Examining the home price boom and its effect on owners, lenders, regulators, realtors and the economy as a whole.
Post off-topic ideas, links, and Craigslist finds here.
Posted By: Ben Jones @ 1:10 am
Natural Law.. and Edward Snowden
taken from another board
Most people believe that Edward Snowden, who has confirmed that the U.S. government spies on us, broke the law. Even many of his defenders concede this.
While in one sense the statement “Snowden broke the law” may be trivially true, in another, deeper sense it is untrue. He may have violated the terms of legislation passed by Congress and signed by a president (criminal intent would have to be proved), but a venerable line of thought says legislation is not the same thing as law. (F.A. Hayek drew the distinction, obviously, in Law, Legislation, and Liberty, volume 1: “Unlike law itself, which has never been ‘invented’ in the same sense, the invention of legislation came relatively late in the history of mankind.”) Legislation may reflect the law, but it may also contradict it. In this line of thought, which dates back to antiquity, “law” refers to natural law. Any legislative product that conflicts with the natural law, so this philosophical tradition holds, is no law at all.
Auburn University philosopher Roderick Long points out that the principle lex iniusta non est lex— an unjust law is not a law —
was once, and indeed for over two millennia, the dominant position in western philosophy of law.… This doctrine was upheld by Socrates, Plato, and Xenophon, by the Stoics and by Cicero, by Augustine and Aquinas, and by Blackstone as well. The traditional idea was that law must be distinguished from mere force by its authority, and that nothing unjust could have genuine authority. [“Inside and Outside Spooner’s Jurisprudence”; link will download an unpublished paper in Word format.]
The great American libertarian political philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808–1887) applied this principle in his characteristically consistent and rigorous manner. Indeed, Long notes that Spooner took the principle further than his predecessors “because traditional natural law theory recognises positive law as an additional source of obligation,” while Spooner’s post-Civil War writing “maintains that legislators cannot add any new obligations to the body of law.” (In his paper, Long distinguishes between Spooner’s prewar and postwar thinking on the relationship between natural law and positive law, but says “the difference … is not as great as it might appear.” See the paper for details.)
In 1882 Spooner defined natural law as “the science of justice” discoverable by reason:
the science of all human rights; of all a man’s rights of person and property; of all his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is the science which alone can tell any man what he can, and cannot, do; what he can, and cannot, have; what he can, and cannot, say, without infringing the rights of any other person.
It is the science of peace; and the only science of peace; since it is the science which alone can tell us on what conditions mankind can live in peace, or ought to live in peace, with each other.
In his 1886 “A Letter to Grover Cleveland,” Spooner elaborated on what natural law is:
Let me then remind you that justice is an immutable, natural principle; and not anything that can be made, unmade, or altered by any human power.
It is also a subject of science, and is to be learned, like mathematics, or any other science. It does not derive its authority from the commands, will, pleasure, or discretion of any possible combination of men, whether calling themselves a government, or by any other name.
It is also, at all times, and in all places, the supreme law. And being everywhere and always the supreme law, it is necessarily everywhere and always the only law.
But if that is so, where does it leave the so-called “lawmakers,” the people who solemnly issue decrees from their exalted seats in Congress, state legislatures, and city councils?
Lawmakers, as they call themselves, can add nothing to it, nor take anything from it. Therefore all their laws, as they call them, — that is, all the laws of their own making, — have no color of authority or obligation. It is a falsehood to call them laws; for there is nothing in them that either creates men’s duties or rights, or enlightens them as to their duties or rights. There is consequently nothing binding or obligatory about them. And nobody is bound to take the least notice of them, unless it be to trample them under foot, as usurpations.
Nothing binding or obligatory can be found in those decrees as such, Spooner said. In other words, the obligations of natural law — essentially not to trespass on the person and property of others — preexist and are not the result of anything that legislators say.
And if perchance Congress should pass a law that coincides with the natural law?
If they command men to do justice, they add nothing to men’s obligation to do it, or to any man’s right to enforce it. They are therefore mere idle wind, such as would be commands to consider the day as day, and the night as night.
Statutes forbidding murder, rape, torture, and theft, then, are redundant, adding nothing to our natural obligations as human beings. But legislation consistent with justice is the exception, not the rule. What, then, is the status of “laws” that contravene the natural law? Spooner answered,
If they command or license any man to do injustice, they are criminal on their face. If they command any man to do anything which justice does not require him to do, they are simple, naked usurpations and tyrannies. If they forbid any man to do anything, which justice could permit him to do, they are criminal invasions of his natural and rightful liberty. In whatever light, therefore, they are viewed, they are utterly destitute of everything like authority or obligation. They are all necessarily either the impudent, fraudulent, and criminal usurpations of tyrants, robbers, and murderers, or the senseless work of ignorant or thoughtless men, who do not know, or certainly do not realize, what they are doing.…
It is intrinsically just as false, absurd, ludicrous, and ridiculous to say that lawmakers, so-called, can invent and make any laws, of their own, authoritatively fixing, or declaring, the rights of individuals, or that shall be in any manner authoritative or obligatory upon individuals, or that individuals may rightfully be compelled to obey, as it would be to say that they can invent and make such mathematics, chemistry, physiology, or other sciences, as they see fit, and rightfully compel individuals to conform all their actions to them, instead of conforming them to the mathematics, chemistry, physiology, or other sciences of nature.
The “laws” that prohibit Edward Snowden (or anyone else) from telling us that the NSA routinely collects our telephone data and has access to our Internet records are decrees of the kind that “forbid any man to do anything, which justice could permit him to do.” They are therefore “criminal invasions of his natural and rightful liberty.”
Snowden should be left free, and those responsible for the spy programs should face justice.
Legislation = criminal Congress’s license to override the law of the land
There is no distinctly American criminal class - except Congress.
- Mark Twain
There is no distinctly American criminal class - except Congress.
- Mark Twain
“Treason is a charge invented by the winners as a reason for hanging the losers”.- Benjamin Franklin (a known criminal of the Crown of King George)
Let me then remind you that justice is an immutable, natural principle
Spooner lost me in the first line. The rest of what he writes makes sense when you start from that premise; however, I believe the initial premise is completely false, rendering the remainder suspect.
Does anyone really believe that different cultures, developed in complete isolation from one another, will end up with the same exact concept of what is “just”??
It is hard to think of examples of justice in nature. Unless justice means ‘might makes right’.
i think he means that if each culture followed natural law, their concept of what is just would be nearly the same. it’s our ‘feeling’ of what’s ‘just’ that gets in the way.
in natural law the right to self defense is absolute. it couldn’t be legislated away. but when man rules, he can make self defense against the ‘law’. his law.
Anyone who resisted the Nazi party once they were in power also “broke the law”.
How did relying on the idea that a bad law isn’t really a law work out for Socrates? I seem to recall that there was some hemlock involved.
How did relying on the idea that a bad law isn’t really a law work out for Socrates?
he’s not saying bad law can always be defeated. especially without paying a price. but he is saying bad law (laws against what is natural) should be resisted if one has the courage and the means.
There is one way to get around a bad law in our society. Well, maybe two. One is not getting caught. The other is jury nullification. Even finding things unconstitutional is still following a law.
If the author is just advocating for civil disobedience, OK that is one thing. But disobeying a law in public for the purpose of getting caught to illustrate how bad the law is and hope that your own punishment will inspire others to get the law changed (the definition of civil disobedience) is not what Snowden is doing. That would require him to have released all of what he had at one time and stay in the US to get arrested. See MLK, Jr., Ghandi, etc. Civil disobedience means you have to be willing to take the punishment. Otherwise, how do you illustrate that you are being punished for something that shouldn’t be subject to punishment?
yes, i’ve been advocating jury nullification for years. it’s an excellent way to stop bad laws. but as you know, being an attorney, jury nullification is being purposely hidden from juries. the court system doesn’t want people to know about it. of course, we should be interested enough in justice to learn about it even if ‘they’ don’t want us to know about it.
See MLK, Jr., Ghandi, etc. Civil disobedience means you have to be willing to take the punishment.
yes, but the problem is that this is no longer the same country it was. daniel ellsberg recently said that would have had to do what snowden did in today’s america. he said he could longer handle it the same way he did back then.
he said he could longer handle it the same way he did back then.
Back when we were a liberal country?
I understand the situation is worse than you imply TJ. That is, potential jurors will be asked if they know about nullification and be dismissed if they do. Also, the judge will order the jurors to follow the letter of the law as laid out by him rather than to follow their own hearts and reason.
It is exactly the opposite of the situation we should have for a healthy system. Other than that judges are on a power trip, I don’t see why you would not want juries to be able to ignore bad laws.
yes, it is as you say. i’ve heard the same thing, although i don’t think the dismissals are universal yet. the fact that it happens at all is disheartening to say the least.
i don’t want juries to ignore bad laws. i hope i didn’t give that impression.
no, back when we were a freer country.
Odd how the liberal and freer periods correlated.
Alpha, what a boob.
The author makes the point that justice is different from force.
I agree with the conclusion of this comment, taken from another board. The reasoning can be disputed. I think this is one of those gray areas, where we should be guided by the general sense of the matter. I haven’t seen a poll yet where the majority didn’t view Snowden as a hero.
Another way to see it is like this - There was a law that criminalized the revelation of a secret law. Since the law was secret to begin with, it could not have had the consent of the people. Without the consent of the people, it’s not a law.
Just a bunch of rhetoric to justify this person violating a signed secrecy contract and the applicable law of which he was intimately informed when accepting employment. Send him to Leavenworth when available.
Don’t hit men also “agree” to abide by the contract of murder-to-hire? Since when did a contract trump the Constitution?
Did the NSA break the law? The answer turns on what a SECRET TRIBUNAL decided the secret new definition of “relevant” is.
And it isn’t BOOOSH’s fault, either.
Updated July 8, 2013, 3:13 a.m. ET
Secret Court’s Redefinition of ‘Relevant’ Empowered Vast NSA Data-Gathering
By JENNIFER VALENTINO-DEVRIES
and SIOBHAN GORMAN
The National Security Agency’s ability to gather phone data on millions of Americans hinges on the secret redefinition of the word “relevant.” Jen Valentino-DeVries reports. Photo: Getty Images.
