I don’t think I read differently.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2010-01-13 18:19:21

Hey Haskell, are you smarter than a 5th grader?

Answer the following:

6,000 is what percentage of 7,200,000

You have 3 days… ;-)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by edgewaterjohn
2010-01-13 13:55:44

The Starwood Hotels in my city are having problems with their unions. Any chance that some of those announced positions will be replacement workers?

Comment by Eddie
2010-01-13 16:05:53

One can hope.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2010-01-13 16:11:21

But can one think?

 
 
Comment by SaladSD
2010-01-13 17:43:05

Here’s your 6,000 US workers, present & accounted for:

Workers authorize strike at 5 downtown Starwood hotels

October 28, 2009 11:03 PM D STORY
Hotel workers voted this evening to authorize to strike at five downtown Starwood hotels.

Meanwhile, a spokesman for the union said if contract negotiations drag on, similar votes could occur at downtown Hyatt and Hilton hotels. Union contracts covering 6,000 workers at 31 hotels in downtown Chicago expired Aug. 31, and the union has said a settlement is far from sight.

The vote — which carried with an 89 percent majority — does not necessarily mean that workers will strike. It authorizes the union’s negotiating committee to call a strike if it is deemed necessary; the threat of calling a strike acts as a negotiating tactic.

Jim Baker, spokesman for Unite Here Local 1, said Starwood was pinpointed because it has been particularly vocal in pointing to the economy as the reason for cutbacks, an argument the union has criticized. He said workers hope a strike will not be necessary.

Baker said health insurance guidelines proposed by the Starwood chain would mean that approximately 50 percent of hotel workers would no longer be eligible for health insurance. Under the old contract, he said, the vast majority of workers were eligible. Hyatt has put forward a similar proposal.

“The big thing over here from the hotel’s point of view is that we have and are well-prepared to negotiate with the union over healthcare,” said Jim Franczek, Starwood’s chief negotiator.

Franczek said hotels have been hard hit by the recession. Occupancy rates are down in the city and overall, and American Express Travel predicts rates will fall another 1 to 6 percent next year even as hotels attempt to lure customers back.

Hundreds of workers from Sheraton Chicago Hotel and Towers, Westin Michigan Avenue, W Chicago-Lakeshore, W Chicago-City Center and Tremont Hotel cast their votes Wednesday evening.

“This regrettably is part of the process but it detracts from the serious business of trying to hammer out an agreement,” Franczek said.

Baker and other union members said the hotels are using the economy as an excuse to make unnecessary cutbacks while making millions in profits.

“It’s not like they’re doing this to cope with dramatically increasing healthcare costs,” Baker said. “In fact, healthcare costs are posed to fall. They’re using the economy an excuse to ram through health benefit costs that would have a dramatic impact.”

Amir Hanic, wore his bellman’s uniform to vote “yes” to authorize a strike. Hanic, a Sheraton employee for 13 years, said his wife was recently laid off and she and his two daughters need to be on his health insurance plan. A new $85 per month charge for family members, plus higher co-pays and other changes to the plan, he said, are unacceptable.

“I am a very independent person,” he said. “The last thing I want to do is fall back on the taxpayers.”

Kari Payne, a server at the Sheraton’s Shula Steakhouse and a member of the union’s negotiating committee, said when she first started at the Sheraton in 2000, health insurance benefits changed month-to-month based on the number of hours worked.

“It was problematic because you wouldn’t know if you were going to be covered,” she said.

A new proposal calls for providing health insurance to workers who work 120 hours a month or more, she said. Jorge Mulasano, a sous chef at the Sheraton for the past nine years, said such a change would give Starwood room to skimp further on health insurance.

“The company of course is going to play with that and schedule just up to 119 hours,” he said.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by oxide
2010-01-13 20:43:52

DAYUM!

This needs to be posted on tomorrow’s bucket where it can be seen. Starwood isn’t “creating” those jobs at all; they are lying outright.

 
Comment by shizo
2010-01-13 21:26:25

Any more rabbits Eddie? Might be time to replace that hat.

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by Muggy
2010-01-13 12:07:07

Today my littleman couldn’t sleep, so we “snugga” on the couch until he feel asleep. He got up before me, moved his step stool from his bedroom to the bathroom, reached for a high shelf, circumvented the child safety cap, and poured pepto bismol on my face to wake me up. Good morning, again!

