March 28, 2010

Bits Bucket For March 28, 2010

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




RSS feed | Trackback URI

281 Comments »

Comment by aNYCdj
2010-03-28 04:51:13

Up early, gotta drive the GF to her job in manhattan no traffic at this time of the morning and it’s just something nice i do for her

Comment by combotechie
2010-03-28 05:08:30

Sounds like love.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 08:09:20

Lucky girl to have such a nice BF!

 
Comment by Bill in Los Angeles
2010-03-28 08:40:57

For waking up early she should have allowed you to give her a dawn’s surprise (see the rock group Cream’s “Sunshine of my love”).

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 11:03:01

Moonlight surprises aren’t half-bad, either…

 
 
Comment by SanFranciscoBayAreaGal
2010-03-28 09:14:02

You are a true gentleman and DJ scholar.

 
 
Comment by NYchk
2010-03-28 05:18:06

Since summer 2009, investors and traders enjoyed a huge rally in the residential mortgage bond market. Seeing significant Institutional Investor demand for mortgage-backed-securities, IBs are expecting all these assets to continue to rise through 2010, and are planning to revive ABS issuance in response to investor demand.

We’ve all heard about some pockets of the housing market getting red hot… Apparently, it’s the same story at the institutional side. Not sure which side is the dog and which side is the tail… But we’ve seen this movie before, no?

Comment by exeter
2010-03-28 05:22:45

We have.

And I encounter a David Lerner salesmen say…..every 3 weeks or so and every single one of them are hawking CDO’s at the retail level.

Comment by combotechie
2010-03-28 05:48:43

For those who (like me) don’t know who David Lerner is, google-up “david lerner scams”.

Interesting stuff.

Comment by arizonadude
2010-03-28 07:16:46

Buy a house and get rich?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by NycityBoy
2010-03-28 05:24:55

I’m sure The Fed buyig $1.25 trillion worth of this crap had nothing to do with it. Where is it in their mandate to artificially inflate every asset class known to man?

“I pledge allegiance to the flag and the banana republic for which it stands…..”

Comment by combotechie
2010-03-28 05:32:25

Chumming the waters draws in the fish.

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 08:13:11

Chum-eating fish attract the sharks.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by SanFranciscoBayAreaGal
2010-03-28 09:15:54

We’re going to need a bigger boat.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 09:37:54

Right — you don’t want the tsunami waves to knock you out of the boat into waters infested with chum, fish and sharks.

 
Comment by alpha-sloth
2010-03-28 10:32:58

chum4chumps ?

 
 
 
Comment by NYchk
2010-03-28 08:09:48

“I’m sure The Fed buyig $1.25 trillion worth of this crap had nothing to do with it.”

… and it looks like for now the Fed succeeded in drawing out investors. Like lemmings, money managers are once again chasing yield.

This market revival has been very good for IB bottom lines (for now), but it’s terrible for prospective home buyers. The more activity in ABS/MBS markets, the less house our non-leveraged cash will buy.

Comment by combotechie
2010-03-28 08:25:43

“Like lemmings, money managers are once again chasing yield.”

They don’t have a choice. They need to justify the hefty fees they charge their clients.

Their clients would probably be better off staying in cash but then their clients would’t need a money manager for that, so off chasing yields they go.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 09:43:47

“Where is it in their mandate to artificially inflate every asset class known to man?”

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I repeat my oft-asked question: Has there ever in history been a similar effort to reflate housing prices during a U.S. real estate bust comparable to the one that is currently underway?

Comment by Real Estate Refugee
2010-03-28 12:13:43

The answer to this has to be no.

What’s allowed this effort in reinflation is current technology. The development of computers has, like anything else, an upside and a downside.

Think about how information about foreclosures would have been collected 50 years ago. How mortgages were held 50 years ago.

Almost of the elements of this credit bubble would have been impossible without computers and information technology.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 15:55:09

Very good point (and one I have often considered, as well).

A related idea: Could the Fed have expanded its balance sheet the way it did to fend off the Fall 2008 financial crisis? Think of how much green paper would have needed to have been printed in the era before the advent of modern computers…we would probably be carting it around in wheelbarrows by now.

 
 
 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 08:11:44

“Since summer 2009, investors and traders enjoyed a huge rally in the residential mortgage bond market.”

Three hunches:

1) This is directly tied to a belief that housing market reflation efforts will succeed.

2) When it turns out they don’t succeed, there will be a selloff in the residential mortgage bond market.

3) The gap between mortgage bond and Treasury bond yields will widen, thanks to a flight to quality into Treasurys.

I know these are kind of no-brainer statements, but thought I would share in case anyone was interested…

Comment by NYchk
2010-03-28 08:23:13

It all depends on the likeliness of point #2 - “when” or “if”. I’d like to believe it’s “when”, but I wouldn’t bet my shirt on it.

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 08:42:57

Smoke and mirrors will only get them so far before truth will out.

In case you missed my post of this article yesterday:

Property prices
Waiting for the other shoe to drop
Fears are growing of a second dip in the housing market

Mar 25th 2010 | WASHINGTON, DC | From The Economist print edition

IN ITS early days, the Obama administration argued over whether the financial system or the real economy should be the economic priority. Critics disputed the premise. They argued that no lasting recovery would be possible until housing markets were healthier.

Yet the housing-market recovery has almost run out of steam. Sales of new and existing homes have fallen for three consecutive months. As a result inventories have grown, putting downward pressure on home values. According to some measures, prices are dropping again: the Federal Housing Finance Agency reported national declines in December and January.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 09:36:11

here is the FHFA news release (excerpt below).

The importance of renewed declines in this index of U.S. home prices should not be overlooked, for the following reasons:

1) They use a repeat sales methodology similar to that used to produce the Case-Shiller/S&P 500 index, implying that they are controlling for the quality of homes represented by averaging price changes in the same home sold at different points in time. Hence they at least partially avoid confounding changes in the quality of homes selling with changes in their prices. (By contrast, the NAR’s median home sale price statistic could go up due to better quality homes selling over time, even if constant-quality market values were declining).

2) Their index is calculated only using homes whose mortgages were securitized by Fan and Fred, i.e. which are
below the conforming loan limit, which is $729,750 in the priciest markets and lower in less pricey markets. This is the tier of the market that is supposedly holding up best, due to the first-time home buyer credit and myriad other government stimuli. It makes one wonder how well the market values of $1m+ homes are holding up these days.

3) Just for fun, I annualized the two month price movement for the months of December 2009 - January 2010, to see how far the FHFA Index decline would go if the recent trend continued for ten more months:

One-month declines:

Nov 09-Dec 09 = 2.0 percent (revised upwards from the initial estimate of 1.6 percent!)

Dec 09-Jan 10 = 0.6 percent

Two months’ declines converted to an annualized rate:

(((1-0.02)*(1-0.006))^6-1)*100 = -14.6 percent annualized rate of national U.S. price decline on homes with Fannie and Freddie securitized mortgages.

4) It kind of goes without saying, but if the national average rate of U.S. home price decline is 14.6 percent, then one might surmise that home prices could be dropping much more rapidly in areas formerly referred to as ‘a bit frothy.’

Enjoy eating those force-fed GSE losses, U.S. taxpayers!

March 23, 2010

U.S. Monthly House Price Index Declines 0.6 Percent From
December to January

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. house prices fell 0.6 percent on a seasonally adjusted basis from December to January, according to the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s monthly
House Price Index. The previously reported 1.6 percent
decline in December was revised downward to a 2.0 percent decline. For the 12 months ending in January, U.S. prices fell 3.3 percent. The U.S. index is 13.2 percent below its April 2007 peak.

The FHFA monthly index is calculated using purchase prices of houses backing mortgages that have been sold to or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. For the nine Census Divisions, seasonally adjusted monthly price changes from December to January ranged from –1.8 percent in the East North Central Division to + 2.0 percent in the Mountain Division.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 09:40:27

Forgot to add:

BwaHahAHahAHHHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAAAAA!!!!!

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 11:06:14

Dumb predictions:

1) Uncle Sam will continue to support the housing market, following the conventional wisdom that there will be no recovery until the housing market recovery.

2) Given that Uncle Sam is already “all-in” with the housing reflation effort but home prices nonetheless continue to fall, home prices will continue to fall, despite ongoing “all-in” efforts to reflate the bubble.

 
Comment by NYchk
2010-03-28 13:55:13

One can only hope that national price declines will eventually resume in Manhattan. Instead, at the lower (read - only marginally affordable) end of the market, we’re back to increased sales, increased foot traffic, and *gasp* an occasional bidding war.

(They can keep their overpriced POS glorified shoeboxes, as far as I’m concerned…)

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 15:58:43

Trouble is that the helicopter drops of cash mainly land around DC and Manhattan. I expect Manhattan prices to stay persistently higher than the rest of the country because so much bail has landed there…

 
Comment by Pondering the Mess
2010-03-29 09:42:43

Same idea in Maryland, NoVa, and DC.

I expect decent housing may never be affordable around here at the rate things are going, or at least if it IS affordable, it’s only because of economic collapse. In other words, the houses are affordable, but good luck getting a job.

 
 
Comment by denquiry
2010-03-28 09:57:04

The housing bubble recovery and a competent president are what I would call “The American Dream.”

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by 2banana
2010-03-28 05:20:39

States shed government jobs as revenue plummets (Wave II of job losses coming)

AP | 03/25/10 | CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER

WASHINGTON – Pennsylvania, Michigan and Washington shed government jobs last month, a result of shrinking state tax revenue that economists fear could weaken the recovery.

State and local government jobs have traditionally provided a haven during economic downturns. But as states have struggled to close growing budget gaps, job cuts have spread.

That trend emerges from data on a dozen states that have released their employment figures in advance of a federal report Friday on state joblessness for February.

In Michigan, where the unemployment rate is 14.1 percent, the nation’s highest, government jobs at all levels fell by 5,000. They accounted for one-third of the state’s job losses.

Pennsylvania lost 2,200 government jobs. Minnesota lost 1,900 and Massachusetts 1,500.

Washington state shed 900 government jobs in February. And Wisconsin lost 2,100 government jobs, including 1,600 at the local level.

Comment by palmetto
2010-03-28 05:44:38

I don’t shed any tear for the loss of gubmin jobs. Government at all levels has been way too bloated for way too long. Time to trim the fat.

Comment by NycityBoy
2010-03-28 06:16:22

“But the big bad CEOs of Wall Street……”

I hate when people use one wrong to justify another wrong. That seems to be the only defense people can come up with to defend the gangster like organizations that are the public unions.

The subway is about to get uglier for NYC. Rates are going up. Services are going down. There will be fewer attendants. Nowhere did the thought of pay or benefits cuts ever come up. That is only reserved for private sector employees.

Walk around the NYC subway system and just check out the MTA employees. Check out the work ethic. Bring a magnifying glass. Check out the look on their faces. It is repugnant. But I am sure they are there to serve the public. Total bulls–t.

Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2010-03-28 08:44:51

Union service workers are assured Democratic Party votes. They don’t NEED no stinkin’ work ethic. Just like the NEA. It’s just about impossible to fire a union teacher. Of all the tens of thousands union teachers in NYC, just three were fired last year. And yet teacher incompetence and misconduct is rampant in the public school system.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by aNYCdj
2010-03-28 09:24:36

I fully agree…and its time to make it easy to fire the lazy and stupid. There are probably 50,000 people who would love their jobs…so I hope they strike and get sheeetkanned by Bloomberg.

There is no such thing as scabs at 10%+ unemployment
—————-
Walk around the NYC subway system and just check out the MTA employees. Check out the work ethic

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-28 13:41:51

NYCboy, New York City is famous for it’s corruption and sloth at all levels.

Excluding the other top 10 cities in the rest of country, unions offer the only protection employees have. Labor laws are slow and often ineffective and justice “iffy” at best.

I truly wish there was more equitable for employees as unions today are often mired in their own status quo, but I haven’t seen anything except an employer who treats his employees fairly and let’s none take advantage of his fairness.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-28 13:43:00

“…something more…”

 
 
 
Comment by Bill in Los Angeles
2010-03-28 08:47:56

Agreed. And I’ll be honest to say that defense spending is still way too much for what we need - even if that cuts my contracting gig.

Twenty years ago the U.S. was number 3 in the Heritage Foundations freest nations. Now it’s number 8. Behind Canada!

http://www.heritage.org/index/

This is very alarming. it’s part of the desire of people voting for more handouts and for more security and less freedom. Partly for the sabre-rattling.

Pull out of the Middle east now.

Comment by alpha-sloth
2010-03-28 10:15:44

I’m not sure how the Heritage Foundation calculates ‘freedom’, but I notice Singapore is no. 2 on their list. I guess the state beating people for chewing gum doesn’t affect their ‘freedom’ rating?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by alpha-sloth
2010-03-28 14:28:34

Guess what? Every single other country on the list (except us, of course), including the seven above us, has some form of nationalized universal health care! So I guess even the Heritage Foundation is cool with it!

 
Comment by alpha-sloth
2010-03-28 14:38:41

Oh, and has anybody told Rush that when he flees America because of the government takeover of the health care system, and moves to Costa Rica, like he threatened, that they have universal health care there, too? Wouldn’t want to shock his fat old ticker…

In fact, I’m not so sure where he can go to escape it…maybe some muslim country in the Mideast? The last true ‘free market’ patriots. Or Somalia, maybe…

 
Comment by nickpapageorgio
2010-03-28 15:16:49

So I guess all of those points will make everyone feel better about the government spending 20 trillion dollars minimum on our new forced, IRS enforced “health care” shakedown. These Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin zings are so played. The 90’s called and want their tired clichés back.

 
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2010-03-28 16:03:54

I’m not sure how the Heritage Foundation calculates ‘freedom’, but I notice Singapore is no. 2 on their list. I guess the state beating people for chewing gum doesn’t affect their ‘freedom’ rating?

