March 31, 2012

Bits Bucket for March 31, 2012

Post off-topic ideas, links, and Craigslist finds here.

RSS feed


2012-03-31 05:12:37

Was in DC down for the Cherry-Blossom Festival (really early this year!)

Here are some pictures.

Missed the exhibit at the National Gallery by a week. Might have to go back.

Great food particularly Ethiopian!

Comment by polly
2012-03-31 07:17:10

Very nice. The kid in the orange shirt is great. And I like the sprig of flowers in the triangle of branches a lot.

I hope you got to the orchid exhibit at the Botanic Gardens. They are always spectacular.

2012-03-31 07:52:21

I couldn’t. It was raining and I had to meet some friends. My friends were actually going there after lunch but I had to head back.

I’m actually thinking of coming in two weeks for the Japanese exhibit at the National Gallery. Will try and get to the Botanic Gardens then.

Comment by polly
2012-03-31 08:20:08

Raining? The botanic gardens are inside. Orchids are through April 29th. Don’t miss Hokusai at the Sackler. Actually don’t miss anything at the Freer/Sackler.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
2012-03-31 09:26:57

One of the most memorable experiences of my life was the collection of Jodhpur paintings at the Freer/Sackler a few years ago.

I saw them again earlier this year when I went to India, and you could see a difference. The masterful curation in DC made a huge difference. Glad I got to see them again though.

I love those two museums. Total gems.

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-03-31 05:14:49

Putnam Says No Quantitative Easing in U.S. in 2012

Mar. 29, 2012 - March 29 (Bloomberg) — Bluford Putnam, chief economist at CME Group Inc., the world’s largest futures exchange, discusses the U.S. economy, Federal Reserve policy and quantitative easing. He also discusses the European economy with Manus Cranny on Bloomberg Television’s “Last Word.” (Source: Bloomberg) (Bloomberg)

Comment by Liz Pendens
Comment by scdave
2012-03-31 07:15:43

What would expect from a Blue State…

Comment by jeff saturday
2012-03-31 07:26:00

How about combining a Food Stamp Party with a Foreclosure Happy Hour.

By Kimberly Miller Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Posted: 9:14 p.m. Tuesday, Oct. 19, 2010

Each month, Epstein draws a small crowd to her Foreclosure Hamlet happy hour at E.R. Bradley’s Saloon. - 90k -

Comment by Diogenes (Tampa, Florida)
2012-03-31 09:47:12

well, gee, if i didn’t have to PAY for my food, i’d have lots of extra cash to go out and “party”.
It’s a lifestyle I have come to deplore as I have watched the “poor” living better than me, and being basically RETIRED at mid-life or sooner, many in their early 20’s.
The poor advocates like to portray them as “disadvantaged” and living lives of despair. I see them as early retirees that have ALL their needs catered to by a willing political class who panders to them.
Under Obama, “FOOD STAMPS” have seen astronomical rises.
I truly believe Most of it is fraud.

Comment by scdave
2012-03-31 10:17:30

Under Obama, “FOOD STAMPS” have seen astronomical rises ??

Mostly in the south I bet amongst the same people who did not vote for the guy….

2012-03-31 11:01:45

Hello?!? It’s the recession not the president.

And no, I didn’t vote for him nor his counterpart. I don’t vote because it’s entirely a waste of time and effort.

Basic game theory would tell you that your marginal vote simply can’t make any difference (and yes! that includes Florida during the “controversial one”.)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by scdave
2012-03-31 11:11:12

Basic game theory would tell you that your marginal vote simply can’t make any difference ??

As a individual yes, but not as a herd…Why else would the Neo’s seek to reduce the percentage of some eligible voters and the Dem’s seek to increase it…

2012-03-31 11:21:50

Only in marginal states.

Comment by rms
2012-03-31 23:20:13

I don’t vote because it’s entirely a waste of time and effort.

Ditto for Chomsky.

Comment by jeff saturday
2012-03-31 15:01:34

Obama Bucks - YouTube
Mar 17, 2012 … A video by Alexandra Pelosi showing people lining up outside a New York welfare office to get their “Obama bucks” … Loading… Alert icon. You need Adobe Flash Player to watch this video. Download it from Adobe. Alert icon … - 99k - Cached - Similar pages

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Pete
2012-03-31 14:55:06

“Under Obama, “FOOD STAMPS” have seen astronomical rises.”

Are you arguing that, had McCain or even some other Republican won, or even Ross friggin’ Perot, we would not have seen these rises in food stamp usage?

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-03-31 05:22:28

Is the Fed setting up Wall Street for QE3, or for the mother of all sucker punches?

I guess time will tell.

Agustino Fontevecchia, Forbes Staff
Bringing You The Bull And Bear Case From The Markets Desk
+ Follow on Forbes
Markets | 3/26/2012 @ 5:49PM
Broken Job Markets And QE3: Bernanke Feeds Wall Street’s Addiction

Bernanke, ready to act as the economic recovery falters -(Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

The collective voice that is the market has responded paradoxically to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s speech highlighting how weak labor markets truly are. As Bernanke explained that the recent fall in unemployment doesn’t represent the true state of the job market, risk assets rallied as investors selectively chose to hear Bernanke indicating the Fed would engage in more quantitative easing (QE3).

While the latter is probably true, the inherent weakness in labor markets, coupled with depressed housing markets, and record-high oil prices should be cause for concern, as they could easily derail the burgeoning economic recovery. Non-farm payroll additions below 212,000 will push the unemployment rate up according to Nomura, while BMO Capital Markets explained crude oil prices at or above $110 per barrel would slow and possibly stop the recovery.

Unemployment has indeed fallen from cyclical highs of about 10% (on October ’09) to 8.3% this February, while GDP growth has picked up and Wells Fargo expects it to come in at 2.2% for the year. The welcome decline in unemployment hasn’t been matched by a correlative jump in the pace of economic activity, as Bernanke eloquently pointed out on Monday. Markets, addicted markets, rallied.

Why? Because the Chairman said “further significant improvements in the unemployment rate will likely require a more-rapid expansion of production and demand from consumers and businesses, a process that can be supported by continued accommodative policies.” In other words, further accommodation, and possibly all out QE3, hasn’t been discarded despite improving data. As Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher said, Wall Street is “hooked on monetary morphine.”

2012-03-31 08:22:19

Most likely will be sterilized QE3.

Comment by aNYCdj
2012-03-31 09:02:40

Oh Bulloney…..the labor market is not weak I can get jobs everyday…..

Now if he stated the PAYING job market is terrible…yup that’s on the mark.

