The Housing Bubble

Hello HBBers! Haven’t been around in awhile, so came to read a bit yesterday and found some O/T comments about women. I’m all for people doing what’s right for themselves, but only if you are totally honest, right up front, with all of the people you’re dealing with (well before sleeping with someone). Don’t waste somebody’s time, energy, and emotions if you have no intentions of getting married and they are looking for a more permanent relationship.

Copying from yesterday:

Comment by oxide
2013-12-27 19:07:46

The children do more of the “work” than either parent.

Absolutely!

And I agree 100% with Big V regarding men having custody so that they don’t have to pay child support. The truth is, it’s not even the men who have been pushing for it, but the “Second Wives” (and girlfriends) who don’t want any of “his” money going to “that woman” (the ex-wife) in the form of child support or alimony. Many of these men don’t even want custody, but if they have new women in their lives, they leave the childcare to these women (who often cross lines WRT their role in the child’s life). It’s a very toxic situation for everyone involved.

Big V is also 100% correct about women’s contributions to marriage being front-loaded (youth, beauty, and fertility), while men’s contributions are usually back-loaded (money, power, security). Women make their contributions with the implicit and explicit understanding that their husbands will fulfill their end of the bargain — it’s stated often in personal conversations and also in the wedding vows.

Alimony exists to compensate women for the contributions they’ve made toward the marriage when their husbands refuse to fulfill their end of the bargain in the second half of the marriage. Not to mention the fact that women often sacrifice their careers (and friendships, their bodies, etc.) in order to raise the children that carry the man’s last name. Even if she is a SAHM, she is **working,** often working longer and more difficult hours than the “working” spouse.

Were you able to enjoy Wall Street’s Santa Clause rally?

Were you able to unload your gold holdings before this year’s rout?

How high would long-term Treasury yields have to get before you would buy some?

Are you one of those fence sitters who feels tempted to buy a home before interest rates rise further?

Dec. 28, 2013, 6:31 a.m. EST
These 10 bubbles will pop in new ‘Lost Decade’
Opinion: It’s the pope and Hillary vs. ‘old guys’ and climate-change deniers
By Paul B. Farrell, MarketWatch

SAN LUIS OBISPO, Calif. (MarketWatch) — Wall Street says the last “Lost Decade,” which actually started in 2000, just ended. Sorry, but a new Lost Decade is already on the clock, and the clock is ticking. It’ll run from 2014 through the 2024 presidential election and probably longer. Worse, it’ll be marked by 10 hot bubbles that never exploded in the last Lost Decade. They’re still growing. And guaranteed to explode in America’s face.

The last Lost Decade? We first spoke of Wall Street’s fake inflation-adjusted records back in a 2010 column, lamenting how Main Street’s 95 million investors had seen Wall Street, in losing trillions, squander “over 20% of your money,” adjusted for inflation, in the dot-com crash, a 33-month recession and the credit crash of 2008. Piling on trillions in new debt for future taxpayers, “Wall Street,” we said then, “will do it again.”

This year the Wall Street Journal’s E.S. Browning has also been warning that “economists were unimpressed” with the Dow Jones Industrial Average’s run to record highs — which really aren’t records at all. Yes, we’ve seen dozens of these so-called records this year. A month ago, Browning noted: “An inflation-adjusted record would mean blue-chip Dow stocks have regained the real value lost in two deadening financial crises.”

Yes, the DJIA finally “achieved something it hadn’t managed in nearly 14 years: It closed at a record after adjusting for inflation.” Now “investors finally could put behind them … the sometimes-terrifying events of the past 14 years … the Internet bubble, Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, accounting scandals such as Enron Corp., the housing bubble, collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and other costly stumbles.”

Get it? Finally, after 14 years in negative territory, Wall Street was breaking even on an inflation-adjusted basis, after suffering “two deadening crises” and “terrifying events” that wasted trillions for 95 million Main Street investors. Big deal? Stocks broke even after 14 years?

Zero-sum economics: Wall Street ‘treaded water’ for 14 long years

Then Browning’s gut punch: “It would mean that the ‘lost decade’ during which stocks never surpassed their values of the 1990s finally is over, at least for the Dow. Of course, a new inflation-adjusted high also would be a reminder that stocks have done no better than tread water since 2000.”