In Singapore you have the freedom to walk down your street after dark without looking over your shoulder. You have the freedom to park your car on the street and know that if some kid decides to vandalize it just for the hell of it, he is going to get his punk ass caned hard enough to leave permanent stripes - which tends to deter such behavior. If you throw gum or candy wrappers on the sidewalk instead of in one of the trash receptacles provided for that purpose, you will be slapped with a $200 fine. The Singapore justice system is severe but also swift, efficient, and by most accounts, honest. It keeps the riff-raff in line. I’d gladly accept Singapore-style rules over here.

 
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2010-03-28 16:07:01

http://www.corpun.com/awfay9405.htm

The cautionary tale of Michael Fay, an American teenager who picked the wrong country to spray-paint random people’s new cars.

 
Comment by alpha-sloth
2010-03-28 16:30:35

You’d probably like sharia law, too, Sammy.

 
Comment by alpha-sloth
2010-03-28 16:42:46

The 90’s called and want their tired clichés back.

Oh, yeah? Well, the jerk store called, and they’re running outta you! :wink:

I’ll quit zinging them when they retire and shut up- can’t happen too soon. Til then they’re fair game.

 
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2010-03-28 17:17:34

You’d probably like sharia law, too, Sammy.

Just for you, Alpha.

 
 
Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-28 13:36:39

The Heritage Foundation? Are you serious?

It doesn’t get any more neocon than those guys.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Bill in Los Angeles
2010-03-28 13:42:42

I took their reports non-seriously before. But note their reports are on economic freedom, not personal freedom.

Finally Canada, which has more personal freedom than the U.S. is ranked freer on the economic scale than us.

My wish for the last 31 years was to live in a libertarian society. Maybe gen-Y will live in libertarianism when they reach their 70s.

 
Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-28 13:49:26

We tried libertarian ideas. It was called the Gilded Age.

The Heritage Foundation is one of the behind scenes drivers of our current mess. Google them. Once you get past the conspiracy crap, you’ll see just who they really are.

Hard core neocon, NWO acrhitects.

 
Comment by Bill in Los Angeles
2010-03-28 16:47:21

No we did not try the libertarian age. Libertarianism never was tried in the modern nations. However Ancient Ireland experienced 1,000 years of libertarianism.

“For a thousand years, then, ancient Celtic Ireland had no State or anything like it. As the leading authority on ancient Irish law has writ­ten: “There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforce­ment of justice…. There was no trace of State-administered justice.”

Murray Rothbard, “For a New Liberty.”

 
Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-29 00:56:28

Gosh, I wonder why that still isn’t in force.

 
 
 
 
Comment by NycityBoy
2010-03-28 05:44:52

It is a start and must continue. This debate over public sector employees is picking up. It is getting rather heated in some cases. Of course the defenders of public employees say things like “you must be against the middle class” or “you must hate the working man” when you question public unions. Personally, I think the public unions are completely out of control.

A union is setup to defend against employers. In the case of public unions who is their employer? It is you and I. So, you are telling me that they need to setup a union to protect themselves from me? Wrong. I think I need to setup a union to protect myself from them.

Last summer at our now annual reunion I saw a bunch of friends from back home. This is when the “miracle recovery” was still pretty new. The person with the best outlook for the economy was my friend’s wife that worked for the county. They were super extra busy because they were spending a lot of money on such things as “foreclosure prevention”. I just walked away.

Please don’t try to tell me that public unions are here to serve us. They are here to serve us alright. They will serve us, on a platter, surrounded by some new potatoes and baby carrots.

 
Comment by SUGuy
2010-03-28 06:46:53

State put freeze on hiring, then added 51,464 people

Gov. David Paterson ordered a “hard” hiring freeze in state government nearly two years ago, declaring that only “absolutely essential” positions be filled.

But state officials hired 51,464 people at a cost to taxpayers of more than $1 billion in salaries, plus fringe benefits, since that decree on July 30, 2008.

The hires include sons of elected officials, a close friend of the governor’s and a slew of highly paid political appointees.

Former Syracuse Mayor Matt Driscoll, for example, makes $155,000 a year in an environmental job the governor created for him. Paterson hired an executive assistant at $178,000 a year, a special assistant at $135,000 a year and a scheduler at $105,000 a year. A man responsible for blogging and tweeting for the Senate was hired by the Democratic majority at $120,000 a year.

Other state agencies hired photography assistants, tree pruners and ski school instructors, often with approval from Paterson’s Division of Budget.

Two summers ago, Paterson announced a “hard” hiring freeze as the nation’s economy soured and the state’s budget gap grew.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/03/state_put_freeze_on_hiring_the.html

Comment by NycityBoy
2010-03-28 07:58:16

I have my eye on the exit at all time. This place is a corruption cesspool.

Comment by SUGuy
2010-03-28 08:11:17

I think a lot of Governors and Mayors are paying a close attention as to how this will play out before they implement it in their own state.

States Seeking Cash Hope to Expand Taxes to Services

In the scramble to find something, anything, to generate more revenue, states are considering new taxes on virtually everything: garbage pickup, dating services, bowling night, haircuts, even clowns.

“It’s hard enough doing what we do,” grumbled John Luke, a plumber in the Philadelphia suburbs. His services would, for the first time, come with an added tax if the governor has his way.

Opponents of imposing taxes on services like funerals, legal advice, helicopter rides and dry cleaning argue that this push comes as businesses are barely clinging to life and can ill afford to see customers further put off by new taxes. This is especially true, they say, in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, where some of the most sweeping proposals are being considered this spring.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/us/28taxes.html?pagewanted=1&ref=todayspaper

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by alpha-sloth
2010-03-28 10:30:33

If they taxed services in order to broaden the tax base and lower overall taxes, I would have no problem with it- it’s only fair. Why should I pay tax at a diner where I eat a sandwich, then go next door and get my hair cut and pay no tax? What’s the difference?

 
Comment by Bad Chile
2010-03-28 15:02:31

I believe New Mexico taxes services, as the state technically has a Gross Receipts Tax and not a sales tax.

 
 
Comment by CarrieAnn
2010-03-28 09:50:02

Ditto. My DH grew up here and even he’s had it.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by eddiamond
2010-03-28 08:02:41

Do you think its the unions we need protection from or these blank check bureaucrats? A union does not have as its sole function the protection of its members. Its main reason for existence is as a bargaining agent for its members, to negotiate the framework for the agreement that will govern the working environment, salary and benefits, job descriptions. disciplinary procedures etc. The positive benefit of this is a workforce with much less turnover, more experience and stability. What I don’t understand is people on this blog who begrudge someone making a middle class living or salary. (The numbers for some California and East Coast civil servants are excessive, but it takes 2 parties to sign the contract…blame the pols). As we’ve seen with the declining numbers of union representation, there has been a matching decline in wages, benefits & standard of living with no matching decline in the cost of living, or unemployment. Just remember that the goal of the corporation is to maximize profit for its shareholders and upper managers (not necessarily in that order) and the employees are not people, but “human resources” to be exploited and discarded for that gain.

Comment by aNYCdj
2010-03-28 09:33:15

You are right except middle class salaries should not be paid to government workers until all the deadwood has been fired.

Plus lots of jobs and skills are transferable. Ok you are slow processing pest control and demolition permits for new housing…..well let’s reassign you to the foreclosure dept so they don’t have to hire anyone new….these are the kinds of changes we need and unions are in the way.

What I don’t understand is people on this blog who begrudge someone making a middle class living or salary.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by NycityBoy
2010-03-28 05:22:30

This morning I am seeing that a 1,700 square foot duplex just came onto the market in my hometown. It is a foreclosure. The inside looks to have some damage but nothing excessive. I have seen much worse. The exterior seems to be in pretty good shape. Back in 2006 this house sold for $265,000. That number would have seemed insane to me but what do I know. I’m sure the locals thought it was awesome.

The price of the new listing is $35,000. This must be priced to try to get a bidding war going. Its current Zestimate is $176,000. It’s amazing that the REIC is still playing games.

Comment by exeter
2010-03-28 05:34:11

Games… specifically they’re being played by the REIC *REO* biz right down the local level. 60 days ago I noticed some very serious efforts by a non-GSE REO outlet at obscuring the amount of inventory. I forwarded all the info to BJ but I don’t know if he’s done anything or plans to.

Also….. I inquired about a shack that suits our needs until we die (single level, room for wheelchair ramps,etc). It took a great deal of effort for me to make that initial contact with the low-life realturd community but I did it. Anyways, we actually went to look at the place and there just happened to be two other looky-lou’s there which I was skeptical of…..
——->Last friday we were informed there were two offers on the place, *Saturday*(the next day!) FNM lowered the price by 5%. Now does I don’t need anyone to tell me that something really really smells bad about this! I called the realtor we were dealing with and told her….. She said “something stinks to high heaven”. Honestly, I don’t think there are any offers on this place and the two looky lou’s that were there were staged lookers.

The dishonesty continues from top to bottom, wall street to main street.

Comment by NycityBoy
2010-03-28 05:49:09

In the movie War Games they played that game Global Thermo Nuclear Warfare. The computer finally decided that the only way to win the game was not to play. Luckily, I have decided the same thing. We are not in a position where we have any incentive to play the game. We are lucky.

Comment by combotechie
2010-03-28 05:59:15

“… the only way to win the game was not to play.”

That’s why I like cash. Cash means not playing the game. In a deflationary environment cash wins.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by NycityBoy
2010-03-28 06:10:17

Cash means never having to say you’re sorry.

 
Comment by combotechie
2010-03-28 06:16:05

The same is true with a vasectomy.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 09:46:05

I suspect I would end up saying sorry to myself if I got a vasectomy. Buyer remorse seems like a major risk factor.

 
 
Comment by oxide
2010-03-28 06:24:04

“The only winning move is not to play.” One of the best lines in cinema.

Meanwhile, I’ve tossed back my blueberry smoothie. Today’s Sunday political shows look to be another blood-boiler best avoided, so I’m off to the farmer’s market.

I don’t expect much in the way of fresh veggies; it’s the “starving time” of the year. But these hard-working farmers need support. They are one of the reasons I so wanted health care reform. The vendors are little businesses usually with 10-20 employees or less, and they simply cannot afford any type of insurance on a free-market basis.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2010-03-28 08:50:41

I watched Fareed Zakaria’s interview of Mexican President Calderon this morning. Not a fan of CNN in general, but Fareed is a great interviewer and a brilliant person. Also seems to be one of the rare journalists with both integrity and objectivity, who doesn’t shy away from asking hard questions but doesn’t play the “gotcha” games beloved of headline whores.

 
Comment by alpha-sloth
2010-03-28 11:19:24

I agree, his show is the best thing on CNN. He gets great guests, too, which is surprising, because he asks tough questions and presses to have them answered. It’s not some Larry King softball batting practice.

 
Comment by exeter
2010-03-28 11:34:46

Zakaria is an actual credentialed journalist and his work is so refreshing given the level of ignorance associated with cable news.

 
 
 
Comment by aNYCdj
2010-03-28 09:39:49

Next time the Reeltaur tells you that…. Just retract your offer and lower it at least 10% and say there is always a bidding way Under the their fantasy price.

Last friday we were informed there were two offers on the place, *Saturday*(the next day!) FNM lowered the price by 5%.

 
Comment by B. Durbin
2010-03-28 14:37:40

When we put in our offer on our house, they told us there was another offer… on a house that had been on the market 140+ days. We said, “So?” and didn’t change our lowball offer. Funny, they actually went on to negotiate with us.

 
 
 
Comment by 2banana
2010-03-28 05:28:03

Democrats threaten companies hit hard by health care bill (Consequences??? Dems never heard of it)

Washington Examiner | March 27, 2010 | Byron York

Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, has summoned some of the nation’s top executives to Capitol Hill to defend their assessment that the new national health care reform law will cost their companies hundreds of millions of dollars in health insurance expenses. Waxman is also demanding that the executives give lawmakers internal company documents related to health care finances — a move one committee Republicans describes as “an attempt to intimidate and silence opponents of the Democrats’ flawed health care reform legislation.”

In filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the companies — so far, they include AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar, Deere, Valero Energy, AK Steel and 3M — say a tax provision in the new health care law will make it far more expensive to provide prescription drug coverage to their retired employees. In turn, employees of those companies are wondering whether the new law could mean reduced or canceled benefits for them in the future.

The news is an embarrassment for Democrats. As President Obama and congressional leaders tout the purported benefits of the new health care law, some of the nation’s biggest companies are saying it will mean higher costs and fewer benefits — not exactly what Democrats want to hear in the days after their historic victory.

Comment by NycityBoy
2010-03-28 05:39:54

“The news is an embarrassment for Democrats.”

Nonsense. Being on the Left the Democrats must be for freedom of thought and freedom of expression. They wouldn’t be like those nasty freedom hating conservatives. The Democrats would never use such devices as political correctness (censorship of ideas and words) to advance themselves. Oh, wait.

Moving on!

 
Comment by Bad Chile
2010-03-28 05:41:11

Didn’t the Supreme Court just rule that corporations are essentially people and therefore, protected under the First Amendment?

We really are a banana republic. We’re just kinda making it up as we go along.

Comment by NycityBoy
2010-03-28 06:09:06

Corporations were deemed to have the rights of people back in the 1800s. That was a disastrous ruling that haunts us to this day.

The rejects in the Supreme Court took it one step further and said that as people corporations should not have their freedom of speech denied when it comes to elections. This means there are no funding limits for corporations anymore. I believe that is the gist of the latest ruling.

Comment by joeyinCalif
2010-03-28 06:58:30

..Corporations were deemed to have the rights of people..

Corporations were deemed to have the rights and responsibilities of people, in order that they were viewed as legal entities, which could be sued in court.

When a corporation is viewed as a person, a court can sue it for all it’s worth when it’s products kill someone, or it poisons the environment… or whatever…

As a corporate company “owner” (stock holder), my liability is limited to the value of whatever stock I own.
If it weren’t so limited, and if I could be sued and held legally liable for the costs of whatever trouble that company might get into, I wouldn’t invest in companies. Nobody would.
Buying a single share of stock would mean you are putting your entire personal fortune at risk.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by SDGreg
2010-03-28 08:14:19

Montana had it right:

“They took aim at Montana’s law, which voters adopted by initiative in 1912. This law says: “A corporation may not make a contribution or expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party.”

http://www.missoulian.com/news/local/article_10073dd2-2b22-11df-904c-001cc4c03286.html

Developers are trying to force the state to comply with the Supreme Court ruling.