The National Security Agency’s ability to gather phone data on millions of Americans hinges on a secret court ruling that redefined a single word: “relevant.”
This change—which specifically enabled the surveillance recently revealed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden—was made by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a group of judges responsible for making decisions about government surveillance in national-security cases. In classified orders starting in the mid-2000s, the court accepted that “relevant” could be broadened to permit an entire database of records on millions of people, in contrast to a more conservative interpretation widely applied in criminal cases, in which only some of those records would likely be allowed, according to people familiar with the ruling.
The ‘relevant’ language was added to the Patriot Act when it came up for reauthorization; it was signed by President Bush in 2006.
In interviews with The Wall Street Journal, current and former administration and congressional officials are shedding new light on the history of the NSA program and the secret legal theory underpinning it. The court’s interpretation of the word enabled the government, under the Patriot Act, to collect the phone records of the majority of Americans, including phone numbers people dialed and where they were calling from, as part of a continuing investigation into international terrorism.
“Relevant” has long been a broad standard, but the way the court is interpreting it, to mean, in effect, “everything,” is new, says Mark Eckenwiler, a senior counsel at Perkins Coie LLP who, until December, was the Justice Department’s primary authority on federal criminal surveillance law.
I’m so glad we chose Verizon as our cell service provider. And I feel so sorry for the NSA contractor who has to listen in to my family’s GAWD AWFUL BORING phone conversations. $120K per year would not be enough to offset the pain of enduring this exercise.
NSA surveillance: Supreme Court is asked to halt phone spying on Americans
A privacy group called on the Supreme Court to invalidate the secret court order that authorized the collection of telephone metadata from every Verizon business customer in the US.
By Warren Richey, Staff writer / July 8, 2013
Senate Appropriations Committee member Sen. Jeff Merkley (D) of Oregon holds up his Verizon cell phone while questioning Gen. Keith B. Alexander, director of the National Security Agency, during last month’s committee hearing on cybersecurity. Sen. Tom Udall (D) of New Mexico watches from the right.
A nonprofit privacy group asked the US Supreme Court on Monday to invalidate a secret court order that authorized the US government to collect and retain all telephone metadata from every Verizon business customer in the United States.
The order was issued April 25 and required Verizon Business Network Services to turn over the data every day through July 19, 2013.
The secret decision was issued by a judge with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and had remained a classified document until it was publicly disclosed recently by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.
“I’m so glad we chose Verizon as our cell service provider. And I feel so sorry for the NSA contractor who has to listen in to my family’s GAWD AWFUL BORING phone conversations. $120K per year would not be enough to offset the pain of enduring this exercise.”
The weather, religion,…?
When are countrywide no doc loans coming back ? will that be a sign that the banks are desperate for buyers?
Are there any new tricks on the horizon that will suck in the last few players?
“When are countrywide no doc loans coming back ?”
Doing good never ends.
I just want to see those CW commercials again.
No doc loans are back
100% LTV loans are back
Unbelievably, the answer is yes.
4 mortgages that require little money down
By Holden Lewis • Bankrate.com
* Mortgages with small down payments becoming more common again.
* Some borrowers may be eligible for no-down-payment loans.
* Standard home loan with PMI is another option for some.
Homebuyers with little money for a down payment are finding more home loans available for a low down payment or even no down payment.
These mortgages are becoming more commonplace even as the country recovers from a housing bust made worse by the popularity of low down-payment mortgages during the housing boom.
The Federal Housing Administration insures loans with small down payments. And private mortgage insurers have lowered their down payment requirements.
It’s even possible to get a mortgage today with no money down. The nation’s biggest credit union offers “zero-down” mortgages. The Veterans Administration and the Department of Agriculture guarantee home loans with no down payments.
Following are a few options for borrowers seeking low down-payment and zero down-payment home mortgages:
I may be wrong, but these were programs that were in place PRIOR to the bubble, and that Option ARMs, no-doc liar loans, and 1st/2nd combos to get you to 0% down were what put the bubble into overdrive. I’ve seen much less evidence of these three coming back…so far.
You are correct.
These loands were around before the last bubble.
Interest rates on them were at least double “regular” documented mortgage. Plus a huge down payment. And they accounted for about 0.000001% of all mortgages.
Because banks had to eat their bad loans back in the bad old days.
Then government got involved…
Are you just making all of this up?
Did VA Loans require “a huge down payment” before?
Do you have the number of $0 down payment loans that were made by these different programs then and now? Or are you just guessing that it was virtually none then, and a lot now?
Likewise, have you seen where the entities who take the losses on these loans are different then vs. now?
Or are you just guessing?
When my parents bought our family home in the mid-70’s, they did so with a 3.5% down FHA loan. These kinds of loan programs are not new.
Are you just making this up?
FHA and VA loans have been around for generations.
They require MASSIVE amounts of paperwork and (until quite recently) were capped at pretty modest amounts. And they were also more expensive than regular loans (ie - slightly higher interest rates)
Now compare/contrast to strawberry pickers borrowing $750,000 in a no doc loan.
Because government got invloved.
From the FSA
I was referring to $0 down and low down payment loans provided by:
Department of Agriculture AND
When you said “These loans”, I simply assumed you were referring to these four categories.
If you re-read your own post and insert these four types of loans into your “These loans”, you’ll understand why I responded the way I did.
These four programs were never “0.000001% of all mortgages” and interest rates on these programs were never “at least double “regular” documented mortgage”.
If you meant to say that 0% loans OUTSIDE of these programs were an infinitesimal portion of the market at really high rates prior to the bubble, then we are in violent agreement. However, the government guarantee didn’t create more of zero-down, non-program loans. What created more of these non-program, zero down payment loans was the ability to sell them off in complex securities the instant the loans were made.
If you take on mortgage debt at current massively inflated housing prices, you’ll enslave yourself for the rest of your life.
“Debt is bondage.”~ Suze Orman, May 11, 2013
Don’t Be A Debt Donkey®
I finally got my piece of the pie and it was moldy and i was too scared to eat it.
I just met our new neighbors on Saturday who bought the mold-infested house across the street. I hope they have better luck than the succession of renters over recent years who generally lasted a year or so before discovering the mold issue and moving on.
Why hasn’t the homeowner/landlord discovered the mold issue?
LOL…because the mold is behind the layer of lipstick on that pig…..behind the walls…..in the ceiling…in subflooring.
A house my parents bought long ago had water leaking under the tub into the main beam. The insurer told them they’re lucky they caught it as early as they did or the cost to fix a water destroyed main beam would have been prohibitive and the whole house would have been a loss. You would never have seen the damage w/o pulling up the linoleum in the bath. The linoleum itself had recently been replaced which means the installer of the new flooring knew what was going on.
We once declined to invest in a commercial property because one of ten buildings in the development had mold. The math worked even if we assumed that we tore down that building.
However, the problem was that we didn’t know if the issue was environmental, a hidden construction defect that might arise in the other buildings as well, it was unclear whether the mold would come back after remediation, etc., etc., etc.
Don’t mess with mold. That’s why you don’t skimp on drying things out if there is ever a water leak.
“Why hasn’t the homeowner/landlord discovered the mold issue?”
Moved in during the red-hot spring sales season (aka dry months). One rainy season ought to do it…
Sorry. What I meant was the *former* owners. They let a succession of renters rent the place knowing that it was moldy?
What part of the country do you live in?
“Houses depreciate….. rapidly.”
Did you ever figure out what ‘depreciate’ means?
Good Morning Little Slithers….
Did you ever figure out what depreciate means?
No, I keep asking you, but you seem unable or unwilling to explain it.
We keeping telling you but you seem unable to read it or comprehend it.
Why is that Alpha Slithers?
When have you told me? I’ll go back and look at it if you tell me when it was.
It’s official. Housing Analyst has gone 100% insane.
It’s official……. Alpha Slithers can’t read.
But we’re talking in print, so I at least must have someone reading to me and taking dictation.
Seems more likely you don’t want to define ‘depreciate’.
It seems likely you just don’t like the fact that houses depreciate always.
Shuck and jive.
Indeed you do it well AlphaSlithers.
why should he? all you really want is to nitpick whatever he says.
but i’ll play. all ‘depreciate’ means is to ‘go down in value’. but of course then we’re back to what value means. naturally, something without value doesn’t depreciate. but it still degrades over time. everything degrades over time at varying rates. even atoms eventually degrade and ‘fall apart’ so to speak. granite ‘evaporates’ over time.
i notice you also asked him what the value of a dollar is. can you tell us? do you know what the value of a dollar is?
If you read the context of HA’s posts, it looks like he means depreciate as ‘go down in value’, however, he’s actually refering to ‘physical depreciation’ or decay. I suggested to HA that he use decay instead of depreciation so that posters don’t mistake his meaning, but he seems to like it this way.
do you know what the value of a dollar is?
Not really, but I wasn’t pontificating about it, he was.
If depreciate means to go down in value, then it’s obviously not true that houses always depreciate. We just saw an extended period of them going up in value during the last bubble, and then going back up after the crash.
So I guess his statement that all houses always depreciate isn’t true.
al, he knows that decay or deterioration causes depreciation. at the end of the day it doesn’t matter too much which term one uses. housing decay or deterioration brings depreciation with it.
They are related, but they’re not the same and the correlation is way less than perfect. Houses are always decaying but prices of houses go up and down. I’d have thought you would know better based on your previous posts.
Houses are always decaying but prices of houses go up and down.
prices can go up while value is going down. in a fundamental sense, the value of a house is always at its max at the moment it’s finished being built. in other words, when it’s new.
price doesn’t equal value. price diverges from value both up and down.
The value of a house can go up as well. New neighborhoods often have nothing around them, but as more jobs and services come into the area the value goes up. Houses often have upgrades done that increase their value even as the structure decays. Many houses have unfinished basements and no landscaping when first built. It’s far too simplistic to equate decay and depreciation, especially since depreciation is often associated with price.
The value of a house can go up as well.
no, you’re thinking that if price has gone up that the value of the house has gone up. it hasn’t.