Renter advantage: none.

Comment by cassiopeia
2010-01-13 13:04:54

Your littleman is sweet and smart… :-)

 
 
Comment by measton
2010-01-13 12:14:37

Nice little bit with Marc Faber

finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/marc-faber-the-next-thing-you-need-to-worry-about-is-the-piigs-403497.html

 
Comment by measton
2010-01-13 12:18:13

After every financial crisis there’s a sovereign debt crisis, Marc Faber says. Countries that borrowed too much during the boom times start struggling to pay their competitors back, and eventually some of them default.

The countries most likely to blow up this time around are the “PIIGS”: Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain. One ore more of them, Faber says, will likely default in the next couple of years. And, that could result in the death of the Euro currency.

Longer-term, Faber says, Japan and the US are in line for the same fate.

The US crisis won’t hit us this year or next year. But within 5-10 years, the United States will be forced to quietly default on its debt, most likely by printing money and destroying the value of the currency.

My take
When PIIGS start collapsing the US currency will rise then things get ugly. Put $$ into hard assets and energy generation/efficiency that can’t be taxed.

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-13 14:16:41

“Put $$ into hard assets…”

Like houses?

Comment by measton
2010-01-13 14:59:09

I don’t think it’s time to buy a house yet but at some point it will be ? 2-5 years and as a hedge against currency collapse. I agree that things are likley to get worse in other countries before they get worse here.

 
 
 
Comment by Muggy
2010-01-13 12:19:32

Looks like this security guard graduated from Countrywide NINJA High School.

——————

The Edison Tech student accused of stealing a gun and taking it to school told police he walked right through security with the weapon strapped to his belt next to a cell phone.

In the statement, Harvey said a large metal detector at Edison went off when he walked through it. A sentry then scanned Harvey with a handheld wand, which also went off. Harvey claims the sentry then waved him through into the building without checking what caused the metal detectors to go off

 
Comment by Muggy
2010-01-13 12:22:54

Ben and Bad Andy, if both of you are willing, I’d like to see a guest post from Bad Andy about buying too soon and walking away. It would be helpful for some of us who are at risk of falling off the fence (me).

Comment by Blue Skye
2010-01-13 12:42:19

I have a suggestion for you Muggy. Hopefully you can use a spreadsheet. Put your budget on the spreadsheet and expand it out 12 months. Include income, savings and tax projections. Include assumptions on investment earnings. Have a net amount at the bottom and an accumulated net carryover below that. Expand the spreadsheet to a decade. Play with the numbers to see what a 1% change in interest or giving up one of your vices does to the decade net worth.

Copy the whole spreadsheet and do the second one with mortgage payments, home maintenance, RE taxes, renovations, furniture upgrades, etc. Include your assumption re house appreciation/depreciation.

Let us know what the difference is between the two choices.

What a fool could do tomorrow is more entertaining than what a fool did yesterday.

Of course the unexpected cannot be factored. The renting scenario is flexible and the buying scenario is fragile. What price freedom?

 
 
Comment by dude
2010-01-13 12:55:06

I’m currently on a one day time shift for the blog, unfortunately in delay mode. I wanted to make a brief comment on the primelazy ones interjection on the Roman census of antiquity. It is a subject of interest to me and I happen to have a close friend who is something of an expert. He replied to my query as follows:

“BS–actually the Palestine-Syria census is well documented–the only question is which one (there are actually multiple census counts under Augustus, who was reordering the empire after decades of civil war)—I would just say this to your ignorant blogger– “A censor was a Roman magistrate elected every 10 years or so to conduct a Census–the term… See More, the office, the practice is all of Roman origin… See More. There were hundreds of censuses (censi in Latin) conducted during the millenia of Roman history…

My point above, is that we don’t have complete evidence for most Roman censuses, but we know they were conducted frequently and sometimes universally, we can never say “there wasn’t one” with any accuracy just because no record survives–actually, Luke’s account is in itself evidence that one was conducted in Syria under Cyrenius–and Luke’s gospel… ”

(my reply) ‘His point was the part about, “return to place of birth” as a method for a census or taxation.’

“Again- no existing record is not equal to “did not happen”; and again, the gospel of Luke is of great enough antiquity to be a source in and of itself for the practice (and is in fact cited as such by many ancient historians)”

Again, FWIW

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-13 13:45:40

Never argue points of religious history with an LDS church member.