I’m not sure which I hate more, the current “non-activist” Supreme Court, or the U.S. MSM. Both seem about equally harmful.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by joeyinCalif
2010-03-28 08:52:31

What is right about a company’s workers Union being allowed to buy politicians while the company is not?

 
Comment by In Colorado
2010-03-28 10:52:58

I fear corprorations more than unions. If the corps had their way we’d all be working 80 work weeks for $1/hr.

 
Comment by joeyinCalif
2010-03-28 14:32:22

If the Unions had their way, American labor would cost so much companies would shut down their factories and move production to foreign countries.

 
Comment by exeter
2010-03-28 17:54:57

Nice try Joey but the typical worker v.The Corporation is the rule generally speaking. Please don’t bother suggesting that the typical worker has the overwhelming strength in that relationship.

 
Comment by joeyinCalif
2010-03-29 01:38:33

While it’s plainly evident that some interests of the typical worker would oppose those of “The Corporations”, realizing that labor unions’ interests are at odds with those of the typical worker requires a bit of insight.

 
Comment by exeter
2010-03-29 05:17:24

Considering the number of workers represented by collective bargaining has fallen year after year for 30 years, your demagogueing of something that doesn’t exist to advance the interest of the more powerful requires dishonesty and a lack of integrity.

You met both. Well done.

 
 
 
 
Comment by joeyinCalif
2010-03-28 05:58:12

…”To assist the Committee with its preparation for the hearing,” he wrote to Stephenson, “we request that you provide the following documents from January 1, 2009, through the present:

(1) any analyses related to the projected impact of health care reform on AT&T; and (2) any documents, including e-mail messages, sent to or prepared or reviewed by senior company officials related to the projected impact of health care reform on AT&T. We also request an explanation of the accounting methods used by AT&T since 2003 to estimate the financial impact on your company of the 28 percent subsidy for retiree drug coverage and its deductibility or nondeductibility, including the accounting methods used in preparing the cost impact statement released by AT&T this week.

——–
AT&T and others will no doubt add the costs of complying to these requests to their charges against earnings due to that health care bill.

 
Comment by palmetto
2010-03-28 06:02:44

“As President Obama and congressional leaders tout the purported benefits of the new health care law, some of the nation’s biggest companies are saying it will mean higher costs and fewer benefits”

Feh. He said, she said. Where were these companies when the health care legislation was being debated? Er, uh, oh, I forgot, there wasn’t much debate, was there? Still, it’s a little weird the companies remained pretty much quiet while all the hoo-rah was going on, now they’re pitching a fit.

I’m no fan of the health care legislation, but Waxman’s request is not unreasonable. If the corps are going to complain about costs, they should back it up with some hard data.

Comment by palmetto
2010-03-28 06:37:16

Obama and his dems are feeling their oats right now. And as much as I oppose the health care legislation and other initiatives, things are getting interesting. For example, there seems to be a bit of a push-back against China. Netanyahu was snubbed recently, after his defiant hissy-fit. I mean, when the US gives billions of dollars to Israel, we ought to get a little something for our money besides outright defiance and attacks on our ships like the Liberty. With respect to the threats by the republicants that they would work to repeal the health care bill, Obama told them to “go for it”. And he just made a bunch of recess appointments to administrative posts, bypassing the Senate. Looks like he and some of the dems are growing a pair. Interesting. And by all recent reports, we’re going to make a nice piece of change on Citi’s repayment of the bailout.

I’m not against health care reform, per se, but I adamantly oppose the public mandate and I suspect that will ultimately be stripped.

Comment by SDGreg
2010-03-28 08:21:40

“And he just made a bunch of recess appointments to administrative posts, bypassing the Senate.”

Most had already been approved by Senate committees, but were being held up from full Senate votes by obstructionist Republicans.

Maybe Obama’s finally learning you can’t have bipartisanship when the second party has become a fringe, extremist party. We need a second viable party, but the current Republican Party is not it.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by I Can't do fifty-five
2010-03-28 09:45:12

The pubies used to say the same thing about dems not so long ago. My god, how soon the roles reverse and still use the same dialogues…

 
Comment by Lip
2010-03-28 09:45:23

Dear SD Greg,

“Maybe Obama’s finally learning you can’t have bipartisanship when the second party has become a fringe, extremist party.”

You know how much I’d hate to disagree with that line but I find that I must.

Please name once in his entire presidency that BHO has practiced any bipartisanship. Just one. IMO he’s the epitomy of a Chicago style politico that crams everything down without a thought to considering the other side’s thoughts.

Regarding healthcare the Repub’s offered last fall:
1) Increasing competition by allowing insurance companies to cross state lines.
2) Tort reform. Note that CA has a better medical system because they limit the amount of medical malpractice payouts. There are more doctors with openings in their calendar in CA.
3) and a bunch of other plans.

http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/HealthCare.htm#1

And one other thing, the Dems are in power right now but I’ll bet you an adult beverage of your choice that it’s going to change come this fall. BHO will be the only Dem in power once the facts about this new health care bill become well known. Just wait and see.

 
Comment by Kim
2010-03-28 09:52:29

Well, B.O. didn’t like it when Bush pulled that trick. Remember John Bolton?

We need to throw all the officeholders out and start over.

 
Comment by In Colorado
2010-03-28 11:02:18

“Please name once in his entire presidency that BHO has practiced any bipartisanship.”

I seem to recall that he invites the repubs to work on the healthcare bill and they refused, claiming that it was a “trap”.

 
Comment by alpha-sloth
2010-03-28 11:08:14

At the same point in the Bush 2 admin, there were 5 appointees awaiting approval and Bush made 15 recess appointments. At the same point in the Obama admin, there are 77 appointees awaiting approval, and Obama made 15 recess appointments. There’s clearly a large difference in the scale between the two, and the obvious reason is the repubs are just trying to obstruct everything.

It’s backfired on the repubs because they could have made some good arguments against some of the appointments, if they had just focused on those. Instead they tried the Newt Gingrich shut-it-all-down strategy and made it easy for Obama to ramrod some through. They never seem to learn…

 
 
 
Comment by denquiry
2010-03-28 10:08:49

I’m no fan of the health care legislation, but Waxman’s request is not unreasonable. If the corps are going to complain about costs, they should back it up with some hard data.
—————————————————————————
the way I see it is that these corps want the same deal da DC boys gave the banks. I don’t recollect the banks giving da DC boys “hard data” last November for their bailout give-away.

 
 
Comment by REhobbyist
2010-03-28 06:33:17

I call BS on this. What’s so top secret about a company’s “health care finances?” I’ll bet their employees would want to know how the money is spent.

And I’ll bet that these companies were planning to reduce health care benefits to retirees in the future anyway, and can conveniently pin it on the gubmint.

I related this story a few years ago to y’all: my father, a Ford retiree, got cancer in 2007 and died suddenly within a few months. Three days after he died, I found a large envelope from Ford that he had received a month earlier and hadn’t mentioned to me. Ford cut its supplemental health insurance for retirees completely and replaced it with an $1800/year health savings account for each retiree. The account can be used to pay Medicare Part B premiums, supplemental insurance premiums, and copays for visits and prescriptions. She comes up about $300 short each year and pays out of pocket. I was very worried at the time, but it’s working for her. Twice a year I send in receipts and they send my mom a check. The Part B premiums are automatically deducted each month.

Maybe every company should do this.

Comment by combotechie
2010-03-28 06:40:58

“And I’ll bet that these companies were planning to reduce health care benifits to retirees in the future anyway, and can conveniently blame it on the gubmint.”

BINGO! I know for a fact this is true of AT&T and is probably true for the others as well.

Comment by cobaltblue
2010-03-28 08:31:11

We often lament how other nations “spend less but get equal or better care.” There is no magic and no secret as to how they do this. It doesn’t happen because these nations are more efficient, or have fewer middlemen.

It happens because our lawmakers have put in place a legal structure that allows health-care related companies to sell at below-market (and perhaps even below-all-in cost!) prices to other nations while barring the purchasers of those drugs and devices from selling them to whoever they want - specifically, those who live HERE!

If that was not the case then drug and device makers would face competition from these re-imported items and our prices would go down (a lot) while theirs would go up (a fair bit.) The drug and device makers, along with foreign governments who run socialized health systems, don’t like this - therefore they get our government to pass laws that make it illegal for the free market to address this distortion - and force Americans to eat the costs that should be borne by foreigners.

Nor does it stop there. Medicare and Medicaid allegedly (if you believe doctors, hospitals, and others) pay reimbursements that are below the cost of providing services. These firms and individuals thus cost-shift the part of that cost not covered to you, the privately-insured individual or corporation along with the uninsured. This would normally be illegal under anti-trust law too, but that has also been made legal by exemptions passed by this very same government.

Finally, if you have no insurance and no money, you will get emergency care anyway. An “emergency”, by the way, includes perfectly-foreseen emergencies - like giving birth. Even if you’re an illegal Mexican invader. Instead of the hospital sending that bill to The Federal Government which then pays it and forwards it to Mexico (since it was their citizen that incurred the expense), offsetting whatever we need to in order to secure payment, our government again makes lawful that which would otherwise not be - that is, you are forced through higher costs to you to pay for that illegal invader’s medical care.

One of the “cute tricks” passed with Medicare Part “D” (by George W. Bush) was a “tax credit” for corporations who provided health care to retirees from their firms. This too was a distortion - an intentional one put into that bill to “buy off” some key Reps and Senators to insure passage of Medicare Part “D” (the biggest boondoggle and scam in the history of the Republic - until President Obama signed this piece of crap legislation.)

(From K. Denninger)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by measton
2010-03-28 09:57:10

BS propaganda

1. Rx drugs account for approximately 20% of our health care dollars, so even if we got them for free we’d still spend a lot more.
2. Drug companies do not sell at below cost to foreign countries, show me one for profit company doing this. This is pure BS, for profit companies don’t sell squat at below cost unless it is to gain market share and shut down the competition.
3. If medicare didn’t pay enough to cover costs all doctors would refuse medicare rather then a small portion. The real cost shifting happens when private insurance refuses to insure the sick, doesn’t cover pre existing conditions or drops coverage for sick people or populations. These people end up on the public system.
4. WE agree that medicare part D was a boon doggle. It did not allow medicare to bargain for lower prices. They can set pay for doctors but drug companies are off limits.

PS There does appear to be a commission forming due to the bill that will start looking at cost benefit analysis. This is the best piece of this legislation is the goal is good health care at a lower price.

 
Comment by alpha-sloth
2010-03-28 11:35:46

Nice takedown of the newest talking points of the health-care status quo defenders, measton.

Now that it’s been shown beyond all doubt that every other developed country pays less for health-care, and generally has better results and higher user satisfaction, they’ve shifted to the “we somehow subsidize them” argument. With about as much evidence (ie little or none) to back up their current line of defense as they had at previous stages.

 
 
 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 08:39:05

“Democrats threaten companies hit hard by health care bill”

One way to show your pet program is ‘working’: Intimidate those with contrary evidence into silence.

 
 
Comment by CrackerJim
2010-03-28 06:19:56

“If the corps are going to complain about costs, they should back it up with some hard data.”

You mean in the same way the government and political parties back up their data?

Comment by NycityBoy
2010-03-28 06:38:52

Ouch!

 
Comment by palmetto
2010-03-28 06:40:05

No, Cracker, and you know where I stand in general on these issues. Everyone should back up claims with proof. Like the CBC guys who claimed that racist epithets were hurled at them. Given that all these cameras were present during that little fracas, it’s really interesting none of this was caught on tape.

Comment by measton
2010-03-28 09:59:02

There were recorded threats on phone lines, and bricks thrown through windows, and coffins left for those who voted for the bill, yet you question the racist comment??

Comment by palmetto
2010-03-28 11:02:03

OK, where are the recordings? Undoctored, mind you.

Yes, I question “racist” epithets without any proof. Does Tawanda Brawley, Duke stripper and San Diego white sheet freak ring a bell with you? How about the “Compton Cookout”?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by right vs left
2010-03-28 06:26:12

I wish you guys would leave the politics out of your comments. It makes anything you say suspect because you lost all objectivity. You can’t see the truth because of your biases.

Comment by palmetto
2010-03-28 07:04:09

Yeah, take that, HBBers! We’re a bunch of biased ninnies with no credibility, even though WE were able to “see it coming”! I hope we all now feel properly chastened. (Even though politics had everything to do with the housing bubble.)

Comment by OCBear
2010-03-28 08:10:08

(Even though politics had everything to do with the housing bubble.)

Curious: Are you saying one Political side made the Housing Bubble?

Was it the Democratic Congress and Clinton pushing through the 1/4 million per spouse Tax exemption?

Was it the Republican Congress and Clinton repealing Glass-Steagell which allowed banks to leverage to lunacy?

Was it Bush and the Republican Congress continuing the failed programs of Home ownership and ridiculous deregulation?

Was it Bawny and company screaming from the rooftops that Fannie and Freddie are necessary and in no danger?

Two sides of the same coin. They just want Dem’s and Rep’s at odds in the General Public, as long as they have that they have control.
But maybe those things didn’t happen. Maybe it was just a bad dream.

Comment by NycityBoy
2010-03-28 08:21:20

And if we look even closer we may see the Federal Reserve, and its member banks, behind all of it.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by OCBear
2010-03-28 08:24:48

I have finished the Tin Foil Hat Bible.

“The Creature from Jeckylle Island.”

Disturbing to a level that makes it hard to breath.

Life goes on in spite of us.

 
Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-28 14:05:11

Now you need to read “Gangs of America” by Ted Nace.

It’s free on-line as a PDF (or was, haven’t checked in a few years)

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 09:06:06

Most high-level political entities from both sides of the aisle, as well as the so-called ‘independent’ Fed, were all-in.