New neighborhoods often have nothing around them, but as more jobs and services come into the area the value goes up.
prices are going up. value isn’t.
Houses often have upgrades done that increase their value even as the structure decays.
you have to take the cost of the upgrade against the price you initially paid. figuring in the cost of the upgrade, it won’t bring the total value above the value when new.
Many houses have unfinished basements and no landscaping when first built.
again, remember the cost. i’m not saying you’ll never get a higher price than the upgrade cost. i’m saying even when you do, the value isn’t as high (taking the cost of the upgrade into account) as when the home was new. price always diverges from value and you might catch prices on the upswing.
It’s far too simplistic to equate decay and depreciation, especially since depreciation is often associated with price.
i never equated them. they are different. i just said at the end of the day, there isn’t MUCH difference.
if a house has some defect that makes its value zero, then it can depreciate no further. but it can still decay or deteriorate.
prices are going up. value isn’t.
So this logic is how home prices in Riverside, Barstow, Las Vegas and BFE Florida moved into the $400,000 and up range during the bubble. The house doesn’t have to be close to anything! The value is in the value!
I think you are mistaken that value always declines. After all, a house is more valuable (and the price will go up) if it has ready access to services. For instance, the value to a resident of having ready access to newly opened public transit is significant. Or it will be more valuable if it becomes more scarce (single family in central locations when they’re getting replaced with multifamily). But that is a matter of opinion. This is why HA should make some effort to explain himself. It might lead to some interesting back and forth like we just had.
One other thing I’d like to mention is the idea that value is very much in the eye of the beholder. I don’t care about granite or fancy floors or such. A house is shelter. So for me, a low priced house that keeps me dry and warm has a value close to a much newer house that has a much higher price. To claim that a house loses value closely in line with physical depreciation ignores this important aspect. For instance, think of seniors who let their house decline by ignoring maintenance and updates yet love the place because of all the memories and value it because it is the same as it was 40 years ago.
No ALphaSlithers…. it is you that is mistaken.
Houses DEPRECIATE….. Always. Eventually to zero.
You’re going to learn the hard way.
It sounds like they really blew it ,the pilots,crash- landing that Plane in SFO.At least the fuel was at very low levels and did not ignite.
Years ago , I was a passenger on a vastly overloaded “Taca” plane headed for central America. It barely cleared The end of the Miami runway ,and struggled to gain altitude.Scarey.That stuff used to happen all the time , though more rarely now..
All the procedures in the world won’t help if they are ignored..
There’s a video on CNN, looks like it would have been a complete catastrophe. It is amazing only two perished.
“It sounds like they really blew it ,the pilots,crash- landing that Plane in SFO.”
+1 The year-end bonus…poof!
Having landed on that same runway before, I can say it is a busy place to get in and out….but he just plain flubbed it from what I see.
If you are gonna choose to fly either high or low, pick high
If you are gonna choose to fly either fast or slow, pick fast
Eventually physics will catch up.
‘only 37 percent of working women (and 44 percent of working men) say they actually want a job with more responsibilities … among mothers with children under 18, just a quarter say they would choose full-time work if money were no object and they were free to do whatever they wanted’
Put me in that category of 56% of men who don’t want a job with more responsibilities.
What I would give to go back to being a bagging clerk at a local grocery store, or a pizza delivery boy-best job ever! Unfortunately, supporting a family on that income is not possible. Maybe I can pull a Kevin Spacey in an American Beauty?
More education, more responsibility, more freaking headache!
And this is why the Chinese and Indians will continue eating our lunch.
That doesn’t matter because even if China and India steal your lunch Obama will give you a free lunch.
Man, you gotta get over your righteousness, and relax a bit…..
I think your confusing want with need. I don’t want the job I have, but until I no longer need it, I’ll do the best I can to keep it. I suspect I am far from unique in this.
Do you know how many men have seen their health, marriages and relationships with their kids deteriorate while moving up the ladder? I am quite confident not one of them WANTED that.
There is a point when marginal cost becomes higher than the marginal benefit. I’d rather not cross that line.
Trophy Wives are for Winners!
If you want to spend quality daddy time with the kids, great. Just don’t whine about it when your counterpart in China who is willing to work the extra hours takes your job.
This is the problem Americans have now. We’ve been fattened up and spoiled. We also have Oprah and Dr. Phil telling us we work too much and don’t spend enough time at home. So now everyone thinks they’re entitled to working 30 hour weeks, being home at 5:00 every day for dinner…and at the same time still make $100K a year.
You can’t have it both ways.
You can if you’re a fireman, a cop, or a prison guard in CA.
Where in the god’s name did I say that I want to make $100k, while working 30 hour weeks? Or, when did I complain? Your hyperbolas are amazing!
Unlike you, I don’t see or hear any boogeyman behind me…..
Seriously? This entire blog is nothing but whining about the middle class being decimated, whining about outsourcing, whining about evil rich people getting ahead.
You know why they get ahead? Because they work hard and don’t complain all day. You know why jobs get outsourced? Because the people in China and India work hard and don’t complain all day.
You are the first person I’ve ever heard say pizza delivery guy was the best job ever. I’ve heard one person say it was ok. Everyone else I’ve ever heard puts it a small mark ahead of cleaning toilets - and that’s only because you can listen to your own car stereo while driving around, not because of the job itself.
Your comment was directed at me, not at the prevailing attitudes of the fellow bloggers.
I simply made what I thought was a reasonable statement, that as a father and a husband, I am not willing to sacrifice all of that for some magic “number”.
You assumed that I felt entitled to a $100k a job along with a 30 hour workweek. I am all for a healthy discussion, rather than a hyperbola laden.
I delivered pizza for a non-chain campus pizza joint for a while in my youth. It was fun, except when it was raining.
One of my former colleagues used to deliver pizza on weekends for the extra cash when his kids were in college. He loved it.
I think your confusing want with need.
we ALWAYS do what we want.
Polly even I would never try and deliver pizzas in NYC…..1 double parking ticket blows the whole day’s pay.
“You know why they get ahead? Because they work hard and don’t complain all day.”
The hardest working people I have known were minimum wage workers with 3 jobs and 80 hour workweeks with no vacation and no sick leave.
Some of the biggest complainers are the rat racers who complain about hard working, low income people being lazy. The “It’s their own fault for not studying STEM” meme.
Agreed, Happy. Actual “hard-working” people are too exhausted at the end of the day to find time to complain. I wonder how many people reading these comments just now have dirty fingernails?
Comment by Mr. Smithers
If you want to spend quality daddy time with the kids, great. Just don’t whine about it when your counterpart in China a slave who is willing to work the extra hours takes your job.
You can’t have it both ways.
Admit it Smithers, you’re really this guy aren’t you?
I do. But it’s from catching 3 Chinook and 14 Coho Salmon (all released due to size and hatchery status).
This is what I get for not sinking all my current and future earnings into a DR Horton or Toll Brothers crapshack.
Thank you HBB.
Ahhhh, yes the Chinese are slaves meme. Sorry kids, not true. The Chinese work hard voluntarily. They don’t whine. They don’t complain. They don’t demand subsidized daddy time or on-site daycare like their lazy American counterparts do. The Chinese have the drive to succeed Americans had a couple of generations ago and they will own us within a generation.
A couple of generations ago people were amply compensated/rewarded for working harder.
If you don’t think what goes on in China amounts to slavery, you don’t know China. The average wage of a Chinese working class person is 1,200 RMB a month which is about $190 at current exchange rates.
And you accuse Americans of being lazy for not wanting to follow in these people’s footsteps?
Why do you hate America? Why do you you blame Americans first?
As your liberal better, I feel it my duty to correct your idle wrongitude.
In China, there is no habeas corpus. There is no freedom of speech. An individual can own neither land nor corporation.
The Chinese have a maximum (rather than minimum) wage for any given job. Go ahead and quit your job, you won’t find a higher-paying one elsewhere unless you do something deemed more “valuable” by the government. Even then, you will NEVER earn free-market wages.
The Chinese have no right to change their political leadership, since it’s a one-party system. They have no right to enact environmental protections. Sometimes they get murdered in public by their government as an example to the other slaves.
What is the definition of a slave? One who is compelled to work, in exchange for whatever credit is given by the overlord (against natural law).
You’re wrong about China and the Chinese. I am sitting in China as I write this and it is and these folks are so far from your myth of ubermenschen as to be comedy. Seriously, you don’t have any idea. The Chinese are not harder working, smarter, or more motivated than anyone. They are simply doing the best they can in a very DIFFERENT world than yours or what you think theirs actually is.
I wished I had read this yesterday when the thread was fresh. As it is you all probably moved on hours ago to a new topic.
The thread is still fresh, but it will be fresher tomorrow when you repost your comment first thing in the AM, and thank you.
“Housing Affordability Index: Still Worthless”
“In the past, we have discussed how worthless the NAR’s Housing Affordability Index is.”
And our blog housing pimp Rental Watch is right there defending NAR.
“Rental Watch is right there defending NAR.”
When? If you’re referring to the “RW” in the comments section, that isn’t me.
Of course it isn’t you liar.
Why don’t you jump into the conversation over there and start calling “RW” a liar and an NAR shill over there and leave the conversation off this board.
People who have seen me on this board for the past several years will have a hard time finding any cases of me defending the NAR, and I won’t start defending “RW”s statements now.
Your lies here and your lies there…… A distinction without a difference.
ABREAST OF THE MARKET
Updated July 8, 2013, 12:32 a.m. ET
Earnings in Spotlight as Fed Jolt Fades
Corporate Earnings Unlikely to Fuel Stocks the Way Bond-Buying Program Did
By MATT JARZEMSKY
After Friday’s stronger-than-expected U.S. jobs report, investors are more convinced than ever that the Federal Reserve’s bond-buying program will be scaled back as soon as September. If that happens, the stock market will lose fuel that helped power the Dow Jones Industrial Average to a new high in May.
Investors hoping that U.S. companies will come to the rescue are likely to be disappointed, according to analysts who have been trimming their expectations in recent weeks.
Financial firms are expected to post the strongest earnings-season performance, with analysts predicting a 17% per-share profit jump. Above, a trader works on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange last month.