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-13 13:47:31

Reasons?

1) They will kick your behind.

2) They will thoroughly enjoy it.

3) You will help them feel superior.

Just say no to religious arguments w/ LDS church members.

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-13 13:56:53

4) They never admit when they are wrong.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by dude
2010-01-13 14:36:07

I’ll admit to being wrong, if I ever am.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-13 15:54:38

‘His point was the part about, “return to place of birth” as a method for a census or taxation.’

Yes it was.

3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. 4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-14 05:18:43

“I’ll admit to being wrong, if I ever am.”

The ‘primelazy one’ is still waiting… but many thanks for supporting my point.

 
 
 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-13 13:55:37

(And like the greater fool that he is, Professor Bear takes the bait :-) )…

<>
King James Bible
1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. 2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) 3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. 4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-01-13 14:22:23

California downgraded by Standard & Poor’s

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — Standard & Poor’s said Wednesday it downgraded California’s credit rating to A-minus. The state’s previous rating was A, already the lowest in the nation. The rating agency also maintained its negative outlook, according to a spokeswoman at S&P, indicating more downgrades are possible. The downgrade comes as the state faces another multi-billion-dollar budget gap for the current fiscal year and has appealed to federal lawmakers for assistance. S&P last downgraded California last February.

Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2010-01-13 18:12:12

Meanwhile, over on the Atlantic side of America… S&P upgrades South Carolina to CCC- :-)

“In what’s being seen as an attempt at redemption by a state touched by recent political embarrassment, a panel of South Carolina lawmakers has voted to change the state’s lynching law.”

“Why? Ostensibly because prosecutors had abused it to put bar-fight participants in prison for up to 20 years. But the real issue ran even deeper, a key lawmaker acknowledges: For decades, the law has been used to address African-American gang activity, with over half of all lynching charges and convictions being levied against blacks.”

“The South Carolina lynching law has been used to prosecute both blacks and whites, but came under fire in 2003 when the Associated Press reported that it was being frequently used and that 69 percent of its targets were young black men, and 67 percent of those convicted for lynching were black.”

South Carolina takes aim at lynching law because it hurt blacks:

By Patrik Jonsson Staff writer / January 12, 2010 CSM

 
Comment by technovelist
2010-01-13 20:27:52

That’s way too high a rating. California should really be rated… XXX!

 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-01-13 14:25:38

GM to halt Hummer production Tuesday
JACKSON, Miss.

General Motors will stop producing Hummers next week at its Louisiana plant until sale of the brand to a Chinese company is completed.

Hummer spokesman Nick Richards said Wednesday it was unclear whether jobs would be . The Shreveport plant builds Chevrolet pickup trucks in addition to Hummer models.

He says production will halt Jan. 19 because there’s “sufficient inventory” of Hummers to sustain dealers while the sale gets final regulatory approval.

Sales of the off-road vehicles have plunged due to the recession and high gas prices.

The plant once employed about 3,000, but layoffs and buyouts have reduced that to about 700.

Comment by SaladSD
2010-01-13 18:01:54

Yeah, kill the tax-right-off-for-dentists beast!!!!

 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-01-13 14:27:13

Moody’s Says Greece, Portugal May Face ‘Slow Death’ (Update2)

Jan. 13 (Bloomberg) — The Portuguese and Greek economies may face a “slow death” as they dedicate a higher proportion of wealth to paying off debt and investors demand a premium to hold their bonds, Moody’s Investors Service said.

While the two countries can still avoid such a scenario, their window of opportunity ”will not be open indefinitely,” Moody’s said in a report today from London. Portugal, with a negative outlook on its Aa2 rating, has more time “to reverse this trend” while Greece “has significantly less time.” Moody’s cut Greece’s rating to A2 from A1 on Dec. 22.

The premium that investors demand to hold Greek debt instead of German equivalents is six times more than it was two years ago, and the spread has doubled since 2008 in the case of Portugal. Greece had the largest budget deficit in the euro region last year, more than four times the European Union limit of 3 percent of gross domestic product. Portugal’s debt load will account for 85 percent of GDP this year, according to the European Commission.

 
Comment by wmbz
2010-01-13 14:46:57

The stupidity train just keeps chugging along with wastes of time like this.