What Mr or Mrs right vrs left is is a troll.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Natalie
2010-03-28 08:46:41

“We’re a bunch of biased ninnies with no credibility, even though WE were able to “see it coming””

I would love to see statistics on how many people found this blog because they felt priced out of the housing market (i.e., could not buy at what seemed like a reasonable price so rented while getting pissed hearing idiots talk about how much money they were making by doing nothing like they were genius investors - so they wanted to find other like people to confirm they were not crazy in believing the housing market was way over priced). My guess is well over 50%. I think all of those people saw it coming. To get real cred, I think you would have had to sold an existing home and switched to a rental near the peak, and for super-duper cred, come reasonably close to predicting when to get back into the stock market and housing.

Comment by ACH
2010-03-28 09:25:43

“To get real cred, I think you would have had to sold an existing home and switched to a rental near the peak,… ”

I sold in Tampa in the summer of ‘06 and moved to N. Louisiana. I bought a house with the money I got from my house sale in Tampa. My wife and I got an almost “free” house in a good neighborhood. I say almost free because we are paying $400/mo on a 10 year note. When my wife goes back to work full time, we will pay the whole thing off in a year or so.

Kewl.

Roidy

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Natalie
2010-03-28 09:41:21

That is awesome. I sold my house in 2005, and after looking at houses in the new city for months, was so frustrated at prices that didn’t make sense that I decided to rent. The 700k houses I were looking at then are now between 550k and 600k. My return on investments were sufficient that I didn’t have to touch principal to pay rent (and in fact my earnings exceeded my rent) - so am way ahead. I remember when I told people I rented how negatively they looked down at me as if i was a financial moron. Some of those people lost their jobs in the downturn and are underwater right now on their mortgages in a very bad situation so I haven’t reminded them. I have cash so am not scared of interest rates. I have started to look at foreclosures and short sales and low ball, but am not ready to pay current FMV, thinking that once the tax credits die down and interest rates shoot up I can find better deals. My cred is limited though because I probably would not have sold if I didn’t move to another city.

 
Comment by CarrieAnn
2010-03-28 10:03:44

“To get real cred, I think you would have had to sold an existing home and switched to a rental near the peak,… ”

Done….although I still think the real trick is going to be surviving the roller coaster still yet to come. Can I leave my profits in cash where it is uber liquid. Or should I forget buying at all and stay nimble and ready to move should the double dip economics hit our family (job loss, currency collapse, both). Something in the middle? Other currencies that will survive a global contraction better? All so much to consider.

It’s not over till it’s over.

 
 
Comment by oxide
2010-03-28 11:56:04

Well Natalie,

1) I came here because I felt priced out of the market. I wasn’t exactly looking for a house, but something did feel bogus.

2) I’ve never owned a house because I’m too young. During the run-up, I was fresh out of school and paying off college loans and building an emergency fund. However, I *did* convince a friend to sell her home Thanksgiving 2006. How does that count?

3) I can’t call a bottom on the market because there are too many variables and too many sectors. However, I’m going to call a housing bottom in Winter 2013. That’s 18 months after the bulk of the recasts on the Credit Suisse graph, long enough for people to exhaust themselves into needing to fire-sale the homes. I also think that the Obama Admin is going to quit the prop and programs right after the 2012 election, either on principle or just because they ran out of money. I expect a pendulum swing down, then some bounce. Slow growth on fundamentals in 2015.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Natalie
2010-03-28 12:20:36

Your age surprises me given the wisdom and depth of your insights.

 
Comment by oxide
2010-03-28 16:51:51

I can’t take credit for this, sorry. I was in school for a LOT of years, and I have *ahem* several college degrees.

However, I was totally housing stupid until I got here. For example, as late as early 2004 I was wondering where the young folks were getting the $60K cash for their 20% down payment! Not realizing that down payments were a thing of the past…

[btw, that very question is what led me to HBB...]

 
 
Comment by B. Durbin
2010-03-28 14:50:05

Count me in that statistic. Sort of. What actually happened is that I was looking into the affordability index– what you needed to be making to afford a house– and kept coming back to the number that a house should be no more than 3x your annual income. But as I live in California, I couldn’t see how that was possible. All of the houses around me were selling at truly ludicrous prices unless I accepted the idea that Evil Rob’s nice corporate job was actually a poverty-level salary, and that didn’t sound right.

A little digging got me to Another FB and its essays on actual finance, and from there the links to this site. And the explanations were so clear, and so in line with what I’d learned growing up, that I began to understand what was going on clearly, and in a way that I could use to explain to other people.

Only ever met one true believer, and basically ended with “Well, we’ll see, won’t we?” Other than that, I was able to reassure other couples that yes, they would be able to afford a house someday– and I was able to give an approximate timeline because of this site. Accurate, as it turns out.

So I didn’t see this coming. I saw that there was something that didn’t fit with the information I was seeing, and did some research, and found other people who saw it coming, and LEARNED.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by joeyinCalif
2010-03-28 07:04:26

A hidden political agenda doesn’t make a comment any less biased than it actually is.

Comment by NycityBoy
2010-03-28 08:19:57

No kidding.

I can’t believe anybody would bring politics into a discussion on our economy or the housing bubble. Clearly, these things have nothing to do with each other. Good lord!

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 08:16:30

EddieTard, is that you, sweety?

Comment by ACH
2010-03-28 09:26:46

LOL

 
 
Comment by Natalie
2010-03-28 08:32:12

I prefer bias be in full view (i.e., say what they really mean). Isn’t everyone biased anyways? I have never met anyone whose views were not altered by their race, sexual orientation, wealth, looks, health, upbringing and life experiences, including you. The only thing that really bugs me is when people inaccurately summarize the views and beliefs of others during attacks. It is like so uncool. :(

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 09:01:45

“Isn’t everyone biased anyways?”

Doesn’t that statement severely undermine any meaningful definition of bias?

It is akin to saying, ‘there are no atheists, because even an atheist believes in something: the nonexistence of a deity.’

Comment by Natalie
2010-03-28 09:13:19

No. It does, however, undermine the significance of calling others biased with the negative implication they are not. Bias still has meaning as everyone’s bias is not the same and understanding such bias helps you better relate and understand that individual. That’s why I prefer exposed rather than hidden bias. Throughout history, however, the understanding and manipulation of such bias has been a very powerful too. So of course recognizing that everyone has bias does not mean that understanding their bias is meaningless. I could recommend some reading but don’t know if your questions are really looking for answers, or just strange jabs.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Natalie
2010-03-28 09:22:50

In summary, the term “bias” is meaningful not for the question of whether someone is baised, but for the question of what are their biases.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 09:49:45

First define “unbiased;” otherwise there is no point to discussing the question of whether “everyone has a bias.”

 
Comment by Natalie
2010-03-28 09:55:36

That was my whole point. I do not think their are unbiased opinions. To believe otherwise is to fool yourself. Cleary, however, some biases may not be relevant to the issue at hand. You show me someone that believes they examine all issues presented in an unbiased manner, and I will show you someone with a biased view of themselves.

 
Comment by Natalie
2010-03-28 09:57:09

their = there

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 10:05:13

“I do not think their are unbiased opinions.”

(Raises white flag): Uncle!

 
Comment by Natalie
2010-03-28 10:11:35

You are fun to play with.

 
Comment by joeyinCalif
2010-03-28 10:11:47

Is someone who enjoys all 1000+ Baskin-Robbins flavors biased?

 
Comment by Natalie
2010-03-28 10:39:52

Where they ever exposed to the world of frozen yogurt, and all the different brands and flavors that exist? Describe the circumstances surrounding their first exposure to baskin-robbins ice cream, and their introduction to each new flavor. Are they religous and, if so, what do they believe their diety’s position on baskin-robbins ice cream to be? Do they have a financial interest in baskin-robbins?

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 10:59:57

“You are fun to play with.”

Don’t I know it ;-)

 
 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 09:03:02

“The only thing that really bugs me is when people inaccurately summarize the views and beliefs of others during attacks.”

This is what I call ’straw man caricature assassination.’

Comment by Natalie
2010-03-28 09:14:59

I like that term.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by mikeinbend
2010-03-28 10:09:37

Bought in 95 for 270k, sold in dec 04 for 860, bought in 05 condo for 210k, sold in 06 for 350k, bought a sfh in 05 for 150k, sold in 06 for 287k.

Found blog in 08. Didn’t see squat coming. Bought a house in 06 for 352k, sold in 09 for 289k, bought a condo in 06 for 380k, haven’t sold it yet, it’s worth 250k. Planning on living in it until they come and take it! (like our neighbors, the Smarts, who have not paid a penny since April 09, yet still they have the Squats come over for parties etc in their “lotto” home.

Bought another sfh, last week, on short sale, in escrow currently, for 117k. no mortgage on that one, looking forward to living with as little overhead as possible in the future. Hope to be able to continue paying our own healthcare as it is currently running 20k per year for our family.

Win some lose some I guess. Govt won too as we paid some capgains on our rentals.

 
Comment by Natalie
2010-03-28 10:48:39

Sounds like you didn’t do too bad. Of particular note was that you sold in 04 for 860k, but that your primary residence appears to be the condo bought for 380k so it does look like there was some restraint and you didn’t try to max out each time, which would have been a disaster.

 
Comment by Natalie
2010-03-28 10:57:37

“Didn’t see squat coming” That was the whole point of my earlier post. Aside from the investment banker gurus who were knowingly manipulating the markets, what normal people saw coming seems to have been much more tied to whether they were a winner or loser in the housing bubble at the time, than to IQ. I mean this only as an observation and not a judgement. I think it shows the depth of the pyschological grip the mania had on people.

 
 
Comment by denquiry
2010-03-28 10:14:44

Is obama a “straw man playing with fire”?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Housing Wizard
2010-03-28 11:32:11

Ok we have established that everyone is bias ,so no need of
Natalie to mention this again as grounds for attack on any
opinion ,that is than followed up with her so unbiased opinion,
such as her opinion that she is a winner because she called everything right so far . And it is a bias opinion that a winner can’t make a mistake even after making a few good calls .

If the game in life is calling yourself a winner by how many toys or money you have at any given point in time ,I have a bias opinion that this would not be a fair judge of a person or their life ,or their potential to make a mistake in the future or not make a mistake in the future ,course this is a bias opinion on my part . Could we just stop with this “your bias” crap its getting really stupid ,it’s so 60’s to do that .

 
Comment by Natalie
2010-03-28 12:06:44

Don’t associate your anger with me. I really don’t understand the twisted obsession. Your descriptions of me have about a 0% accuracy rating. I would ask you to explain yourself, but at this point must assume I am dealing with someone outside the bounds of sanity.

 
Comment by Housing Wizard
2010-03-28 16:36:25

Quotes from Nataline on this blog in the last week or so :

“As to “talent”,there is no question the Wallstreet gurus were brilliant.15 years ago ,most ppl would not believe that Wallstreet could have such power they could get ppl all over the Country to pay more than 2x for a house over intrinsic value ,yet they managed to do it .”

“I get the sense that to many around here attack others out of anger and bias ,without the attempt and/or ability to research and understand the issue .”

“I just miss having those with different views”

“I also question why insider knowledge is discounted on this board ….” ” I have found the insider knowledge to be much more accurate .”

“Wouldn’t it be interesting if this group focused more on the issues,rather,than blind name calling and hypocrisy …?

“You are falling into the black and white trap again …. Try to examine facts without anger and prejudice .”

“The truth is that in a total meltdown scenario ,the Country would have been the losers ,not the financial gurus.”

“…I am dealing with someone outside the bound of sanity .”

Now don’t get angry Natalie and don’t get mad and call me insane now ,don’t resort to name calling like you advise us not to . The list of some of the quotes of your admiration for Wall Street and your dislike for posters not in your camp is apparent .
Your the one that goes around from your Ivory tower accusing posters of bias and prejudice and hypocrisy all the time ,even belittling them if they see a issue in black and white terms . You are the one touting the PR from Wall Street ,so I think you should examine you prejudices ,and your writings show who you admire ,,,the crooks of Wall Street who got the sheep to buy overpriced property by securities fraud . Real brilliant people with so much talent .
You are coming from a highly prejudicial position ,yet you attack posters with one-liners that are just psychological tools to discredit their posts ,even if they are delivered in a
angry . The Country has a right to be angry and no amount of psychological jargon can erase what Wall Street did in spite of you thinking they are talented because they pulled off a Ponzi-scheme and are still getting ill-gotten gain .

 
Comment by Natalie
2010-03-28 17:50:40

Ummm. You posted nothing that bolstered you position. I am truly puzzled by what are you seeing in my posts that angers you. Is it the fact that I think Wall Street should be regulated and not run amuck. Is it that I’m Jewish . . . that I’m liberal . . . that I’m fiscally conservative . . . that I’m female? What is it? Is it the fact that I recogize others’ biases including my own? Also, I have no dislike for posters that disagree with me. The posts you cited shows just the opposite. I do admit I do not like you, but not because of your views, but because of your unfair assumptions about me and name calling. I get the sense something isn’t right is seriously wrong.

 
Comment by Natalie
2010-03-28 17:58:46

Genius used for evil is still genius. I don’t understand your point that recognizing someone is brilliant in pulling something off somehow equates to admiration. Many serial killers including Ted Bundy and Ted Kaczynski were brilliant and had many talents, but I support their execution.

 
Comment by Natalie
2010-03-28 18:06:18

Also, I have never said I didn’t have bias, and when someone asks I try to explain the ones I understand. What does that have to do with me disliking inaccurate summaries of my beliefs or name calling?

 
Comment by exeter
2010-03-28 18:18:40

Lmao…. Whenever “Natalie” (her latest moniker) gets called out on here BS, she attacks with “you’re angry”.

She hasn’t figured out that the foxnoize playbook doesn’t work anymore.

 
Comment by Natalie
2010-03-28 19:13:23

Why is it whenever housing wizard gets flustered exeter shows up. Hmmmm.

 
Comment by Housing Wizard
2010-03-28 21:33:15

You are mistaken that I’m flustered Natalie. You are also mistaken at what I was complaining about in your attempts to project that it must be some bias I have such as you being female ,or Jewish , or a liberal ,everything other than the exacts things I was complaining about .