We all get 20-30-40 the sky is the limit type “jobs” each week

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s speech highlighting how weak labor markets truly are

Comment by chilidoggg
2012-03-31 10:40:20

When can we stop calling it things like a “burgeoning recovery” and start calling it what it really is: a crappy economy.

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-03-31 05:31:51

How long…has this been going on?

Moody’s sounds note of caution while Bernanke promises support for US economy

Federal Reserve chief admits he is prepared to start third round of quantitative easing if US economy continues to flag

Phillip Inman
The Guardian, Wednesday 13 July 2011

Comment by GrizzlyBear
2012-03-31 18:58:56

Continues to flag? I thought the recovery was in full swing.

Comment by LasVegasDude
2012-04-01 14:39:34

We went from green shots to flags

Comment by combotechie
2012-03-31 05:33:11

Marketing Genius: What constitutes marketing genus?

In my view it’s (partly) getting people to fork over money for things that ordinairly they wouldn’t buy. Some examples:

Cans of Sh1t that are dubbed as art. A well known artist cans his own excrement, call it art, sells it to people for some very big bucks.

DeBeers “Diamonds Are Forever”. Convince millions of people that diamonds are rare and thus scarce (they are neither) and that a guy should fork over several months of his paycheck to buy his loved one a diamond ring (whose price has been hugely marked up) so as she can have bragging rights regarding her pending marriage.

P.T. Barnum’s Egress. When Barnum’s circus came to town it contained a sign with an arrow that said “This way to the egress!” implying that the egress was something special to see.

“Egress” = “Exit”. People who went to see the egress found themself outside of the circus, and so to continue their “circus experience” THEY HAD TO BUY ANOTHER TICKET so as to get back inside. This was just the beginning of the joke: The next day these guys told their buddies that they should go to the circus and when they did the first thing they should do was to go see the egress. Then the next day these guys told THEIR buddies and so it went and - town after town - the ticket sales became MUCH higher than they otherwise would have been.

Donald Trump: Convince millions of people that he is a financial genius and that they should turn over their hard earned money to anything that has the Trump name on it. When the deals fall through he gets to isolate himself entirely from the situation because - hey -it was just his name that was involved and nothing more.

Plus Trump gets millions of dollars of FREE ADVERTISING from the various media networks that compete against each other to have him on their shows so as he can CONTINUE TO PROMOTE HIMSELF.

And then there’s Bernie Madoff who would promise his investors a twelve percent return, and if any of them dared questioned him about how this was possible they would be cut out of the deal. So no questions were asked because people were afraid of being cut out, thus Bernie was able to keep his ponzi scam going for years.

Comment by azdude
2012-03-31 06:52:29

What about cologne and perfume? that is the biggest scam going. Dont the kardashians have a new fragrance?

Comment by combotechie
2012-03-31 07:11:49

Cocaine, crack, meth, heroin, etc. Despite all the public information about how destructive these substances are people continuallly get sucked into becoming addicted to them.

The reasons to use this stuff must somehow outweigh the reasons not to use this stuff.

Somewhere in all this lies some very clever marketing.

Comment by scdave
2012-03-31 07:26:28

Somewhere in all this lies some very clever marketing ??

Like Anheuser-Busch & Diageo ??

Comment by combotechie
2012-03-31 07:41:23

And expensive wristwatches. If one needs a wristwatch to allow him to discover what time it is he can do so for less than twenty bucks. Or he can spend thousands of dollars for the same experience. So wearing expensive writwatches must be about something more than learning about what time it is.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by azdude
2012-03-31 07:48:35

Now your talking about a status symbol. How do you think people will perceive you if you are wearing an exspensive watch?
Sadly in our society there are a lot of shallow people.

Forget the twenty dollar watch, I dont even have one. my 40.00 cell phone has a clock and I always have it.

Comment by Carl Morris
2012-03-31 07:52:15

I wouldn’t mind one of those Citizens that should never need batteries. If I had confidence that it would truly be maintenance free for life I’d probably buy one. I get tired of getting my batteries replaced in the current watch, but it has a lot of sentimental value.

Comment by talon
2012-03-31 08:15:15

Many of the high dollar watches have mechanical movements and are less accurate than the $20 Timex you can buy down at the corner CVS, though my experience with Timex from years ago is that they don’t last very long. My 20 year old Seiko is starting to get flaky, so I’ve been shopping around. Plenty of very nice, accurate watches available in the $100 range.

Comment by scdave
2012-03-31 08:23:51

So wearing expensive writwatches must be about something more than learning about what time it is ??

Ya think ?? Maybe about “ego” ?? Like Trump…

(Comments wont nest below this level)
2012-03-31 10:54:02

No, it’s a signaling mechanism. It demonstrates that you have resources to burn.

The peacock isn’t wasting resources getting the most handsome plumage. It’s signaling to the peahen that it is more desirable than the other peacock out there, and that it has resources to burn.

We are still animals. The modes might have changed but the concept is still fairly basic in evolutionary terms.

It was never about the time.

Comment by scdave
2012-03-31 11:17:09

It’s signaling to the peahen that it is more desirable than the other peacock out there ??

Funny…I am more desirable because I have an expensive watch…I guess I should feel lucky to have found a peahen…

2012-03-31 11:30:43

You’re missing the point.

The impulse is evolutionary.

The modern version is totally BS because credit masks the actual mechanism. There’s no way to tell.

However, it’s still rooted in a fairly basic evolutionary impulse.

Comment by scdave
2012-03-31 11:35:11

it’s still rooted in a fairly basic evolutionary impulse ??

Like eye Candy ??

2012-03-31 11:42:34


As I’ve always said, window shopping is entirely legal. :P

Comment by scdave
2012-03-31 11:50:44

Wow !! And for all these years this peacock has been getting his chops busted for his wandering eyes…$hitt….Little did I know, all I needed to do was tell my peahen that it is;

“Basic Evolutionary Impulse” !!

Where were you when I needed you Kitty-Cat… :)

2012-03-31 15:32:27

Of course, just remember that what’s good for the gander is good for the goose too!

And if you’re sufficiently evolved, it might just evolve into really interesting times, all in the mind, of course. :P

Since this is a family blog, I’ll let your imagination fill in the rest.

Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2012-03-31 16:15:26

However, it’s still rooted in a fairly basic evolutionary impulse.

I’ve often wondered why I feel such a strong impulse to _avoid_ engaging in such signaling?