Earnings season kicks off Monday afternoon in New York with aluminum giant Alcoa Inc., while banks J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co. report second-quarter results Friday morning. By the end of the month, dozens of corporate America’s bellwethers will have signaled whether the U.S. economy is growing fast enough to justify stock prices that are within striking distance of their all-time highs.
Companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index are expected to report a meager 0.7% rise in quarterly earnings from a year earlier, according to analyst forecasts complied by FactSet. That would be the smallest growth since the third quarter of 2012, when profits fell. In this year’s first quarter, earnings at S&P 500 companies grew 3.5%, and even that was modest by historical standards. Revenue growth has been skimpy, too.
“You could have basically two quarters in a row of lackluster revenue and weak earnings growth. That’s bad,” says Dan Greenhaus, chief global strategist at BTIG, a trading firm in New York. But Mr. Greenhaus adds that he believes earnings growth could pick up later this year.
Ha ha, hee hee hee, ho ho, ha bwahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!
Caveat emptor. And I will enjoy another hearty laugh again later at the fools who buy into this ETF.
July 8, 2013, 9:32 a.m. EDT
Don’t laugh off Winklevoss twins’ Bitcoin ETF
Commentary: Bitcoin-backed fund sounds odd, but so did gold ETFs
By Chuck Jaffe, MarketWatch
Over the years, fund-industry watchers have laughed about a lot of wild investment ideas.
Sometimes they laughed first. Sometimes they have gotten the last laugh.
So when the fund observers started laughing last week after seeing the registration papers for the Winklevoss Bitcoin Trust — a new exchange-traded product that faces a lengthy vetting process from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission — the question was which laugh, first or last, will be the better one here, and who will get the final guffaw.
If the Winklevoss name rings a bell, that means you probably saw the movie “The Social Network,” or know enough about the origins of Facebook FB +1.44% to know that Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss — twins who attended Harvard and rowed in the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing — claimed that Mark Zuckerberg essentially stole their idea for the business. The twins walked away with a settlement worth $20 million in cash, and Facebook shares worth, conservatively, 10 times more.
If bitcoin rings a bell, then you are versed in what some people believe is the next great step in Internet and global commerce, a digital currency without borders or central bank, run by the people who use it. The value of bitcoins — today mostly used for anonymous online purchases — is determined by the marketplace; whatever someone will take for them is what they are worth, though their value has surged at times of international currency strife over the past two years, as happened during the Cyprus crisis in early 2013.
claimed that Mark Zuckerberg essentially stole their idea for the business
In that case, shouldn’t MySpace be able to sue facebook?
Mortgage rates are headed back to normalcy over the next couple of years. Better hurry up and buy now if you want a mortgage at near the lowest interest rate on record.
Goldman sees 10-year yields hitting 4% by 2016
July 8, 2013, 9:00 AM
The 10-year Treasury note (10_YEAR -2.91%) had its yield outlook raised by Goldman Sachs on Sunday.
The investment bank hiked its expectations for the trajectory of the benchmark note, projecting yields hitting 4% by 2016, largely based on an improving U.S. economy, an anticipated winding down of the Federal Reserve’s bond-purchase program, and fewer systemic risks in the euro zone, according to Goldman’s Francesco Garzarelli.
The outlook update comes in the wake of a strong June jobs report on Friday, which sent the the 10-year yield 22 basis points higher, its biggest one-day rise since 2010. The benchmark note yield traded slightly lower at 2.703% on Monday against the backdrop of market expectations the Fed will begin scaling back its bond buying in September (that’s an expectation confirmed by Goldman’s own chief economist Jan Hatzius on Friday).
Given the Fed’s monetary-policy outlook, Goldman also sees a range of 2.75% to 3% by the start of 2014. That puts Goldman’s forecast at the high end of a recent MarketWatch survey of fixed-income strategists about where they see the 10-year yield ending the year. But perhaps it’s not surprising Goldman expects a faster climb in rates considering it was the one calling for yields to rise back in April, when the Treasury yield was close to its 2013 lows.
200,000 is NOT a strong jobs report. No matter if they are full or part time jobs.
It’s a pitiful number, one better suited for a 175 million person economy, not a 315,000 million person economy.
The MSM shills are at it again.
There only 156 million people of workforce age in this country.
It’s a double whammy really…… Increasing mortgage rates and increasing chances that the mortgage interest tax deduction will cease to exist.
I’ve seen no recent evidence to suggest the MID is going away in our lifetimes.
Do you have some?
And they’re looking to close loopholes/raise cash. MID is in the cross hairs.
Is there anything here that NAR bribery can’t surmount?
The average slob doesn’t realize that the MID (and the vast majority of deductions) benefits primarily wealthy people with many millions of net worth. Most of these people don’t need a mortgage at all, they are using it to get ultra low interest rates and invest the difference. I was trying to explain to my (supposedly conservative) neighbor that all deductions do is help more money flow from the bottom and middle of society up to the top while making work for lawyers and accountants along the way. And how government policies to “help the middle class” really distort markets in ways that hurt the middle class. My neighbor was much, much more interested in “why don’t poor people go look for jobs” and “why do they get SNAP”. After this conversation, I couldn’t decide whether this was hilarious or depressing.
“The average slob doesn’t realize that the MID (and the vast majority of deductions) benefits primarily wealthy people with many millions of net worth. ”
Because only evil rich people actually pay income taxes. By definition a tax deduction only benefits people who pay taxes. Therefore only evil rich people who pay taxes benefit.
” My neighbor was much, much more interested in “why don’t poor people go look for jobs” and “why do they get SNAP”. After this conversation, I couldn’t decide whether this was hilarious or depressing.”
Your neighbor’s question has a simple answer. People don’t get jobs because it’s against their best interests. Why work 40 hours a week for $15/hr when you can sit on your derierre and get SNAP, EBT, Section 8, LIHEAP, an Obamaphone and much much more that adds up to $15/hr or more? I question the sanity of people who do work those menial jobs.
Objectively speaking the MID should go away.
But I’m not objective. I benefit quite nicely from the MID (since I am a rich evil person). And it will never go away, at least not in full. Any politician who even hints at getting rid of it might as start preparing his retirement speech.
The “sweet spot” income to qualify for the maximum EITC of $5,891 is between $13,050 and $17,100 for Single/HoH with 3 kidz and between $13,050 and $22,300 for MFJ with 3 kidz.
There are more Free Sh*t Army than there are of you.
The Free Sh*t Army = Permanent Democrat Supermajority.
Slithers, I’m not referring to middle class people who benefit from the MID. Sure, they save a couple thousand, etc.
I’m talking about the elites who take a mortgage on a 10MM dollar house even though they have 20 MM in the bank and earn millions per year.
The point of a tax system should be to generate revenue needed to run a country, not to redistribute money or bias the markets. Our tax code primarily shifts wealth upward and gives a strong preference to non-employee income. In our society, employees are virtually ALWAYS losers. Even though I’m an employee currently, I lament this fact and don’t plan on spending my life as a brokeback. Going through life as a W-2 employee is no way to live.
Don’t hold your breath waiting. Tax reform is always controversial. Lots of people have spent lots of money setting things up in a way that takes advantage of current rules. They are willing to spend lots of money to keep the rules they know how to manipulate in place. The following industries/groups have a big stake in there not being tax simplification (elimination of lots of deductions combined with some lowering of rates): all residential real estate, all health care, all private education, all state and local governments, all tax exempt organizations (from religious groups to volunteer firefighters).
That doesn’t even start to get at the rules on corporate reorganziations or allocation of interests in partnerships or rules for mutual funds or….well, you get the idea.
From the link:
What’s already underway?
The Senate Finance and House Ways and Means Committees have held more than 50 hearings combined, examining every aspect of tax reform. These hearings have drilled down to consider issues like how the tax code affects families, how it distorts businesses’ decisions and hampers growth, and how it influences the nation’s financial system.
Chairmen Baucus and Camp have talked with taxpayers from Montana and Michigan and heard from hundreds of experts about how tax reform can simplify the system for families, help businesses innovate, and make the U.S. more competitive.
They want to hear from you too.
Oh, wow! They have had 50 hearings. You can submit your own ideas so that their college interns have something to do over the summer (reading and summarizing the stuff that is submitted which will be read by a slightly more senior staffer but never seen by a member of Congress).
But Goon you forget most of the EBT low wage crowd have very poor math skills.
“I’m talking about the elites who take a mortgage on a 10MM dollar house even though they have 20 MM in the bank and earn millions per year.”
$20M in the bank? That is CRIMINAL!!! Off with their heads ASAP!
You do realize though that there is a $1M (married) $500K (single) limit on mortgages to get the MID right? Obviously not. But don’t let facts get in the way of a good MSNBC inspired diatribe against evil rich people.
“I’m not referring to middle class people who benefit from the MID. Sure, they save a couple thousand, etc.”
Oh it’s just a couple of thousand. Pfffft. Chump change. I’m sure most middle class people won’t mind paying an extra $2K in taxes every year.
A flat tax with no deductions would solve this problem. But every time someone proposes this idea, the MSNBC/Democrat coalition has a hissy fit. It’s your people who love the tax code Polly. Your beef is with them, not the evil rich people it benefits.
The MID will cease to exist as we know it within 5 years.
A flat tax with no deductions would solve this problem
A progressive tax with no deductions would too.
“A progressive tax with no deductions would too.”
We had something close to that after 1986. Two brackets, 15% and 28% with very limited deductions. I’d be fine with something like that again. But again, the MSNBC/Democrat coalition would never allow it.
“Progressive” = “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”
Add back the earned income tax credit, keep more than two brackets, and I would pretty much be OK with this.
You still aren’t going to get it. Reread the list of entrenched interests I gave that have a stake in keeping the current big impact deductions and credits such as state/local taxes, MID, charitable contribs, learning tax credits, student loan interest, etc.
By the way, this would save almost nothing in tax administration expenses. Most of that is dedicated to defining profits for large and small businesses.