This “your angry and bias “stuff is getting old . I just attempted a post to inform you that its getting old IMHO. On another post you suggested that your estimate was 50% of the poster that come here most likely came to this blog because they got priced out of the housing market . This is another form of the “angry renter” put down so popular a while back . I can see the web you weave Natalie ,but I wonder why . It’s always interesting to me when a poster says words like .”I just miss having posters with different views,”in spite of there being a wide range of views on this blog about every different subject .What views are you seeking Natalie? Maybe you should ask yourself that
question .

And your statement about exeter is pretty off the wall ,in case you didn’t know that .

 
Comment by flg_az
2010-03-28 21:42:56

I read an article today about “google monkeys” -

Someone posting too often either a)has an awful lot of free time on their hands or b) is being paid to do it.

 
Comment by Housing Wizard
2010-03-28 22:41:07

Than I would suggest that Natalie might be a “google monkey”.
I have been on this blog for years and I’m retired so that explains why I have time .

What would be the first hint that someone might be a google monkey ? Please see the above post I made of Natalie comments .

 
Comment by exeter
2010-03-29 05:13:13

So I am Housing Wizard now? Or Housing Wizard is me?

Natalie you’re a freak.

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by frank
2010-03-28 06:30:16

This is liars poker played by accountants and government.
Not a lot of room for truth here.
The same thing happens in real estate-seller lies about property value and
buyer lowballs.
That’s why it is sometimes so difficult to determine real value of property-
Everyone involved has been wrong for so long that the true value is no longer applicable.

Comment by NycityBoy
2010-03-28 06:41:09

I do know this much about that duplex listed in my hometown.

- Sale in 2006: $265,000

Even with the games being played they will be lucky to get $140,000 for that place today. I love it when people still spout off about there being no housing bubble in the Midwest. The bubble was massive.

Comment by In Colorado
2010-03-28 07:54:36

It could have been worse. Aren’t old, small houses still listing for 500K in Calgary?

Comment by Natalie
2010-03-28 08:47:43

As in Wash Park in your State.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by In Colorado
2010-03-28 11:27:36

You can get a house in Wah PArk for 300K (yes ridiculous still). The avg price in Denver is much, much lower (in the 200s IIRC). I still don’t get the allure of Wash Park, other than being close to downtown Denver there’s nothing special about the neighborhood. Its also close to some very ghetto places. I don’t get it.

 
Comment by Natalie
2010-03-28 18:00:40

Yes. I saw a few places in wash park a few years ago. Small bungalows for the lower middle class in the 400k-500k range. I love the park, but hate the ‘hood.

 
 
 
 
Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-28 14:14:08

Historical comps from your tax assessors office are very good at determining true worth.

Use the sell/purchase price of the property (which is different from the tax assessor’s value) as well as those in the immediate area. Then create an avg sqft price. Then graph it over time. Then inspect the property and neighborhood yourself. Voila.

 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-03-28 07:18:02

Coming: A national Value Added Tax (VAT)

Charles Krauthammer has figured it out: “President Obama knows that the debt bomb is looming, that Moody’s is warning that the Treasury’s AAA rating is in jeopardy, that we are headed for a run on the dollar and/or hyperinflation if nothing is done.

“Hence his deficit reduction commission. It will report (surprise!) after the November elections.

“What will it recommend? What can it recommend? Sure, Social Security can be trimmed by raising the retirement age, introducing means testing and changing the indexing formula from wage growth to price inflation. That’s where the value-added tax comes in. For the politician, it has the virtue of expediency: People are used to sales taxes, and this one produces a river of revenue.”

The VAT Cometh

Comment by palmetto
2010-03-28 07:23:49

I’ve no problem with a national sales tax, provided the income tax is permanently and irrevocably eliminated.

Comment by OCBear
2010-03-28 07:56:11

Just a guess, but you may have a problem.

 
Comment by NYchk
2010-03-28 08:17:53

“provided the income tax is permanently and irrevocably eliminated”

…keep dreaming, LOL.

Comment by Bill in Los Angeles
2010-03-28 08:57:27

Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland are looking better all the time than America.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-28 14:16:26

Forget Australia and Ireland.

 
 
 
Comment by measton
2010-03-28 10:05:16

For the top 400 wage earners the income tax is close to nothing. I pay 26% effective tax rate, they pay 16% and probably less when you consider all the income they hide.

A sales tax is about as regressive as it gets. Middle class have to spend a large part of their pay check to survive but the elite spend nothing. Also when buying a 50million dollar yaght it’s easy to buy it and register it overseas.

What they will do is to increase taxes on everything so that people don’t notice. If they doubled income taxes there would be riots but if they add taxes to everything that raises the same revenue and do it slowly many will not notice. Plus it goes along with the plan to destroy Americas middle class and democracy.

Comment by denquiry
2010-03-28 10:18:55

A sales tax is about as regressive as it gets.
——————————————————————-
Yo, bro. Don’ts be discriminatins against my section 8 homies.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-03-28 07:19:50

According to Moody’s Economy.com one in three home mortgages is “under water.” That is, the homeowner owes more on the house that it’s worth. Other data indicate the number may be one in four. In any case, it’s an unsettling bit of data.

But the federal government is coming to the rescue with a plan that will let people who owe more on their mortgages than their properties are worth get new loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration. The program will be funded by $14 billion from the administration’s existing $75 billion foreclosure-prevention program. Bailout

Translation….Uncle Sam has the preposterous idea that he can micromanage the unraveling of the real estate business by locking hapless homeowners into obligations they couldn’t afford in the first place by re-jiggering the terms and forcing the lender to absorb some loss. Foreclosure is a sad but natural part of the economic correction process. Government interference will prolong the depression in real estate.

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 08:37:00

‘…one in three home mortgages is “under water.”’

Last time I saw an estimate in print, it was “one in four home mortgages…under water.”

Is “one in two” next up?

 
Comment by joeyinCalif
2010-03-28 09:00:13

$14 billion .. i dunno.. Such a small amount suggests to me they know it’s a hopeless cause.

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 09:50:55

$14 bn here, $14 bn there, and pretty soon you are talking about real money.

Comment by joeyinCalif
2010-03-28 10:00:33

$1 trillion here and $1 trillion there, and pretty soon $14 bn is chicken feed.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 10:58:49

:-)

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-03-28 07:22:00

Supply fears start to hit Treasuries
By Michael Mackenzie in New York and David Oakley in London
Published: March 26 2010

The bond vigilantes are finally flexing their muscles. A long period of stability for the US government bond market showed signs of cracking this week as a lack of investor appetite for new debt sent the benchmark 10-year yield to its highest level since last June.

For more than a year, analysts have been warning that record sized debt sales by the US Treasury were at odds with a 10-year yield sitting comfortably below 4 per cent. This week, the yield on 10-year notes jumped from 3.65 per cent to a peak of 3.92 per cent on Thursday. On Friday it was 3.87 per cent.

Chart: TreasuriesFalling inflation, rising unemployment, the housing market slump, the Federal Reserve’s policies of a near zero overnight borrowing rate and its purchase of up to $1,700bn in bonds have all helped keep Treasury yields near historic lows.

But this week the mood shifted as yields for $118bn of new US debt were much higher than forecast, sparking overall selling of Treasuries. Sentiment also deteriorated in the UK bond market after the government’s budget ahead of a general election expected in May failed to resolve doubts over future spending and debt reduction.

The term “bond vigilantes” was coined in the 1980s when bond investors pushed up long-term yields to force central banks into taking action to curb inflation. This time, bond investors are less worried about inflation: they are fretting about huge fiscal deficits and the looming bond supply needed to finance them.

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 08:34:23

“The bond vigilantes are finally flexing their muscles.
…This week, the yield on 10-year notes jumped from 3.65 per cent to a peak of 3.92 per cent on Thursday. On Friday it was 3.87 per cent.”

Don’t be fooled by stories like this one. The big runup in U.S. stock prices since March 2009 has set the stage for a massive flight to quality move into Treasurys, spurred by yet another ‘unexpected’ crash in headline U.S. stock market indexes. Long-term Treasury yields are near record lows and are likely to stay there for the foreseeable future, thanks to relentless U.S. labor market weakness.

 
Comment by combotechie
2010-03-28 08:44:20

“This time, bond investors are less worried about inflation: they are fretting about huge fiscal deficits and the looming bond supply needed to finance them.”

Which means … what?

My read is bond yields will go up not because there is too much money flowing about (inflation) - which pushes up prices everywhere - but because there is too little money flowing about (deflation) to finance the bond purchases.

The competition for cash is stiff. Everybody needs the worthless unbacked fiat stuff. The merchants need it, the various governments need it, the FBs need it, and the bond borrowers need it.

Everybody needs it, nobody has enough of the stuff to fill these needs. Presto, the price of money goes up.

Cash rules.

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 08:58:26

“Everybody needs the worthless unbacked fiat stuff.”

So long as the fiat is in force which makes the ‘worthless unbacked stuff’ the sole currency, everyone will need some.

 
 
 
Comment by palmetto
2010-03-28 07:22:31

Ending the fraud in “birthright” citizenship. I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked to see George Will advance this simple solution, I thought he was all for massive over population, in the service of the corps.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032603077.html

I think the pubs are desperately casting about for ways to “energize” their base, but I agree with this, big time. Make it retroactive about 20 years, too.

Comment by In Colorado
2010-03-28 08:02:42

Maybe now that the economy is trashed for at least 20-30 years the PTBs know that we won’t be needing to building a whole lotta new houses anytime soon, hence the illegals are unneeded for the time being.

Of course, with no jobs to draw them as a magnet their flow has slowed down considerably. Maybe we won’t be 500M by 2050 after all, as some were forecasting. It will be interesting to compare this year’s Census with the next one in 2020.

The effect is being felt in Mexico, where the “jobs president” (el presidente del empleo) Felipe Calderon can no longer simply export his surplus population to the US, and even worse for him, millions are repatriating themselves to Mexico (self deportation?) as they can no longer support themselves in the high cost of living US. The economic crisis is being felt very hard in Mexico as well.

Comment by palmetto
2010-03-28 08:52:16

In Colorado, of all the posters on this blog, you are probably most qualified to speak on this issue. Are there that many re-patriating themselves to Mexico and points south? I would imagine clarification of birthright citizenship would be a disaster, not just for Mexico, but Cental America.

Comment by In Colorado
2010-03-28 11:16:02

From what I have read in the Mexican media there is significant repatriation, but the real problem is that its become harder to export the excess population to the US as they just won’t go anymore since there are no jobs waiting for them. But from what I have been reading the employment situation down there is horrific and crime is escalating again.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by measton
2010-03-28 10:09:31

Mexico is going to collapse

1. Rising power of drug gangs
2. Collapsing oil revenue
3. Collapsing tourism
4. Collapsing manufacturing
5. Collapsing repatriation.

That’s it. I read a while ago that the drug trade brought in as much as tourism and oil. Things have gotten much worse since then. I would not want to live on the border.

Comment by denquiry
2010-03-28 10:25:50

IMO we ought to be looking at the ROTI (return on total investment in the pentagon). for all the money we spend on defense we got 3rd world gang bangers and 3rd world turban heads making fools out of Uncle Sam plus no border protection. IMO that’s a piss poor ROTI. Maybe we ought to put Turbo Tax Timmy and Govt Sach’s in charge of the pentagon and see if they can’t work wonders with the ROTI.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by exeter
2010-03-28 18:49:59

The dollar is still the default currency isn’t it?

The Pentagon ROI is up there. WAAAAY up there.

 
 
Comment by palmetto
2010-03-28 11:08:00

“I would not want to live on the border.”

Neither would I. But we need to get rid of the popular fiction that Mexico, at this time, is governed by anyone or anything other than drug cartels. It is essentially an enemy state and I resent very much being shaken down by that country for aid of any sort. Recently they sent a naval helicopter over the border to a Houston neighborhood.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by roger
2010-03-28 16:05:03

Numero one says your have a SLIM chance. How’s that for an operating system. The gates are ajar

 
 
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2010-03-28 13:04:52

It would be nice if American drug-users would acknowledge their moral culpability for what is happening south of our border. Their insatiable demand for getting high is fueling the worst kind of evil on both sides of the border.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-28 14:45:59

Cocaine. The drug of choice among all strata of America. Source: south of the border. (crack can be produced here or there)

MJ. Again used by all strata of America. Source: believe it or not, the majority is raised here, but there is still tons being imported.

Meth. By far our biggest problem. Cocaine for the poor. Source: made in America.

The rest of illegal drugs are a very small percentage of use compared to the above.

 
Comment by alpha-sloth
2010-03-28 14:47:55

Just like the drinkers during Prohibition were culpable for the rise of the mafia? Or was it the absurd prohibition of something that’s been going on forever and is clearly very popular? Legalize it and tax it, just like we did when we repealed Prohibition- and that will end the violence.

I thought you opposed the nanny state.

 
Comment by Bill in Carolina
2010-03-28 17:05:40

If drugs were legalized, what kinds of crimes would the current drug gangs turn to?

 
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2010-03-28 17:18:44

Extortion and kidnapping.

 
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2010-03-28 17:22:44

I thought you opposed the nanny state.

I do oppose the nanny state. I am for individuals making responsible choices and taking responsibility for their own actions. Our current war on drugs has been a comprehensive failure, but I personally chose a long time ago not to use illegal drugs or support an industry that causes so much death and corruption.

 
Comment by alpha-sloth
2010-03-28 18:10:55

Well, jeez, if the drug trade is keeping gangs from extortion and kidnapping, then it’s a really good thing! We should encourage it, but I guess we already are. We certainly shouldn’t criticize it- it’s keeping us all safe, by your logic.

 
Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-29 00:58:00

What would they run to?

Banking?

 
 
 
 
Comment by socaljettech
2010-03-28 08:31:43

A quote from the article-

“is it reasonable to presume they would have wanted to provide the reward of citizenship to the children of the violators of those laws? ”

One of the reasons they didn’t have to restrict immigration was because if you came here you had to support yourself- there was no welfare back then, your “reward of citizenship” was the opportunity to make something of yourself, not to have the government take care of you and your children forever…

 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-03-28 08:01:43

Munger Says Furniture Business Takes a ‘Hammering’ (Update2)

(Bloomberg) — Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Vice Chairman Charles Munger said the furniture-rental business he oversees will post “disappointing profits” this year after a loss in 2009 driven by the U.S. economic slump.