I think I must have wanted to find someone capable of rising above evolutionary impulses in their selection…

Comment by ahansen
2012-03-31 22:34:38

Not a whole lot of female voices in the above thread…;-)

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-04-01 00:04:50

“Not a whole lot of female voices in the above thread…;-)”

If only you could have ‘heard’ what they imagined themselves to be hearing…

Comment by Neuromance
2012-03-31 22:13:43

DeBeers “Diamonds Are Forever”. Convince millions of people that diamonds are rare and thus scarce (they are neither) and that a guy should fork over several months of his paycheck to buy his loved one a diamond ring (whose price has been hugely marked up) so as she can have bragging rights regarding her pending marriage.

Diamonds burn. Cubic zirconia does not.

Comment by LasVegasDude
2012-04-01 14:43:10

Never knew this. You can learn a lot on this blog.

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-03-31 05:33:28

March 30, 2012, 12:44 p.m. EDT
Fed’s Lacker: More easing should not be on table
By Greg Robb

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - There is no need for another round of asset purchases, or quantitative easing, from the Federal Reserve given the economic outlook, said Jeffrey Lacker, the president of the Richmond Federal Reserve Bank, on Friday. “If we get growth about what I am expecting, about what a lot of people are expecting… if we can get growth around those lines, I don’t see where the rationale for further easing is going to come from,” Lacker said in an interview with CNBC cable television channel. “I think we are really far from that right now,” he said. Lacker forecast growth of about 2.5% rate this year, with further improvement next year. Lacker, a voting member of the Fed’s interest-rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee, has dissented from the two Fed policy statements this year which said that economic conditions are likely to warrant exceptionally low rates until late 2014. Lacker said there was a “good chance” that the unemployment rate could get below 8% by 2013 and said he thought interest rates would need to start rising by the middle of that year. The Fed can’t wait for full employment to begin tightening, because inflation pressure can arise even if the unemployment rate is above 6% or 7%, he said. “I think we have overestimated the extent to which slack is going to depress inflation,” he said.

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-03-31 05:53:06

“I don’t see where the rationale for further easing is going to come from,”

Well d’oh.

Could Mortgage Rates Go Even Lower?
By Dan Caplinger
March 29, 2012

At least when it comes to low rates, mortgage borrowers have never had it so good. But with millions of homeowners already having refinanced their loans to save hundreds on their monthly mortgage payments, it seems almost inconceivable that rates could go still lower in the future — especially as the economy apparently starts to pick up steam.

But that’s exactly what bond guru Bill Gross foresees happening in the coming months. With help from the Federal Reserve, mortgages could get even cheaper, providing what appears to be increasingly important support to the slumping housing market going forward.

Later in this article, I’ll talk about the ramifications of this move for homeowners and investors looking for ways to profit from it. But first, let’s look more closely at the Fed’s strategy thus far.

Another twist on bonds

The move could come as part of the Federal Reserve’s ongoing interventions in the bond market. In an interview with Bloomberg, Gross suggested that as the current “Operation Twist” bond-buying program comes to an end at mid-year, the Fed could change the program by targeting mortgage-backed securities rather than Treasury bonds.

So far, the focus of Operation Twist has been to make sure that the Fed keeps a handle not only on the short-term rates it controls by way of its Fed Funds rate, but also on the longer end of the yield curve. Without both elements, only short-term borrowers would get the benefits of lower rates; mortgage borrowers and others who need to get long-term capital via the debt market could be left facing much higher financing costs as improving economic conditions led to natural expectations of rising rates.

The Fed’s moves so far have kept long rates lower. But a new emphasis on mortgage securities rather than regular Treasuries could boost some investments.

Who’ll win?

First off, any change in which securities the Fed uses for its rate-controlling operations would have a direct impact on the markets it targets. Treasury bonds have traded at historically low rates in recent years as the Fed’s numerous quantitative easing programs have pushed up demand for Treasuries. Because Treasury rates are often used as benchmarks for pricing other types of debt, the move has had a collateral impact on financing costs for businesses, municipalities, and a wide variety of other borrowers. If the Fed starts concentrating on mortgage loans, then spreads between mortgage rates and Treasury rates could fall substantially — either by having Treasury rates rise (as they have recently) or by forcing mortgage rates to drop.

The next obvious winners would be investors in mortgage bonds. One place to find huge mortgage-bond portfolios is inside mortgage REITs Annaly Capital (NYSE: NLY ) and ARMOUR Residential (NYSE: ARR ) . It’s likely that the Fed would concentrate on mortgages backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, thereby leaving Chimera Investment (NYSE: CIM ) and other investors in non-agency mortgage debt with a much smaller impact from the program.

Finally, banks that profit from mortgage activity could once again see another one-time boost to their profits. Just as Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC ) and Bank of America (NYSE: BAC ) both reaped big transaction-based profits from the waves of mortgage activity during the housing boom, so, too, would they stand to benefit from homeowners taking advantage of one more chance to refinance at super-low rates. Of course, the long-term impact could be to pull future activity forward, leaving banks with weaker profits down the line. But with the focus on current results among financials, that’s probably a trade-off that most banks would be willing to make right now.

Wait and see

It’s too early to tell exactly what the Fed will do with rates. But one thing is clear: The economy isn’t out of the woods just yet, and a number of options for stimulating the economy are still on the table. If Gross is right and the Fed moves forward with another jolt to the mortgage market, homeowners might get another chance to free up a little extra cash every month.

Comment by azdude
2012-03-31 06:41:54

So the FED has bought all these treasuries and they have them on their balance sheet.

I am not sure of the breakout of the maturites. I have to imagine a lot are short term.

If the FED has bought a bunch of 5 year treasuries basically they either have to keep that treasury for 5 years or keep rates low so that if they need to sell it before 5 years they wont take a loss.

Basically all QE appears to be is a bunch of money printing on hopes that this will eventually turn the economy around.The stock market appears to be the main vehicle for this, trickle down?

What ever happened to putting people to work and creating a prosperous environment for the private sector?

Comment by In Colorado
2012-03-31 09:24:00

What ever happened to putting people to work and creating a prosperous environment for the private sector?

Are you some kind of socialist/commie? Why do you hate America and “freedom”?

Comment by jeff saturday
2012-03-31 15:06:10

Obama Bucks - YouTube
Mar 17, 2012 … A video by Alexandra Pelosi showing people lining up outside a New York welfare office to get their “Obama bucks” - 99k - Cached - Similar pages

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-03-31 05:36:22

Current Yield | SATURDAY, MARCH 31, 2012
Bernanke the Booster

The Federal Reserve chairman is all over the place promoting the idea that ultra-low rates are here to stay—but the long bond isn’t buying it.

While Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke stepped up his public-relations campaign to reassure markets that the central bank will maintain its ultra-accommodative monetary policy, long-term Treasury yields continued their climb.

Bernanke in the past two weeks has spoken in a variety of venues, some nearly unprecedented, in part of an apparent campaign not only to increase the transparency of Fed policy, but also to deliver the message that the monetary authorities have learned from history. In a novel series of lectures to economics students at the George Washington University, Bernanke imparted the conclusion of his academic work and that of Milton Friedman: that the Fed’s blunders caused the Great Depression and its second phase, the downturn after 1937. The lesson learned was applied in the extraordinary measures taken after the financial crisis of 2008 and, prospectively, the Fed won’t tighten prematurely.

Outside the classroom, these policies have aroused less-than-universal support, culminating in the charge from Rick Perry, the Texas governor and former Republican presidential candidate, that further monetary expansion by the central bank would be seen as “treasonous,” at least in the Lone Star State. A fair number of Fed district presidents also have dissented on the question of another round of quantitative easing, or the purchase of Treasury and agency mortgage-backed securities to expand liquidity.

That’s apparently resulted in the PR counteroffensive, starting with a cover story in The Atlantic questioning why Bernanke’s a villain to the left and right when “he saved the economy and navigated masterfully through the most trying of times,” according to the liberal magazine. In addition to the GWU lectures (which can be viewed at, the Fed chief granted an interview with ABC News, in which he proudly admitted to being “a nerd” and anchor Diane Sawyer mentioned the couch in his office where he often slept during the crisis—more positive PR for the central bank.

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-03-31 05:38:24

U.S. Housing Market Not Back to Recovery: Fed
2012-03-30 11:32:24 Xinhua Web Editor: luodan

U.S. Federal Reserve (Fed) Chairman Ben Bernanke on Thursday said that although the central bank managed to bring down the long-term interest rates through unconventional bond-buying programs.

U.S. Federal Reserve (Fed) Chairman Ben Bernanke on Thursday said that although the central bank managed to bring down the long-term interest rates through unconventional bond-buying programs, the U.S. housing sector has not got back on solid ground due to several headwinds.

Since the onset of the financial crisis, the Fed has rolled out two rounds of bond-buying programs, known as quantitative easing ( QE), to lower long-term interest rates and boost the market confidence, the economics professor turned Fed chief told George Washington University undergraduates during the last session of four lectures that he delivered this month.

The large inventory of vacant homes and more stringent lending requirements of banks have held back the recovery of the housing sector, Bernanke said.

The anemic housing sector recovery and declining home values helped cause the cautious attitudes of many consumers and the sluggish broader economic recovery, he added.

Comment by ProperBostonian
2012-03-31 17:50:49

“The large inventory of vacant homes and more stringent lending requirements of banks have held back the recovery of the housing sector, Bernanke said.”

It’s the price, stupid.

Comment by GrizzlyBear
2012-03-31 21:00:06

And when the price is right, it’s a veritable feeding frenzy of speculators crowding out buyers just looking for an affordable place to call home.

Comment by Carl Morris
2012-03-31 21:22:04

It’s comforting to know that some things never change. The mystery is where the buckets of money come from. You would think it would be harder to find than the boxes of stupid.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-03-31 05:40:41

Why Ben Bernanke isn’t declaring victory for America’s economic recovery
By Richard Blackden Economics Last updated: March 29th, 2012

Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve (pictured here) has been cautious about the US recovery

Over the last three years, it has become the Federal Reserve’s version of the waiting game cardinals make the world play when they elect a new Pope.

What’s at stake is, of course, different. It’s not about who will lead the world’s more than one billion Catholics, but whether the Fed has anything left up its sleeve to help America’s economic recovery.

No smoke emerges from the Fed’s historic Eccles Building in Washington as it does from a chimney on the roof of the Sistine Chapel in Rome. The breathless audience isn’t crammed inside St. Peter’s Square, but instead sit in front of banks of Bloomberg and Reuters terminals on trading floors in financial capitals.

What the processes have in common, though, are drama and ritual. This week we got the latest installment from the Fed when its chairman, Ben Bernanke, gave a speech on unemployment on Monday. There was no explicit reference to any further measures the Fed will take, but Bernanke was sufficiently downbeat for Wall Street to believe he hasn’t ruled out a third round of quantitative easing.

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-03-31 05:41:59

Bernanke Defends Bond Buying, Focus On Financial Stability In Lecture
Published March 29, 2012
Dow Jones Newswires

WASHINGTON – Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke ended his college lecture series Thursday with a vigorous defense of the central bank’s two rounds of bond buying and the importance of financial stability.

The Fed’s two rounds of purchasing government bonds and mortgage-backed securities were “generally successful” in lowering interest rates and helping to support the economic recovery, Bernanke said Thursday in his fourth and final lecture at George Washington University.

The “lower long-term rates have, in my view and in terms of the analysis we do at the Fed, have promoted growth and recovery,” Bernanke said, although he acknowledged the effect on the housing market was “weaker than we would’ve hoped.”

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-03-31 05:44:55

The Euro Currency And Federal Reserve Policy
Friday, March 30, 2012
The Euro Currency And Federal Reserve Policy
By Alan Bush, Archer Financial Services

The influence of interest rate differentials (U.S. interest rates compared to euro zone interest rates) continues to dominate. During the first half of March, the U.S. dollar was able to gain on the euro, not just because of the ongoing sovereign debt crisis in the euro zone, but also because of interest rate differentials that were turning against the euro currency and in favor of the U.S. dollar. In this period, several Federal Reserve officials, including Dallas Federal Reserve Bank President Richard Fisher said, given the recent economic improvement, there is no need for a third quantitative easing program. Fisher, who is known for his hawkish policy views, said the economy is in much better shape and does not need further help from the central bank. He said that although growth is “slower than we would like, it’s gaining momentum.” He also said, “We will not support further quantitative easing under these circumstances because there’s a lot of money lying on the sidelines, lying fallow. We don’t need any more monetary morphine.”

Comment by palmetto
2012-03-31 05:45:49

“Sparks outrage” “Sparks terror” “Sparks fear” “Sparks outcry”….

Doesn’t the MSM know any other way to put it?

Spark this.

Comment by butters
2012-03-31 05:56:18

I think it should spark an outrage/fear/outcry for an innocent man’s death like that and no charges of any kind against the killer. Now though politicians have ruined it…it looks like a beginning of a race war.