“Children who were considered “poor” by the government used to be classified as “disadvantaged.” But that made the children feel bad about themselves because of the stigma of the word associated with poverty. Then they became “at risk” children. Well apparently that term is too negative for lawmakers these days. So Democrat State Senator Rosa Franklin in Washington has an idea: let’s label these children as “at hope.”

“No, I am not kidding. “At hope.”

“State Sen. Rosa Franklin wants to spend thousands of dollars rewriting the 54 places in state law that use the words “at risk” or “disadvantaged.”

“Yup … as soon as you label them “at hope” everything will be hunky dory”.

~ Boortz~

Comment by In Montana
2010-01-13 15:12:29

I didn’t even know “at risk” had taken the place of “disadvantaged.” Duhhh.

 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-01-13 15:38:23

Applied Micro to cut 11% of staff.
Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal

Applied Micro Circuits Corp. said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that its board has approved a plan to cut about 11 percent of its employees.

Sunnyvale-based Applied Micro (NASDAQ:AMCC) said employees were told Tuesday about the job cuts, which will save the company about $1.5 million a year.

The company expects to take a charge of $1.3 million to $1.7 million for severances.

In its filing, the company said it implemented the restructuring “to become a more cost competitive company and improve efficiencies by integrating its global operations.”

At the end of 2009 the company had about 551 employees.

Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2010-01-13 15:43:30

At the end of 2009 the company had about 551 employees.

Of which 43 were still based in the USA?

Comment by Eddie
2010-01-13 16:31:48

Why pay slacker Americans $100K a year when you can pay energetic, go getter Indians $15K? They will work longer hours, bitch and bitch 95% less than Americans too.

Comment by SaladSD
2010-01-13 18:03:36

Too true, I’ve always thought that about you.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2010-01-13 18:45:48

Why pay slacker Americans $100K a year when you can pay energetic, go getter Indians $15K?

I think you are baiting but here’s why:

1. Because our forefathers sacrificed and died for the American way of life. The Indians from India did not. Do you read much? Do you stand for any ideals greater than money? I think you might but your writing come across differently to your detriment.

Reason 2. Because Indians from India are not Americans and it was America that provided the basis of the American companies success. It was American education, laws, stability and safety that nurtured these companies from their cradle and enabled them to become what they have become. They have received everything from their country and their county is owed. It is more than just money. It is a social contract that has to be honored. If it is not honored then we as Americans owe them nothing and we hold the ultimate power. Don’t doubt it.

Reason 3. Because your type of thinking and action could mean the destruction of the most beautiful experiment in sovereignty and democracy the world has ever known. Money and profit are not the most important things in our democracy. Even Republicans acknowledge that. George Herbert Walker Bush most eloquently stated in his Inaugural address, “My friends, we are not the sum of our possessions. They are not the measure of our lives.”

Eddy there is much more at stake here than a cheaper rate. We are talking about the potential destruction of a system of government and economics that has given us everything. If you can’t see it, please try to educate yourself. You come across as an idiot but I don’t think you are one.

But if you can see it but are willing to throw it all away for more profit, you are ignorant to what your country stands for and dangerously ignorant of the gathering storm.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Housing Wizard
2010-01-13 19:08:54

Right on Rio …well said .

 
Comment by shizo
2010-01-13 21:45:18

There are not enough zeros to follow my +1 to credit your well thought out and deeply felt response.

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-01-13 15:43:29

EXCLUSIVE: Inside China’s secret toxic unobtainium mine.
DailyMail (UK)

Last week it was reported that China - which has a global monopoly on the production of rare-earth metals - is now threatening to cut off vital supplies to the West. A shortage would jeopardise the manufacturing and development of green technologies such as wind turbines and low-energy lightbulbs. RICHARD JONES is the first Western journalist to visit the rare-earth mines in Inner Mongolia to discover why China is unwilling to give up its precious elements…

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1241872/EXCLUSIVE-Inside-Chinas-secret-toxic-unobtainium-mine.html#ixzz0cXEd7WdP

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-13 16:00:07

“…unobtainium…”

Excellent word choice!

 
Comment by Blue Skye
2010-01-13 16:35:00

“China has made clear its desire to shift from its traditional role as the ‘world’s workshop’ with low-tech, labour-intensive factories, to more high-tech manufacturing. It may use its near-monopoly on rare-earths to make possible that leap forward.”

All your technologies is ours.