CORT Business Services Corp. reported a $1.4 million loss last year, compared with profit of $15.7 million in 2008, Munger said today in his annual letter to shareholders of Wesco Financial Corp., which owns the furniture company. The letter by Munger, 86, was posted today on the Web site of Wesco, which is majority owned by Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire.

The results reflect “the hammering caused by the severe economic recession,” said Munger, Wesco’s chairman. “So far, CORT’s business has been melting away faster than CORT can fix it.” CORT, which cut its staff about 19 percent last year to 2,248, is focusing on expenses rather than expanding services, Munger said. While Munger doesn’t forecast another loss, “we expect disappointing profits” at CORT in 2010, he said.

Last year, Munger warned that the economic slump would get worse and said he was following the advice of Benjamin Franklin that “‘a penny saved is a penny earned’ as we trim expenses, albeit in higher denominations.”

Comment by In Colorado
2010-03-28 08:06:58

He should see the HP site in Ft Collins. I’d say that its about 1/3 empty. The is no shortage of empty rows of cubicles, full of unused furniture. I suppose its just cheaper to leave it sitting there than to pay someone to dismantle it as there is probably no market for used partitions or office furniture either.

Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2010-03-28 10:40:28

“I suppose its just cheaper to leave it sitting there than to pay someone to dismantle it as there is probably no market for used partitions or office furniture either.”

Not to mention that no one else wants to lease the space, so there is no benefit in having it empty and ready for a new tenant.

Comment by In Colorado
2010-03-28 11:30:22

I recall a few years ago that the plan was to cram us into less space and lease out the freed up space. As a bone we were told that we would be getting cool modern looking patitions and furniture to make up for the smaller cubes.

That plan was quietly shelved.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by aNYCdj
2010-03-28 10:55:56

Here in NYC you can have all you want for Free…just disassemble and move it yourself.

 
Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-28 14:47:50

The HP site in Houston (formerly the Compaq campus) is 3/4 empty and has been sold off.

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 08:19:58

‘Vice Chairman Charles Munger said the furniture-rental business he oversees will post “disappointing profits” this year after a loss in 2009 driven by the U.S. economic slump.’

Furniture rental is a funny business for the Berkshire Hathaway investing gurus to hold a long position in it during an epic housing bust…are they losing their Midas touch?

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 08:26:16

‘a penny saved is a penny earned’

Only with zero inflation. Of course, with deflation, a penny saved is more than a penny earned (but the Fed is printing like mad to make sure this does not ensue).

Comment by combotechie
2010-03-28 09:29:43

“Of course with deflation a penny save is more than a penny earned.”

And the “more than a penny earned” part is tax-free.

“(but the Fed is printing like mad to make sure this does not ensue.)”

We’ll see. So far it seems that the Fed is falling behind.

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 09:54:07

‘And the “more than a penny earned” part is tax-free.’

Beautiful investing insight:

The government generally does not tax the gains to those holding on to mattress money during periods of deflation, nor to investing in human capital. Hence so long as deflationary pressures prevail and the job market remains weak, there should be higher than usual returns to holding cash and to investing in your human capital stock.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by denquiry
2010-03-28 10:33:24

since the TARP bailout proves that we don’t have a free market anymore, I, by keeping my money in a mattress at 0% still have my principal while the fools that invested in housing or Wall Street lost theirs, partially or totally. And eventually when they start to use means testing to get health care or retirement assistance I will still have my stash but as far as the govt is concerned I will be a broke SOB. I am beginning to like the concept of “mattress investing” more and more.

 
 
Comment by In Colorado
2010-03-28 11:09:27

“So far it seems that the Fed is falling behind.”

At some point the money destruction will level off. The question is: will the Fed stop the printing presses then?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-28 14:50:42

Retail furniture is easily marked up over 400%. Good furniture (besides antiques or collectibles, good luck finding any these days) is marked up over 1000%.

 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-03-28 08:16:46

Sallie Mae facing thousands of layoffs
Mar 26, 2010

Fishers - Indiana’s unemployment rate held steady in March, but with impending layoffs at Sallie Mae, the state may not be so lucky in April.

While Congress could not come to an agreement on single-payer health insurance, it did reach a consensus - or should we say reconciliation - in the correction passed on Thursday for a single-payer student loan program.

“You basically will be borrowing from the government as if it were a bank,” said Sallie Mae Senior VP Jon Kroehler.

So the private partnership version of student lending, which is the heart and soul of Sallie Mae’s business, gives way to direct government lending. Sallie Mae employs 8,500 people nationwide, with 1,700 of those working in Fishers and 700 more in Muncie.

“We estimate that we will have 2,500 who will lose their jobs as a result of this. Some of those will happen almost immediately and some this summer, as the work dies down,” Kroehler said.

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 08:24:34

‘“You basically will be borrowing from the government as if it were a bank,” said Sallie Mae Senior VP Jon Kroehler.

So the private partnership version of student lending, which is the heart and soul of Sallie Mae’s business, gives way to direct government lending.’

I wonder if Uncle Sam will prove himself more adept at student loan underwriting than did the quasi-private GSE, Sallie Mae?

 
 
Comment by SDGreg
2010-03-28 08:32:47

I’m not sure if this is happening elsewhere or just something I’ve been noticing more in San Diego recently. I’m seeing more of the large, late model, aggressively-driven pickup trucks of construction workers. This scourge of the bubble years had dropped off considerably last year, but seems to be making a comeback more recently.

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 08:56:05

Interesting observation. I am still more struck by the dearth of ginormous SUVs and Escalades whose former prevalence used to threaten drivers of economy cars on San Diego thoroughfares back before the housing bubble burst.

Comment by awaiting wipeout
2010-03-28 09:25:08

“dearth of ginormous SUVs and Escalades ”
You just described the carport of our temp Hispanic ghetto apt building (while we look for our next home). Free $ and no taxes seems to be quite lucrative for the illegals. These people are probably up to 9th grade (max) educated.

Comment by In Colorado
2010-03-28 11:06:57

It doesn’t take education to game the system, just some cunning and friends and relatives to show you the ropes.

California taxpayers are suckers.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by awaiting wipeout
2010-03-28 22:59:16

In Colorado
Education comment, true. But we have always lived by efforts vs. rewards, and we use to have, because we put in the work. The system is broken.

 
 
Comment by In Colorado
2010-03-28 11:11:07

FWIW, our local illegals tend to drive beaters out here. I guess uncle Colorado isn’t as generous as uncle Cal.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by SDGreg
2010-03-28 14:29:49

“I am still more struck by the dearth of ginormous SUVs and Escalades whose former prevalence used to threaten drivers of economy cars on San Diego thoroughfares back before the housing bubble burst.”

Agreed. The mix is definitely smaller and fewer than before the bubble burst. Hallelujah! But what I’ve started to see more recently are some of the large pickup trucks used by construction workers making somewhat of a comeback and they seem to be in a hurry to get somewhere. What this means I’m not sure.

 
 
Comment by Anthony
2010-03-28 12:43:18

I haven’t seen any less of the redneck, big @$$ pickups here. But in northern Cal, just about everyone owns at least one of them (or two, or three…) and most have no need for them. And, the more it is jacked up, the cooler it is.

 
Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-28 14:54:23

No lack where I live. Just not not seeing a lot of brand spanking new ones.

 
 
Comment by goedeck
2010-03-28 08:33:27

From the Park Record today:
Construction business falls sharply
Two-month total for Park City construction doesn’t reach $1.3 million

Although January and February are typically slow months in Park City’s
construction industry, the 2010 total thus far could be worrisome to City
Hall and the industry.
[ ]
Through the same period last year, the total was
$30.6 million.

Construction-related revenues have long boosted City Hall’s budget, but
officials have indicated they would not be able to rely on them as they once did.

The Park City construction industry, accustomed to the record-setting years of
the past decade, has suffered terribly during the recession. The 2009 total –
$68.5 million — was the lowest year-end figure since 2003.

I call that a crash.

Comment by combotechie
2010-03-28 09:17:05

This sort of thinking seems crazy to me. The construction industry is project orientiated. Whenever a constuction project is initiated then revenues rise. When the project is completed the revenues dry up. The only way to get revenues back is to find another project.

It’s amazing to me that these folks don’t seem to realize this.

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 09:56:47

Remember that Park City hosted the 2002 Winter Olympics. Expect a ‘larger than expected’ drop off in Vancouver construction projects over the next decade.

 
 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 08:52:38

Is there really a big mystery about the gap between willingness to pay and willingness to accept on privately-placed MBS?

My theory:

1) By artificially driving the price of MBS higher (and yields lower), the Fed has effectively shut down liquidity in the private securitization pipeline.

2) If the the Fed stopped artificially driving up the price of MBS, thereby driving down interest rates, which are the yield that private investors receive for supplying loanable funds to the MBS securitization pipeline, then private securitization of MBS would return.

3) The War on Savers is perpetuated in part by the Fed driving down yields on asset classes like MBS.

Am I missing something important here, folks?

Securitisation
Earthbound
Large parts of the securitisation markets remain stagnant. Not all efforts to reform them are helpful

Mar 25th 2010 | NEW YORK | From The Economist print edition

FOR most capital markets, the financial crisis resembled a stomach-churning bungee jump: a precipitous fall followed by a sharp rebound, albeit not to the heights enjoyed before the turmoil. The big exception was securitisation, large parts of which are still dangling near the ground. Even as it struggles to recover, the market that brought the world the joys of collateralised-debt obligations faces two stern tests: the phasing-out of central-bank support and a raft of tougher rules.

Securitisation’s boom and bust was spectacular. The packaging of mortgages, car loans, credit-card receivables and other debt to sell to capital-markets investors began to take off in the 1980s. By 2006 it was being used to channel around two-thirds of all residential mortgages and half of all consumer credit in America. By distributing loans, banks could cut their capital needs, allowing them to lend more. Hedge funds, insurers and the like gained access to a broader range of credit risks.

As the boom reached fever pitch, however, the quality of the loans being pooled into securities dived, especially in mortgages. When losses started to mount, asset-backed issuance dried up (see chart), forcing governments to take up the slack. In some parts of the market, they are now stepping aside again. The Federal Reserve is winding down its liquidity support for credit-card and car-loan transactions. Some $5 billion of prime, private-label car deals were priced in February. Structured vehicles for risky corporate loans are making a comeback, too.

By contrast, housing markets remain almost wholly reliant on government-backed agencies to package and guarantee mortgage-backed securities (MBSs). No residential MBSs have been sold in America without such backing for more than two years. Europe has seen a few private deals, but these were structured to be highly attractive to investors and acceptable as collateral at the European Central Bank’s discount window. No wonder Ralph Daloisio, chairman of the American Securitisation Forum, talked of an “existential” crisis in his speech to the industry group’s annual conference last month. He even wondered what Jean-Paul Sartre would make of it.

The prosaic reason for the dearth of private issuance is the wide gap between what investors demand and what borrowers will pay. “Jumbo prime” mortgages, decent-quality loans above the price threshold that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can buy at, are likely to be the first part of the new-origination market to come back. But it is currently non-economic to securitise these loans, says Laurie Goodman of Amherst Securities. To place a new issue, given the yields demanded by investors, the interest rate payable by borrowers must be 6.85%, a full percentage point higher than current levels. This differential is “the fundamental issue” for MBS markets, argues Tim Ryan of SIFMA, a securities-industry association. Rating agencies’ belated tightening of their methodologies has made this gap even harder to close.

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 10:02:33

4) There is still no such thing as a free lunch. Buying MBS to drive down mortgage interest rates came at the expense of effectively shutting down private mortgage securitization.

Is that what the Fed had in mind?

Comment by NYchk
2010-03-28 15:31:18

“To place a new issue, given the yields demanded by investors, the interest rate payable by borrowers must be 6.85%, a full percentage point higher than current levels. ”

The Fed will be out of MBS market by March 31. The yields are going up. Securitization is slated to return.

Investors seem convinced that successful reinflation is imminent. The only question is, who can afford these re-inflated housing prices plus pay a higher interest? That’s what stumps me…

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 16:13:08

“The only question is, who can afford these re-inflated housing prices plus pay a higher interest? That’s what stumps me…”

Fewer people than those who can afford these re-inflated housing prices at current, suppressed interest. This explains why the return of private securitization will be accompanied with higher interest rates and lower home prices. The direction of general equilibrium changes between the market for used homes and the market for loanable funds to the private MBS securitization market works out as follows:

Volume of used home sales: Increase
Used home sale prices: Decrease
Volume of private MBS issuance: Increase
Interest on newly issued MBS: Increase
Prices of existing MBS: Decrease

It’s really simple stuff, folks — nothing a good first-year college economics student couldn’t figure out with a pencil and a piece of paper.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 16:15:06

Dang — the Professor missed at least one thing above. Actually, higher interest rates on mortgages will have the effect of reducing, not increasing, used home demand. The used home demand curve shifts to the left, resulting in lower used home prices and volume of used home sales.

Sorry, Realtors™.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 16:17:21

I suppose it is no big deal if a few more Realtors™ find they cannot make a living by selling used homes after interest rates adjust upwards, provided that investment banks are doing more MBS securitization going forward. If it makes you feel better, think of it as sacrificing a few more Realtor™ jobs in exchange for higher investment banking profits.

 
Comment by Housing Wizard
2010-03-28 22:27:18

I think they will have extreme problems with getting the
secondary securities market going again ,even in light of
higher interest rates .Anyway ,unless the government continues
it role I think you are going to get a extreme shortage of money
for lending for a extended period of time . All this violation on contract law will have it’s moral hazard .

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by Bill in Los Angeles
2010-03-28 09:23:12

I’m seeing loft prices in Phoenix come down in value to the low $200s. Saw a 1400 square footer for around $210,000. Not sure what the HOA is. I expect to pay HOA for a loft, but when you add that with the property tax, it could be a deal breaker for me.

My buying price of any real estate is $172,000 (based on my own rule of what percent of net worth to put in real estate). So I have to wait a few years for my net worth to go up more or for the prices to come down more.