“Drowning” would be more accurate.

So we start 2014 asking why Wall Street’s stock market did “no better than tread water since 2000.” And why did Wall Street lose trillions in retirement savings for America’s Main Street investors?

Why? Because in today’s zero-sum real world, “aggressive” government stimulus policies, plus Bernanke’s “determination to keep interest rates low” were rewarding Wall Street with cheap money, while killing Main Street’s retirement stocks and downgrading the American economy. That’s how zero-sum works: Wall Street wins, Main Street loses.

In fact, since the conservative political revolution a generation ago, the rich became the Super-Rich. And the income of America’s other 99% flat lined for three decades.
…

@ the precious psycho princess

i just wanted you to know that i answered you yesterday, but it didn’t go through.

if you don’t see my answers to your control freak rubbish, it won’t be because i haven’t tried.

Comment by Rental Watch
2013-12-28 01:01:41
@PIC

I had a meeting with our tax advisor, and he commented on how he was converting all his personal pre-tax retirement accounts to Roth over time (paying his taxes now, and preparing to be able to pass the Roth accounts to his kids). We asked him point blank about government confiscation of retirement accounts, or changing the rules to take away the benefit for existing accounts, etc. He flat out said that there are constitutional issues with such things happening (ie. that it would be unconstitutional

it’s amazing that there are some people who think the constitution is still in effect. many things the government has done is unconstitutional, including obamacare. your accounts are not safe. none of your property is safe. they can take it by various means and when the time is right, they will.

I’m looking forward to the review of 2013 predictions, as well as a fresh round for predictions for the upcoming year.

I don’t think I will be buying a house in 2014. That’s about all I can predict at this time.

Comment by Muggy
2013-12-27 17:49:19
Scoping out a campsite for me and the kids, and came across this:

http://picpaste.com/lolol-NaIdvfhl.jpg

Posted late yesterday. This is typical realtor behavior.

Hope and Change

“An old mattress in East Oakland. Paint cans in West Oakland. A couch on International Boulevard.

They tell a tale that’s been spun for years in Oakland - people leaving their garbage wherever they want, and the city waging a Sisyphean struggle to fix the issue.

Last year, public works employees picked up 1,624 tons of junk and received 11,500 calls for cleanup.

“The more we pick it up, the more it seems to come out,” said Kristine Shaff, a public works agency spokeswoman.”

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Tons-of-garbage-dumped-on-Oakland-streets-5092860.php

Facebook “dead and buried”. This story was picked up and spread all over the place yesterday, regarding the EU study. And I recall Colorado saying the kids he knew were using Snapchat, so hopefully this will be a US trend as well.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/haydnshaughnessy/2013/12/27/facebook-is-dead-and-buried-argues-eu-study-lead/

BTW, didn’t zuckerberg sell like a billion dollars in stock or something just a few days before this broke? I think the news story said it was to pay taxes.

It s#cks to be a long way from the newly created money.

Dylan Grice Explains How “Crackpot” Central Bankers Are Destroying Society

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/11/2013

To see the how, first understand how monetary policy works. Think about what happens in the very simple example of a central bank’s expanding the monetary base by printing money to buy government bonds.

That by this transaction the government has raised revenue for the government is obvious. The government now has a greater command over the nation’s resources. But it is equally obvious that no one can raise revenue without someone else bearing the cost. To deny it would imply revenues could be raised for free, which would imply that wealth could be created by printing more money. True, some economists, it seems, would have the world believe there to be some validity to such thinking. But for those of us more concerned with correct logical practice, it begs a serious question. Who pays? We know that this monetary policy has redistributed money into the government’s coffers. But from whom has the redistribution been?

The simple answer is that we don’t and can’t know, at least not on an amount per person basis. This is unfortunate and unsatisfactory, but it also happens to be true. Had the extra money come from taxation, everyone would at least know where the burden had fallen and who had decreed it to fall there. True, the upper-rate tax payers might not like having a portion of their wealth redirected towards poorer members of society and they might not agree with it. Some might even feel robbed. But at least they know who the robber is.