Americans, we created this beast, to eek out more corporate profits and kickbacks to Congress and the White House.

Hoz told us this was on the way.

Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2010-01-13 16:38:25

we created this beast,

And we can un-create it too!!

 
 
Comment by aNYCdj
2010-01-14 01:48:50

neodymium

The godsend of the dj business….1 lb of this stuff equal 10lbs of a regular magnet. raw high powered speakers that used to weight 20+ lb now weigh 10 plus you need less metal to hold the magnet in place, then the cabinets can be made of plastic…

Also probably 95% of those high tech ipod/computer desktop speakers made today have this material as a magnetic source..heck the ipod earphones have it…Indeed a very necessary element today

 
 
Comment by scdave
2010-01-13 15:56:17

improve efficiencies by integrating its global operations ??

Code for; Cut here & Hire there…

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-13 15:57:24

Are these apologies a tacit admission of guilt? If so, when will the U.S. taxpayer see a return of the ill-gotten bankster bonus booty?

Bankers apologize for actions that led to crisis
By JIM KUHNHENN and DANIEL WAGNER Associated Press Writers
Jan. 13, 2010, 4:44PM

WASHINGTON — Challenged by a skeptical special commission, top Wall Street bankers apologized Wednesday for risky behavior that led to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. But they still declared it seemed appropriate at the time.

The bankers — whose companies collectively received more than $100 billion in taxpayer assistance to weather the crisis — offered no regrets for executive pay that is now likely to increase as a result of their survival. They did say they are correcting some compensation practices that could lead to excessive risk-taking.

The tension at the first hearing of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission was evident from the outset.

“People are angry,” commission Chairman Phil Angelides said. Reports of “record profits and bonuses in the wake of receiving trillions of dollars in government assistance while so many families are struggling to stay afloat has only heightened the sense of confusion,” he said.

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-14 05:36:34

My appreciation for why I voted for Obama continues to deepen. By contrast I can’t recall W doing much to stand up to Wall Street interests.

Now if we could just get the Fed to cough up that list of which banks enjoyed its printing press largess while the rest of the country was allowed to die of credit thirst…

NEWS dot scotsman dot com
Thursday, 14th January 2010
Barack Obama to clobber the banks
Published Date: 14 January 2010
By Chris Stephen in New York

RIDING a wave of public anger over Wall Street arrogance, Barack Obama will today announce tough new levies on the United States’ big banks to claw back government bail-out funds and cut the federal deficit.

The plan, which could amount to a $120 billion (£74bn) tax on the top financial institutions, comes amid rising public resentment that, in the teeth of a recession, bankers are again reporting record profits and shelling out big bonuses.

White House officials said yesterday that institutions which had benefited from federal bail-outs would be top of the list. “The president has talked on a number of occasions about ensuring that the money that taxpayers put up to rescue our financial system is paid back in full,” Mr Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said.

Officially, the tax will be levied to ensure most of the $700bn loaned last year under the Troubled Asset Relief Programme (Tarp) is paid back.

Americans are simmering with anger over news that the banks are recording huge profits and are about to announce big bonuses, as the rest of the country grapples with unemployment. Doug Elliot, of the Brookings Institute, predicted the public would support “anything up to shooting, and burning, the bankers”.

• (L-R) Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.; James Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Company; John Mack, chairman of the Board of Morgan Stanley; and Brian Moynihan, CEO and president of the Bank of America. Picture: Getty

 
 
Comment by Eddie
2010-01-13 16:42:32

More on the tourism front:

- Las Vegas totel hotel visits up 3% ‘09 vs ‘08

- Gaming revenue up 8% YOY. For Bear that means it was 8% higher last year than 2 years ago.

- MGM Mirage (I have a soft spot for them as I did some work for Steve Wynn back in the day when he owned Mirage Properties) had a 6.5% increase in New Years revenue over last year. MGM is up 300% over the past year.

Another sign of the deepening depression.

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-13 18:10:18

You oughta come out west some time and see all the unsightly half-finished LV high rises. Another sign of the recovery.

Comment by Eddie
2010-01-13 18:15:00

And you might want to post something relevant to the subject at hand. Try to keep dude. I posted about gaming revenue and hotel stays. Not finished or unfinished high-rises. I know it’s tough, but try to focus.

Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2010-01-13 20:58:37

Try to keep dude. …..but try to focus.