Yes Polly, but it’s always your side that has a knee jerk opposition to a flattish tax system. The MSNBC/Democrat coalition loves the 20K IRS tax code. That’s because your side loves big govt and big govt has control with a 20K tax code while it has very little control with a flat tax. It’s never about revenue. It’s always about control and power.
A flattish tax system is a terrible idea. A family or individual NEEDS the first and second $10,000 they earn. They can’t afford to part with a penny of it. A flat tax ignores this reality completely. Never mind that fact that the people who have a 12th or a 20th or a 30th $10,000 of income are certainly getting much more benefit from the public goods our society provides - like being able to do lots of buisness in a society that generally enforces rules without corruption and provides healthy, educated workers to hire and provides a pretty darn good infrastructure. The flat tax ignores this too.
But fewer deductions and credits for individuals? I’d go for that just to put H&R Block out of business.
“A flattish tax system is a terrible idea. A family or individual NEEDS the first and second $10,000 they earn. They can’t afford to part with a penny of it. ”
And people wonder why the tax code is 20K pages. First we NEED to exempt the first $10K. Then families NEED to deduct mortgages. And they NEED to deduct college expense costs. And they NEED to deduct this and that and 1000 other things. And before long…you’re back to where we started.
“Beware the Jabberwock, my son
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch….”
Reality is out there — just waiting — for you, Smithers.
Who is this?
Does this prediction imply long-term rates have stopped rising? Because so far as I can tell, that won’t happen until the Fed actually begins to taper QE3, which by all indications is at least a few months away. So long as long-term Treasury yields continue rising, support for gold will steadily erode.
And so long as inflation remains at its recent low levels, rising Treasury yields are tantamount to increasing real interest rates — just as in 1980-1.
But don’t let my economic argument cloud your judgment if you prefer to follow the MSM-favored “strategists.”
Market Pulse Archives
July 8, 2013, 7:38 a.m. EDT
Gold correction may be mostly done: Deutsche Bank
MADRID (MarketWatch) — Strategists at Deutsche Bank said much of gold’s correction may have already happened, in a note on Monday. Gold has come down over 30% from a peak of around $1,900 an ounce in September 2011. “Lessons from history suggest that although gold-price losses have been extreme, the extent of the price correction today is still some way short of the percentage declines that occurred in 1980-1,” said Michael Lewis and other strategists in a note. “However, we would classify events over 30 years as significantly different since at that time, U.S. short-term interest rates rose to 20% with real interest rates also rising rapidly.”
Does this prediction imply long-term rates have stopped rising?
I assume they’re saying we won’t see 20% rates again unless we have some serious inflation to kill.
It will only take 6% rates to half housing.
But what would that do to gold?
So far it’s down 30%, and tapering is only in the discussion stage.
Interest rates were at 8-10% in the 90s. Did housing get halved then?
Rates were falling in the 90’s Slithers.
You were what…… 10 years old back then?
“Rates were falling in the 90’s Slithers.”
Yes they plummeted from 7.93 all the way down to 7.44 during a 5 year stretch.
Average 30 year rate
Yes… That’s called falling AlphaSlithers.
June 2013 acerage: 4.07. And this is seen as evidence that the housing market is about to crash because OH MY GOD, it’s above 4%. Run for the hills everyone, it’s above 4%.
Average for 2011 was 4.45. Average for 2010 was 4.69. For 2009 it was 5.04. Even during the heyday of the bubble rates averaged 5.83, 5.84 and 5.87 for 2003, 2004 and 2005.
And yet we’re supposed to be freaking out over 4% and change now? Give me a break.
Do you even know how to read a graph Analyst? You own graph shows there was no long term decrease in the 90s. Stop embarrassing yourself.
Still can’t read huh AlphaSlithers?
Rates fell 30% from 1990 to 2000.
Nice try though.
Rates were rose from 1995 to 2000. Prices also increased substantially during this period.
You have no idea what you’re talking about. As usual.
AlphaSlithers….. let’s take a look at our chart.
Hmmm…. Rate in 1995 was…. lets see… 7.6%.
Rate in 2000…. hmmm… was…. 7.2%
Ya see AlphaSlithers….. rates have been falling since 1981….. and now they’re headed up up up!
As usual you have no clue what you are talking about. I don’t know where you get your data from (probably the same place where $50/sq including land exists).
Average rate in 2000 was 8.05
Average rate in 1995 was 7.93
7.93 to 8.05 is an increase.
During this same time period median house prices also increased.
And you think rates going from 3.5 to 4.0% is going to crash the market? LOL!
Thanks for the link AlphaSlithers….
1990 rate- 10.13%
2000 rate- 8.05%
You’re not too smart are you Slithers?
Don’t you just hate it when you can’t figure out for sure whether someone is terminally ST00PID or just a liar?
It’s not the level in rates that matters from here, but the change — just as HA suggests.
We are in unprecedented territory so far as low rates go, a fact the genius “strategists” cited by MW appear to have overlooked in their irrelevant reference to the 1980-1 period.
It’s not the level in rates that matters from here, but the change
Because even if the overall increase is small, if it is a large percentage change, that can cause a large change in the size of the monthly payment for Joe and Jane how-much-a-month. If the mothly payment is already at the limit of what they can afford, then the increase will push them into being unable to make the purchase unless the price comes down enough to bring it back to their range.
if it is a large percentage change,
I get that idea, but
that can cause a large change in the size of the monthly payment
If it goes from 3% to 4% (a 33% increase!) it would cost about 70$ more a month to buy the median US house. I don’t see that as a knockout punch, though it would clearly put some downward pressure on prices.
But nothing like 20% rates would.
Polly — many thanks for the excellent, succinct explanation of my point.
Early in my life I aged 100% in one year.
And yet I was still quite young.
“Early in my life I aged 100% in one year.
And yet I was still quite young.”
Now you are catching on!
“If it goes from 3% to 4% (a 33% increase!) it would cost about 70$ more a month to buy the median US house. I don’t see that as a knockout punch, though it would clearly put some downward pressure on prices.”
Since households’ incomes normally don’t increase with mortgage rates, the right comparison to make is how much money a given household could afford to borrow OFF THE SAME MONTHLY PAYMENT STREAM before and after a rate increase.
Suppose a family could afford to finance $500,000 to buy a California starter home back when rates were 3%. How much could they “afford” to finance if rates went up to 4%?
A little “mortgage math” shows that a 30-year fixed mortgage at 3% can be “afforded” on a monthly payment of $2,108.02. Now if rates go up to 4%, that same monthly payment will “afford” the buyer a loan of only $441,548.52, an -11.7% drop due to the “1% increase” in 30-year fixed mortgage rates from 3%.
I lack the patience to explain the calculation for a second day in a row, but you can find the details, including two different methods which give the same answer, in yesterday’s Bits Bucket if you are interested. And as my calculation demonstrates, the decline in potential purchase budget on a 30-year mortgage based on the actual incresae since May (not your 3%-4% increase example) is 16.7%. You can stick a fork in the echo bubble.
If it goes from 3% to 4% (a 33% increase!) it would cost about 70$ more a month to buy the median US house.
$70 more a month for the median US house ($150,000), from a 33% increase in rates. If they drop to a $137,000 house, they’ll pay the same rate at 4% as the 150,000 house at 3%.
So a 33% spike in interest rates can cause an 8% decline in median house prices. Or they could get on a cheaper cell phone plan, or give up Starbuck’s, and buy the $150,000 house with the $70 a month savings.
I lack the patience to give you any more real world examples of the ‘meltdown’.
Gold will be going below 1k soon, it’s my partially educated position that gold will cross 700 in the next year. Speculative bubble indeed.
Only if things remain “stable”.
Absolutely. Although if things get too unstable, other purchases may take precedence.
Yeah…there’s a happy window for gold.
Is the Fed in the Treasury market today in a big way? I only ask this because there appears to be a huge move with no market-moving news to explain it.
July 8, 2013, 10:03 a.m. EDT
Treasurys gain ground after steep selloff
By Ben Eisen, MarketWatch
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — Treasury prices rose Monday as the government-debt market began to recoup some losses from a massive selloff in the last session that sent the benchmark 10-year note yield to its highest level since 2011.
The 10-year note (10_YEAR -2.84%) yield, which moves inversely to price, fell 4 basis points on the day to 2.672%. The 30-year bond (30_YEAR -1.70%) yield fell 3 basis points to 3.652%, and the 5-year note (5_YEAR -5.07%) yield fell 5 basis points to 1.545%.
A stronger-than-expected June jobs report on Friday heightened market expectations that the Federal Reserve would begin curtailing its bond-purchase program, which has artificially held yields lower, in September.
That sent the 10-year note 22 basis points higher, extending a yield rise over the past two months as the market grapples with an eventual end to the Fed’s easy money policies.
That was one impetus for Goldman Sachs to raise its outlook for 10-year Treasury yields. The investment bank said it expected the yield to hit 4% by 2016 and a range of 2.75% to 3% going into 2014.
More clues to the Fed’s plans may come on Wednesday when the Federal Open Market Committee releases minutes from its last meeting and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke makes a public appearance, though the calendar of economic news is otherwise light.
The government-bond market will contend with new supply during three auctions this week. The Treasury Department will sell $32 billion of 3-year notes (3_YEAR -6.46%) on Tuesday, $21 billion of 10-year notes on Wednesday, and $13 billion of 30-year bonds on Thursday.
Now that millions of mom-and-pop investors have moved out of the stock market and into safe bond funds, there is a tremendous abundance of news articles explaining why that might not actually be that great of an idea.
Bond investors face a reckoning as interest rates jump
Higher rates devalue fixed-income securities, which could be a shock for investors who bought bonds for safety.
July 05, 2013|By Tom Petruno
The last month was a warning of how volatile the bond market could become. (Andrew Harrer, Bloomberg…)
Wall Street has preferred to call the recent rebound in long-term interest rates a “wake-up call.”
But to some bond investors it’s apparently more like a five-alarm fire.
As rising interest rates have pushed down the value of older bonds in the last two months, the share prices of popular bond mutual funds have slumped.
Case in point: Shares of the Pimco Total Return Bond fund have dropped 6.4% since May 2.