When the government raises revenue by selling bonds to the central bank, which has financed its purchases with printed money, no one knows who ultimately pays. In the abstract, we know that current holders of money pay since their cash holdings have been diluted. But the effects are more subtle. To see just how subtle, consider Cantillon’s 18th century analysis of the effects of a sudden increase in gold production:

If the increase of actual money comes from mines of gold or silver… the owner of these mines, the adventurers, the smelters, refiners, and all the other workers will increase their expenditures in proportion to their gains. … All this increase of expenditures in meat, wine, wool, etc. diminishes of necessity the share of the other inhabitants of the state who do not participate at first in the wealth of the mines in question. The altercations of the market, or the demand for meat, wine, wool, etc. being more intense than usual, will not fail to raise their prices. … Those then who will suffer from this dearness… will be first of all the landowners, during the term of their leases, then their domestic servants and all the workmen or fixed wage-earners … All these must diminish their expenditure in proportion to the new consumption.

In Cantillon’s example, the gold mine owners, mine employees, manufacturers of the stuff miners buy and the merchants who trade in it all benefit handsomely. They are closest to the new money and they get to see their real purchasing powers rise.

But as they go out and spend, they bid up the prices of the stuff they purchase to a level which is higher than it would otherwise have been, making that stuff more expensive. For anyone not connected to the mining business (and especially those on fixed incomes: “the landowners, during the term of their leases”), real incomes haven’t risen to keep up with the higher prices. So the increase in the gold supply redistributes money towards those closest to the new money, and away from those furthest away.

Another way to think about this might be to think about Milton Friedman’s idea of dropping new money from a helicopter. He used this example to demonstrate how easy it would theoretically be for a government to create inflation. What he didn’t say was that such a drop would redistribute income in the same way more gold from Cantillon’s mines did, towards those standing underneath the helicopter and away from everyone else.

So now we know we have a slightly better understanding of who pays: whoever is furthest away from the newly created money. And we have a better understanding of how they pay: through a reduction in their own spending power. The problem is that while they will be acutely aware of the reduction in their own spending power, they will be less aware of why their spending power has declined. So if they find groceries becoming more expensive they blame the retailers for raising prices; if they find petrol unaffordable, they blame the oil companies; if they find rents too expensive they blame landlords, and so on. So now we see the mechanism by which debasing money debases trust. The unaware victims of this accidental redistribution don’t know who the enemy is, so they create an enemy.

Keynes was well aware of this insidious dynamic and articulated it beautifully in a 1919 essay:

By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. … Those to whom the system brings windfalls… become “profiteers” who are the object of the hatred…. the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.

Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.

Deliberately impoverishing one group in society is a bad thing to do. But impoverishing a group in such an opaque, clandestine and underhanded way is worse. It is not only unjust but dangerous and potentially destructive. A clear and transparent fiscal policy which openly redistributes from the rich to the poor can at least be argued on some level to be consistent with ‘social justice.’

Governments can at least claim to be playing Robin Hood. There is no such defense for a monetary driven redistribution towards recipients of the new money and away from everyone else because if the well-off are closest to the money, well, it will have the perverse effect of benefitting them at the expense of the poor.

Take the past few decades. Prior to the 2008 crash, central banks set interest rates according to what their crystal ball told them the future would be like. They were supposed to raise them when they thought the economy was growing too fast and cut them when they thought it was growing too slow.

They were supposed to be clever enough to banish the boom-bust cycle, and this was a nice idea. The problem was that it didn’t work. One reason was because central bankers weren’t as clever as they thought. Another was because they had a bias to lower rates during the bad times but not raise them adequately during the good times. On average therefore, credit tended to be too cheap and so the demand for debt was artificially high. Since that new debt was used to buy assets, the prices of assets rose in a series of asset bubbles around the world. And this unprecedented, secular and largely global credit inflation created an illusion of prosperity which was fun for most people while it lasted.

But beneath the surface, the redistributive mechanism upon which monetary policy relies was at work. Like Cantillon’s gold miners, those closest to the new credit (financial institutions and anyone working in finance industry) were the prime beneficiaries. In 2012 the top 50 names on the Forbes list of richest Americans included the fortunes of eleven investors, financiers or hedge fund managers. In 1982 the list had none.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-11/dylan-grice-explains-how-crackpot-central-bankers-are-destroying-human-society - 182k

Please re remember that the poorest are often the stupidest. They do have the right to vote, but certain and many things can be accomplished without voter approval.