LOL, did you do that on purpose?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by measton
2010-01-13 21:49:02

Article says that revenues have declined for 22 straight months year over year. Now we have one month year over year increase and eddie gets excited.

Note
On Monday, Atlantic City’s casinos reported that revenue in December was down 9.8 percent compared to last year. All told, the gaming resorts posted a 13.2 percent drop in 2009 when compared with 2008 — the casinos worst financial returns since 1997

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-13 22:54:41

“Now we have one month year over year increase and eddie gets excited.”

Trolls are famous for grasping at straws.

 
 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-01-13 16:48:32

Monsanto’s GMO Corn Linked To Organ Failure, Study Reveals
Huffington Post

In a study released by the International Journal of Biological Sciences, analyzing the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers found that agricultural giant Monsanto’s GM corn is linked to organ damage in rats.

According to the study, which was summarized by Adam Shake at Twilight Earth, “Three varieties of Monsanto’s GM corn - Mon 863, insecticide-producing Mon 810, and Roundup® herbicide-absorbing NK 603 - were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities.”

Monsanto gathered its own crude statistical data after conducting a 90-day study, even though chronic problems can rarely be found after 90 days, and concluded that the corn was safe for consumption. The stamp of approval may have been premature, however.

In the conclusion of the IJBS study, researchers wrote:

“Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity….These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown.”

Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2010-01-13 18:03:06

Monsanto = “TrueEvil™” / “TrueDeceiver’s™”

 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-01-13 16:58:35

Hey, Wilbur, bite me!
Just another greedy prick, that sincerely could not care less about the good of the country that made him fat.

Ross Calls for New U.S. ‘Cash-for-Clunkers’ Program (Update2)

Jan. 13 (Bloomberg) — Wilbur Ross Jr., the billionaire investor whose holdings include auto suppliers, said the U.S. government should introduce “tomorrow” another car-buying incentive program to stimulate the economy and create jobs.

A new “cash-for-clunkers” initiative must be simpler, larger and last longer than the $3 billion version run by the Transportation Department in July and August, said Ross, who formed International Automotive Components Group by buying distressed partsmakers.

“They should do it tomorrow morning,” Ross told reporters today after a speech at the Automotive News World Congress conference in Detroit. “I think a fair amount of the growth in the third quarter of last year was due to the cash-for-clunkers and the first-time home buyer subsidies.”

 
Comment by wmbz
2010-01-13 17:02:48

Kentucky Selling State Property to Generate Money.
Government-owned planes, vehicles will be put up for sale to help balance Ky. state budget ~ FRANKFORT, Ky. January 13, 2010 (AP)

As Kentucky’s state government faces a mammoth revenue shortfall, Gov. Steve Beshear is doing what lots of families do when income falls short of obligations: Find the stuff they aren’t using and put it up for sale.

State-owned planes, vehicles and other property will be sold to generate money for Kentucky’s shrinking budget, Beshear said Wednesday.

The move is the result of an economic recession that has hit the state’s general fund hard, leading to a projected $1.5 billion shortfall over the next two-year budget cycle. That’s on top of $1 billion that has been cut from the current budget.

Beshear said he doesn’t know how much money the property sales will raise, but he said it should “soften the blow of budget cuts” that could include employee layoffs.

“The scope of what we’re tackling suggests that the benefits could be substantial,” he said told reporters in a Capitol press conference.

Beshear said he is proposing the sale of all land, buildings and equipment that isn’t essential. Under the initiative, the administration will re-evaluate rental property agreements and renegotiate state contracts for goods and services.

 
Comment by ACH
2010-01-13 21:07:18

… AANNNDD for those persistent few who made it down this far this late in HBB, here is a little Sade for your enjoyment.

Roidy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI7GWbVV7ps

Comment by Blue Skye
2010-01-13 21:58:43

HAHA ACH, this old nightowl thanks you. Smoooooth…

 
 
Comment by Zhang Fei
2010-01-13 21:41:55

Blue Skye: Is China built out on the suburbia model like the US? If not, where are all those Chinese driving their cars to? The empty cities and empty malls?

I think most countries are. It’s not a model - most countries don’t have American-style zoning - if you own land, you do pretty much whatever you want, no government bureaucrat gets in the way. The payoff is in lower property taxes. For instance, the owner of a $200,000 property in China might pay $200 in annual property taxes.