The losses aren’t on the scale of what happened to stocks in 2008-09, when that market plunged nearly 50% in six months. But after years of viewing bonds as a haven, investors suddenly are reconsidering.
Some are fleeing. Investors yanked $9.9 billion from the Pimco fund in June, or about 3.5% of assets.
Outflows have rocked other bond funds as well. In turn, that has left remaining investors wondering whether the sellers are prescient sentinels or just panicked lemmings.
What troubles many bond owners isn’t the rise in interest rates so far, but the risk that the U.S. could be facing a sustained uptrend.
An entire generation of Americans has only known falling rates: Long-term bond yields have mostly been declining for 30 years — which means the value of bond portfolios has mostly been rising for that long.
Over the last 14 years, the average taxable bond fund has had positive total returns every year except 2008. And money has poured in: Total U.S. bond fund assets have nearly tripled since 2004, to $3.47 trillion.
Now what? Here’s a primer to help bond investors understand the market’s recent gyrations and how to evaluate the potential risks and rewards of owning fixed-income securities.
Why have interest rates risen, and why does that make existing bonds fall in value?
“Now that millions of mom-and-pop investors have moved out of the stock market and into safe bond funds, there is a tremendous abundance of news articles explaining why that might not actually be that great of an idea.”
Mom and Pop are going to get skinned alive regardless, and their incessant moves desperately seeking safety are little more than death by a thousand cuts courtesy of the commission junkies.
chicago sun times - more hope and change in hopeychangeyville:
What was that!?
That was the sound of housing prices crashing through the floor in your neighborhood.
There ain’t nothing left but the cryin’, a life time of debt and a smoldering moon crater where your debt-shack once was.
News from the hinterlands….
Friend of mine in MIssoula, MT sold her house. I read on her FB feed this morning that she has a signed contract and was excited that it sold so quickly. She’s a teacher and I remember she put it up for sale after school was done for the year, mid June. So less than a month to sell.
I don’t know the details on price, what she paid etc. It’s a typical subdivision house, 3 bedrooms, probably about 1800 sq ft, decent sized yard, 5 years old give or take.
She overheard someone say;
“Get what you can get for your house today because it’s going to be much less tomorrow for many years to come.”
Probably one of those incredibly wealthy Chinese investors who are constantly prowling the Greater Missoula Metroplex, snapping up everything in sight, offering 60% over asking price, before it even goes on sale. They probably flew in from Vancouver or Toronto on their solid gold, private jet. At the close, they probably just squatted right there and shat a fistful of diamonds to pay for it.
You expect us to believe that you a friend? And a female teacher too? Yarite.
I stopped in at an open house in my neighborhood this weekend. The house is listed for approx $150/sq ft. (more than twice what I paid for mine) and has no garage, no landscaping, no finished basement. I stopped in to see what the h#ll could make them think this house was worth that much. The kitchen and main floor bath room need significant work, the wall between the kitchen and dining room needs to be blown out to open it up, and the kitchen appliances don’t match (from different eras).
The realtard was telling me that this house isn’t perfect but would be a good starter house. I think I blew the Realtard’s mind when I mentioned that this house is already a bad price and if the buyer sells the “starter house” into a higher interest rate environment they are going to take a huge haircut. I really don’t think she could understand how interest rates would alter house prices.
I really don’t think she could understand how interest rates would alter house prices.
I think it’s in the training manual. IE - higher rates = higher cost always, so make sure your buyers get in now before they’re priced out forever.
Does the training manual have equations? I thought it was more like a script:
1. Buyer has economic concern
2. Agree with buyer and make them feel heard
3. Explain that it will be OK because housing always goes up.
4. Explain that therefore buying sooner is always better than buying later.
4. Deposit the commission check!
And the HBB training manual is no different. Never buy a house because prices will always be lower tomorrow, whether rats are rising, falling or steady.
You’re squealin’ like a realtor again Slithers.
More like, HA lives in your brain rent-free.
You guys are a broken record.
Rates up: don’t buy
Rates down: don’t buy
Rates sideways: don’t buy
No matter what it’s never a good time to buy. You people are the other side of the NAR mirror.
You guys are a broken record.
Rates up: don’t buy
Rates down: don’t buy
Rates sideways: don’t buy
And no mention of the elephant in the room, the unsustainable housing prices.
“And no mention of the elephant in the room, the unsustainable housing prices.”
Outside of a few coastal areas, prices are nothing close to unsustainable. $150K buys you a nice house in 80% of the country. If you think that’s too expensive you will never be happy.
One person here says that (more or less). 2-3 others hint around at it in support of posts of the one.
Let’s not mistake the (vocal) outlier for the norm.
“$150K buys you a nice house in 80% of the country.”
And you lie like a realturd too.
$150K buys you a nice house in 80% of the country
Does it ever occur to you that most people in this blog may reside in the 20% of the country where the price is going up?
Outside of a few coastal areas, prices are nothing close to unsustainable. $150K buys you a nice house in 80% of the country.
Opinions of “nice” may vary, but what’s the median wage in that 80% of the country?
“Does it ever occur to you that most people in this blog may reside in the 20% of the country where the price is going up?”
So it’s a niche of people who live in expensive areas of the countries but want to pay cheap prices for real estate. In other words, they live in a fantasy world.
“Opinions of “nice” may vary, but what’s the median wage in that 80% of the country?”
Where I live:
Spokane County Median income: $49,257 (Census Data)
Here’s a sample of what $150K buys
That’s a nice place, any jobs up that way?
“Outside of a few coastal areas, prices are nothing close to unsustainable. $150K buys you a nice house in 80% of the country.”
They are nonetheless poised to drop further, thanks to the juxtaposition of crumbling demand in the college-debt-strapped under-40 generation with rising mortgage rates.
“Does it ever occur to you that most people in this blog may reside in the 20% of the country where the price is going housing always goes up?”
“That’s a nice place, any jobs up that way?”
An unemployment rate closing on 8%…. what do you think?
Is Rockford the same as Spokane?
+1 I’ll agree if we can nudge that price up closer to $165k, but honestly, a 3/2 rancher in flyover country should be priced closer to $100k; everything across the country is over-priced due to easy lending, some areas much more than others. FWIW, there wasn’t much of a RE bubble in my corner of the world, but a wide swath of the population here took the HELOC bait…hook, line and sinker. Today, why buy used when new is often priced lower, qualifies for better mortgage and insurance rates, and is more energy efficient?
“An unemployment rate closing on 8%…. what do you think?”
Hey, I’m on your side…Just asking because its hotter than sh.t here in phoenix, hit 117 today and its been over 110 for several days. The picture and the surrounding area just looked much much much cooler
Pay in 2013: Mixed salary forecasts reveal ‘two-speed’ Europe
Print and run
Pay rises in Western Europe to remain subdued, while the continent’s high-growth markets plan hikes of up to 10 percent
Hardest hit euro crisis countries to experience further real-term wage squeeze as pay flatlines
Latin American employees to see biggest salary jump worldwide, while North America is the region with workers set to see the lowest rises
Stagnating economies across Europe can expect only modest salary rises in the new year, whilst the region’s emerging markets will see wages rocket, according to the latest pay forecast data from Hay Group.
Average pay rises across the region are set to remain subdued in 2013 (3.3 percent compared to 5.5 percent in 2012) as European countries continue to feel the effects of the euro crisis. However, a closer look reveals a ‘two-speed’ trend in Europe.
Across Western Europe, many developed countries will only marginally increase pay next year. And, of those that plan to increase pay, nearly two thirds will fall below the European average.
Greece and Ireland will be particularly hard hit (zero percent wage growth), and increases in Germany, the UK (both 3 percent) and France (2.5 percent) will be subdued.
Not sure how old this is, but their prediction for the UK looks a little on the optimistic side.
This is interesting, and destabilizing.
A lot of “old school” landlords don’t utilize debt. My old landlord, who owned a number of homes to rent, didn’t have debt on any of his. If he wanted to buy another one, he saved his money. He’s been at the game for a long time, and knows what it means to be a landlord.
If there are a lot more lenders coming into the market to lend to single-family landlords, we will see more (and more inexperienced) single-family landlords.
“we will see more (and more inexperienced”
You guys make it seem like one needs a PhD in landlording to be a landlord. It’s really not that hard to collect rent every month and fix a leaky toilet every now and then.
Says the guy who couldn’t build a doghouse in 6 months if I gave him plans and materials.
It’s really not that hard to collect rent every month.
You’d be surprised. I’ve heard some horror stories from sudden landlords. And there’s more to it than fixing a leaky toilet. My sis had some deadbeat tenants trash their rental. They ruined the carpeting, trashed the kitchen cabinets, etc. Thousands in damages, and since the renters were broke deadbeats, good luck getting it back in small claims court.
And in some locales it’s not that easy to evict a deadbeat. It can take months. And in the meantime you still have to pay the mortgage.
Yes, because in some extreme cases things don’t work out one should never try an activity. Never fly, your plane could crash. Never go to a baseball game, you might get hit with a foul ball. Never be a landlord, you could get bad tenants.
Just sit in your apartment with the blinds closed 24/7 and you’ll be safe from the big bad world out there.
Hikikomori: Why are so many Japanese men refusing to leave their rooms?
And you’ve also got the men who eat grass.
Yes, because in some extreme case
Extreme? Hardly. Most accidental landlords I know tell me the same stories: Trashed houses, months behind on rent, etc.
An extreme case is when your tenant uses your rental as a meth house. Then you’re really screwed.
“Never fly, your plane could crash. Never go to a baseball game, you might get hit with a foul ball. Never be a landlord, you could get bad tenants.”
Two of those activities sound exhilarating; the third, sucky.
It’s that paying the mortgage thing that gets ya. If you buy with cash, then a single bad tenant can’t cause a foreclosure.
If you are pretty handy yourself, can be responsive, and have a good tenant, then being a landlord can be OK.
However, the more homes you have, the more likely you have more “bad tenants”.
I know it’s not rocket science…there are 10+ million rental homes in the US, but a lot of the one or two or ten-off owners are able to be very responsive because they have built their portfolio over time, and can be very responsive, and over time have figured out how to properly screen tenants (or have some long-standing tenants that they know are painless when they expand).