IF the severely and chronically and generational non working poor were rounded up and put in cca or ccc work camps (as was the norm for hundreds of years) and paid a pittance until their skills matched 65% of the norm AND they had a sponsoring employer, except for your particular little basement dweller, you’d sing the praises of it all.

Jobless aid to 1.3 million people ends…today!

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20131228/BUSINESS/312280007/1004/NEWS03?nclick_check=1

And another 1.9 million more will lose jobless benefits in a few months, totaling 3.2 million.

Less spending at Wal-Mart, Target, Ross. And no new Kia in 2014 either! Subscriptions to Cable TV might continue (or not), but not for Smartphones.

Burglaries will increase. Wo words: “Castle Doctrine.”

I challenge even one male on this blog to man up and write a sentence denouncing any type of human trade, whether those humans be bought or rented.

Secondly, I challenge all of you to actually love and respect your wives, daughters, sisters, and moms.

And on a third note, I challenge you to support your families and stop grousing about it. Society would be better off. If you guys would do that a little more often, then there wouldn’t be so many women these days deciding that it’s just too risky to have kids anymore.

DHS Insider: “Preparations Have Been Finalized to Respond to a Crisis of Unprecedented Magnitude Within the United States”

Douglas J. Hagmann
SHTF plan
December 28, 2013

Editor’s Note: One of the questions oft asked in alternative news circles is why, if elements within the U.S. government intend to collapse our economy and implement martial law, no one within these circles has spoken out.

The fact is that scores of people have made it their duty to alert the American people to what’s going on behind the scenes. They’ve told us of the corruption and backroom deals. They’ve given us the warning signs to look for, many of which have already come to pass. They’ve even made us aware of the government’s response should the worst come to pass. Detractors often dismiss the warnings and insider reports as bogus, often claiming that if the sources are anonymous they can’t be legitimate. But do we blame them for taking extreme steps to protect their identities? Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning showed their faces, and now they will spend their lives as targets. Given what happened to these whistle blowers, is it any surprise that others with insider knowledge refuse to speak out in an official capacity?

The following warning comes to us from an anonymous source embedded deep within the Department of Homeland Security who has taken it upon himself to share his knowledge with our audience through the generous contrtributions of the Hagmann and Hagmann Report via the Northeast Intelligence Network. The insider has taken extraordinary measures to remain anonymous, but given what we know the government is up to and the signs we see all around us, does his desire for anonymity make his claims any less legitimate than if he had included his name?

We’ve long argued that any manufactured event would be telegraphed to the general public by whistle blowers on the inside. Deny the possibility if you so choose, but this insider, along with others who have shared their information may well be the only warning you’ll ever receive. As the Insider notes, most people simply have no idea what’s coming, nor do they care to. One morning they’ll wake up and all hell will have broken loose.

Under the cover and amid the distraction of the Christmas bustle, I had my last “official” contact with a source inside the Department of Homeland Security known as “Rosebud” in my writings. My source is leaving his position, retiring along with numerous others choosing to leave this bureaucratic monstrosity. For this contact, my source took unprecedented measures to be certain that our contact was far off the radar of prying government eyes and ears. I was stunned at the lengths he employed, and even found myself somewhat annoyed by the inconvenience that his cloak-and-dagger approach caused. It was necessary, according to my source, because all department heads under FEMA and DHS are under orders to identify anyone disclosing any information for termination and potential criminal prosecution.

“DHS is like a prison environment, complete with prison snitches,” he said, referring to the search for leaks and leakers. And the warden is obsessed. Ask anyone in DHS. No one trusts anyone else and whatever sources might be left are shutting up. The threats that have been made far exceed anything I’ve ever seen. Good people are afraid for their lives and the lives of their families. We’ve all been threatened. They see the writing on the wall and are leaving. It’s not a joke and not hype.”

The following is a narrative from my source, prefaced with the instructions to “take it or leave it,” and “disregard it at your own peril.” He added that it’s now up to each American to act on the information themselves or suffer the consequences. “I’ve resigned myself to the fact that most [Americans] will never be convinced of the reality that is taking place right in front of them.”