China’s biggest city, Chongqing, has a population density of 1000 people per square mile. Nassau County, Long Island, by comparison, has a population density of 4,562 people per square mile. The average Chinese lives in a 2000 square foot house, not a Hong Kong-style tenement (necessary when pop density is 16,500 per sq mile). China’s population density is slightly lower than Europe’s.

Comment by yensoy
2010-01-13 23:15:16

The average Chinese lives in a 2000 square foot house

Zhang Fei, you have a job waiting for you at the NAR, or the Fed. Your choice.

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-14 05:21:22

That is amazing. If you take Zhang Fei’s word for it, it appears China has turned into California.

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-14 05:23:07

2000 sq ft x 1.3 bn = 2.6 trillion square feet of housing in China — that’s a lot of square footage!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by ACH
2010-01-14 06:23:06

Yes it is a lot. China has 103 trillion square feet, so with 2.6 trillion square feet of total living space that is 2.6% of the total land mass is indoors. What I’m not sure about is what the living space includes. It could include libraries, work space, indoor arenas, etc.

Roidy

 
Comment by Blue Skye
2010-01-14 06:36:49

I accept that the typical new housing in the suburbs is of this size. A friend who goes to China on business says the same, adding that the buildings fill the lots out to the edges.

Comparing the population density of the whole country to Nassau County isn’t valid.

Assuming one house per person isn’t valid.

 
Comment by Zhang Fei
2010-01-14 08:14:33

Comparing the population density of the whole country to Nassau County isn’t valid.

Chongqing is merely the biggest city in China. China’s population density is about 360/sq mile. Germany’s is 600. Britain’s is 657. I think everybody is under the misapprehension* that China is this tiny country with 1.3b people. In reality, it’s the 3rd largest country in the world, just behind Russia and Canada. Monaco is overpopulated. Singapore is overpopulated. China is not.

* This misapprehension is encouraged by the Chinese government, which would like foreigners to believe that they have this gargantuan task of feeding 1.3b sardines in a tin can. In reality, I know of no government that has ever fed its people. Throughout history, the people have always fed the government.

 
Comment by yensoy
2010-01-14 10:34:45

While calling CQ China’s largest city is accurate in some sense, it’s also dubious because CQ municipality is a concocted mishmash of a whole bunch of populated areas separated by large distances, including mountains and agricultural regions within. Go look up satellite images of the area and you’ll see what I mean. It’s like naming the DC-NY-Boston one large metropolis, only worse.

I agree that China is not overpopulated in the sense of many other countries. Yes, China is a large country. But you know better than I do that most (and I mean >80%) of the population is along the coast. Over half the land area is rather inhabitable in the sense that it can’t support high population densities - the high mountains of Tibet and desert of Xinjiang. The coastal provinces of China, even those one province further inland, do have a high population density, and that is the China that people see and talk about.

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-13 22:48:07

Bernanke’s Shaky Branch in Housing Argument
1/13/2010

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has insisted that low interest rates in recent years have had nothing to do with the housing bubble. WSJ’s David Wessel looks at the problems with his argument.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-13 22:49:23

News Hub: Challenging Bernanke on Housing Bust
1/13/2010

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke says low interest rates aren’t to blame for the housing boom and bust. WSJ’s Jon Hilsenrath tells Kelly Evans why fellow economists aren’t buying his argument.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-13 22:50:52

News Hub: Bonuses Fuel Apartment Sales
1/12/2010

Brokers say Web and open-house traffic is up for luxury apartments. WSJ reporter Dawn Wotapka tells the News Hub’s Simon Constable it’s tied to Wall Street bonuses.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-13 22:52:50

Circular logic: The housing stimulus is working, as home prices are rising. Therefore, more stimulus is needed, to make sure home prices keep rising.

AM Report: Seeking a Housing Recovery
1/7/2010

Gains in home sales have been driven by government stimulus, leading some to wonder if the nascent housing recovery needs federal assistance to sustain, Nick Timiraos reports.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-13 23:09:19

Time for the bankster chiefs to enjoy a public flogging. Got popcorn?

The Financial Times
Wall Street titans face the flak

By Tom Braithwaite and Francesco Guerrera in Washington

Published: January 13 2010 14:25 | Last updated: January 13 2010 19:25

Four of Wall Street’s top executives offered some contrition and a defence of their actions on Wednesday, as the head of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission promised to use wide-ranging powers to establish the causes of the financial crisis and pursue any wrongdoing.