Comment by Lip
2012-03-31 06:01:24


How do you know he was innocent?


Comment by butters
2012-03-31 06:07:39

Innocents until proven guilty. Until you can prove that he was guilty, I will believe the victim was innocent. Yes he is still innocent even if he was a trouble kid at school or had smoked some joints.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by CharlieTango
2012-03-31 06:19:24

Innocents until proven guilty

Application of this principle is a legal right of the accused.

Comment by butters
2012-03-31 06:26:48

Application of this principle is a legal right of the accused.

But he’s not accused of anything by the authorities if IIRC. That’s the problem here, no?

Comment by CharlieTango
2012-03-31 06:38:18

The problem is that you are not affording the accused his right to presumed innocence. You are calling for “outrage/fear/outcry” prior to the facts being known.

Comment by butters
2012-03-31 06:46:56

Are you kidding me? There’s no dispute that Zimmerman killed the kid who was unarmed.

Comment by CharlieTango
2012-03-31 06:56:53

The dispute is about his “guilt.” There are eye witnesses and tape recordings to support their account that Zimmerman was acting in self defense. The account includes Zimmerman’s nose being broken and the back of his head being injured due to repeated blows to the sidewalk while Zimmerman yelled for help. There is also the report that the kid told Zimmerman that he was about to die.

Given that Zimmerman went to jail in cuffs but there wasn’t sufficient evidence for the prosecution to proceed don’t you think these accounts should be fully investigated? Shouldn’t there be an analysis of the tape recordings to see if it can be determined who was yelling for help?

If you are going to stand on “presumed innocence” then apply it to the right party.

Comment by Carl Morris
2012-03-31 07:07:23

True, but I’d like to be sure I’ve heard all the facts before I come to a conclusion. Not just those facts.

The other thing we know is that the police department didn’t think he should be charged with anything. I’d like to know exactly why. Could be they’re racists. Could be it’s an open and shut case of self defense.

Comment by exeter
2012-03-31 07:12:16

From race baiting to construction to foreign policy…. your trolling knows no bounds Charlie.

Comment by CharlieTango
2012-03-31 07:15:11

The PD wanted to charge him it was the DA that wanted him cut loose due to insufficient evidence to gain a conviction.

Comment by butters
2012-03-31 07:58:22

DA that wanted him cut loose due to insufficient evidence to gain a conviction.

I think that’s the heart of the matter. May be that’s the same reason most of WS criminals will never spend a day in jail. May be that’s the reason Corzine still walks free. May be that’s the reason Bush and Obama will be never charged as war criminals. People have enough of this BS. Enough with this powerful and connected getting away from the laws that are so complex and subjective. I think it’s not about the legality anymore, it’s about the right and wrong!

Comment by Carl Morris
2012-03-31 10:17:32

I’m pretty convinced that there are criminals on WS that should be in jail, I’m just not enough of an expert to say which ones. I don’t think we can assume that Zimmerman should be in jail, though. It’s possible that the DA was exactly right and that either he’s just plain not guilty of anything but defending himself, or maybe guilty of a lesser charge but nobody will every know for sure and there’s no way it will stick beyond a reasonable doubt.

Just like OJ, the family could go with a civil suit and see if they can make something stick with the lower burden of proof.

Comment by talon
2012-03-31 11:56:47

But Mr. Z almost certainly doesn’t have OJ’s millions, so beyond whatever satisfaction the family would derive from a judgment, there’s not much point in suing.

Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2012-03-31 09:12:59

The Black kid had Skittles and gold teeth and the other guy is part Peruvian and has a Jewish name. Nuff said.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by rms
2012-03-31 23:29:01

…a la Bonfire of the Vanities?

Comment by scdave
2012-03-31 07:36:49

Do you see how many states have “Stand-Your-Ground” legislation
past ?? I was quite shocked…I mean, I knew everyone was packing in Texas but I did not know this many states had passed this…Don’t get into a in-your-face argument in any of these places including just protecting yourself or someone like your wife or girlfriend because you could end up dead…

Comment by butters
2012-03-31 06:02:56

Doesn’t the MSM know any other way to put it?

Sadly this is like a Christmas gift for the MSM and blowhards on TV.

Comment by SV guy
2012-03-31 06:08:48

Something will spark this ‘thing’ off eventually.

Who knows when?

Comment by Martin
2012-03-31 05:46:46

I bought 10 tickets for the first time in my life of any lottery and I won $3. I’m happy to get 30% back and never buying lottery ticket again. I looked at the lives of people who become rich at early age like singers, lottery winners, stars etc., and majority never lived past 50. I would rather keep working and live enough to able to collect at least 10 years of SS benefits.

Comment by palmetto
2012-03-31 05:51:48

Pants on fire!

Comment by butters
2012-03-31 05:58:58

I forgot to “invest” on it last nite. Some jackass in MD won. I should have been that jackass although I never wanted to megarich by winning a lottery. Time is running out….I must hit a jackpot!

Comment by palmetto
2012-03-31 06:25:52

I would have purchased a ticket just for the helluvit, but Florida was not one of the states included and I didn’t feel like driving to Georgia or Alabama or whatever.

Nothing wrong with purchasing a ticket here or there. It’s these folks who line up and purchase 10, 15, 20, 100 tickets that get me.

Comment by jeff saturday
2012-03-31 15:36:41

“Nothing wrong with purchasing a ticket here or there. It’s these folks who line up and purchase 10, 15, 20, 100 tickets that get me.”

NEW E*TRADE Baby - Lottery - YouTube
Jan 13, 2010 … The E*TRADE Baby talks to his buddy Frank about his retirement plan and how it … “I wanna show you something, it’s my shocked face. - 157k - Cached - Similar pages

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by azdude
2012-03-31 06:20:30

they had folks coming from NV to CA for their chance to hit it big, Lines were a mile long in some spots, sad.

Comment by combotechie
2012-03-31 06:31:48

“Lines were a mile long in some spots.”


The lotto: Another example of marketing genius.

Comment by combotechie
2012-03-31 06:46:07

The big unknown about the lotto is - even if you win - you do not know how many other people you may have to share the prize with, how many other people have also chosen the same winning numbers.

And the more people there are who buy tickets the greater the chances of them choosing the same numbers.

The big draw for the lotto is the big prize that is offered: The big prize is what draws in the ticket buyers. But the chances of having to share the prize rises in step with the number of tickets that are sold.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by combotechie
2012-03-31 06:51:45

So there are really TWO UNKOWNS involved with playing the lottery: The unknown involving the winning number and the unknown about the size of the prize for those who have chosen the winning number.