It’s eerie to be able to say that I am this close to affording a loft that I’m interested in. I did not expect to be able to say that until 2013.

Comment by joeyinCalif
2010-03-28 09:38:01

affordable or not, it may be best to wait til 2013.. or even longer.

Despite my ability to buy and support a property with no intentions of reselling, I can’t be sure how I’ll react if it’s value decreases. Being a quintessential tightwad, I might lose sleep over it.

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 10:56:43

“Being a quintessential tightwad, I might lose sleep over it.”

That’s why I refuse to buy now. Plus I would potentially lose sleep knowing the 2013 buyers were getting far nicer homes for the same price I paid on my 2010 purchase.

 
 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-03-28 09:57:26

China’s Geely to Buy Volvo From Ford for $1.8 Billion (Update1)

March 28 (Bloomberg) — Zhejiang Geely Holding Co. agreed to buy Volvo Cars from Ford Motor Co. for $1.8 billion in the biggest overseas acquisition by a Chinese automaker.

The deal will close in the third quarter, after which Ford and Volvo will continue to cooperate, Ford Chief Financial Officer Lewis Booth told reporters today in Gothenburg, Sweden. The Chinese company will pay $1.6 billion in cash and the rest in a “note,” Ford said in a statement.

Booming auto sales in China made the nation the largest car market last year, generating profit that’s allowing its manufacturers to reach out to Western markets and technologies. Selling Volvo will complete Ford Chief Executive Officer Alan Mulally’s strategy of divesting European luxury lines to focus on its namesake brand. Ford has sold Jaguar, Land Rover and Aston Martin since 2007.

“This could set the benchmark for more Chinese deals to come,” said Rebecca Lindland, an auto analyst at IHS Global Insight of Lexington, Massachusetts. “It potentially could allow Geely to come into the West with its own brand of vehicles.”

Comment by In Colorado
2010-03-28 11:03:33

So how long until they move the fatories from Sweden to China?

Comment by yensoy
2010-03-29 01:38:18

They don’t need to move the entire factory. Just the one machine that stamps the “Volvo” logos :-)

 
 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-03-28 10:03:41

MUSLIMS TO BE EXCUSED FROM OBAMACARE?
Neal Boortz ~ March 26, 2010

There is one group of Americans who would not be subject to the individual mandate - the Amish. This is because an individual mandate would go against their religious beliefs. However, under this assumption, there is another group of people in America who would also be exempt from Obamacare’s individual mandate - Muslims. This is because Islam considers health insurance (or any risk insurance) to be forbidden.

Mark Tushnet a Harvard law professor points out, “Here the statute is going to say that people who are conscientiously opposed to paying for health insurance don’t have to do it where the conscientious objection arises from religion … And that’s perfectly constitutional.”

Comment by denquiry
2010-03-28 10:47:44

let’s see here. Religious groups don’t pay taxes and tell the govt what to do. What about separation of church and state? if these groups don’t want to pay to support the system then when they get sick they should be healed at home and barred from the hospitals. Also, china’s military leaders probably look at this country and sees all the freeloaders and I somehow get the feeling that the chinese are not afraid of us militarily or economically.

Comment by In Colorado
2010-03-28 10:59:52

“Religious groups don’t pay taxes”

That isn’t exactly correct.

They pay property taxes (only the sanctuaries are exempt).

They pay sales taxes on their purchases.

They pay registration fees on their vehicles.

The pay payroll taxes (SS & Medicare) for their staff, both religious and lay. And the staff do pay income tax on their salaries.

They pay all the “hidden” taxes that we all pay.

They don’t pay income tax, but for most expenses == income anyway, so for most its moot.

 
Comment by joeyinCalif
2010-03-28 11:21:46

absolutely.. who do those Amish think they are.. Walking into a hospital, getting treatment and then just paying the bill themselves.. boom! ..just like that. Who ever heard of such a thing??

They oughta be flogged…

 
Comment by roger
2010-03-28 11:52:50

As a scientist, and a christian i object

 
Comment by roger
2010-03-28 11:55:20

Some scientist and christians may object

 
Comment by john banner
2010-03-28 15:07:03

I really object to people making blanket observations about religon and taxes. I have given more to religious charities and the work they do far exceeds whatever tax break they receive.

 
 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-03-28 10:05:33

Summer Jobs Outlook: Just as Tough as Last Year
CNBC News

The summer job outlook for teens: not so sunny.

Young Americans are expected to face a tough summer job market.
This year, career experts say that teens and young adults looking for summer jobs are going to have just as rough a time finding employment as they did last year, competing with experienced and out-of-work professionals for the same jobs.

“It’s not the summer to be choosy if you’re a teen,” said Shawn Boyer, CEO of SnagAJob.com, a job search website for those seeking hourly employment.

The majority of young Americans—4.8 million of them—worked in the leisure and hospitality industry last year at establishments such as theme parks, hotels and restaurants. The other popular industries were in retail (3.9 million) and in education and health services (2.1 million), according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The places that typically employ summer help are also the places where Americans hit by the recession may cut back on spending. “Lack of dollars means less need for people behind the cash register,” said Thomas Smith, labor economist and finance professor at the Goizueta Business School at Emory University.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 10:21:21

“Cramdowns are coming.”

Do any long-time posters remember when that statement first appeared on the HBB? My foggy recollection is that it was back in 2007 or so. I guess they are still coming, three years later?

P.S. In case large-scale principal writedowns eventually do take hold, how will the implied reductions in housing market values be reflected in the comps?

The Nation’s Housing
Principal forgiveness program may offer relief for underwater homeowners

Real Estate Search

Search for new homes, condos, and other real estate in Washington, D.C., Maryland and Virginia.

Kenneth R. Harney
Saturday, March 27, 2010

For hundreds of thousands of homeowners who are underwater on their mortgages, it’s been a tantalizing question: Is there any way that our lender might agree to lower the amount we owe — not just the monthly payments but the principal debt itself?

Until now, the answer almost always has been a resounding no. Lenders and investors were willing to cut interest rates, reschedule payments, even write off some late fees, but they were dead-set against forgiving even a dollar of the principal balance owed. The Obama administration’s loan-modification programs have carefully sidestepped the subject as well, focusing on lowering troubled borrowers’ monthly payments to more affordable levels rather than actually wiping out debt.

But the outlook for principal reductions may be on the verge of significant change. Bank of America recently unveiled the mortgage industry’s first large-scale principal forgiveness program, potentially involving up to 45,000 underwater borrowers and $3 billion in debt write-offs.

Meanwhile, Treasury Department officials confirmed that the administration is examining debt forgiveness options as potential add-on features to its existing mortgage-modification programs. The program changes could be announced within the next few weeks and, if adopted by the industry, could ultimately affect loan modifications offered by substantial numbers of banks and mortgage companies.

Bank of America’s new program targets borrowers who are deeply underwater — those with loan-to-value [LTV] ratios of 120 percent or more. This means they owe at least 20 percent more on their mortgage balances than the current market price of their homes. There is no limit on how far underwater borrowers can be, but the program has a 30 percent maximum reduction of any principal balance.

Barbara Desoer, president of Bank of America Home Loans, said the program attempts to address the problems of the most “severely underwater mortgages with some of the highest rates of delinquency,” and it could “become an industry model for principal reductions” on a far broader scale.
ad_icon

The program targets three mortgage products that were wildly popular during the housing boom: subprime loans; payment-option mortgages with negative-amortization features; and “2-1″ adjustables that offered teaser interest rates for the first two years, then converted into loans whose rates adjust annually.

As part of its ongoing loan-modification efforts, the bank will look to “earned” or phased-in principal forgiveness as the first step toward keeping an underwater borrower out of foreclosure. Previously the bank, along with the rest of the lending industry, looked first to lowering a homeowner’s interest rate and monthly payments. Under the new program, severely underwater borrowers will be evaluated for principal reduction as the first step in a modification.

Comment by denquiry
2010-03-28 10:51:07

Cram downs for the FB’s/crooks and CRAM UPSA da *SS for the honest folks who lived within their means and weren’t speculating.

 
Comment by joeyinCalif
2010-03-28 10:56:01

..In case large-scale principal writedowns eventually do take hold, how will the implied reductions in housing market values be reflected in the comps?

Who uses homes that are not for sale as comps?

I wonder if principle reduction information will be available to anyone besides the lender and homeowner (and maybe a couple govt bureaucrats).
Some sharp realtoRs might get their hands on it.. maybe not legally..

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 15:53:07

“Who uses homes that are not for sale as comps?”

That was my point: These principle reductions are a tacit acknowledgment by the lender that the market value of the home is less than the amount to which the principle is written down; otherwise they would presumably foreclose and sell the collateral for whatever the market would bear.

I wonder if there will be a requirement for disclosure of the written-down value of these loans and the amounts written down. Shouldn’t taxpayers have a right to know how much of their hard-earned money is getting spent working out mutually agreeable principal cramdowns between FBs and their f-d lenders?

Comment by exeter
2010-03-28 19:05:56

“These principle reductions are a tacit acknowledgment by the lender that the market value of the home is less than the amount to which the principle is written down; otherwise they would presumably foreclose and sell the collateral for whatever the market would bear.”

You hit a bullseye with this one. And per WMBZ’s comment that it may not have an effect on prices considering many of those benefitting from principal reduction would stay, I contend (WMBZ) that these same banks offering Princ.Reduc. will no longer finance bubble price levels. The corruption of the Appraiser/Mortgage Broker axis of evil is well known and there is a new sense of urgency to be honest in that business. They are being watched closely by LE and the banks.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by joeyinCalif
2010-03-29 01:15:48

You buy the wife a wedding ring and borrow $2,000 to do it. She loves it and wouldn’t part with it for the world… seriously.

A month later your whole life goes to hell and, among other things, you can’t make payments on the ring.

The lender, knowing your life is toast and that, assuming he can find her, getting the ring off your wife’s finger will surely cost him way more than $1,000 says “I understand your difficulties and feel your pain. Tell you what…I’ll settle for $1,000.”

You call mom and she gives you a grand.. happy birthday.. and you pay the lender off.

Questions:
Did the ring’s value decline due to principal reduction?
Was principal reduction offered because the ring lost value?
No and no.

Well, something sure as hell lost value.. if not the ring, then what was it? It was the loan.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-03-28 11:34:55

“P.S. In case large-scale principal writedowns eventually do take hold, how will the implied reductions in housing market values be reflected in the comps”?

I am not really sure how this proposed intrusion would effect comps. I was under the impression that when comps are run in a neighbor hood, they on recently sold homes with in a reasonable distance from each other.

So if a person did get get the principal reduced and they continue to live there, I don’t see what effect it would have on a neighbors house unless they sold.

Personally, I just can’t see how lawsuits won’t spring up all over the place when ‘if’ this insanity takes place.

Comment by Anthony
2010-03-28 12:49:24

Oh, that “insanity” of cramdowns will take place. Soon. And before too long, Obama will pass an executive order mandating that those who have declared bankruptcy or lost their home to foreclosure be exempt from being reported to the credit agencies, since it is economic discrimination.

You think that is outrageous? It isn’t even half as outrageous as what has already happened. Even I never thought the government will commit itself to spend trillions to prop up the housing market.

This is very different than the oil patch crash and the accompanying S&L crisis. The equivalent would be the government massively buying all the oil on the world market and stockpiling it in order to ensure the price didn’t fall. With control of Fannie, Freddie, FHA, etc, and all their loans, plus all these gimmicks to incentivize new sheeple to buy, it is even worse than that.

 
 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 10:54:37

I just heard Michael Lewis, author of The Big Short, on NPR’s “Wait, wait, don’t tell me” quiz show. He repeated his customary summary dismissal of any possibility that wrong-doing was involved in the Fall 2008 financial debacle, instead reiterating his personal opinion that it was all about the smart independents beating the dumb investment bankers at their own game. Apparently a motley collection of oddballs proved to be brighter and more financially capable than the brightest minds on Wall Street.

Considering that, by his own acknowledgment, he was not among those who “saw it coming,” not to mention that his so-called “dumb money” investment bankers were the recent recipients of the largest financial bailout in U.S. history, I believe it is highly premature for him to conclude that no wrongdoing on Wall Street presaged the financial meltdown. I am highly encouraged by the news that several major Wall Street investment banks are currently under investigation by the Department of Justice regarding their roles in what appears to have been illegal bid-rigging activities in the municipal bond market. I am staying open minded about a possible future investigation of Megabank, Inc’s subprime mortgage lending kingpins, to determine if foul play was a factor leading up to the mortgage lending debacle. I am especially interested in knowing whether illegal collusion was involved between top officials at the Fed, the Bush Treasury Department, and top Wall Street investment banking CEOs (beside Henry Paulson) to work out which investment banks would receive bailouts (e.g Goldman Sachs) and which wouldn’t (e.g Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns).

Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-28 14:59:21

What a tool.

Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-28 15:00:38

Him, I meant…

 
 
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2010-03-28 15:51:36

You can tell by the fawning MSM adulation of Michael Lewis and the talking heads touting of “The Big Short” that this spin-meister is being deployed to deflect blame and accountability away from Wall Street “names above reproach.” The collusion between Big Government and Big Business and the massive swindle of transferring private bankster debts unto the taxpayers, must be papered over at all costs.

 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-03-28 11:13:05

The Japanese have developed a mobile phone that can be used as a sort of tracking device for employees.

The BBC reports that the technology comes from the phone company KDDI Corp, who have developed a way to track employee movements using accelerometers and analysis software, and then send the info directly back to the boss.

Employers using the phones to spy on their employees would be able to tell if any of them were slacking or doing anything else for that matter although that’s not quite the way the phone is being marketed.

“Technically, I think this is an incredibly important innovation” says Philip Sugai, director of the mobile consumer lab at the International University of Japan.

“For example, when applied to the issue of telemedicine, or other situations in which remotely monitoring or accessing an individual’s personal movements is vital to that service.

“But there will surely be negative consequences when applied to employee tracking or sales force optimisation.”

KDDI are already in discussions with a Japanese company that wants to make use of the technology and according to KDDI, the purpose of the phone is to allow managers to monitor employees’ performance whilst out on the job.