My old landlord owned a number of rental properties on just a couple of streets, including the houses on either side of the one he owned and occupied. He was very responsive, but always out doing something to the houses he owned.
If you don’t buy all your properties right next to where you live, and think it’s going to be easy to have 10 homes, you’ve got another thing coming.
As with anything, the more you do it the better you get at it. Every “old timer” landlord was once upon a time a brand new landlord who made mistakes and probably got screwed by a tenant or two. Then he learned from his mistakes and moved on. Just like any business owner.
On HBB of course it’s 100% negativity 100% of the time. Every landlord has bad tenants. Every landlord loses money. Every rela estate investment will be a money loser. Everything is always horrible for everyone all the time.
Yes, but because there was relatively little capital available at the time, those “old timer” landlords were forced to start small. If capital is available to allow them to own 10 homes, not 1 or 2, landlords that are simply ill prepared for being a landlord will leave a bigger crater than a landlord that was ill prepared, but only bought 1 or 2 rental homes.
And you know that I’m not 100% negative all the time…I get the crap beaten out of me daily for posting things that show how the “shadow inventory” is becoming more and more focused in relatively few states.
People seem to forget that I was 100% negative before the crash.
There is also a law of diminishing returns to landlordship: Once the Blackrocks and all-cash Chinese and Canadian investors have snapped up millions of rental homes at fire-sale prices and rented them out to anyone who can consistently make a monthly payment, the remaining pool of potential renters will on average be less willing and able to reliably pay the rent.
P.S. I am 99% confident the other shoe is yet to drop on the race to landlordship which has characterized the most recent phase of the Great Housing Bubble. With so many too-clever-by-half folks rushing out to buy rental investment properties sight-unseen, you just know there are some future bagholder/victims in the mix of recent buyers.
I know there are a lot of folks who don’t care, and think this data is garbage, but the new LPS Mortgage Monitor is out.
I think the most interesting slides are:
1. Page 11. Only approximately 15% of mortgages are underwater, according to LPS. Being underwater is a key indicator of probability of going through a default (Page 9).
2. Page 16. Delinquencies overall of 2010/2011/2012 vintage loans are lower than 2004/2005.
3. Page 5. New problem loans overall are continuing to trend downward.
Also, CA’s non-current loan rate is down again…to 6.3% from 6.5% last month. Still on track to reach about 5% (approximately normal) by the end of 2013.
AND, Florida is finally starting to move through their distress. Seems like by the end of 2013, New Jersey could have the highest non-current loan rate in the country.
Will the increase in clearing out distress in Florida cause another price crash? Or simply put downward pressure on prices (slowing current rate of price increases)?
1. Page 11. Only approximately 15% of mortgages are underwater, according to LPS. Being underwater is a key indicator of probability of going through a default (Page 9).
Missions accomplished, banks are saved. Now what?
Prevent the next crash, otherwise the banks will need more bail outs.
I’m glad the adults are in charge…
“As regime change was unfolding in Egypt, Secretary of State John Kerry spent time on his boat Wednesday afternoon in Nantucket Sound, the State Department acknowledged to CBS News on Friday, after repeatedly denying that Kerry was aboard any boat. Psaki’s acknowledgment marked a stark reversal from previous denials that Kerry was on any boat whatsoever. When “CBS This Morning” senior producer Mosheh Oinounou tweeted about the sighting, Psaki issued a denial, calling the tweet “completely inaccurate” and said Kerry has been “working all day and on the phone dealing with the crisis in Egypt.”
SI SE PUEDE!!
Egypt is in Africa. Obama was born in Africa. Maybe if he had stayed there none of these problems would be happening now.
He should have been mountain biking or “clearin’ brush” on his ranch (his self-professed favorite activity there) like W spent his presidency.
Come on kids, is this really all you have?
There’s a revolution going on in Egypt, the SoS is grilling on his yacht and the best you can do is blame Bush or talk about Obama’s birth?
Yes and almost 50% of Democrats think Bush was in on 9/11.
So, what? You want the US to dictate to the Egyptians how to deal with their ire at their new president. There were a few protesters this weekend who had pictures of Obama on their signs blaming him for supporting Morsi too much. But the one they couldn’t do was blame the US for installing a dictator or supporting a dictator to the point where elections were impossible or the winner was pre-chosen. The CIA didn’t put Morsi in place.
I say we are way ahead of the game keeping our noses out of this - at least as much as we can when Egypt gets around $2 billion in aid from the US.
What would you have the SoS do? Sit in his office and plot ways to prevent the Egyptian people from doing what they want to do? A lot of them don’t like the guy they picked for president. Some others still do like him. Their issue. Not ours. There has been some discussion in Washington about suspending the aid because we have a law in place requiring that in the case of a military coup. The exact definition of military coup isn’t as clear as it could be. I’m sure there were plenty of people at the State Department researching that while Kerry was taking the weekend off.
I’m sure there were plenty of people at the State Department researching that while Kerry was taking the weekend off.
+1. The guy should be saluted for his ability to delegate, as well as for his efforts to maintain work-life balance.
Another victim story getting lots of buzz in Salon. Woman is angry because the mortgage modification B of A offered her still expected her to, wait for it…PAY OFF HER LOAN! Can you imagine?
“Extreme actions were taken against me and my family, so I had to take extreme actions right back,” Gisele argued. “And this was extreme for me, I’m a Girl Scout troop leader!”
You go, girl!
You can beat some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t beat the bank’s accountants (unless the Fed and other bank regulators tell them to let you win).
She didn’t get a cram down? Poor baby!
She’s angry because BofA was messing with her and others big time. Based on the article, can’t say I blame her. I don’t believe that HARP or HAMP or any other such programs should exist, but the way BofA is playing games using HAMP should be investigated.
The article should be called “Bank screws with mortgage holders to extract more fees.”
They offered her lower payments and a 50-year window to repay the mortgage. What’s “messing around” about this? And why can’t she just rent like others do when confronted with financial necessity?
B of A is Satan, but whiny, entitled nincompoops like this deserve them.
NEVER do business of Bank of America.
Never forget this.
Check this link that was included in the article.
“Bank of America’s mortgage servicing unit systematically lied to homeowners, fraudulently denied loan modifications, and paid their staff bonuses for deliberately pushing people into foreclosure:”
“Employees, many of whom allege they were given no basic training on how to even use HAMP, were instructed to tell borrowers that documents were incomplete or missing when they were not, or that the file was “under review” when it hadn’t been accessed in months.”
“And after rejecting borrowers for HAMP modifications, they would offer an in-house modification with a higher interest rate. This was all about profit maximization.”
Just like you systematically lie to the readers here.
Borrowers are slaves to lenders.
Debt is bondage.
b-b-b-but someone posted here last week about pulling some equity to buy a new car and eating steak and lobster while the rest of us eat big macs.
do you remember who tom vu was?
That steak-eating home equity loser was flame, right?
I am not sure if this has been mentioned on HBB. A train in Quebec hauling North Dakota oil crashed and has devastated a small town. Several people are missing from the explosion.
This further puts emphasis on the need for good pipelines. Every day in North America thousands of rail cars are moving crude oil and these cars are flimsy compared to pipes.
This accident could have more effect on the price of oil than any middle east problem. If could also affect liquid natural gas transfers.
However, in Canada, it probably will encourage faster approvals of alternate routes to the Keystone line, the southern part of which is now finished (about 50% of the line).
Barack Hussein Obama.
Bilderbergers crashed that train, to drum up support for their pipeline.
Oldest trick in the book. Right, jethro?
One does have to wonder how you leave a train on a hillside totally unsupervised.
Brings to mind this movie, which we watched for a second time last week while on vacation. Except the movie, and real-life story on which it is based, had a happy ending.
BTW, if you haven’t seen this, and you can tolerate plot-limited action movies, I highly recommend it.
Unstoppable Movie Trailer Official (HD)
I only have minor complaints about the predictability of the plot; the acting and chemistry between Denzel Washington and Chris Pine is fantastic, and the drama is gripping and real.
“Bilderbergers crashed that train, to drum up support for their pipeline.”
Obama Puppetmaster Warren Buffett Biggest Winner From Keystone Pipeline Rejection
Submitted by Tyler Durden
Just when one thinks American crony capitalism couldn’t hit new lows, here comes Warren Buffett and his personal puppet, the president, proving everyone wrong once more. Because if one thinks there is no (s)quid pro quo for all that “sage” advice that Buffett has been giving to Obama on extracting as much wealth as possible from future wealthy Americans (before they decide they have had enough with this crony shit and leave the country for good), one would be fatally wrong. As it turns out, it is not just natural resources and aquifer purity that Obama had in mind when sealing the fate of the Keystone XL pipeline. No - it appears there were far more relevant numerial metrics that determined Obama’s decisions. Such as the bottom line number of Buffett’s Burlington Northern, which according to Bloomberg, is among U.S. and Canadian railroads that stand to benefit from the Obama administration’s decision to reject TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL oil pipeline permit. ‘“Whatever people bring to us, we’re ready to haul,” Krista York-Wooley, a spokeswoman for Burlington Northern, a unit of Buffett’s Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK/A), said in an interview. If Keystone XL “doesn’t happen, we’re here to haul.” And quite delighted to reap the windfalls of unfounded populist fears she forgot to add. Because while the whole “carbon-credit” multi-trillion top line expansion scheme for Goldman under the pretense of actually caring for the environment may have collapsed, it is not preventing others from trying and succeeding where even Goldman has failed.
Rail car production is already at a three-year high as manufacturers such as Greenbrier Cos Inc. (GBX) and American Railcar Industries Inc. (ARII) expand to meet demand for sand used in oil and gas exploration, according to Steve Barger, an analyst at Keybanc Capital Markets Inc. in Cleveland, citing Railway Supply Institute statistics.
Rail-car suppliers can add capacity, Hatch said.
“Railroads are not just a stopgap while we wait for a pipeline,” Hatch said in an interview. “They are potentially part of the long-term solution.”