Lloyd Blankfeinof Goldman Sachs, Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, John Mack of Morgan Stanley and Brian Moynihan of Bank of America maintained a united front as the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, headed by Phil Angelides, probed the bail-out of AIG, risk management and executive compensation.

Mr Blankfein, whose bank has become a lightning rod for public anger at Wall Street, bore the brunt of the panel’s questions. He mounted a robust defence after being asked whether part of his business was akin to selling a car with faulty brakes and then buying an insurance policy. But he added: “Anyone who says I wouldn’t change a thing, I think, is crazy.”

The Goldman boss said that he and his rivals had been insufficiently sceptical of loose credit standards.

“We rationalised [it] because a firm’s interest in preserving and growing its market share, as a competitor, is sometime blinding – especially when exuberance is at its peak.”

Mr Angelides, a former California treasurer appointed head of the panel by Congress last year, told the witnesses on the first day of public hearings: “We’re after the truth . . . the hard facts . . . we’ll use our subpoena power as needed. And if we find wrongdoing, we’ll refer it to the proper authorities.”

Bonuses are drawing increasing political fire on Capitol Hill as the banks prepare to announce billions of dollars in pay-outs over the next few days.

“Clearly Wall Street has to be a lot more attuned to what’s going on in the economy,” said Mr Mack. But he said that compensation had to allow the banks to compete for staff. “I have to run a company.”

EDITOR’S CHOICE
Bankers grilled in tense exchanges - Jan-13
Crisis inquiry: Live blog - Jan-13
In depth: Crisis inquiry - Jan-12
In depth: US banks - Jan-07
Opinion: Why Obama must take on Wall Street - Jan-12
Global Insight: Still bristling over AIG haircut - Jan-13

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-14 05:27:57

How did this 2009 prediction pan out?

Wall Street Bonuses May Go Way of Dodo Amid Bailouts (Update2)
By Dawn Kopecki and Christine Harper

Jan. 30, 2009 (Bloomberg) — The Wall Street bonus, considered a sacred ritual, may become the industry’s biggest casualty as governments worldwide bail out financial institutions.

UBS AG was told to reduce bonuses after the Swiss government gave the country’s biggest bank a $59.2 billion lifeline. Bank of America Corp. is under pressure to scale back payouts after New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo subpoenaed executives earlier this week for information on compensation and President Barack Obama said just yesterday that bonuses handed out by banks represent “the height of irresponsibility.”

The current system of “asymmetric compensation,” in which people are rewarded when they do well and aren’t required to return the rewards when they lose money, is detrimental to society and needs to change, said Nassim Taleb, a professor at New York University and author of “The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable,” in an interview.

The worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, a $700 billion taxpayer bailout in the U.S. and the demise of three of the biggest securities firms — Bear Stearns Cos., Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Merrill Lynch & Co. — didn’t deter investment banks from offering year-end rewards to employees on top of their salaries.

Financial companies in New York City paid cash bonuses of $18.4 billion last year (2008), the sixth-most in history, even as they posted record losses, according to data compiled by the office of state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli. The payouts are split among everyone from managing directors to secretaries.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-14 05:45:13

Last Updated: January 14, 2010
Weather: Melbourne 13°C - 24°C . Becoming sunny.

Barack Obama wants Street to pay

* Daily Mail
* From: Herald Sun
* January 14, 2010 12:00AM

Tax raid: US President Barack Obama is planning a levy for the banking industry. Source: AFP

BARACK Obama is planning a tax raid on American banks to claw back some of the mammoth support taxpayers have thrown at America’s stricken financial system.

As Wall Street firms prepare to hand out record bonuses, the President could raise as much as $US120 billion ($A129 billion) through the mooted windfall levy on the banking industry.

Mr Obama is said to be angered by the prospect of Wall Street handing hefty cheques to traders - while Main Street USA picks up the tab for the financial meltdown of late 2008.

With the unemployment rate above 10 per cent, a tax raid on the reviled banking industry would be a popular move ahead of Congressional elections later in the year.

The move is the most dramatic sign yet that the net is closing in on fat-cat investment bankers.

 
Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)
You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

Trackback responses to this post

  • The Housing Bubble Blog
  • The Housing Bubble Blog