“It’s part of our research into a total ubiquitous technology society, and activity recognition is an important part of that” said Hiroyuki Yokoyama from KKDI.

“Because this technology will make central monitoring possible with workers at several different locations, businesses especially are very interested in using such technology to improve the efficiency of their workers.

“We are now at a stage where we can offer managers a chance to analyse more closely the behaviour of staff.”

 
Comment by Ria Rhodes
2010-03-28 12:16:49

Just another day here in Central Arizona:

..a “Got Jesus” brochure shoved under the door, twenty raised pickups roared by, and another couple listings expired.

Comment by Natalie
2010-03-28 12:24:03

I love your humor.

 
 
Comment by Terry
2010-03-28 12:49:00

I fail to understand, why people go along with these intrusive devices. Ar people so hooked on their cell phones, that they are willing to share their minute by minute movements with an unknown tracker.
I wouldn’t own a cell phone for any reason. taken a step further, when I’m asked for my social security number, I in return ask why. Never get a real answer. I never give it out…period.

Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2010-03-28 13:13:30

http://karendecoster.com/orwellian-onstar.html

People have fewer and fewer choices when it comes to accepting Orwellian intrusion devices. A case in point would be black boxes that are now betting fitted to new cars, and OnStar-type “help” devices that allow snooping on where and how you drive.

Comment by Bill in Carolina
2010-03-28 17:20:27

My cell phone is over 10 years old. No GPS chip in it. It’s usually turned off unless I’m expecting a call. Snoops can only get a rough estimate of where I am based on which cell towers are receiving my phone’s signal.

“Burn phones” are one way to stay anonymous.
Google the term.

 
 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-03-28 13:59:43

An economic puzzle Bernanke can’t solve
Sun Mar 28, 2010

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - It’s a mystery that has puzzled even Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke: if the U.S. economy is growing rapidly, why isn’t it creating jobs?

Friday’s hotly anticipated employment report for March may muddle matters even more. Economists polled by Reuters had widely divergent views, with one looking for an increase of 400,000 jobs — which would be the strongest in a decade — while others thought it may show another small net decline.

The consensus expects a gain of 190,000 jobs, which would mark only the second month of job growth since the recession started in December 2007, and the largest increase since March of that year.

Government jobs are expected to account for the bulk of the growth, thanks to the once-a-decade Census, which requires taking on hundreds of thousands of temporary workers. While the jobs pay well ($22.00 an hour in San Francisco; $11.75 in Ames, Iowa,) they last only a few months.

Bernanke and his central bank colleagues are well aware that Census hiring will skew readings, and have cautioned that unemployment will likely remain near 10 percent all year.

Comment by Carl Morris
2010-03-28 14:39:09

Perhaps it depends on what your definition of “growing” is.

 
Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-28 15:03:07

No mystery here. There are 2 economies. The one for the rich and the one for the rest of us.

Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2010-03-28 15:56:55

I would clarify: there’s the real economy, which is based on production and actual services, and then there’s the speculative casino economy centered around Wall Street. Bernanke’s job is to perpetuate Wall Street’s looting of Main Street assets. He is not “puzzled” in the least as to why this “recovery” based on faked data and massive bailouts with created-out-of-thin-air liquidity is producing no real private-sector jobs.

Comment by Housing Wizard
2010-03-28 22:16:43

Sammy and ecofeco,I tend to agree with your summaries of what the Market is these days . I would add that the monopolies with price fixing seriously prevent Main Street from getting relief by
normal corrections you would see is pure capitalism was operative .

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by yensoy
2010-03-29 01:33:16

The premise is wrong. The economy is growing and it IS creating jobs…

…in China.

 
 
Comment by right vs left
2010-03-28 14:14:35

Professor Bear, I’m not sure what a troll is, but I’ve been monitoring this blog since 2005, and often agree with your comments. I agree with Natalie that we are all biased to some degree, but it shouldn’t interfere with our ability to see the truth. So Palmetto, we saw the housing crash coming as early as 2005 but at that time I believe we were focused on the facts, and the craziness, and not so much on the politics. But now as I read the latest comments I feel that some people want to place blame on the left or right, when in fact the housing crash didn’t discriminate by party. Everyone was drinking the Koolade (well, not everyone). The focus should be on what will happen next. And by the way, I’m really glad for this blog because it kept me out of the trouble. I just wish someone would have mentioned that we all could have made a fortune SHORTING the toxic mortgages, but no one thought of that except the guy in Michael Lewis’ book. Too bad, that would have been brilliant.

 
Comment by B. Durbin
2010-03-28 14:22:00

Adventures in homeownership:

We were working outside yesterday and finally figured out what the deal is with the sideways tree. See, the main trunk is basically wrenched off and covering a large part of the backyard. We’ve been removing bits as we can– a bit delayed this winter due to the large amounts of rain for the area.

The confusing part is that it still seemed to be growing, which just seemed bizarre. But it’s not! It’s completely dead, and a creeper has been lacing itself over the framework, putting out leaves and pretty little flowers. Now I understand.

Seriously, this tree has been down over the backyard for well more than the house was unoccupied. How did the prior owners live with it? I figure they never went out in the backyard. The backyard which, as near as we can figure, has layers of landscaping. We’re digging out, but man, it’s going to take a long time to get down to where we can start planning what we want.

 
Comment by NYchk
2010-03-28 15:03:12

Ending the “birthright” citizenship is long overdue. As for legal immigration, from what I’ve seen first hand, the fraud is rampant, and the system is broken.

 
Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2010-03-28 15:45:52

Greece crisis not so contained, despite what the financial media would have us believe. By May the cracks in the global credit Ponzi scheme are going to be widening so fast denial will no longer be possible.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/7532852/Europe-has-left-Greece-hanging-in-the-wind.html

Far from stemming contagion, the deal leaves Club Med exposed. Underlying default risk has risen for Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain, as well as for Ireland, Slovakia and Malta even if credit markets keep missing the point. The world’s top holder of EU debt does understand. Greece is the “tip of the iceberg”, said the deputy-governor of China’s central bank. “The main concern today, obviously, is Spain and Italy.”
The ‘rescue’ resolves nothing for Greece, either short-term or long-term. The EU statement said “no decision has been taken to activate the mechanism.” Precisely. The joint EU-IMF facility can be activated only ultima ratio – as a last resort – once Greece is shut out of debt markets and not until eurozone stability is threatened.

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 17:37:20

Club Med Fed

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 22:56:57

A closely watched pot never boils over.

* REAL ESTATE
* MARCH 29, 2010

Mortgage Increases Blunted

By NICK TIMIRAOS

The struggling housing market appears as if it will sustain less damage than expected this year from a spike in the monthly payments on hundreds of thousands of exotic adjustable-rate mortgages.

The number of such loans scheduled to adjust to higher payments this year has shrunk. Lower-than-expected interest rates, coupled with efforts to aggressively modify loans, are likely to mute payment shocks for some borrowers. Many others already have defaulted on their loans even before their payments adjusted upward.

Loan-modification programs, such as this one in California, have helped to limit the number of mortgages whose payments will rise this year.

“The peaks of the reset wave are melting very quickly because the delinquency and foreclosure rates on these are loans are already very high,” says Sam Khater, senior economist at First American CoreLogic.

The housing market still faces enormous challenges, and a full recovery is likely to take years. The threat posed by resetting payments, Mr. Khater says, is “a drop in the bucket” compared to problems posed by the sheer volume of borrowers who owe more than their homes are worth, known as being “under water.”

Still, for years, housing analysts have worried about the threat of an aftershock from a big spike in mortgage defaults from so-called option adjustable-rate mortgages, which require low minimum payments before resetting to sharply higher levels, and “interest-only” loans, for which no principal payments are due for several years.

Most option-ARM borrowers made minimal payments, so their loan balances grew. That sparked worries about what would happen when those loans “recast” and begin requiring full payments on larger loan balances, usually five years from when they were originated or when the balance reached a designated cap.

Option ARMs may be among the most likely to benefit from the White House plan, announced on Friday, to force banks to consider writing down loan balances when modifying mortgages. Until now, the administration’s Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, has focused on lowering monthly payments by reducing interest rates and extending loan terms to 40 years.

A separate program could benefit borrowers who are current on their loans but under water by allowing investors to refinance those borrowers into loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration. Investors are most likely to refinance the riskiest loans that qualify.

The majority of option ARMs are set to recast over the next two years. But the volume of outstanding loans has fallen sharply because many borrowers, prior to facing higher payments, received modifications, refinanced or defaulted. Option ARM volume peaked at 1.05 million active loans in March 2006. At the end of last year, there were 580,000 loans outstanding, according to First American CoreLogic.

Fitch Ratings estimates that nearly half of all option ARMs that were bundled and sold as securities were 60 days or more delinquent at the end of December, even though just 5% of option ARMs had faced recasts. Fitch estimates that another 7% have been modified.

“The default process has already hit something resembling a peak,” says Christopher Thornberg, an economist at Beacon Economics. “How much higher can it actually go?”

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 23:08:19

Dead people don’t collect social security; why should dead banks be allowed to collect tax refunds? Besides, $1.4 bn is chump change for J.P. Morgan.

I’m rooting for the FDIC in this battle. Hopefully if J.P. Morgan invokes the threat of withdrawing campaign contributions, it will come to light in the press.

* BUSINESS
* MARCH 29, 2010

FDIC Stands Between J.P. Morgan and a WaMu Payoff

By DAN FITZPATRICK

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. backed away from its support for a $1.4 billion tax break benefiting J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., setting up a battle between the regulator and the nation’s second-largest bank.

The tax benefit stems from J.P. Morgan’s acquisition of Washington Mutual and is part of the bankruptcy proceedings of the failed Seattle thrift’s parent company. Washington Mutual is eligible for $2.7 billion to $2.8 billion in refunds based on a 2009 economic stimulus bill that allowed companies to apply losses from 2008 and 2009 against taxes paid in the previous five years.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. backed away from its support for a $1.4 billion tax break benefiting J.P. Morgan Chase.

The FDIC became concerned about the potential refund and other issues last week following a story in The Wall Street Journal and a meeting with Washington Mutual bondholders who oppose the deal, said people close to the talks. >b?The 2009 stimulus bill specifically excludes any companies that received bank-bailout funds from getting the tax refunds; New York-based J.P. Morgan received $25 billion in 2008.

Under the bankruptcy plan filed Friday by Washington Mutual’s holding company, J.P. Morgan was in position to claim as much as $1.4 billion from an FDIC receivership, with the holding company’s creditors getting most of the remainder of the $2.7 billion to $2.8 billion refund. Notably absent in the bankruptcy filing was the support of the FDIC. Washington Mutual’s holding company admitted in a statement that “the FDIC has not agreed to all of the provisions” but said “discussions are ongoing.”

An FDIC spokesman said Sunday the documents filed Friday night with a U.S. Bankruptcy Court “do not reflect the continuing discussions among the parties.”

The FDIC’s opposition, these people said, is a reversal from its earlier position. On March 12, FDIC lawyers didn’t object when a Washington Mutual lawyer briefed a U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge about a tentative “three-way understanding” between the holding company, J.P. Morgan and the FDIC. The tentative deal included the total of $2.6 billion in tax refunds tied to the stimulus bill.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 23:11:29

* COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE
* MARCH 29, 2010

Glitz Masks Woes For Trump SoHo

By CRAIG KARMIN

The Trump SoHo hotel and condominium has too many vacancies.

The 46-story building is scheduled to open April 9 in Manhattan. Sales were initially brisk, but only about a third of the 391 units are now in contract. What’s more, it isn’t clear how many of those will actually close, because that process won’t begin until the hotel opens.

The Trump SoHo was met with neighborhood criticism for its size.

The hotel, which was announced on a episode of Donald Trump’s hit television show, “The Apprentice,” is another of the boom-time projects that looked easy to finance until the recession hit. Recently, Bank of America dumped a mezzanine loan on the project for a fraction of its $75 million face value, according to people familiar with the matter. Now, the developer is in restructuring talks with lenders who hold some $350 million in debt.

The Trump SoHo’s disappointing sales expose a huge fault line in the condo-hotel business model. The developers’ strategy was to sell the units—at prices starting at $1.2 million for a studio—to investors who would be allowed to stay in them no more than 120 days a year. The rest of the time the units would be operated as hotel rooms under the Trump brand with the investors and the developers sharing the profit.

But sales of units in condo-hotel projects throughout the country have ground to a halt because it’s so difficult for individuals to get credit. Instead, most investors would have to pay cash, and many are reluctant to do so when the overall hotel market is so weak.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-28 23:13:40

The people with buckets of money and boxes of stupid have moved on to Hong Kong.

* COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE
* MARCH 22, 2010

Property Novices Drive Hong Kong Prices Higher

By JONATHAN CHENG

HONG KONG—One is a Chinese state tobacco company. Another, a Japanese ramen chain. And finally, an obscure Hong Kong semiconductor manufacturer.

What they have in common: They are the latest companies to jump on the real-estate bandwagon as prices soar in Hong Kong and mainland China. For some experts, they are also troubling evidence of froth in both property markets.

Last week, a small manufacturer of diodes and transistors called Sino-Tech International Holdings Ltd. stunned investors by announcing that it was “diversifying into the property sector,” buying a luxury three-story residence in Hong Kong’s swank Peak district for more than 280 million Hong Kong dollars (US$36 million) in cash, one of the biggest sums ever for a property here.

Sino-Tech wanted to take advantage of “a good investment opportunity” and “diversify its income base,” the company said, but shareholders were unimpressed, shaving off about a quarter of the company’s market capitalization in two days.

That made Sino-Tech the latest in a string of companies large and small, state-owned and privately run, that are piling into Hong Kong and mainland China’s property market—despite no demonstrable experience in the sector.

Hong Kong’s small and open market has long made it one of the region’s most volatile, while mainland China’s relatively immature market is still prone to wild price swings and policy risks. But historically low borrowing rates and large government stimulus packages have brought a rush of relatively unsophisticated latecomers into the real-estate market in search of easy money.

Regulators and market players worry that these investors are pushing prices to irrational levels, plunking down sums of money that better reflect their ability to tap deep wells of liquidity than solid market fundamentals.

 
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