Comment by azdude
2012-03-31 07:04:02

I had a dream of how I would spend the winnings.Ben would get a hefty donation.

Comment by Carl Morris
2012-03-31 07:09:22

Of course. I might even buy a house with that much money to burn. But first I’d have to buy a ticket and that’s not going to happen.

Comment by rms
2012-03-31 07:33:36

I bought 10 tickets for the first time in my life of any lottery and I won $3.

odds = 10 / 176,000,000 = 0.000…

Comment by azdude
2012-03-31 07:43:14

Its all about the opportunity to dream with what you would do with the cash. Even if you buy one ticket your in the game. It is really a form of cheap entertainment. I will admit I was in the game last night. my 5 bucks was lost, move along.

Comment by combotechie
2012-03-31 07:53:03

“It is really a form of cheap entertainment.”

Lucky me, I get to work in Compton, CA now and then and I get to see first hand how “cheap” this entertainment is for some of the people who live there and hang around the donut stores and 7-Elevens.

These people - some of them at least - will spend every dollar they have on lottery tickets, and they will do this one dollar at a time.

One dollar at a time all day long means at the end of the day all your money will be gone.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by combotechie
2012-03-31 08:12:13

Slot machines will do this, in case anyone hasn’t noticed.

A quarter slot machine will take all the money you bring to it one quarter at a time. A dollar slot will do it one dollar at a time.

Take ten, give back nine. Take eight, give back seven.

Make a lot of noise when you give it back - lots of lights and lots of noise - but be very quiet when you take it in.

Keep ‘em stayin’ and keep ‘em payin’ is the name of the game. And it is THEIR game that is being played, and ultimately the participants are the ones that are being played.

Comment by azdude
2012-03-31 08:13:10

some people have addictive personalities.

Comment by combotechie
2012-03-31 08:19:15

“some people have addictive personalities.”

And these people make it very easy for other people to get very rich.

Comment by azdude
2012-03-31 08:22:11

very true. dont rich get rich from the backs of the poor?

Comment by combotechie
2012-03-31 08:22:50

What a great idea! Get other people to go to work and earn money and then set up a mechinism whereas they willingly send all their hard-earned money to me.

They go to work while I go to the beach.

Comment by combotechie
2012-03-31 08:26:08

“don’t rich get rich from the backs of the poor?”

Ah, now we’re back to Marketing.

The rich get rich off the poor because the poor are somehow convinced that they should send all the money they have (and some money that they don’t have) to the rich.

Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2012-03-31 09:17:41

Take ten, give back nine. Take eight, give back seven.

My friend told me you can make that up on volume.

Comment by Bill in Los Angeles
2012-03-31 09:49:55

I did not buy any lottery tickets. But this morning I put in buy requests for $1,000 worth of NOOF, VRTB, and MSN in one of my brokerage accounts. It’s a modest amount and I have a far more chance of turning that into $1,500 within two years than $10 worth of lottery tickets getting me anything back.

My company deposited 1,736 shares of stock into another of my brokerage accounts. Instant $20,000 gain above my $9,900 purchase. Another sure winner over quick pix.

Comment by azdude
2012-03-31 10:46:48

you do realize that all the stocks you have mentioned are long shots. they are cheap for a reason. hope it pans out but no different than a blackjack table.

Comment by Bill in Los Angeles
2012-03-31 10:57:58

All stocks are longshots. My own company stock was a long shot every year for the last five years. Message boards were quiet. Y’all snickered about staffing company prospects all through 2008 to now and are still snickering. My best buy was at $2 per share for 1700 shares in March 2009 while people like you snickered. One person posting on that message board kept saying how my company’s stock was going to tank. That was at half of yesterday’s price and he posted that last year.

Keep snickering. $1,000 is all I put in and the fundamentals are right. You did not explain why these are long shots.

1) They have far more cash than debt.
2) They are priced below book value per share, meaning that if they were to be bought by another company, instant gain.
3) The 50 day and 200 day EMAs are showing they have turned around.

I explained why I think these are good buys. Now it’s your turn to prove these are longshots than just saying they are longshots.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Bill in Los Angeles
2012-03-31 13:33:25

To succeed in growing your net worth rapidly, you do not have to be right all the time. You have to be right more than 60% of the time. I was with gold, municipal bonds, savings bonds, and stock funds, as well as company stock. Another winner was my holdings in America West Airlines before the merger.

My failures: NENG (Network Engines), PFE (Pfizer - big failure), TRPH (tripath technologies), JDSU (JDS Uniphase), RAT (Rational software, which was bought by IBM), CSCO - in the early 2000s. I lost half of my inheritance of my Uncle’s in my stock decisions in the early 2000s.

But I have been mostly right. Nattering nabobs can stick with stuffing their mattresses with fiat money.

2012-03-31 15:43:12

I’ve never seen anyone hit 60% on a consistent basis.

The best hedge fund managers do 54-55% consistently (if they can manage that.) They are the rock stars!

I’d pay good money to see the statistic of 60%. If you were that good, you’d be richer than Bill Gates within a decade.

I call BS with a vengeance.

Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2012-03-31 16:19:10

I call BS with a vengeance.

Ooooooooo… You’ve been CAT-called! :-)

Comment by Bill in Los Angeles
2012-03-31 19:38:34

60% is a rough estimate. Also I noted before I’m not purely into stocks. Dollar cost averaging spreads out the risk and I do that with a vengeance. I buy fewer shares when prices are high and more shares when prices are low.

You only wish misery and failure on anyone else. That’s your problem. But the fact is markets operate in cycles. You can hold your breath until you turn blue but you cannot ever change that fact. Many of you swear off stocks. Your predecessors swore off stocks as manipulated by fat cats back when the 87 crash happened. Yet the market resumed.

If you don’t change your outlook you will be eating canned dog food from the discount chain aisle in twenty years. Your best deal now is to dollar cost average into a broad stock fund, such as the S&P 500 index fund. The fundamentals and technicals are in its favor for the next ten years.

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-03-31 05:57:40

Bernanke to mortgage bond dealers: “We gonna pump you up!”

Dealers See Fed Buying $545 Billion Mortgage Bonds in QE3
December 06, 2011, 9:04 AM EST

More From Businessweek
Goldman Bets on Property Rebound With New Fund: Mortgages
Geithner’s Math Puzzle Beyond Numbers for DeMarco: Mortgages
Treasuries Fall After Durable Goods, Five-Year Auction
Subprime Bulls Trim Bets as Rally Raises 2011 Specter: Mortgages
Redwood Sells Fifth Mortgage Bonds Since 2008 as Sales Thaw

By Daniel Kruger and Cordell Eddings

(Updates 10-year yields in eighth paragraph.)