The plan explained

“According to every internal document I’ve seen and read, and from the few people I’ve spoken with who understand what’s going on, preparations have been finalized to respond to a crisis of unprecedented magnitude within the United States. The response will include the use of lethal force against U.S. citizens under the instructions of Barack Obama.” But why?

“‘It’s the economy, stupid,’” he began, paraphrasing a campaign slogan coined by James Carville for Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign. ”Just as I disclosed in our first meeting, the crisis will be rooted in an economic collapse. I told you last year, at a time when gold and silver were setting record highs, one specific indicator that time is very short. It is the final ‘smack down’ of the metals, gold and silver, that will presage the orchestrated economic collapse that is being planned by the bankers of Wall Street. Everybody needs to understand that this is a deliberate collapse of the U.S. economy with the oversight of the White House and the full knowledge of the Justice Department. Everyone seems to be waiting for some big, history making event that will signal the start of the collapse. The fact is that the collapse has already started. It’s incremental, like a snowball rolling down a hill. It gets bigger and rolls faster. Well, this snowball is well on its way down the hill.”

“I don’t mean to sound repetitive, by I can’t stress this enough. Contrary to what you hear, we’re already in an economic collapse, except that most people haven’t a clue. The ‘big bang’ comes at the end, when people they wake up one morning and can’t log in to their bank accounts, can’t use their ATM cards, and find out that their private pension funds and other assets have been confiscated,” he stated.

“I’ve seen documentation of multiple scenarios created outside of DHS. Different plans and back-up plans. Also, please understand that I deliberately used the word ‘created,’ as this is a completely manufactured event. In the end it won’t be presented that way, which is extremely important for everyone to understand. What is coming will be blamed on some unforeseen event out of everyone’s control, that few saw coming or thought would actually happen. Then, another event will take place concurrent with this event, or immediately after it, to confuse and compound an already explosive situation.” I asked for specifics.

“As I said, there are several scenarios and I don’t know them all. I know one calls for a cyber-attack by an external threat, which will then be compounded by something far removed from everyone’s own radar. But it’s all a ruse, or a pretext. The threat is from within,” he stated. “Before people can regain their footing, a second event will be triggered.” Again, I asked for specifics.

“I’ve seen one operational plan that refers to the federal government’s response to a significant terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Information at these levels is compartmentalized. I don’t have specifics, just plans for the response. The response will be controls and restrictions on travel, business, and every aspect of our lives, especially gun ownership and speech that incites people against the government. I guess some people would call it Martial Law, and they would not be incorrect. But understand that this will be a process deployed in stages. How quickly of a process remains to be seen.”

The mechanics explained

As I said, people continue to look for something big to happen first, followed by a militaristic response by the federal government against U.S. citizens. Based on what I’ve seen, I don’t believe it will happen this way, although there is one unthinkable exception. That exception would involve a ‘decapitation’ of our leadership, but I’ve seen nothing even remotely suggestive of that. But I’ve heard and even read articles where that is mentioned. Frankly, though, that’s always been a threat. I suppose that if the leadership is deemed useless, or becomes a liability to the larger agenda in some manner, it could happen. The precedent exists. Let’s pray that it’s not the case now.”

“I don’t think anyone except the initiated few know the precise series of events or the exact timing, just a general overview and an equally general time period. I think we’re in that period now, as DHS has their planned responses finalized. Also, the metals are important because it’s real money, not Ponzi fiat currency. The U.S. has no inventory of gold, so the prices are manipulated down to cause a sell-off of the physical assets. China is on a buying spree of gold, and other countries want their inventory back. The very people causing the prices to drop are the ones who are also buying the metals at fire sale prices. They will emerge extremely wealthy when the prices rise after the U.S. currency becomes wallpaper. A little research will identify who these people and organizations are.”

“I’d like to add a bit of perspective that might help explain the events as I described. Do you remember former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announcing that the Pentagon was unable to account for $2.3 trillion in the defense budget? That was on September 10, 2001, the day before the attacks of 9/11. Some suggest that 9/11 was orchestrated, in part to cover up the missing money, which is ludicrous. The result, however, was that suddenly the accounting issue took a back seat because of the attacks. The result will be the same. That’s a perfect example of the mechanics of what we are about to experience. It’s going to take years to sort out, and when it’s finally sorted out, the damage will have long been done.”