Railroads are being used in North Dakota (STOND1), where oil producers have spurred a fivefold increase in output by using intensive drilling practices in the Bakken, a geologic formation that stretches from southern Alberta to the northern U.S. Great Plains. During 2011, rail capacity in the region tripled to almost 300,000 barrels a day as higher production exceeded what pipelines handle, according to the State Department report on Keystone XL.
Burlington Northern carries about 25 percent of the oil from the Bakken, said Krista York-Wooley, the railroad spokeswoman. The company can carry higher volumes from North Dakota or Alberta, she said.
Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. (CP)’s shipments from North Dakota climbed to more than 13,000 carloads last year from about 500 in 2009, Ed Greenberg, a spokesman, said in an e-mail. The Calgary- based company has a similar plan in western Canada.
“With an extensive rail network and proven expertise in moving energy, CP offers a flexible option for transporting crude oil and other energy-related products to and from key locations in North America,” Vice President Tracy Robinson said in an e-mail. “Rail is scalable, allowing CP to effectively keep pace with the shipping needs of producers.”
So those wondering how it is that AAR railroad statistics continue to be so very strong, it is not because the economy actually justifies it: it is because crony interests such as those of the Octogenarian of Omaha demand it as “payment” for their crony collegiality with the biggest dunce president since Carter.
In other news, it is truly amazing how with every new development, America is now becoming like one giant conspiracy theory, only this time it is actually not a theory as with every passing day we see it enacted in practice.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/obama-puppetmaster-warren-buffett-biggest-winner-keystone-pipeline-rejection - 244k -
So it’s a war between the Bilderbergers and Buffet?
I always get confused about these things.
One of the biggest opponent of Keystone (and one of Obama’s biggest donors and upporters) is Warren Buffet. Guess who also owns railways that would stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars of oil shipping revenue if Keystone were built?
A lot less coal to carry so Buffet and Gates have to carry oil.
And that little flange, some bearings, and hope that some kid doesn’t pile rocks on the tracks - -
Snowgirl: You do have to wonder. They even left it running so that the air brakes would still work !
“The number of Americans receiving subsidized food assistance from the federal government has risen to 101 million, representing roughly a third of the U.S. population. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that a total of 101,000,000 people currently participate in at least one of the 15 food programs offered by the agency, at a cost of $114 billion in fiscal year 2012.
That means the number of Americans receiving food assistance has surpassed the number of full-time private sector workers in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), there were 97,180,000 full-time private sector workers in 2012.”
That’s exactly the kind of Hope and Change you’d expect in the recoveryless recovery
Trickle-down economics at work.
You voted for it twice. You broke it you own.
Yep. Reagan and Bush Sr. screwed us good.
He must have meant Dubya, as Bush Sr. was a one-term president.
I guess there really was a bond market crash, and it wasn’t just a figment of my imagination.
‘Great Rotation’ wipes out $120 billion of bond wealth
Commentary: The exodus from bonds has happened faster than anyone predicted, writes Thomas Kee.
• Japanese investors have been selling U.S. Treasurys — surprised?
• Japanese investors have been selling U.S. Treasurys — surprised?
Who is buying the bonds from them? The Fed?
Japanese investors have been selling U.S. Treasurys — surprised?
Marketwatch, btw…for those that wanted to read more.
“Japanese investors have been selling U.S. Treasurys — surprised?”
There have been dire predictions back to at least 1989 that the Japanese would dump their U.S. Treasurys and crash the market.
“There have been dire predictions back to at least 1989 that the Japanese would dump their U.S. Treasurys and crash the market.”
There is a small (but vocal) group of people who always see the end of the world just around the corner. Treasuries, the dollar, real estate, you name it, it’s always about to implode and bring the whole system down.
“Treasuries, the dollar, real estate, you name it, it’s always about to implode and bring the whole system down.”
Rising Treasury yields are quite likely to bring real estate prices down, which I am sure we can agree would be a good thing, as affordable housing is one of Uncle Sam’s primary housing policy objectives.
Mortgage rates poised to jolt up again
July 7, 2013, 3:07 PM
With the government reporting surprisingly good jobs news on Friday, the 10-year Treasury yield posted a large jump, signaling that mortgage rates may see yet another jolt higher in coming days.
The 10-year Treasury yield rose almost one-quarter of a percentage point to 2.74% on Friday. The last time there was a similar-sized jump up was in August 2011. Weekly mortgage rates, which trend in the same direction as Treasury yields, recently pulled back. But given Friday’s yield surge, this Thursday’s weekly mortgage-rate report from federally controlled mortgage buyer Freddie Mac could show a large gain.
The average rate on the 30-year fixed rate mortgage hit a trough of 3.35% in early May, according to Freddie Mac. Since then, the rate has increased almost one full percentage point, though levels remain relatively low.
Sorry, Whac. Posted the article was from Marketwatch but neglected to notice you had provided a link. Mostly cuz I ran over here to repost myself. (blush)
Just noticed that is in fact a linky.
Is ‘Great Dislocation’ perhaps a better moniker?
Maybe the ‘Great Head Fake’?
from the link:
“Our current outlook is to expect upward pressure on the stock market, with the occasional buying frenzy, until the rotation ends, but once the rotation starts to wane, which could happen within as soon as a week or two, the market will turn down on a dime and fall aggressively. “
“…but once the rotation starts to wane, which could happen within as soon as a week or two, the market will turn down on a dime and fall aggressively.“
Are they saying the stock or the bond market is poised to fall (or some other market)?
Good question, it’s not really clear. From the wording it sounds like when the week or two old rotation into stocks is over. (Seems like an awfully short rotation.)
I guess that’s why they make the big bucks.
“Seems like an awfully short rotation.”
With HFT, a couple of weeks of investing time could equal a lifetime of yesteryears’ market action…
Bob Rice, Contributor
7/08/2013 @ 10:31AM |1,044 views
Holding Bonds To Balance Stocks? There Are Better Ways
Should investors stick with bonds, despite the potential for more losses, because they can balance out stock market volatility?
“Before you dump bonds, remember why you have them.” So says the mainstream financial press, echoing countless advisors. Their big point is that investors shouldn’t get too spooked by the recent carnage because bonds have, for decades, acted a ballast against stock volatility, and that sort of insurance will certainly be necessary again.
But they’re making one huge mistake: thinking that bonds are still the best way to get that protection. It’s really pretty simple: if the 30 year bull run in the bond market is finally winding down, then so is its capacity to absorb stock market shocks. There is no magic, or logic, or history, that says otherwise.
Holy frijoles… trying to book a staycation this summer, and a weekend getaway for Sep.
Hotel rates in FL are insane.
How do you book a staycation? Isn’t that at your own house?
“trying to book a staycation this summer”
Keep an eye on where you are and when.
View a selection of tweets below that were made over the last 24 hours.
- Zimmerman you are not guilty ! There should b a riot if these words are spoken cause I need a couple things from the store !
9:38 AM - 8 Jul 2013
Ike Xpense™ @Xpense
RT if your down for riot if Zimmerman walks
9:05 AM - 8 Jul 2013 from Austin, TX, United States
If Zimmerman walks there will be serious problems in America
Moyo Oni @SirMoyoOni
“@AskYOmama__: If Zimmerman walks there will be serious problems in America” I will go join the riot.
3:55 AM - 8 Jul 2013
Andrea Lightell @DaddysAnqel_
Aye y’all if thy free George Zimmerman We all going to Florida nd RIOT!!!!!
1:34 AM - 8 Jul 2013
If they don’t charge Zimmerman , USA🇺🇸 going to start a Riot🔥🔥
1:33 AM - 8 Jul 2013
If George Zimmerman gets off we about to riot.
— ?E??¥ (@trap_sultan) July 8, 2013
IF THEY FILE ZIMMERMAN NOT GUILTY, DUDE WE ARE GUNNA HAVE ANOTHER RIOT LIKE THE WATTS RIOT SAGA HAHAHAHA
10:07 PM - 7 Jul 2013
If George Zimmerman get off its gone b a riot
9:57 PM - 7 Jul 2013
Immaculate Concepts @Mr_Jet_Lag
If Zimmerman is proven not guilty, florida better riot the fuck up.
7:45 PM - 7 Jul 2013
If George Zimmerman isn’t found guilty for murdering Trayvon Martin I’m starting a riot. End of story.
3:22 PM - 7 Jul 2013
Gianni GodBody @LickinLoud
Im slapping every white person i see “@matt_nasty: If george zimmerman gets accquitted niggas got to riot”
12:58 PM - 7 Jul 2013
Avon Barksdale @BksAceBoogie
I just hope Zimmerman doesn’t walk. That’ll start a riot that I will be front and center of.
12:25 PM - 7 Jul 2013
Young EGGS @PolarBearNL
I need to loot some shit anyways.. “@JayGotGwop: If Zimmerman get off is we gon have a Rodney King riot?..”
12:09 PM - 7 Jul 2013
ur girlfriend♡ @disasterkicks
If they set Zimmerman free after what he’s done, I might just go to Florida just /to/ riot.
9:52 AM - 8 Jul 2013
true soulja @DatRapperBreezy
If George Zimmerman doesn’t get convicted I will be the first person in Orlando to riot
9:42 AM - 8 Jul 2013
If black people decide to riot in Orlando, then I hope our PRESIDENT would kindly ask them not to.
“On HBB of course it’s 100% negativity 100% of the time.”
Mathematically speaking, that must include your posts then.
Some margin of error may exist.
He said it, I didn’t.
“Even in the absence of the excess empty housing inventory estimated in the tens of millions, historically housing prices fall. Why? Because houses depreciate. ALWAYS.”
Because houses depreciate. ALWAYS.
What does depreciate mean?
“Why buy a rapidly depreciating house at these massively inflated prices? Rent for half the monthly cost of buying. Then buy later for 70% less.”
“If you pay current inflated prices for what is always a rapidly depreciating asset, in this case a house, you’re going to get skinned alive.”
Name:Ben Jones Location:Northern Arizona, United StatesTo donate by mail, or to otherwise contact this blogger, please send emails to: email@example.com
PayPal is a secure online payment method which accepts ALL major credit cards.
Subscribe to comments
Photo Submission: firstname.lastname@example.org
View the HBB Photo Gallery *updated 4/13/2008