Nov. 28 (Bloomberg) — The biggest bond dealers in the U.S. say the Federal Reserve is poised to start a new round of stimulus, injecting more money into the economy by purchasing mortgage securities instead of Treasuries.

Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and his fellow policy makers, who bought $2.3 trillion of Treasury and mortgage-related bonds between 2008 and June, will start another program next quarter, 16 of the 21 primary dealers of U.S. government securities that trade with the central bank said in a Bloomberg News survey last week. The Fed may buy about $545 billion in home-loan debt, based on the median of the firms that provided estimates.

While mortgage rates are already at about record lows, housing continues to constrain the economy, with the National Association of Realtors saying in Washington last week that the median price of U.S. existing homes dropped 4.7 percent in October from a year ago. Borrowers with a 30-year conventional mortgage would save $40 billion to $50 billion annually in aggregate if they could all refinance into a new loan with a 3.75 percent rate, according to JPMorgan Chase & Co.

“We need to see a bottom in home prices,” said Shyam Rajan, an interest-rate strategist in New York at Bank of America Corp., a primary dealer, in a Nov. 22 telephone interview. “These are not numbers that are going to get down your unemployment rate,” which has held at or above 9 percent every month except two since May 2009, he said.

New Urgency

The company forecasts the Fed will buy $800 billion of securities, which may include Treasuries.

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-03-31 06:02:09

Maybe the Bernanke is setting up Bill Gross for a repeat sucker punch after last year’s sucker punch?

Bill Gross climbs off QE3 bandwagon?
By Jamie Coleman || March 28, 2012 at 16:00 GMT

After weeks of shouting into every microphone that he can find that the Fed will do QE3, Bill Gross has shifted tact. He now says the Fed will do a version of Operation Twist with the mortgage-backed securities in its portfolio.

Gross must have some long-dated MBS he wants to pitch onto the Street.

The guy is a shameless book-talker…

Sad to say, I have a small amount of money in his Total Return Fund.

Talk less, manage more, dude.

Comment by azdude
2012-03-31 06:28:17

Doesn’t the FED basically have to keep buying bonds to keep rates down?

If rates were to go up substantially the interest payments to finance the govt would essentially break the system.

Primary dealers at NY fed buy the treasuries from govt. Then they sell them to the FED and with the cash they are expected to goose the stock market.

I guess the FED buying directly from treasury is a big no no.

Lather, rinse, repeat?

Comment by Patrick
2012-03-31 17:56:26


Probably one of the best, most concise blogs - and accurate !

Situation reminds one of the mouse running in his round cage.

Exhaustion will occur.

Comment by LasVegasDude
2012-04-01 14:55:16

Good post dude!

Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-03-31 06:04:21

Forget About QE3 - It’s Not Going To Happen
March 29, 2012

During the past few weeks, several financial market journalists, stock market pundits and Wall Street economists have said that they expect the Federal Reserve to soon initiate another round of quantitative easing.

Morgan Stanley’s Chief U.S. Economist, Vincent Reinhart, went so far as to say on March 6 that his firm expects the Fed to undertake additional balance-sheet action during the first half of 2012. Specifically, Reinhart, who is a former director of the Federal Reserve Board’s Division of Monetary Affairs, said, “The most likely form of that action is open market purchases of Treasury and mortgage-backed securities funded through the creation of reserves - Quantitative Easing 3 (QE3) - at the April or June meetings. We expect it to total around $500 billion to $700 billion.”

Yet, my research indicates that the Fed will not initiate another round of substantial monetary easing - or what journalists refer to regularly as QE3 - during the months ahead. That’s because U.S. commercial banks already have a massive amount of funds on deposit that they can lend to households and businesses as a result of the huge amount of new money that the Fed created between August 2008 and May 2009. Hence, there’s no reason for the Fed to implement a new round of quantitative easing.

Comment by Bill in Carolina
2012-03-31 07:04:59

“…banks already have a massive amount of funds on deposit that they can lend to households and businesses…”

Credit-worthy companies already have their own massive amount of funds sitting idle. Credit-worthy households are still busy reducing their debts, and banks don’t loan to non-credit-worthy households any more.

The Fed’s only way to get all that money circulating at a higher velocity is to initiate the next bubble.

Comment by Carl Morris
2012-03-31 07:14:48

It’s almost like the economy is trying to separate into two pieces…the solvent group and the insolvent group. But the Fed keeps adding emulsifier to the mix trying to keep the oil and water from separating.

Comment by scdave
2012-03-31 07:50:06

banks don’t loan to non-credit-worthy households any more ??

I must disagree…I see many credit-worthy borrowers that have no access to the funds they would like to have…I see friends with very deep pockets get their credit lines “halved”…Banks today only lend money to people that don’t need it…Basically, lend your own money back to you…

Comment by Patrick
2012-03-31 18:01:59


I agree that the banks have a lot of green. But they are still over levered - badly.

One wrong move right now could send this rocket into reverse. Doing a QE3 would do it - either with or without it.

Until retail investors get back into the market, housing becomes properly priced, and banks get delevered (which they seem to have stopped trying to do) - we are in a storm.

Most of all - people have to be able to get good jobs - now.

Comment by Posers
2012-03-31 07:01:21

Comment by Prime_Is_Contained

2012-03-30 17:46:03

Why should taxpayer being paying for _any_ of those forms of energy development—much less ALL of them??

Energy users should pay for the costs of development in their rates.

A great question, Prime. My answer is that it would be smarter for the governmnet to ask taxpayers to pay for construction of new energy facilities (for nat gas, oil, nuclear) because taken as a whole, the use of energy creates wealth across an entire society. A great deal of wealth sometimes. Note that the most advanced countries tend to use a good deal more energy than poorer countries do.

Further, the vast distances of the U.S.A. drive the need for rapid development of new and better energy facilities. High speed trains and similar transport will never be sufficient across most of the United States as many areas of the country are not heavily populated.

Conversely, I do NOT agree that health care should be subsidized via taxpayer. The reason is that most of the time, health care is really health maintenance. Maintenance is not a net gain economically for any country. People get old - and the economic return to maintain the increasingly old is increasingly net loss on the balance sheet.