“Please note a few final things. The relationship that exists between DHS today and the executive branch is well beyond alarming. DHS and other organizations have become the private army of the Oval Office. The NSA, and I’ve got contacts there, is taking orders from the Oval Office. The IRS is under the virtual control of the Oval Office in a manner that would make Nixon cower. Even though all roads appear to lead to the Oval Office, they lead through the Oval Office. It’s not just Obama, but the men behind him, the people who put him there. The people who put him there are the ones who created him.” I asked who created him.

“First, ask yourself why there was such an all out effort to marginalize anyone talking about Obama’s eligibility in 2008. Even so-called conservatives pundits fell for the lie that such questions were nothing more than a diversion. They were following a specific drumbeat. That should tell every rational adult that he is a creation of the globalists who have no allegiance to any political party. He is the product of decades of planning, made for this very time in our history. He was selected to oversee the events I just disclosed. Who has that ability? He’s a product of our own intelligence agencies working with the globalists. He should be exhibit ‘A’ to illustrate the need to enforce the Logan Act. Need I say more?”

As often said by another of my sources, the U.S. is a captured operation. The lie is bigger than most people realize or are willing to confront. That is, until there is no other option. By then, it might be too late.

This article was posted: Saturday, December 28, 2013 at 6:38 am

Tags: domestic news, police state

Just heard an advert for H.A.R.P. refinancing which got me wondering: How much des this reduce the average beneficiary’s mortgage payment, what is the present value of a typical H.A.R.P. refinance, does the beneficiary pay taxes on the (unearned) income received, and who pays fo the benefits?

More MSM writers are coming to their senses over the folly of purchasing overpriced homes.

Kelly Phillips Erb, Contributor
I cover tax: paying tax is painful but reading about it shouldn’t be.

Taxes | 9/27/2013 @ 5:19PM |193,769 views
11 Reasons Why I Never Want To Own A House Again
144 comments, 50 called-out

When my phone vibrated, I didn’t even have to look. I knew what it meant: the house had finally sold.

I wasn’t sure how I was going to feel when it was finally over. I wondered if I would feel sad or anxious or regretful. What I actually felt was relief.

It was a great house. It was where my children took their first steps, where they learned to ride bikes and scooters. It was the location for dinner parties and cocktail parties and birthday parties and our annual Halloween potluck. But it was time to go. We happened upon a great new house that was nearly perfect. And even better: it was a rental.

I know what you’re thinking: didn’t you want to buy another house? It was a question we were asked over and over as we approached our closing. But I didn’t want to buy another house. After fifteen years, I was tired of being a homeowner. After a few months of renting, I was sold – on not buying again.

There’s a lot of hype about why you need to own a house. But buying a house isn’t the key to financial security for everyone – and those alleged tax advantages? Also not quite what they’re painted to be. I hope to never own a house again. Here’s a list of eleven reasons – many of them tax-related – why:
…

Fed-Watt Combo Deepens First MBS Loss Since ’94: Credit Markets
By Jody Shenn Dec 3, 2013 9:13 AM MT

The first annual losses in U.S. government-backed mortgage bonds since 1994 are deepening as the dual threats of a new regulator and a Federal Reserve pullback leave buyers navigating around what JPMorgan Chase & Co. calls a modern-day Scylla and Charybdis.

The $5.4 trillion of securities guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae lost an average 0.7 percent in November, according to Bank of America Merrill Lynch index data. That’s the biggest drop since a 0.9 percent decline in June, when the debt was finishing its worst quarter in 19 years as concern grew the Fed would slow monthly bond purchases that include $40 billion of the notes.

A rule change paving the way for the White House to install U.S. Representative Mel Watt as overseer of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is spurring speculation he’ll expand a refinancing program that may reduce returns. That’s combining with potential losses from rising interest rates as the Fed considers scaling back the debt purchases, leading JPMorgan analysts to reference the mythical sea monsters represented by a rock shoal and whirlpool around which Odysseus must steer his ship in Homer’s epic poem.
…