Want better health care coverage? Put taxpayer money toward wealth-producing industries. At the same time, cut healthcare costs like mad, starting with tort reform. The citizenry also needs to be told the truth: healthcare costs both on the insurance side and maintenance side are very dissimilar state-to-state. Healthcare insurance and maintenance costs to individuals are MUCH LESS in flyover country than they are in states such as New York.

BTW, did you see Polly’s post yesterday about how Sweden approaches the SS portion of the safety net? I’m not sure of the ins and outs of what she reported that she heard, but it’s mnteresting nonetheless.

One thing we need to do in the U.S. is behave ethically. We’re so far off that track now. On this board, I see lots of comments that providing for all is ethical. Fine. The approaches suggested here toward that end, however, are often intensely UNethical. The over-riding thought processes rest on the gutting of the physical, economic and political advantages we have as a country.

It’s become “I’d like to teach the world to sing” at all costs rather than “I’d like to teach the world to sing” with our increased wealth.

We’ve lost our way.

We need to get back to bettering social welfare at rates that are co-efficient with increased wealth. As a whole, the United States hasn’t gien this much thought at all since the late 1960s. We’ve not been interested in developing wealth producing industries and have instead dependent on credit (via banks, government, lawyers, etc.) to shift wealth rather than create it.

Do-gooders are trying to squeeze wealth from a turnip. Obamacare will fail horrifically for this reason. If the do-gooders want it to work, they need to understand that we desperately need to generate new, massive WEALTH to pay for it as Obamacare will forever be generating a massive net loss.

Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2012-03-31 09:27:27

Want better health care coverage?

Move to Canada.

Do-gooders are trying to squeeze wealth from a turnip.

Insofar as health-care, the people who want single payer are NOT trying to squeeze wealth from a turnip. That is false because the USA spends 18% of GDP on healthcare while single-payer Canada spends 11% of their GDP on healthcare. So at 18% of GDP the wealth is already there and represents a cash cow much of which could be used more efficiently.

Bringing healthcare spending in the USA from 18% of GDP down to something like 12% with single payer would be freeing wealth to go into the more productive industries which you astutely noted needed to be done. Going to single-payer would be the opposite of squeezing wealth from a turnip.

Comment by In Colorado
2012-03-31 15:03:07


Comment by jeff saturday
2012-03-31 07:04:15

Foreclosure ruling gives Palm Beach County family another chance at keeping their home

By Kimberly Miller Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Posted: 7:14 p.m. Friday, March 30, 2012

A Palm Beach County family that lost its home in a 2010 foreclosure judgment is getting another shot at its case after the 4th District Court of Appeal said a lower court was premature in ruling for the bank.

In the case, Dilcia Osorto v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., the homeowner was seeking evidence from the bank when the final foreclosure judgment was entered by a Palm Beach County circuit judge.

Appeals court Judge Mark Polen said in the Wednesday decision that the judgment should not have occurred until the defendant’s discovery was complete. The ruling sends the case back to the circuit court.

Homeowner attorney Brian Korte, of Korte & Wortman in West Palm Beach, said he had requested information about a trust that is said to hold Osorto’s mortgage when the summary judgment was granted.

“The question is, does the trust even exist, and what we find is when we finally get a deposition taken is that no one has ever talked to the trust, they don’t know what the address is, they don’t know if the trust has employees,” Korte said. “That’s why trust cases have become difficult for the banks.”

Osorto, 44, bought her suburban Lake Worth home in 2006 for $242,000. A job loss left her husband bringing in less money, and in 2008 the bank filed for foreclosure.

The final judgment was awarded in September 2010, and the home was sold back to the bank at auction in March 2011, according to court records.

The family is staying in the home pending the appeal

15 COMMENTS (Not from me)

It seems that Ms.Miller has left out some important information about the “buyer” of this home. County records show that Dilcia Orsoto bought this home in 2006 from a relative, Julio Orsoto, paying an inflated price of $242,000. Julio Orsoto purchased the home for $85,000 just 3 years earlier. The bank foreclosed because Dilcia Orsoto and co-buyer Baudelio Munoz made no payments for 2 years. Are we supposed to feel sorry for people who don’t pay their bills?

Concerned Citizen
11:03 PM, 3/30/2012

Straw buyers, they should be in jail. Are they even legally in this country?

6:30 AM, 3/31/2012 -

Comment by Montana
2012-03-31 07:40:02

I dunno…3 years between sales. what did seller owe on it?

Comment by jeff saturday
2012-03-31 08:29:37

“I dunno…3 years between sales. what did seller owe on it?”

According to this $85k but the extra cash didn`t keep JULIO out of jail.

View OSORTO JULIO CESAR OSORTO BERTINA 07/31/1997 JUD 9914 353 19970270610
View OSORTO JULIO CESAR VALENZUELA MARIO V 03/11/2003 D 14908 174 20030138590 LEE ESTATES # 3 L130
* View OSORTO JULIO CESAR OSORTO DILCIA M 07/14/2006 D 20601 1530 20060411989 LEE ESTATES # 3 L130
View OSORTO JULIO CESAR ALVARADO ELIZABETH 02/02/2007 JUD 21374 491 20070055707
View OSORTO JULIO CESAR FLORIDA 02/07/2008 JUD 22429 1502 20080047368
View OSORTO JULIO CESAR FLORIDA 05/29/2008 JUD C 22665 661 20080201684
View OSORTO JULIO CESAR FLORIDA 05/29/2008 JUD 22664 1546 20080201288

And like “Concerned Citizen” said Dilcia Osorto may have made 2 or 3 payments but is still living in “her home” six years later.


Comment by Reverend
2012-03-31 09:00:19

I want to recommend you to read the article from greater fool from the March 29th, because it just wonderfully describes the craziness of the Canadian minister of finance Flaherty and his implications for the Canadian budget. I would use the words complete insanity to describe his strategy. I hope the voters are still sane and won´t vote for him and his party again.
The other point of view (realtor) is offered in More Regulation in the Mortgage Market, but with the same conclusion.
So please listen to us, indebted Canadians: More regulation is needed!

Comment by Muggy
2012-03-31 12:05:38

Here you go Alpha, add this to your favorites!

“New research provides evidence that, when under time pressure or otherwise cognitively impaired, people are more likely to express conservative views”

Comment by Muggy
2012-03-31 12:25:41

I love that! The drunker you are, the more conservative you get. I have the opposite problem.

Who’s the naked guy in the pool?

Comment by alpha-sloth
2012-04-02 05:29:23

LOL- Consider that sucker bookmarked! Blue Skye will love it too.

I have the opposite problem.

Who’s the naked guy in the pool?

Same problem here.

Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
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